The Rural Voice, 1988-08, Page 35-_ R J �
.41\
WHAT'S BEHIND THE
PROPOSED BILL?
N
eighbourly relations will
never be the same in a small
section of Burgessville, just
south of Woodstock. Gordon Wills
has had to pay a fine of $1,000 under
section 13(1)(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act for a manure spill that
went onto his neighbour's orchard.
He is incensed because he is con-
vinced that the spray drift from his
neighbour's orchard is much more
harmful to his livestock than the
manure ever was to the orchard. He
claims that the best apples in the
orchard came from where the manure
settled.
Wills has a holding tank for the
manure from his 160 cattle and 200
pigs. The outlet froze, there was a
sudden thaw, and the manure floated
over the snow bank that surrounded
the tank. His neighbour said that it
was thousands of tons of manure.
Wills said it was only a couple of
tanker Toads and no one would ever
have known it was there. "It was a
simple fluke. If I had been watching
the weather conditions it wouldn't
have happened," Wills says.
WHY DO FARMERS
WANT LEGISLATION?
Wills was charged under one of the
seven acts that "protect the environ -
RIGHT
TO
FARM
by Dee Kramer
ment and public safely." There are 38
acts that "govern agricultural land and
farm practices." But farmers believe it
is important to have yet another piece
of legislation.
They feel threatened, that they
can be sued by their neighbours for
just such a "little mistake." To pro-
tect themselves, farmers have been
pushing for a "right -to -farm" Taw that
would protect them from similar
nuisance suits.
Donna and Neil Hemmingway
from Brussels, in Huron County,
might have been protected from a
very unpleasant year of petitions and
legal wranglings if right -to -farm
legislation had been in place. They
have a 1,200 -acre farm with a 170 -
sow farrow -to -finish operation. They
wanted to build a lagoon to have a
year and a half worth of storage for
their liquid manure so they could
irrigate in July when the crops most
need the fertilizer.
They were convinced that what
they wanted to do was environmen-
tally correct, but it took $10,000 of
legal expenses to convince their
neighbours. The experience has "left
them cynical and bitter. This farm has
been in my husband's family since his
grandfather's time. For the sake of
others I hope the legislation goes
through," says Donna Hemmingway.
ft 1.416;,.iiimil.
WILL LEGISLATION
HELP FARMERS?
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? -
The most common complaint
about intensive farming is the bad
odors. And it seems inevitable that
people would object eventually,
considering how much manure is
produced on farms. The 1986 agri-
culture statistics say that Ontario has
2 1/2 million cattle, more than 3
million pigs, and 32 million chickens.
An average -sized barn of 10,000
hens will produce 7.7 tons of manure
per week. An average -sized pork
operation manufactures about 59 tons
of manure weekly, and a steer will
produce more than 350 pounds of wet
manure each week.
J. B. Robinson, of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Biology at
the University of Guelph, has written:
"In terms of pollution potential, many
farms are the equivalent of small
cities. For example, a feedlot of 2,000
beef steers produces the equivalent in
organic residues to a town of 20,000
people."
THE LEGISLATION
In 1986, the Ontario Right to Farm
Advisory Committee's Report was
issued. After analysing 460 submis-
sions, the committee recommended
that legislation be enacted as soon as
AUGUST 1988 33