WHY AMEND MANITOBA "ENVIRONMENT ACT" for TOXIC SWINE EMMISIONS?

RISK OF BRAIN DAMAGE:
Acute hydrogen sulfide-induced neuropathology and neurological sequelae: challenges for translational neuroprotective research -Rumbeiha et al.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.13148/full

Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine production facilities in North America: A meta-analysis - Liu et al.
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jas/abstracts/92/4/1656

POSSIBLE BARN SOLUTIONS:
Field evaluation of wood bark-based down-flow biofilters for mitigation of odor, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide emissions from confined swine nursery barns - Kafle et al.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479714004435

Hydrogen sulfide emissions from a swine building affected by dietary crude protein - Liu et al.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479717308162

Comparison of sewage sludge- and pig manure-derived biochars for hydrogen sulfide removal - Xu et al.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653514004767

Emissions of Odor, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Volatile Organic Compounds from Shallow-Pit Pig Nursery Rooms - Kafle, Chen
http://210.101.116.28/W_files/kiss2/04804928_pv.pdf

Emissions of greenhouse gases, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide from pigs fed standard diets and diets supplemented with dried distillers grains with solubles - Trabue, Kerr
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/43/4/1176

Effects of charcoal and wood vinegar dietary supplementation to diarrhea incidence and faecal hydrogen sulfide emissions in pigs - Chao et al.
http://csdlkhoahoc.hueuni.edu.vn/data/baibao/ijsrp-p5796_B%C3%A0i_charcoal.pdf

Effects of reducing dietary crude protein and metabolic energy in weaned pig diets - Lee et al.
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajas/article/view/161361

MINNESOTA'S HYDROGEN SULFIDE LAW for LARGE SWINE OPERATIONS:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=116.0713
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=7009.0080




Bill 24 The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act 2017

Suggested amendments to Bill 24, re its proposed amendments to The Environment Act:

First, in The Environment Act, under "Exemption for agricultural operations" add:

30.1(2)(c) and the release of an air pollutant from the edge of the property of the agricultural operation is not injurious to the health of persons residing on other properties, for more than seven days per year;

30.1(2)(d) and the release of an air pollutant from the agricultural operation is not injurious to the health of children under 18 years of age living on the property of the agricultural operation, for more than seven days per year.

(Note that the phrase "injurious to the health of persons" is contained in the Act's definition of "pollution".)

Then, in the "Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation" add the word "air" to every phrase containing the words "... surface water, groundwater or soil", including in the definition of "pollution", except do not add the word "air" where the regulations pertain to spreading manure onto fields, and except where the regulations pertain to small operations of less than 300 animal units.

Thus, under Interpretations 1(1) "pollution", in relation to air, surface water,, groundwater or soil, means the presence in the air, water or soil of substances or contaminants that are foreign to or in excess of the natural constituents of the air, water or soil and that adversely affect the uses of the air, water or soil.

And thus also in 4(b), 4(c), 6.1(5), 7(2), 7(4), 8(1), 16(5), 16.3(5), 17(2) add the word "air" so that it states "...pollution of air, water, groundwater or soil".

Also, in Schedule A (sections 5 and 6) "Siting and construction requirements for manure storage facilities", to help reduce risk of exposure of residents to hydrogen sulfide, add

1(d) 1000 m from any existing permanent residence located at a higher elevation, and 2000 m from any existing permanent residence located at a lower elevation, unless the director believes the risk of air pollution is fully contained within the manure storage facility.

And finally, if the above is added, delete from the Act, 40.1 and 40.2 as proposed in Bill #24

Grant Rigby, B.Sc.Ag. M.Sc.Food Farmer. Killarney Turtle Mountain, MB Oct 23, 2017

Please obtain from my website links to scientific research confirming risk to public health by air emissions. www.grantrigby.ca




Manitoba Government's Presentation at the Municipal Board Hearing of Nov 23 2016
re: Killarney Turtle Mountain Zoning By-law No. 2-2016

To: Manitoba Minister of Municipal Relations
To: Manitoba Minister of Agriculture
Copy: The Municipal Board

At The Municipal Board public hearing of Nov 23, your staff made determined presentations to counter my proposal to amend the local Zoning By-law. My proposal sought to provide individual rural residences with the same distance of protection as is the minimum distance of protection required for designated residential zones, against very toxic hydrogen sulfide gases and pathogenic aerosolized endotoxins and antibiotic-resistant pathogens and influenza viruses very likely to be emitted from uncovered swine lagoons and all night ventilated swine barns. I also sought to require the local municipality to require all new swine lagoons be covered.

