Groups ask Court of Appeals to review dairy expansion decision

In Brief

• Land Stewardship Project and Food & Water Watch petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals to review the MPCA’s decision not to require an Environmental Impact Statement.
• Riverview LLP proposes adding approximately 11,000 cows to its West River Dairy near Morris, creating what petitioners say would be Minnesota’s largest permitted dairy feedlot.
• Petitioners allege the MPCA underestimated climate, groundwater, manure management, and water-quality impacts.
• The appeal seeks to overturn the agency’s decision and require a full Environmental Impact Statement before expansion can proceed.

Riverview LLP has proposed an expansion to its West River Dairy facility in west-central Minnesota. The Land Stewardship Project and Food & Water Watch have filed a petition in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, seeking judicial review of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s determination that an Environmental Impact Statement is unnecessary.

“It is hard to overstate the environmental destruction threatened by Riverview’s proposed West River factory farm expansion,” said Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen. “The company’s attempt to deepen its stranglehold on Minnesota’s dairy industry will come at enormous cost to our air, water, and climate. Minnesota’s reckless refusal to conduct a detailed Environmental Impact Study before approving the facility’s expansion will not stand in court.”

Riverview is the largest dairy producer in Minnesota and one of the largest in the country. Its West River Dairy operates near Morris in Stevens County. It seeks to expand its dairy operation by adding approximately 11,000 cows, more than doubling the size of the existing facility. According to the petition, the expansion would create the largest dairy feedlot ever permitted in Minnesota.

Following preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the MPCA concluded that the project did not have the potential for significant environmental effects and therefore did not require preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement. Petitioners argue that the agency’s review overlooked substantial evidence presented during the public comment process demonstrating the likelihood of significant impacts on climate, water resources, and surrounding rural communities.

Petitioners contend the Environmental Assessment Worksheet underestimated emissions by excluding or miscalculating certain sources and relying on speculative or unsupported mitigation measures. They also argue the MPCA used inconsistent methodologies and improperly excluded categories of greenhouse gas emissions, understating the project’s direct and cumulative climate impacts. According to petitioners, these deficiencies prevented the agency from determining whether the expansion required a more comprehensive review under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act.

The petition also challenges the agency’s review of water impacts. Petitioners argue the MPCA relied on outdated groundwater data, failed to fully evaluate increased water demand, and did not adequately assess the effects of spreading more than 169 million gallons of manure and wastewater on fields in an area with existing water quality problems. They also contend the agency overlooked risks from stormwater runoff and possible manure pond leaks into the nearby Pomme de Terre River.

Beyond environmental concerns, Petitioners argue the MPCA should have considered the project’s broader social and economic impacts on local farming communities. They point to comments from farmers and residents raising concerns about the growth of large industrial dairy operations and their effects on rural economies and community character. Petitioners argue the agency dismissed these concerns instead of considering whether they supported the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement.

The appeal asks the Minnesota Court of Appeals to find that the MPCA’s negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. Petitioners are asking the court to reverse the decision and require a full Environmental Impact Statement before the proposed West River Dairy Expansion can move forward.

“Riverview’s proposed mega-dairy expansion is a prime example of why robust environmental review is required to protect people and the environment,” FarmSTAND senior attorney Holly Bainbridge asserted. “If the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency won’t do its job on behalf of Minnesotans, we’ll force them to in court. In every state it expands to, the mega-dairy model is an environmental disaster for surrounding communities. It also fuels dairy industry consolidation that has devastating impacts on small-scale dairy farmers and rural economies.”

The MPCA declined to comment because the case is being actively litigated, though the agency did refer readers to a June 22 news release about the dairy available at www.pca.state.mn.us/news-and-stories.

The release said the MPCA found that the proposed project does not have potential significant environmental effects based on four criteria: the type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; cumulative potential effects; the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation; and the extent to which the environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled.