Southern York County Life

I need to start a new thread for the proposed pig farm discussion.  The original one has so many pages that the page numbers are pushing the page size wider!  Here’s a link back to the last page of the original thread so it is easy to get back to it.  It is now locked so no new posts may be added.  Sorry about the inconvenience.

Original Post

Dan,

Thanks.

To be perfectly honest with you, I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

Best regards,

I need to start a new thread for the proposed pig farm discussion.  The original one has so many pages that the page numbers are pushing the page size wider!  Here’s a link back to the last page of the original thread so it is easy to get back to it.  It is now locked so no new posts may be added.  Sorry about the inconvenience.

Original Post

York Daily Record
August 25, 2004

More Water Pollution Warnings Issued

Fish From a Third of U.S. Lakes and a Quarter of Rivers Should Be Avoided.

By John Heilprin
Associated Press

WASHINGTON—One of every three lakes in the United States and nearly one-quarter of the nation’s rivers conain enough pollution that people should limot or avoid eating fish caught there.

Every state but Alaska and Wyoming issued fish advisories covering some and occasionally all of their lakes or rivers in 2003, according to a national database maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency and updated every year.

The number of advisories rose to 3,094 last year, up from 2,814 in 2002, according to figures released Tuesday. But Mike Leavitt, head of the EPA, said the increase was because of more monitoring, not more pollution.

Nearly all the advisories involved contaminants such as mercury, dioxin, PCBs, pesticides and heavy metals, including aresenic, copper and lead. The advisories currently cover 35 percent of the nation’s lake acreage and 24 percent of river miles.

Leavitt said mercury pollution from industry is decreasing, though he cited figures only as recent as five years ago. Primary sources of mercury pollution include coal-burning power plants, the burning of hazardous and medical waste and production of chlorine. It also occurs naturally in the environment.

The advisories cover fish caught during recreational and sport fishing, not deep-sea commercial fishing or fish farming operations.

“It’s about trout, not tuna. It’s about what you catch on the shore, not what you buy on the shelf,” Leavitt said. “This is about the health of pregnant mothers and small children, that’s the primary focus of our concern.”

But he also acknowledged that virtually every acre of lakes and mile of rivers could eventually be covered by advisories.

Since pollution is found in fish nearly every time a state looks for it, the EPA assumes that whenever a state does that kind of monitoring it will wind up issuing a fish advisory, he said.

This year, 44 states had a fish advisory for mercury, a persistent substance that affects the nervous system.

“This listing clearly indicates that we are moving in the wrong direction on mercury pollution,” said Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-VT, who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

=======

NOTE: Mike Leavitt is a previous U.S. Senator who attempted to push through a Constitution Convention back in the 90’s. He was the leader of having an amendment to every state’s constitution introduced in every state’s state senate and state house by using each state’s legislature leadership to introduce and sponsor the bill. The bill was defeated in both Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

York Dispatch
Article Last Updated: Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:31:51 PM EST

JOHN PAVONCELLO The York Dispatch

[PHOTO]
Dave Sauerwein, Stewartstown, raises his hands while commenting on a proposed “family farm protection” ordinance during the Stewartstown Borough council meeting yesterday.

New plan cuts hogs

Smaller farm meets regs; neighbors still fear pollution

By ANNA WHALEN For The York Dispatch

What a difference 1,100 hogs can make.

The East Hopewell Township supervisors started their meeting with a roomful of concerned citizens at Eureka Fire Hall last night.

The topic was hundreds of hogs and one man.

Farmer John Marsteller Jr. filed a revised plan to build a large hog farm on Round Hill Church Road. The proposed farm has angered neighbors, many of whom bought their property from Marsteller.

The farm originally was to have 3,300 hogs—a number of animals that many said would mean the farm is considered a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO).

Under Marsteller’s new plan, however, the farm would be reduced to 2,200--a significant number when it comes to federal, state and local laws. If a farm has fewer than 2,500 hogs, it’s not considered a CAFO.

And, it now falls within the township’s legal limits for a plan that would not require the approval of the board of supervisors, though they still plan to review the amended land development plan.

“This man followed the ordinance,” said Supervisor Chairman Richard Seitz Jr.

Water concerns: But many residents remain concerned about what a hog farm would do to neighboring wells.

Marsteller’s lawyer, Paula Leicht, said a hydrogeologic study showed the below-ground water supply, called an aquifer, could accommodate more than 7,000 swine so Marsteller’s request is only a “fraction” of what can be accommodated.

But when pressed, Leicht admitted that the study was conducted off-site.

“My clients have been good citizens to this community for 40 years,” she said amid boos from the crowd.

Marsteller used to have more than 500 cattle on his farm years ago and had no water problems then, Leicht said.