The current by-law, which contains a table of the distances which is specified as acceptable by the Ministry of Agriculture, which allows for an uncovered liquid feces manure lagoon as close as 200 meters from a rural residence, was stated by your representatives to be acceptable to both of your Ministries. Both Ministries also insisted that our municipality not be required to compel all new lagoons be covered to protect neighbours' health.

Your Agriculture Ministry also claimed that the Ministry of Health had advised Agriculture that there are no health risks for neighbours living that close to such open uncontained biological reactors. Based upon the scientific research that I reported, (easily accessed via the blue links in the article on my website www.grantrigby.com ), being the disciplined research from the most esteemed knowledgeable public health scientists on this continent, it is apparent that either Manitoba Health did not devote any in-depth consideration of this topic, or Manitoba Agriculture had misrepresented the situation for them to evaluate, as there is indeed serious health risk for vulnerable persons, and indeed for normal persons, from the uncontrolled emissions expected from some swine facilities typical in our municipality.

The representative of the Ministry of Municipal Relations stated that they preferred the rural human population "to reside in designated residential zones", and indeed provided a map showing how the available area for new swine barns with uncovered lagoons would be reduced if individual residents were provided sufficient distance for protection of their health.

The representative of the Ministry of Agriculture stated that it is "often only a retired farmer who is likely to be living at an individual rural residence and that it is likely to be abandoned anyways".

We know these positions of policy which are antagonistic to rural residents, predate your government and predate the younger person from the Ministry of Agriculture, yet these positions today stand within The Planning Act and other Acts, and by their words obviously are also endemic within the culture of your employees, yet are very repugnant positions for your Ministries to be defending.

Your Ministries now have the urgent important task of changing the cultures within themselves, to return to a fundamental respect for the health protection needs of all citizens.

In Manitoba, serious air pollution is government authorized. The science is solid, that the negligence of the government and promoters who refuse to protect neighbouring residents, risks physically and mentally harming their health. The Manitoba Government's policy is clearly to depopulate the agricultural areas of Manitoba of humans, by allowing municipalities to compete with each other for taxation revenue from new swine barns, via sacrificing neighbouring citizens' health by not requiring lagoons to be covered, fouling their air with harmful noxious substances, to move them into towns, similar to collectivization of Ukraine's agriculture under the Soviets' central planning.

If our rural residents and highway travelers changed to an appreciation of the swine industry, we would welcome its growth and the industry would prosper for Manitoba. Its employees would love going to work every day, instead of their shame of complicity in the unnecessary harming of neighbours' health.

The consumers in Japan would willingly pay more at retail, such as the maybe 1% more necessary to fund lagoon covers, or at least support the Manitoba brand as the one among the world's competing suppliers to be selected for the limited retail shelf space in Tokyo, if our industry was not polluting the rural air with toxins. The willful pollution of Manitoba's breathing environment by the swine industry will be learned by Japan's environmentally conscious affluent consumers, in this ultra connected new world of communications, from which the Manitoba brand will not likely be able to recover. The swine industry and its government partner are highly vulnerable unless they both pro-actively correct their practice of government sanctioned air pollution and its assault of neighbours with toxins and aerosolized pathogens drifting into bedrooms at night.

We shall purchase a hydrogen sulfide detector, with warning indicator, for use by neighbours to inform public health officers of assaults on their health.

Grant Rigby
December 19, 2016




To: The Municipal Board of Manitoba, at the Public Hearing, November 23, 2016

To: The Municipality of Killarney Turtle Mountain, re: Zoning By-Law 2016-2

Copy to: The Manitoba Farm Industry Board

The Environment Act states that no person shall allow the release of a "pollutant" "that may cause a significant adverse effect", "unless expressly authorized or permitted to do so". 30.1(1)
Agricultural operations using "normal farm practices" are only exempt if the release of a pollutant does not contravene another Act of the Legislature. 30.1(2)

The Public Health Act states:
"Contaminants" includes: "biological matter that causes disease, including a toxic biological agent" and "any other toxic or dangerous material or substance" "that might present a threat to public health".
"Health hazard" includes: "organisms, gases" "that might present a threat to public health". 1(1)
"A medical officer, inspector or health officer may make a health hazard order if e reasonably believes that a health hazard might exist, to prevent, eliminate, remedy reduce or otherwise deal with it." 24
The content of the order may include anything e reasonably considers necessary, including installations, cessation or evacuation. 26(1)

The Farm Practices Protection Act only exempts persons who use normal farm practices, from liability for the relatively harmless nuisances listed, "odour, noise, dust, smoke or other disturbance". 2(1) If the legislators had intended to also exempt farms from liability for emitting more serious "pollutants", "contaminants" or "health hazards", those would have also been listed in this Act.
The Farm Practices Protection Act also specifically states that The Environment Act and the Public Health Act cannot be violated by a farmer. 2(1)(b)(iii)

If swine barns or swine lagoons emit "contaminants" or "health hazards" that present a threat to public health, then the operations are in violation of "The Public Health Act", and a health officer can order shut-down.
But if such substances are contained on the property, and all persons there are protected, there would be minimal threat to public health.

