ONTARIO
NORMAL FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION BOARD
Hebblethwaite v Vandehogen
1992 ONNFPPB 41
1992-12-04
92-02
STATUTE:
Farm Practices Protection Act 1990
HEARING:
BETWEEN:
Murray Hebblethwaite – Applicant
And
Ronald Vandehogen and Martin Vandehogen – Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter was heard on September 23rd, 1992 at the Town of Harwich Municipal Building, 1000 Highway 40 South, Chatham, Ontario.This hearing was based on an application brought by Mr. Murray Hebblethwaite for consideration of Ronald Vandehogen and Martin Vandehogens' practice of spreading liquid manure from their hog operation on a neighbouring property. Such application was brought under Section 5 of the Farm Practices Protection Act and was heard before Robert G. Waters, Chair, Warren Wiley and Bill Anderson, Members.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
The applicant, Murray Hebblethwaite resides, along with his family, in a house located on part of Lot 12, concession 1, E.C.R., Township of Harwich, County of Kent. Mr. Hebblethwaite's property abuts portions of Lot 12, Concession 1, E.C.R. which are in the Town of Blenheim in the County of Kent. Mr. Hebblethwaite's property had approximately 24.36 acres area.
The property owned by the agricultural operator, Ronald Vandehogen, is described as the Northeast half of the Southeast half of Lot 13, Concession 1, E.C.R. in the Township of Harwich, in the County of Kent.
The two properties are separated at their closest proximity by the road allowance between Lots 12 and 13, Concession 1, Allison Road. The properties are more accurately shown in the attached Exhibit 6 which is an assessment map certified as a true copy of the original by the Clerk of the Township of Harwich on the date of the Hearing. Based on the scale of the map provided by the Clerk of the Township, we were able to establish the distance separating the two properties on a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet.
Although the property in question is owned by Ron Vandehogen as an agricultural operator, it is the evidence of both Ron and Martin Vandehogen that this property is operated by them in partnership and as a result, the Board finds as a fact that the agricultural operation carried on in partnership by Martin and Ron Vandehogen uses the lands,owned by Ron Vandehogen as an integral part of that operation.
Ronald Vandehogen, who does not reside at the site of the agricultural operation which is the subject of this complaint, has a hog operation located at Lot 11, Concession 2, W.C.R. in the Township of Harwich at R.R. #1, Blenheim, Ontario. This hog operation is a partnership which he operates with his father and which has a total acreage under cultivation in the range of 500 acres.
The operation normally has 2,000 hogs which includes 300 sows. The average animal count during the year is 1,800 to 2,000 hogs at any one time. It is the evidence of Ron Vandehogen that the most intensive spreading of liquid manure occurs on wheat stubble which is spread in late summer and plowed in within one week. It is also the evidence of Ron Vandehogen, confirmed by his brother, Martin Vandehogen, that it has been an effort of their operation over time, to treat the manure, if at all possible, to cut the amount of ammonia which might be present in the barn by the mixing of 3 kilos per tonne of FibreGest, a product which stops the development of solids in the manure pit and breaks down barley hulls and other feed substances within the manure.
This product which is presently used by the Vendehogens is edible and has been used by the Vandehogens with some success in cutting odour. Their evidence indicates that the odour which has been in the past fairly strong, within their own barns, has been reduced. They further confirm that they have used another product which is not ingested by the hogs but spread on the manure pits with the use of water, called "Roots"; but that the use of this product has been discontinued and the superior product to the agricultural operators' mind, is now in use by them.
The farm itself, in accordance with Exhibit 6, is divided into two fields. The fields are separated by a drainage ditch and there are some trees located on the farm so that there are only 45 acres workable. It is the evidence of the Vandehogens that the field nearest the property of Murray Hepplethwaite has 3 acres in area and that the larger field to the west of the drainage ditch has 42 acres workable. It is the evidence of both parties that all parcels, that of the complainant and the agricultural operation, are zoned agricultural.
It was also the evidence of the Vandehogens that two changes in their operation have occurred which in the future they hope will forestall incidents of the nature which brought this Hearing. The capacity of the manure pit of the operation has been increased from 60,000 gallons to 400,000 gallons and in addition, the manure spreader itself has been repaired to avoid any minor spillages which might occur delivering the manure to the site. The amount of liquid manure produced by the operation is spread over 500 acres which are owned by either Ron Vandehogen or Martin Vandehogen.