She said a pig uses 1.5 gallons of water per day versus the 15 gallons a day a cow uses.

Residents continued to raise questions about water contamination, property devaluation and
the smell caused by 2,200 hogs.

“What about the homes that are 500 feet away?” asked township resident Homer Seidel.

Committee: During the discussion, Seitz made a motion to form a committee study the township’s proposed family-farm protection ordinance, which would protect small farms while limiting large, corporate style operations. Solicitor William H. Poole agreed to serve as an advisor for the committee.

But as the meeting ran past 11 p.m., Supervisor Vice Chairman William K. Gorrell made a motion to table the hog farm discussion until next month.

Residents heckled Marsteller as he left the room.

The board has until mid-November to approve or reject the proposed farm, and Poole said that if the board doesn’t act by the deadline, the plan will be approved as submitted. 

If this has been posted previously, I apologize.  But I can’t help but wonder why anyone would resort to this given the risk and minimal income.
Seems like spending a dollar to make 50cents.

Raising Hogs on Contract
========================

For many producers, raising hogs under contract has become a way of life. 
Contract production in the Northeast gathered momentum in the mid-eighties
amid concerns that this movement would eventually would put independent
producers out of business.  Over the last decade, dramatic changes have
clearly swept the hog industry, not the least of which is an intensification
of contract production.  Contracts offer advantages and disadvantages for the
producer.  The purpose of this article to discuss the nature of contract
production, and what it offers for swine producers.

What is a contract?
An agreement between a swine producer and another individual or company to
share responsibility and costs of producing feeder pigs or market hogs.  Under
a typical contract, the producer supplies the buildings, utilities and labor. 
The company or individual providing the contract normally supplies the pigs
and the feed.

Contract Usage
While no known surveys have been taken for the Northeast, the use of
production contracts has clearly increased.  During the 1970’s, hog production
in Pennsylvania increased dramatically, as shown in Table 1.  My observation
is that most of this expansion took place on family-owned, independent
operations and could be attributed to the favorable prices during that time. 
In the 1980’s profit margins were not as wide as that of the 70’s, but
Pennsylvania continued to expand its hog capacity.  In the latter decade most
of the expansion originated in company or corporate-owned enterprises, and
much of this production was generated with a contract. 

Table 1:  Annual Hog production in Pennsylvania from 1970-1995

Year Hog Production
1970 854,000
1980 1,282,000
1990 1,365,000
1995 1,458,000
Source:  PA Agricultural Statistics Service

Nationally, similar trends in contracting are evident.  In 1988, contractors
produced 11% of U.S. production under contract compared with 15.5% in 1991 and
nearly 24% in 1994 (Grimes, 1995).  North Carolina, has recently increased its
hog production more than that of any other state, and reportedly 82% of the
production is under contract (McMahon, 1996).

In addition to the number of contracts offered, the nature of the contracts
has also changed.  Contractors are demanding larger and more state-of-the-art
facilities than were once considered in the early to mid-eighties.  Most
companies would prefer finishing facilities with at least 2000-pig capacity,
and farrowing facilities that are capable of farrowing 60 or more sows per
week.  Conscientious producers who run meticulous operations are those in the
greatest demand.

Finally, it should be noted that most contracts are for finishing operations. 
While farrow to feeder contracts exist, many of the hog producing companies
find that they can control sow production more effectively when they own and
operate the facility.

Reasons for Using Contracts
Production contracts for hogs have been popular in the Northeast for a number
of reasons.  They permit producers to get started in the business with a
limited amount of equity since there is a smaller amount of operating capital
needed and there less risk of fluctuating income.  The lending institutions
also favor contracts, and may even demand them.  A secondary advantage to
contracts is the service and management that encourages producers to operate
the enterprise as a business.

Producer Payments for Finishing Contracts
Although the payment per hog marketed is similar among companies, the way the
payment is calculated can differ widely.  The simplest method is to pay the
producer a set fee, $10-11 for example, for each hog that goes to market.  In
addition to the fee, many contractors offer incentives for low mortality and
good feed conversion.  A mortality bonus of $.50/head for less than 1.5% death
loss and a feed conversion bonus of $.50/head for a feed/gain ratio less than
2.90 would increase the total payment to $11-12 per hog. 

Some companies have also paid producers on the total weight gained, $.05-.06
per pound of gain.  Note that for 200 lb of gain, the total payment is still
around $10-12 per hog.  At least one company in the Southeast has a payment
schedule that is a combination of $/head, and $/pound methods.

The building lease is another system of payment.  In this case, producers are
paid a monthly fee, no matter what the productivity is.  The lease payment is
based on construction costs, interest rates and a building throughput of 2.6
to 2.7 “turns” per year.