Grant Rigby, objector to By-law 2016-2.




To The Municipal Board of Manitoba (via fax and via mail)

To Municipality of Killarney Turtle Mountain (delivered today)

November 7, 2016 Copy to The Manitoba Farm Industry Board (via mail)

RE ZONING BY-LAW NO. 2-2016 OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KILLARNEY-TURTLE MOUNTAIN

In my letter of objection to some specific items in the amalgamated Zoning By-Law, pertaining to situating ventilated swine barns and covering liquid swine manure lagoons, I stated that some substances created by those operations are harmful to human health.

The attached scientific research papers provide evidence of the harmful potential of emissions. I found these papers by simply using Google, and typing in "scholar.google.ca", and asking it to search using the key words "swine, hydrogen sulfide, endotoxin, ammonia, carbon dioxide, pigs". The attached peer-reviewed scientific articles were listed in the first thirty pages of the search.

What is also relevant is that none of the articles in this search of scientific papers provided confirmation of safety for persons living in residences situated within 101 meters of a typical ventilated swine barn or 201 meters of an uncovered liquid manure lagoon, as is permitted in the Zoning By-Law. Indeed the ByLaw permits the residence of a naive hired operator with young children, in the centre of a yard surrounded by barns and lagoon, like an indentured labourer from an past era before laws protecting labourers from exploitation by owners.

Nor are there any articles providing convincing evidence of safety in the odorous drifts from lagoons and barns that occur during the atmospheric inversions typical of evening and night, when there is no ultraviolet sun radiation to partially sanitize emissions. The odour concentration in that drift informs us that harmful substances and microbes also originating from the barn or the lagoon are also likely present and concentrated within it. The attached papers do provide confirmation of probable harm to the health of health-vulnerable neighbours from barn and lagoon emissions. There especially should be concern about acute toxicity risk from drift of heavier-than-air hydrogen sulfide gases onto public roads and into neighbours' homes whenever liquid manure is agitated. Also of concern should be chronic disease implications from other substances especially from endotoxins.

There are several residences in the Municipality of Killarney Turtle Mountain that are very close to these operations or downwind at a lower elevation where drift accumulates on calm evenings. I suggest that not only must we change the Zoning By-Law to prohibit more similar situations, but also investigate the night time air quality at these residences, because the scientific literature from competent researchers indicates we should be alarmed and the public is responsible for allowing this to have occurred.

To the Zoning By-Law should be added the sentence "6.2 h (iv) Council shall include the condition that no noxious or offensive emissions such as noise, odours, gases or particulates be emitted from the livestock operation".

Grant Rigby
Killarney area farmer.




OBJECTIONS TO:

KILLARNEY TURTLE-MOUNTAIN MUNICIPAL ZONING BY-LAW NO. 2-2016

To Council of Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain

To Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations, Government of Manitoba

September 1, 2016

I have now read Manitoba's "The Planning Act"
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p080e.php

The approval of any conditional use, such as large livestock operations, requires that the operation "will not be detrimental to the health or general welfare of people living or working in the surrounding area, or negatively affect other properties or potential development in the surrounding area" 106(1)b(ii), and that Council may "may impose conditions it considers necessary to meet these requirements" 106(2)