The complaints of odour which gave rise to this Hearing were brought forward as a result of two separate occurrences. These were on May 3rd, 1991 and on September 28th, 1991 when, on both occasions, Martin Vandehogen commenced spreading liquid manure on the property owned by Ron Vandehogen. Murray Hebblethwaite provided as evidence chronologies which he prepared and attached to a lett&r dated May 26th, 1991, and in the form of a chronology dated January 13th, 1992: as time was an issue to the complainant, Mr. Hebblethwaite, we have reported on it.
These were entered as Exhibits 1 and 2 at the Hearing and were reviewed by Martin Vandehogen and Ronald Vandehogen. In the absence of notes on the problem which had occurred in the spring of 1991, both of the agricultural operators acknowledged that the information contained in the chronology of Murray Hebblethwaite as to dates of spreading manure, the type of weather, and the work which was undertaken by the Vendehogens on their property, were in all likelihood correct. Neither Vandehogen, being unaware of difficulty for Hebblethwaite, kept a record of the events.
As a result of the May 26th, 1991 letter, at the second spreading of manure in the fall of 1991, both Ronald and Martin Vandehogen were aware of the concerns of Mr. Hebblethwaite. They agreed with the dates in the chronology entered as Exhibit 2 by the complainant as to the date of the initial spreading of manure and the timing for the cultivation of the same. Neither of the agricultural operators agreed with the statements made in the chronology as to the closeness to drainage ditches nor did they have knowledge of any matters subsequent to October 9, 1991 as these related to specific dealings between Murray Hebblethwaite and Ministry of Environment and other farm operations.
As a result it is the evidence of all parties that the spreading of the manure took place; and commenced on May 3rd, 1991 when spreading occurred on a 42 acre field on the parcel of land described above. It is the evidence of Ron Vandehogen that there was a particular urgency in spreading the manure at this early date in the spring of 1991 in that the manure pit which they were using at their operation at that time had a capacity of 60,000 gallons together with a further capacityin the barn and this capacity was taxed to the limit.
The Board is satisfied, based on the testimony of the complainant and the agricultural operators that the following situation occurred in the spring of 1991.
On May 3rd, 1991, as the parcel of land owned at Lot 13, Concession 1, E.C.R. was the driest parcel of land owned by Messrs. Vandehogen and as a result of taxed capacity on their manure pits, spreading occurred on a portion of the 42 acre parcel described on Exhibit 1 as the stone ridge. This portion of land is a mixture of Brookston clay and stone and because it is a ridge, was the driest land owned in the agricultural operation.
It appears that 7 to 8 loads were spread by a manure spreader which had a tank capacity of 3,000 U.S. gallons being 2,400 Imperial gallons. This means that approximately 16,800 to 19,200 gallons were spread over a parcel of land approximately 12 acres in area, which at its heaviest, would be coverage of 1,600 gallons per acre.
On the day that the spreading took place, and subsequently, on May 4th and in all likelihood, May 5th, 1991, there was no complaint with regard to smell as the wind was coming from the east which meant that the smell was not directed toward the property of Murray Hebblethwaite. However, it is accepted as evidence that Mr. Hebblethwaite, although the smell was not directed toward him, notified the Ministry of Environment and the local Agricultural Representative that the spreading was occurring too close to open drainage ditches and in violation of the Agricultural Code of Practice.
On May 5th, 1992, when rain set in, Mr. Hebblethwaite called the Spills Line of the Ministry of Environment.
It is the evidence of Murray Hebblethwaite that on May 6th, 1992 the wind changed to a northwesterly direction and that the weather was wet with high humidity and higher temperatures. The air was laden heavily with the odour of liquid hog manure.
Mr. Hebblethwaite further provided evidence that on the early morning of May 7th, 1991, prior to dawn, he was awakened as a result of the odour of hog manure and had to search for his Ventolin inhaler as Mr.
Hebblethwaite advises that he has been an asthmatic since childhood.