Some midwestern feed companies apparently pay on the basis of “pig spaces” in
the barn, at the rate of $30-35.  Assuming 2.7 turns per year, the average
payment per hog marketed would be $11-13.

Producer Payments for Farrow to Feeder Pig Contracts
Most farrow to feeder pig contract payments are approximately $18 per feeder
pig produced.  In addition to the feeder pig payment, companies may also cover
the cost of propane and utilities.  Another aspect of farrow to feeder
contracts that varies among companies is the incentive plan.  Some companies
offer a payment for productivity exceeding 19 pigs per sow per year or when
the percentage of farrowing crates filled exceeds 100%.  But many companies
have a set payment that is not affected by sow productivity.

Important Considerations in the Use of Contracts
1.  Service.  The quality and quantity varies significantly from one company
to the next.  Find out how often a service person will be stopping at the
facility.  Be sure you understand who is responsible for various tasks, like
ventilation adjustment, market hog selection, vaccination and antibiotic
injections (when needed), and feed ordering.

2.  Breeding Stock.  For potential farrow to feeder pig producers, the company
you select will likely give you no choice in the source of breeding stock. 
Obviously, it’s in the best interest of all parties that the breeding herd be
healthy and productive.  But it’s a good idea to find out how well the
breeding stock performs in other farrowing units.

3.  Finishing contracts paid on $/lb of gain.  Keep in mind that the market
weight for this program will be determined at the market.  The average weight
at the market will be 7-12 pounds less than that at the barn, so the final
payment may be $.60-.70 less than you had anticipated.

4.  Feed conversion incentives.  Most contract hog production now operates on
an all-in-all-out basis.  This makes it easy to document feed conversion, and
most feed conversion incentives are reasonable.  However, the quality of the
pigs will have a major impact on what the final feed conversion will be.  Ask
for a production history of pigs that originated from the same source as those
that will be part of your contract.  And remember that to keep feed
conversions under 3.0 year-in and year-out, there can be no voids in herd
health, feed quality or feeder adjustment .

5.  Deaths on the truck.  For a hog that dies on the truck, some companies
make no grower payment.  Many contracts don’t specify, so be sure to check.

6.  Quality of feeder pigs.  This is possibly the most important factor in a
finishing contract.  When a group arrives in your barn that is coughing or
suffering from diarrhea, you’re pretty much stuck with them.  The final death
loss, growth rate and feed conversion are all dramatically affected by feeder
pig quality.  For example, PRRS has had a devastating impact on mortality and
pig flow in finishing units.  The quality of pigs can also be related to the
number of sources.  When pigs originate from more than one farrowing
operation, the likelihood of problems increases.

7.  Culling policy.  This is another critical issue, and it’s related to #6. 
Because feeder pig producers must completely empty a nursery room each week,
the finisher taking delivery on those pigs may get them all—good and bad. 
A lot of culls may be present in the group, and these will have to be removed
within a few days of placement.  If this is the standard procedure, then all
parties must have a clear understanding that cull rates may be high.  After
the initial culls are removed, death loss and feed conversion are often
determined by how aggressively the producer removes culls during the grow-out
period.  A potential conflict arises when the producer, trying to meet feed
conversion and mortality incentives, will cull more heavily than the
contractor would prefer.  Some contracts penalize producers if their culling
rates exceed 5%, which might limit the producer’s ability to earn production
and mortality bonuses.

8.  Lightweight market hogs.  Many companies offer half payment for
lightweight hogs that are sent to market.  This becomes an issue when most of
the pigs have been marketed from the facility and the poor-doing pigs are
still in the barn.  Sending them to market results in sort penalties to the
contractor, and potential half-payments to the producer.  If the light pigs
remain in the facility until they reach market weight, the time until
refilling is delayed which also hurts cash flow.  Some companies deal with
this problem by shipping these pigs to smaller, low cost facility to provide a
time buffer for putting on the last 20 to 30 pounds.

9.  Time until re-filling the finishing barn.  Some companies have provisions
to re-fill your barn within a week or two.  Others do not, which results in
some barns sitting empty even though the producer’s mortgage payments must
keep flowing.

10.  Type and timing of payments.  A lease payment, provided it’s
competitively priced, is often the best method for the producer.  This
guarantees a constant cash flow no matter what the pig flow and productivity
might be.  Most companies do not favor lease payments, because the producer
has little incentive to be a good manager. 

A per head payment can work well for the producer, as long as herd health and
pig flow through the facility are up to par.

11.  Other costs.  When comparing one contract to another, be sure to see what
is covered in addition to the payment.  Many companies will pay for the
utilities.  Others will pay for wash down between groups of hogs.  Most of the
time, the producer is responsible for manure disposal.

