[T]he state reissued a permit Wednesday to dairy purveyor Agri-Mark allowing it to spray millions of gallons of wastewater each year on Vermont farmland.
The practice of spraying wastewater has drawn criticism from environmental advocates, who say it has the potential to pollute bodies of water.
Department of Environmental Conservation officials say the new permit imposes more stringent monitoring requirements, and they are confident that the wastewater cheese plants spray on farmland won’t harm Vermont’s environment.
“We wouldn’t issue a permit unless we were confident (permit applicants) were meeting groundwater and surface water standards,” said Bryan Harrington, an environmental analyst with the DEC’s Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division.
Water quality organizations have sought to get the department to re-examine the practice known as indirect discharge altogether.
Agri-Mark’s new permit contains “substantial changes” compared with its previous permit, imposing significant new monitoring requirements for affected groundwater, surface water and soil, Harrington said.
The permit allows Agri-Mark to spray up to 185,000 gallons a day on Vermont fields, most in the vicinity of Cabot. Farmers voluntarily apply the wastewater to fields to acquire nutrients, such as phosphorus, that aid plant growth.
The wastewater also contains cleaning fluids and other industrial solvents, which critics of the program say hurt the state’s water and soil.
Agri-Mark continues to investigate other treatment options, but DEC staff does not believe any suitable alternative currently exists, according to documents supplied with the permit. Officials have said wastewater treatment by a facility isn’t feasible, because the output and residual contaminants would overwhelm nearby water sources with effluent.
A group consisting of Agri-Mark representatives, environmental advocates, state officials and others convened a second meeting recently in search of alternative methods of disposal, said Agri-Mark spokesman Doug DiMento.
“A lot of stakeholders identified methods or processes they thought would improve or enhance our current methods, and we’re willing to listen to those or evaluate those,” DiMento said.
“We’re continuing to evaluate alternate methods to our current program,” he said. “We want to continue protecting water quality but find feasible ways to deal with our wastewater issues so we can continue to operate.”
Agri-Mark technicians and attorneys had not had a chance Wednesday afternoon to review as a team the new permit’s conditions, DiMento said, which he said prevented them from making detailed statements yet on what burdens the permit imposes. But Agri-Mark will abide by those new conditions, he said.
James Ehlers, executive director of Lake Champlain International, said the wastewater program needs to be re-evaluated.
The changes to the Agri-Mark permit were made in response to comments at hearings the Department of Environmental Conservation held — only because members of the public requested them, Ehlers said.
Similar changes need to be made to the state’s roughly 200 other indirect discharge permits, which did not undergo the thorough public review Agri-Mark’s permit did last fall.
Members of his organization, in concert with the Connecticut River Watershed Council and Vermonters for a Clean Environment, plan to review the permit in upcoming days to decide whether to appeal it. Parties have 30 days from Wednesday to appeal.
The department’s confidence in the indirect discharge program “needs to be supported by science, and the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream or river is one thing, but we got into trouble with Lake Champlain because nobody was considering the assimilative capacity of the ultimate receiving body of water,” Ehlers said. “Everything is on the table right now. I think the state’s falling short on its obligation to protect the public trust.”