Although it was Mr. Hebblethwaite's evidence that he suffered a near fatal attack of asthma, it was also his evidence that he did not go to the hospital as a result of the asthma attack, nor did he visit his doctor. It is further Mr. Hebblethwaite's evidence that he did not contact either Martin Vandehogen or Ron Vandehogen at the time.
Subsequently, on May 10th, 1991, spreading of liquid manure occurred again. On this date Mr. Hebblethwaite did not contact the agricultural operators but contacted the Ministry of Environment who attended at the scene on May 14th, 1991. As a result of the visit of the Ministry of Environment Abatement Officer, Rick Kucera, to the site on May 14th, 1991, a call was placed to Martin Vandehogen who advised the Ministry of Environment that the material could not be plowed under because of the wet conditions.
It is stated by Mr. Hebblethwaite, in his chronology and in his evidence, that on May 22nd, 1991 the Vendehogens commenced plowing or working the soil in order to incorporate what remained of the liquid manure. This is also confirmed by the evidence of the Vandehogens in which they advise that at that point in time the.soil had reached a level of dryness as a result of the change in the weather that allowed them to work the soil.
On May 26, 1991 Mr. Hebblethwaite, using his business letterhead, wrote on behalf of Dura-Built Enterprises to advised Martin Vandehogen that as a result of the spreading of manure which commenced on May 3rd, 1991, that he had encountered problems as an asthmatic.
We note that no effort to advise of the problem, nor any,contact between the parties to the letter of May 26th, 1991. The only confirmation that Martin Vandehogen had, that difficulty had occurred, was a telephone call from the Abatement Officer of the Ministry of Environment, Rick Kucera, which occurred some time after May 14th, 1991.
There was some confusion between the parties as to the distance between Hebblethwaite's home and the portion of the 42 acre parcel upon which the manure was spread in May of 1991, the Board is satisfied that Ron Vandehogen's evidence, that the parcel where the spreading occurred in the spring of 1991 was at least 1,000 feet away from the Hebblethwaite's residence is correct. Mr. Hebblethwaite was of the opinion that the parcel was only 800 feet away. Reviewing the sketch which was obtained by us on which the parties had acknowledged the location of the stone ridge area where the manure spreading occurred, we find that in fact the spreading occurred approximately 1,200 to 1,300 feet from the residence of Murray Hebblethwaite which residence was approximately equal distance from the spreading as that of Mr. Hebblethwaite's tenants in relation to this particular field.
In the fall of 1991 it is Mr. Hebblethwaite's evidence that Martin Vandehogen began spreading liquid manure on both the larger field which we have described previously, and the 3 acre field to the east of the drainage ditch. This occurred on September 28, 1991. It is the evidence of Ron Vandehogen that between 2 and 3 loads were spread on this particular parcel. This parcel is in greater proximity to the home of Murray Hebblethwaite and that of his tenants, Kenneth and Eileen Wren.
On September 29th, 1991 Mr. Hebblethwaite again called the Ministry of Environment Spill Centre in Toronto. On September 30th, 1991 the agricultural operator again spread manure. Because, in Mr. Hebblethwaite's opinion, this was within 20 feet of an open drainage ditch and within 400 feet of a residential dwelling, a call was placed to the Spill Centre.
Mr. Hebblethwaite has stated that there was some ponding of the manure on the roadway, a matter which is not within our jurisdiction. This problem has since been corrected by the agricultural operator. He further confirmed that an attempt was made to "plow under" on the nearest field.
On October 1, 1991 there was a further spreading of liquid manure on the 42 acre field which is further from Mr. Hebblethwaite's residence. On that date he again called the Spills Centre in Toronto, as well as the Windsor office of the Ministry of Environment.
Although the odour lingered, there was no activity on October 1 to October 4, 1991 when 1 1/2 inches of rain fell. On October 9, 1991, which was the last day that the spreading occurred according to Mr.
Hebblethwaite and confirmed by the Vandehogens, spreading of liquid hog manure also occurred and a light rain fell later in that day.
In relation to the 3 acre field nearest the Hebblethwaite and their tenant, Wrens' residences, it is the uncontradicted evidence of all parties that the field in which the manure was spread, at its closest
point to these residences, was approximately 400 feet.
As a result of the complaint made October 1, 1991 to the Windsor office of the Ministry of Environment, an Abatement officer attended at the premises on October 4, 1991.