12.  Sample cash flows.  Beware of misleading data.  Check the net turns per
year—it may be listed at 3.0, when in fact it will be closer to 2.6 or 2.7
(this can change the annual net return by $7,000 or more in a 2,000 head
facility).  Watch for unusually low interest rates (the difference in annual
loan payment using 5% vs 10% interest would be at least $7,000 on a 2,000 head
facility).  Watch for low utility costs (electrical and propane costs will
probably average more than $3000 annually for a 2,000-head finishing unit).

13.  Settling disputes.  In the event that a conflict arises, it’s nice to
have a predetermined format for settling the differences.  For example, when
the two parties are unable resolve a dispute, some companies provide for a
mutually agreed-upon third party to assist with the problem. 

From the silence/inactivity, I presume everybody is accepting plan approval. Of course 1rover1 is still working out the financial details. Couldn’t resist man!-)

Everybody must only have one well and it’s producing 32 gallons per minute (gpm) but obviously less than 80 gpm the average (the middle point) for our Southeastern section of the Wissahickon aquifer. Good because I’m enjoying my lemonade made from my bounty of sweet water. Just finished washing both cars, with plenty of water. Sweat out side the whole family never thinks twice about drawdown, everybody uses both showers at the same time. Of course I do have to filter it a bit. That’s called water treatment.

John you don’t have enough water. And you know it. I have it on good authority you don’t have enough water. This goes to trial, it will be his word against mine. I don’t accept calculations. I have two wells about as far away from Round Hill Church Rd. as you can get. Prove my second well won’t go dry. The first is dry because it’s too shallow. We now have a precedent Hopewell township won’t accept calculations. That’s step one. Unfortunate our supervisors won’t accept the laws of nature and the laws of water. But, that’s considered reckless indifference. Unreasonable to be sure, since they created the law of calculations for adequate water supply. Now like cowards they hide behind the skirt of law they created. Also seems to me some conflict between substantive and procedural due process. Can’t have both the same way you know.

If you don’t have water to shower, then one might ask which is worse you or the pigs. Dirty dishes, pigs don’t worry about em.

Hello Beth how deep is your well? Do you know what drawdown is? Do you understand drawdown recharge?

http://www.pa.lwv.org/ League of Women Votes of Pennsylvania
http://www.pa.lwv.org/ get the publication “water use and water rights in Pennsylvania”
Then get Groundwater, A primer for Pennsylvanians, by Edith Stevens, LWVPA-CEF, P9411. Excellent, excellent.

Gotta run lemonade is getting state.

The natural law of water

“When a well is pumped the water level declines in the well and in the rocks around the well. As pumping continues, a larger and larger area is affected by water level decline as water is drawn from increasing distances to replicate the water pumped from the well. As the real effect of pumping continues to grow, the water level declines so that the specific capacity will continue to decrease until (1) recharge to the aquifer has been increased by an amount equal to the pumping rate. (2) the natural discharge from the aquifer has been decreased by an amount equal to the pumping rate, or (3) the sum of the increased recharge and decreased natural discharge is equal to the pumping rate.” (p41, Water 42)

Harry Belafonte “Returns to Carnegie Hall”, With Odetta, and they sing “A hole in the bucket.” Well John wants to put a hole in our bucket.

Hello anitsocial:

To answer your question, we currently have two wells on our property.  The first we do not use.  It was the first well done when the house was built.  It is 340 feet deep and yielded 1 gpm.  That was not sufficient so a second well was done.  The depth of well #2 is 250 feet and gets 3 gpm.  We have 12 houses on our circle.  Of the 14 wells dug on our court only 4 got 5gpm or above.  Three were 1 gpm or below, and the remaining seven got between 2 and 4 gpm.  All are between 200 feet and 340 feet deep.  Two of the houses had to have two wells done as they did not yield enough.  Just some typical problems for this area and in my opinion that is why a water study should be done on site. 

I experienced major water problems 2 years ago.  We were taking “navy” showers, couldn’t run the dishwasher and any other water at the same time, laundry was limited to one load per day so I didn’t overuse it all it once. 

Thanks Beth.

Ok who else wants to share their water problems.

I have 2 wells One is dry. The wells are only 33 ft. apart.

Let’s go we have a survey started.

Send your comments to .

Beth, remember Water 42 also said 85 percentile only got 4GPM and less than 7 GPM. High yields aren’t prevalent in the area. You are in that undefined class of wells that got zero or greater than zero GPM but less than 4GPM.  I counted over 100 wells that fell into that category in the Water 42 report. More than 77 had no data, so who knows. Now we want know what the real facts are. Ok, neighbors it’s your turn.

Beth, I assume you will attest to you situation in a legal document.

Antisocial,
Ok, I took a break from the financial shortcomings of this operation to share my well info with you.  I have two wells one is inoperable and the other draws 3gpm @ 260’.  I can’t imagine why your worried though, I heard these Hydrogeolists use theezse thinghs called calculators.  Seems perty inmperessive too mee. : )

1lrover1
I just knew you would respond. Thank you.

I heard these Hydrogeolists use theezse thinghs called calculators. Seems perty inmperessive too mee. : )

See you don’t count, the supervisors were impressed. Numbers prove it all. Apparently Hopewell Township isn’t impressed with numbers. Imagine they told Poole to make the change. Isn’t he our township lawyer?

Enron, Arthur Anderson and Company( CPA Firm). Need I say more. Surely Arthur Anderson used “calculators”, more calculating consorting with the management. What was the term they used for the hypothetical contracts. Was it booking future income on what, some calculation of what value? Sounds like guess how much water is available, and where it is. See we’re talking water here, not big bucks.

What is the name of the forked stick used to find water. City boy you know my water always came from Loch Raven by pipe line. I just discovered that if a bucket has a hole in it the water leaks out. Surprise.

I’m impressed. Ethics=dollar. What did the lady lawyer tell you, something about Marsteller delivering water to your door when you run short. Ha, Ha. Yea, wait till I get my crying towel on.

You may be in the country, and you mock spelling, but I know you better. I do, ~ ~ don’t I?

1rover1
Turn Green

No compromise on factory farms
BEN PRICE

This newspaper’s editorial of Aug. 26 (“Compromise on factory farms”) offers good advice to state lawmakers to drop their lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of Gov. Rendell’s veto of the “Factory Farm Protection Act,” (as you accurately dubbed it).
However, it is neither in the Legislature’s legitimate power nor in the best interests of Pennsylvanians that lawmakers compromise with the governor by agreeing to pass his proposed “ACRE” (Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment) into law, as you suggest.

“ACRE” is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist, except in the press releases and public relations campaigns of corporate agribusiness. What they’ve failed to win through the sneaky legislative maneuvers of beholden lawmakers, they are trying to win by invalidating Gov. Rendell’s veto. Offering them “ACRE” as a “compromise” amounts to another attempt to override the right of Pennsylvanians to self-government without the interference of business entities with financial interests at odds with the priorities of our communities.

To refer to factory farms as “farming” at all creates the false impression that individual community members operating such businesses will be responsible for the level of safety and accountability for any ill effects their high-intensity animal processing facilities might impose on surrounding communities. Local operators are locked into contracts with huge corporations that dictate the mode of operation (with the bottom line as the highest priority). These aren’t farms; they’re industrial franchises. Nothing in the long history of agriculture and animal husbandry would suggest that the denatured and mechanized industrial practices of these factory farms would merit their being called “farming.”

In fact, it’s not “farming” that communities seek to regulate with the ordinances that have become so onerous to giant agribusiness. Rather, it’s the right to determine the quality of life, health and security in their communities that they are trying to defend.

So what’s wrong with the governor’s proposal? He says he wants to end the litigation between towns and corporations over ordinances that block factory farms, sludge dumping, and other agribusiness practices by setting up a review board populated by political appointees including the dean of Penn State’s School of Agricultural Sciences, the secretaries of Agriculture, DEP and the Department of Community and Economic Development, and another member appointed by the governor. What could be more impartial, you might ask?

But the York Daily Record’s editorial suggested the underlying fault in this plan when it asked: “who could blame local municipalities if they fear [state and federal environmental] regulations don’t go far enough? They watch as enormous lagoons of pig manure spill into local waterways, killing thousands of fish, resulting in small fines for the spillers. They wonder who’s looking out for residents when many state lawmakers accept campaign contributions from factory farm interests.”

Why is there even a debate about whether or not communities deserve to hang onto their right to self-determination? The supposition that corporate interests have a right to overrule local ordinances drafted to protect communities against the imposition of industrial operations should be appalling. A “compromise” that would have communities submit those rights to arbitration by a politically partial review board which presumes up front that agribusiness corporations may have legitimate claims against the decisions of local democratically elected governments is not a compromise, but an abdication of our republican form of government.

The desire among some politicians, as well as the editors of this paper, to arrive at an amicable resolution to this now long drawn out battle between local community self determination and corporate imperatives for profit may be honorable. But it must, in the long run, be understood to be in the best American tradition for communities to defend themselves even against a determined and unremitting siege, such as the one being pressed upon them by concentrated industrialized corporate agriculture.

There should be no cheerleading from the sidelines, however well-intentioned, urging the people to surrender their claim to a priority of rights superior to any that could conceivably be made by profiteers in competition with the interests of our Pennsylvania communities. The best and only acceptable outcome must be a clear and final victory for local control.

Ben Price is the Green Party candidate for state auditor general. He lives in Carlisle.