Although they were not in attendance at the Hearing on September 23, 1992, the complainant, Murray Hebblethwaite provided a written statement from Kenneth Wren and Eileen Wren who are tenants of Mr. Hebblethwaite.
It is Mr. Hebblethwaite's evidence that their home is approximately 200 feet closer to the property owned by Ron Vandehogen than the home he occupies.
In the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Wren they confirmed that they noticed in May 1991 an abnormally foul odour in the air and that the odour was so strong that it was actually irritating and that the odour lingered in the air for several days. Subsequently they confirmed a second occurrence of odour in the first week of October, 1991. However they indicate that this odour was not as severe as that caused by the first application in May, but was still undesirable.
In the letters of Murray Hebblethwaite/Dura-Built Enterprises to the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Hebblethwaite raised issues regarding the odour resulting from the agricultural operation of Ron and Martin Vandehogen. More specifically, Mr. Hebblethwaite raised the issue that the Vandehogens had not spread their liquid hog manure in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. By this we understood that Mr. Hebblethwaite meant, and later confirmed in his evidence, the guidelines established by the Agricultural Code of Practice, more particularly, page 19 of that document which deals with liquid manure systems.
It was Mr. Hebblethwaite's evidence that the agricultural operator had not spread their agricultural waste in accordance with normal farm practice in that the untreated liquid manure was not incorporated within the soil within 24 hours and that the incorporation in the soil had not occurred by plow down, discing or soil injection. It was further the evidence of Murray Hebblethwaite that the liquid manure was not completely covered by soil and therefore the incorporation was not effective.
In response, Ron Vandehogen, who spread the manure, along with his father in the September/October, 1991 occurrence indicated that after spreading approximately 2 to 3 loads on the 3 acre parcel on September 28, 1991 he cultivated the 3 acre parcel of ground using a Triple K (Kongskilde) cultivator on September 30th, 1991. It was the evidence of Ron Vandehogen that it was their intention to work the manure into the soil on the larger field which is a greater distance from the Hebblethwaite property, after spreading on October 1, 1991, but rain occurred within 2 days.
It was further given as evidence by the Vandehogens that discs do not work on this farm as the number of rocks located on the farm damage that equipment. The farmer provided evidence that it would cost $10,000.00 to include an injector on the manure spreader and that from their point of view it was cheaper to use the additive to the feed supplied to the hogs which they describe as FibreGest to cut the ammonia rather than incorporate it through an injector.
It was the evidence of both Martin and Ron Vandehogen that there was no difference between the smell of manure, in their opinion, in the May occurrence from the September/October, 1991 occurrence. It was acknowledged by all parties, however, that the best method of incorporating manure, given the current equipment used by the agricultural operator on this particular farm, would have been plowing.
Filed as Exhibit 7 was a letter dated December 19, 1991 to Dura-Built Enterprises from R. Kucera, Environmental Officer, Abatement Section Southwestern Region. Mr. Kucera, an Abatement officer who worked from the Windsor office of the Ministry of Environment attended at the farm which is subject to the complaint on May 14, 1991 and October 4, 1991.
On the basis of both visits Mr. Kucera formed the opinion that the odour arising from the spreading of the liquid manure was not significant. During his visit to Mr. Vandehogen's property, Mr. Kucera also tried to conduct an investigation so as to determine whether the manure spreading practice was conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards as established in the Agricultural Code of Practice.
In his discussions with Mr. Vandehogen, Mr. Kucera was of the opinion that the manure handling and utilization had been in accordance with the Code of Practice.
There was some confusion in the occurrence report of May 14, 1991 in which it was recommended that the agricultural operator work the land in question within 48 hours unless there is "an observed adverse effect resulting from the spreading activity."
It was the evidence of Mr. Kucera that there was no observed adverse effect when he attended at the premises on May 14th, 1991 and more particularly on October 4, 1991. It is noted that the October 4, 1991 occurrence was on a property within 1,000 feet and that on page 19 of the code it is stated in paragraph 2:
"Untreated liquid manure should be spread when the ground is not frozen. It should be incorporated into the soil within 24 hours if it is applied closer than 1,000 feet from a non-compatible use (such as a building for human occupancy or food preparation). The timing requirement depends on factors such as weather conditions, actual distances to neighbours or intensity of odour.
Incorporation can be accomplished by:
(a) plow-down:
(b) discing:
(c) soil injection.
The liquid manure must be completely covered by soil, and not left in open furrows."
The opinion of Mr. Kucera was that in the fall of 1991 the smell was negligible but that there was some smell still extant in the spring of 1991.
Mr. Kucera also undertook his investigation in the light of paragraph section 13 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act concerning the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment that causes or is likely to cause, an adverse effect. Mr. Kucera noted that this adverse effect does not apply to the impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it where such impairment relates to the disposal of animal waste in accordance with normal farm practice.
Mr. Kucera however, did review in his attendances at the property, whether adverse effects had occurred under any other sub-definition of adverse effect in Section 1(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and was satisfied that the same did not. He likened the loss of enjoyment of normal use of the property in Mr. Hebblethwaite's heightened sensitivity resulting from asthma, as not being a normal use of property.
The Board received evidence from James P. Myslik of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food in respect of the Agricultural Code of Practice. Mr. Myslik is an agricultural engineer and has been one since 1969. He is presently a member of the committee which is preparing revisions to the Agricultural Code of Practice which was originally created in 1976. It was the evidence of Mr. Myslik that in dealing with liquid manure systems that stress should be put on the word which is used in the introduction to the recommendations that these recommendations are guidelines.
It was the evidence of Mr. Myslik that the Agricultural Code of Practice is not a legislative document and that the 1,000 foot requirement set out in paragraph 2 of the Code of Practice above as it relates to liquid manure systems was not a requirement but a desirable goal which had to take into account conditions which might make that goal physically difficult. Mr. Myslik advised that the new revisions for the Agricultural Code of Practice, when they are completed, will be more goal oriented. He stated that in using the guidelines in establishing normal farm practice the intent of the guidelines should be looked to. It was Mr. Myslik's evidence that the farmer should be judgmental and use the best machinery for his farm.
The Board queried Mr. Myslik as to the amount of manure which would be produced by 1,800 to 2,000 hogs and how much land would be required to adequately spread the liquid manure. It was evidence of Mr. Myslik that 100 acres would be all the area of land that was necessary for the number of animals being run currently in the hog operation of Martin and Ron Vandehogen. It was further the evidence of James P. Myslik that 500 acres now owned by Martin and Ron Vandehogen would allow rotation of spreading to different farms. Mr. Myslik advised that the spreading of 1,000 gallons per acre is considered light.
It was further the evidence of Mr. Myslik that the methods of incorporation set out in paragraph 2 of page 19 noted above, being plow-down, discing or soil injection, are not exclusive and other methods can be used. He specifically advised that the use of a soil cultivator to "atomize" the soil used by the Vandehogens on the 3 acre field nearest the lands owned by Murray Hebblethwaite would be an acceptable way of meeting the goal of incorporating the liquid manure in the soil.
During their testimony, Martin and Ron Vandehogen both confirmed that they rotated their crops from farm to farm and that they most often spread their liquid manure on wheat stubble and on corn ground, depending on conditions. The property which they had spread, in the spring of 1991, was planted in soyabeans. The spreading of manure in that situation was not their normal practice but was mandated by the weather conditions, which were wet, in the spring of that year.
THE ISSUES
The issues before the Farm Practices Protection Board are as follows:
(A) JURISDICTION
- Does the Board have jurisdiction in this matter if there is a potential violation of the Environmental Protection Act?
(B) NORMAL FARM PRACTICE
Does the spreading of liquid manure on the 42 acre field in the spring of 1991 represent a normal farm practice?
Does the failure to incorporate the liquid manure into the soil on the 42 acre field by the agricultural operator represent a lack of normal farm practice?
Did the spreading of liquid manure on the 3 acre field in the fall of 1991 of Ron Vandehogen within 1,000 feet of the housing located on the property of Murray Hebblethwaite, represent a normal farm practice?
Did the failure to incorporate the liquid manure on the field within close proximity to Murray Hebblethwaite's home represent a lack of normal farm practice when such incorporation did not occur within 24 hours?
Is it a normal farm practice to use a cultivator rather than a plow, soil injector or disc to incorporate liquid manure into the soil? Is it a normal farm practice, where such use of a cultivator fails to completely cover the liquid manure with soil?