From York Dispatch 9/03/04, R. Scott Rappold:
“If it does qualify, then he must get it,” Seitz said.
“We’re trying to do the best for the people of the township, but they have to realize there are guidelines and laws we must follow,” he said. “I understand where they’re coming from, and if I was in their shoes I would probably be doing the same thing.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t Seitz write the law? I make the laws, then I must follow the laws. King for 6 years.

“if I was in their shoes”, he must be a Martian, plenty of water on Mars. I guess he doesn’t live in the township. Must have his water piped in from Loch Raven. Or that tanker he drives delivers his water. No that’s gasoline.

“Although supervisors could hold off approval for water reasons, Seitz said he believes the hydrogeologic study is accurate.
“If the people that made that report put their seal on it and signed it, I’m sure they’re 100 percent behind it or they wouldn’t have put their seal on it,” Seitz said.”

Enron, Arthur Anderson, Enron Arthur Anderson, opinion, Enron Arthur, Billions, and Billions. Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Anderson, Enron ! !

If they used a Texas instruments calculator it’s probably accurate.. Of course if they did it the Polish way, well 10 fingers plus 10 toes equals, equals, huh.

HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP
ORDINANCE NO. 11 -2004
AN ORDINANCE OF HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP,
YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AMENDING THE
HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE TO
DEFINE AND REGULATE CONCENTRATED ANIMAL
FEEDING OPERATIONS

WHEREAS, Hopewell Township (Township) is a political subdivision, being a second class township; and,

WHEREAS, the Township is governed in land use by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. §10101 et seq (~C); and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the MPC, the Township has adopted a Zoning Ordinance;

WHEREAS, the Township has determined that it is appropriate to add regulations for concentrated animal operations and concentrated animal feeding operations in the Ordinance:

NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained and enacted and it is hereby ORDAINED AND ENACTED as follows:

SECTION 1: Section 102.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding after the definition of “ADULT THEATER” and before the definition of “AGRARIAN COMMODITIES” the following:

“AEU; ANIMAL EQUIVALENT UNIT - One thousand (1,000) pounds live weight of livestock or poultry animals, regardless of the actual number of individual animals comprising the unit, as calculated in the Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act, 3 P. S. § 170 1 et seq, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, found at 25 P A Code Subchapter D, §83.201 et seq.”

SECTION 2: Section 102.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding, after the definition of “AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY” and before the definition of “AGRICULTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE” the following:

“AGRICULTURAL OPERATION” - Same as “Normal Agricultural Operation”.

SECTION 3: Section 102.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding thereto, after the definition of “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN” and before the definition of “CONVERSION, MULTI-FAMILY” the following definition:

“CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION; CAFO - An operation involving the keeping of livestock of the type listed in the table in Section 503.7.32.2 in excess of the numbers identified in that table confined within a building or other enclosure as set forth in Section 503.7.32.4 ii) of this Ordinance.”

SECTION 4: Section102.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding after the definition of “NORMAL AGRICULTURAL OPERATION” and before the definition of “NUDITY OR STATE OF NUDITY” the following definition:

“NPDES PERMIT - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit or equivalent document or requirements issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, or their designees, pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 V.S.C. §1251 et seq, also known as the Clean Water Act, and/or The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, as amended, 35 P .S. §691.1 et seq”

SECTION 5: Section 203.3 a) is amended by adding a new subsection 9 as follows: “9. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) (See Section 503.7.32.2).”

SECTION 6: Section 503.7 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding a new subsection 32, as follows:

“32. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

“1. CAFOs are permitted in the A Zone by special exception, and are subject to the requirements of this Section, in addition to the general standards for special exceptions in Section 503.6.

“2. An operation shall be considered a CAFO and subject to the regulations of this subsection 32 if it involves the keeping of livestock of the type listed in the table below in excess of the numbers identified in that table, confined within a building or other enclosure as set forth in subsection.4 ii) of this subsection 32:

Threshold Table for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

Sector - More than _____ in number

Cattle or cow/calf pairs 300
Mature dairy cattle 200 Veal calves 300
Swine (weighing 55 pounds or over when shipped off farm) 750
Swine (weighing 55 pounds or over when shipped off farm) 3,000
Horses 150
Sheep or lambs or goats 3,000
Turkeys 16,500
Laying hens or broilers (liquid manure handling 9,000 system)
Chickens other than laying hens (other than a 37,500 liquid manure handling system)
Laying hens (other than a liquid manure 25,000 handling system)
Ducks (other than a liquid manure handling 10,000 system)
Ducks (liquid manure handling system) 1,500

“3. A CAFO shall be designed and operated to minimize the negative impacts on the natural environment, neighboring residents and uses, and on Township facilities, such as public streets.

“4. Notwithstanding the setback requirements in Section 203, the following setbacks shall apply to all CAFOs:

“i) All manure storage facilities, as defined in the Nutrient Management Act, shall be as required in that Act, any federal acts, and all state and federal regulations, to the extent any of them apply to the particular facility. If it does not, then the setbacks in subsection ii) shall apply. In the event that any of the above acts, statutes, or regulations differ from each other, then the most restrictive ones shall apply.

“ii) All buildings and open areas in which animals are kept (whether or not combined with a manure storage facility), including, but not limited to, animal confinement areas of poultry houses, horse stalls, free stall barns, or bedded pack animal housing systems or similar structures (all of which shall be collectively referred to in this section as Animal Housing Buildings), excluding manure storage facilities regulated by the Nutrient Management Act and subsection i), shall be located at a minimum:

“1. Two hundred (200) feet from any property line.

“2. Three hundred (300) feet from any property lines where any of the facilities are located on slopes exceeding eight percent (8%), where the slope is toward the property line, or have the capacity of 1.5 million gallons or greater.

“3. Three hundred (300) feet from any well, whether public or private, or water source surface intake used for human consumption in any manner.

“4. Five hundred (500) feet from any property line of land which is in the R, R-II, or C Zones, or from any dwelling or dwelling unit not on the property which is the subject of the application for a CAFO.

“5. Two hundred (200) feet from any public street line or right-of-way.

“6. Three hundred (300) feet from a park, wildlife refuge, natural resource management area, or wild land area.

“7. All setbacks addressed in subsections 4 i) which are not specifically addressed in this subsection ii) shall also apply to this subsection.

‘iii) The most stringent applicable setback requirement in this subsection 4 shall apply.

“iv) If the CAPO equals or exceeds three (3) AEUs per acre on an annualized basis, then the setbacks required in subsection ii) shall be increased by one hundred (100) feet for the third ABU per acre, and an additional one hundred (100) feet for every ABU or portion thereof per acre above three (3).

“5. Design and Location of Facilities

“i) Animal Housing Buildings shall be designed and located in relationship to other uses on and off the property, prevailing winds and topography.

“ii) There shall be an adequate year-round supply of water, as calculated in this subsection ii). If connection to an existing public water supply system is proposed, the applicant must submit an agreement committing the public water supply system to provide such water as will be utilized by the proposed special exception use for such period of time and under such terms and conditions as the public water supply system provides water service elsewhere in its service area. If the water supply system proposed involves the utilization of water obtained from the tract proposed for the location of the special exception use or from a nearby tract, the applicant must:

“1. Establish that the groundwater recharge on the tract where the water supply system is located, after development, computed during drought conditions (periods when the precipitation is forty (40) percent below normal) will exceed projected water usage, as certified by a hydrologist or hydrogeologist properly licensed as such by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and

2. Provide calculations showing the amount of water needed, and the amount available at the site as certified by a hydrologist or hydrogeologist properly licensed as such by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Zoning Hearing Board may require as a condition of approval that the applicant execute an agreement with the Township committing the proposed special exception use not to utilize more groundwater on a daily basis than the groundwater recharge computed during drought conditions and to establish procedures pursuant to which usage can be verified.

“6. Access; Travel Routes:

i) Vehicular access from the public street shall be adequate to support the volume, weight, and type of vehicular traffic to the facility, and there shall be paved areas at or approximate to the Animal Housing Buildings adequate to park the types, weights, and sizes of vehicles necessary to transport the animals to and from the use. For purposes of this subsection, paving shall be adequate if it is stone of a base and size sufficient to meet the particular requirements of the use, and the weights, sizes, and types of vehicles necessary to carry on the use, including transporting the animals, as certified to by an engineer, licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and as approved by the Township engineer.

“ii) Additionally the applicant shall make such improvements to the public roads abutting the property as shall be necessary as determined by the Township Engineer to support the vehicular traffic anticipated for the use, including necessary turning radiuses into the property.

“iii) The applicant shall also set out as part of the application the route which shall be used by transport vehicles for feed and delivery and pickup of the animals. Such route shall, to extent possible, use state roads. The Zoning Hearing Board shall set a travel route as a condition of approval, consistent with the requirements of this subsection iii).
“7. Pollution Controls

“i) Proper manure management is required. This shall include facilities to remove, store, transport, treat and/or dispose of all animal or poultry wastes in a manner that will not be harmful to the natural environment and so as to control odor off of the property which is the subject of the application. Calculations of the amount of manure to be produced, the amount of land needed for its disposal and proof that the applicant owns or has guarantee of the use of land needed for disposal shall be submitted, verified and approved by the Township. Compliance with the Nutrient Management Act and the Regulations as evidenced by approval of the plan and issuance of a permit by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection or its designee shall constitute compliance with this subsection, provided that a copy of such plan and permit, and any subsequent amendments to the plan or permits, are filed with the Township.