DECISION:
(A) JURISDICTION
The Board is satisfied, as a result of the evidence provided by Rick Kucera of the Ministry of Environment that there is no Evidence before the Board of a violation of the Environmental Protection Act. Without reviewing Mr. Kucera's comments with regard to the farm practices employed by Ron and Martin Vandehogen, the Board is satisfied that as a result of Mr. Kucera's visits to the property that if the liquid manure was spread in accordance with normal farm practice, which is within the jurisdiction of the Board to decide, no adverse effect will be established under Section 1(1)(a)(i) which state "adverse effect means one or more of: (i) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it." The balance of the definition of "adverse effect" was reviewed by Mr. Kucera in relation to a potential violation in his attendance upon the property. We are satisfied, based on the evidence of Mr. Kucera and also the evidence of Murray Hebblethwaite regarding his actions on May 7, 1991, that there were no other "adverse effects" occurring. More specifically, there was no adverse effect on Mr. Hebblethwaite's health or any loss of enjoyment of normal use of his property.
Based on the evidence at the Hearing, the Board assumes jurisdiction in this matter.
(B) NORMAL FARM PRACTICE
A normal farm practice, as set out in Section 1 of the Farm Practice Protection Act means "a practice that is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards as established by and followed by similar agricultural operations for similar circumstances and includes the use of innovative technology, with advanced management practices".
In making a finding of whether there is a normal farm practice, the Farm Practice Protection Board must have regard as to what are proper and accepted customs as established and followed by similar agricultural operations.
The evidence of James P. Myslik in reviewing the Agricultural Code of Practice provides a satisfactory basis as to what normal farm practice would be in relation to the application of liquid manure in similar agricultural operations.
Based on the evidence before the Board, it finds:
The spreading of untreated liquid manure in May of 1991 was beyond the distance of 1,000 feet from a non-compatible use. As such, although it is desirable, it is not a "requirement" of normal farm practice that the liquid manure be incorporated into the soil within 24 hours. Evidence was given, which is uncontradicted, that there was wet weather after the application of the liquid manure which prevented attendance upon that field by the agricultural operator to incorporate the liquid manure into the soil.
The Board notes that for protection of water quality in areas in close proximity to municipal drains that the manure be worked into the soil within 24 hours, when possible, and further that such working into the soil is a guideline. It is satisfied that in May of 1991 the parcel where the liquid manure was spread was not in close proximity to the municipal drain traversing the farm requiring such working of the soil and as such the spreading was done in accordance with normal farm practice.
Spreading liquid manure within 1,000 feet of housing in agricultural zones as is the situation existing in the matter before the Board, is a normal farm practice provided the "guidelines" set out in the Agricultural Code of Practice are followed.
The Board finds that in connection with the field in closer proximity to the house of Murray Hebblethwaite in October of 1991 the agricultural operator incorporated the liquid manure into the soil within 48 hours.
The Board finds as a matter of fact that this is beyond the time frame set out in the Agricultural Code of Practice but it accepts the evidence of James P. Myslik, agricultural engineer, that the Code is a guideline of normal farm practice setting out a desirable goal.
It accepts the evidence of Rick Kucera who attended one day after the manure was incorporated into the soil that the smell was negligible which evidence was confirmed by the tenants of Murray Hebblethwaite. As such, the Board is satisfied that the incorporation of the manure within 48 hours by the agricultural operator at a distance of 400 feet from housing represented normal farm practice given the conditions in existence at the time of the application of manure and its incorporation into the soil.
- The Board finds that it is normal farm practice to use a cultivator as an additional method of incorporating untreated liquid manure into the soil and that the methods of incorporationinto the soil are not exhaustively set out in the Agricultural Code of Practice.
It is satisfied that the method used by the agricultural operators in this situation was in accordance with normal farm practice having regard to the rocky nature of the soil in this specific site where the manure was spread.
The Board is satisfied that the occurrences of May 1991, in all likelihood, will not be repeated because the agricultural operators have improved their storage capacity and will be able to rotate the spreading of liquid manure to all of their acreage, preventing a regular recurrence of liquid manure spreading on this property each spring.
DATED this 4th day of December, 1992.
ROBERT G . WATERS