“ii) Runoff, especially from open feed lots and manure storage areas, shall be controlled to prevent water pollution. An NPDES permit for a CAFO approved pursuant to Chapter 92 of Title 25 of the P A Code shall constitute compliance with this subsection, provided that a copy of such permit, and any subsequent amendments to the permit, are filed with the Township.

“iii) Adequate manure storage facilities are required so that the operator can store manure during the winter, rather than applying it to frozen ground, or, alternatively, dispose of manure in an otherwise acceptable manner, such as by a daily haul. Compliance with the Nutrient Management Act and the Regulations shall constitute compliance with this subsection, provided that a copy of such plan, and any subsequent amendments to the plan, are filed with the Township, and provided that the plan addresses manure storage during the winter, and prohibits application to frozen ground.

“iv) Where applicable, documentation that the location of facilities and manure storage facilities near floodplains complies with the Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act and the Hopewell Township Zoning and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances.

“v) The Applicant shall submit with his application for a special exception a fly control plan proposing the use of the best available practice or procedure for fly control both at the location of the operation and at the ultimate disposal site for the animal waste if within or adjacent to Hopewell Township. The Applicant shall also submit with the application for special exception a plan proposing the use of the best available practice and procedure for preventing or minimizing odors at the ultimate disposal site of the animal waste if within or adjacent to Hopewell Township.

“vi) The Applicant shall make provisions for the removal from the property or sanitary disposal of dead animals within twenty-four (24) hours of their death, consistent with the stricter of all state or federal regulations, and shall provide the Township with evidence of such compliance.

“vii) In all other respects, the Environmental Regulations of Section 350 shall apply, except that, between those and these regulations, the more stringent regulations shall apply.

“8. Plans Required: Detailed plans and drawings of the Animal Housing Buildings and manure storage facilities prepared by a registered engineer or architect and operating procedures shall be submitted. Where calculations are required, the source of the information on which they are based shall be included. Such plans and drawings for consideration by the Zoning Hearing Board shall be in sufficient detail to provide the Zoning Hearing Board with sufficient information to act on the special exception application. Additionally, prior to obtaining any zoning permits pursuant to this Ordinance, or any other permits required by any other federal, state, county, or Township statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, a land development plan in accordance with the requirements of the Hopewell Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, and a stormwater management plan meeting the requirements of the Hopewell Township Stormwater Management Ordinance and any other applicable ordinances of the Township” must be submitted and approved by the Township Board of Supervisors.

“9. Review: The applicant shall be required to present written documentation that:

“i) The York County Agricultural Extension Service or appropriate Extension Specialists at the Pennsylvania State University, or other similar consulting agency, have reviewed and approved the design of facilities for housing the animals and the proposed management procedures.

“ii) The York County Conservation District or other designated agency has reviewed and approved the nutrient management plan, including the storage and disposal of manure and contaminated run-off.

“10. The applicant shall provide written evidence that:

i) The proposed operation meets all the requirements of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and any other applicable State laws, and that any required permits have been obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, or its designee.

ii) An NPDES permit has been obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or its designee, or that such a permit is not required for the operation; and that the requirements of any other applicable Federal and State laws and regulations have been met.”

SECTION 8: This Ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after its enactment as provided by law.

ORDAINED AND ENACTED this 2nd day of September, 2004.

HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP
ATTEST: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

By:
Secretary William T. Streett, Chairman

By:
David T. Wisnom, Supervisor

By:
Pery McDonald, Supervisor

(SEAL)

RUMOR CONTROL --

I have overheard on numerous occasions at township meetings as well as from other residents references made to Chris & Johnny Marsteller building a new log cabin home on Thompson Road.

This is totally false. Yes, there is a new log cabin home being built on Thompson Road but not for the Marstellers. The foundation and shell was built for someone else and the interior work is being completed by the owner.

JJH
Thanks for the post on Hopewell Township’s new CAFO Ordinance. If I ever wished to live somewhere else it’s now, after reading the ordinance. Of course to quote one EHT township employee, “nobody asked you to move here”.  Right, my sorry mistake.

EHT Ord. 1-2004
“Sec. 709 “b)
However, the Township also recognizes that, for matters not governed by the Nutriment Management Act, it has an additional obligation and right to protect the interests of its citizens in general, without unduly or improperly regulating the placement and location of manure storage facilities for CAFO’s and CAOs.”

obligation and right to protect the interests of its citizens in general

Beth do you read this. And, you wonder how we got into this.

“without unduly or improperly”

Eloquent, considerate, genuine interest in welfare. “big brother” (1984)

What was we were lectured about by Mr. Poole Counsel for East Hopewell and Hopewell Township. You can’t do what?