But some large liquid manure livestock operations have indeed been detrimental during the past decade as reported by the neighbours. Their residential properties are less desirable for them, as they cannot sleep in cool natural air with windows open at night due to the stench. Those residences are thus of less relative resale value than they would have been had the barn and open manure lagoon never been built. Potential agricultural developments in the surrounding area are also negatively affected. For example grain farm lands are less likely to be intensified into cow calf operations or any operations requiring frequent workers in the fields given that the air quality downwind of an uncovered manure lagoon is frequently intolerable by must persons. Only farmers willing to have additional cost for activated carbon air filters on tractors, and to endure the stench when in the open doing repairs, are likely to consider bidding for nearby farmlands. The value of liquid manure from uncovered lagoons is regarded to be less than the cost of pumping it, due to its non-uniformity and prior losses of gaseous nitrogen nutrient into the open air, so there is negligible net real fertility value for farm lands in close proximity to uncovered lagoons. As there is no reasonable expectation at locations within a mile of uncovered lagoons of being able to enjoy the fragrances of flower gardens or a beautiful fresh evening, due to the air being often fouled by offensive emissions from a neighbour's lagoon, long established yardsites will more often than elsewhere not have houses enhanced with decks or replaced with new ones for young families. The areas in the environs of these operations tend to become only suited for low value grains, barren of all but the few persons essential for quickly operating equipment and then leaving. By ignoring 106(1)b(ii), the Planning Act seems to have been violated in Killarney Turtle Mountain.

In the preparation of a zoning by-law, "Council must consider the nature of the existing uses of land and buildings in the zone" 71(2)A(c). This should have included consideration of the existing use of established residences for their enjoyment and clean air health with freedom from risk of noxious or offensive emissions. By ignoring 71(2)A(c), The Planning Act seems to have been violated by KTM.

A zoning by-law may contain provisions prohibiting or regulating "noxious or offensive emissions such as noise or odours" 71(3). However, if a municipal by-law restricted just "nuisance odours", it would not apply if the operation is "in compliance with all other Acts or regulations regarding the storage, application or use of manure" 187(2).

But a municipality could thus stipulate in its by-laws that "noxious emissions" from any source, including from livestock operations, are prohibited. "Noxious" means "poisonous or harmful", so trace levels of substances below being poisonous would not be considered as noxious. KTM should specifically prohibit "noxious emissions" to clarify that no operation is exempt from the responsibility to avoid risk of poisoning or harming its neighbours. It would thus be the clear responsibility of each operation to ensure its emissions are never poisonous or harmful, certainly upon leaving its property onto the public road, or upon drifting during calm nights under atmospheric inversions into neighbouring residences.

- Stirring up anaerobic manure lagoons might release poisonous hydrogen-sulfide, which is of a rotten egg type smell, and has been noticed occasionally by neighbours, coinciding possibly with the flushing out of barn gutters into the lagoon. If so, then operations could reduce risk of poisoning neighbours by not flushing or agitating when possible emissions would not be widely dispersed upwards on winds.

- The high concentrations of carbon dioxide gas exhaled by several thousand hogs, also heavier than air and hugging the ground during air inversions, could be harmful to cardiovascular ill persons, as its elevation causes blood vessels to dilate which requires the heart to work harder to achieve circulation, and can also cause severe headaches and impair mental working capability for a few hours.

- If a worker enters a barn, contagious with a human-swine flu, that virus would amplify within the genetically uniform herd and be continually dispersed via barn fans into neighbours' homes, throughout the nights especially. There are no protocols for shutting down the fans when disease epidemics occur, due to containment of the gasses killing the pigs.

Barns are designed to rid barns of poisons via continual ventilation into the surrounding human neighbourhood. If KTM does not specify in its by-law that noxious emissions are prohibited, then all in the municipality might be held liable via the municipal accounts for potential damages, and should pay the cost of relocation of affected residences. The barn operator might attempt to avoid the charge of negligence by arguing the original by-law allowed for the predictable poisoning of neighbours.

Barns are designed to rid barns of poisons via continual ventilation into the surrounding human neighbourhood. If KTM does not specify in its by-law that noxious emissions are prohibited, then all in the municipality might be held liable via the municipal accounts for potential damages, and should pay the cost of relocation of affected residences. The barn operator might attempt to avoid the charge of negligence by arguing the original by-law allowed for the predictable poisoning of neighbours.

Paragraph 3.49 of the proposed 2-2016 Zoning By-law specifies that no habitable building shall be within 1500 feet of a sewage lagoon. KTM should at least similarly specify 1500 feet as the minimum for any livestock lagoon from an established residence, not the mere 656 feet as in Table 6-3. Or better to eliminate the separate columns for "single residences" from the table, and use the stated 2625 feet for minimum separation distance from "designated" residential areas to apply for all residences, without discrimination. Otherwise KTM would be willingly risking the sacrifice of individual families' enjoyment of life and health, same as many centrally-planned dictatorships have disregarded the welfare of individuals in societies more primitive than we aspire to.

"A condition imposed on the approval of a conditional use may be changed only by following the same process required to approve a new conditional use" 106(2)

That means a public hearing is required if council was to allow operations to cease complying with the condition required of them upon their approval, that being to "cover the manure storage" with at least floating barley straw. But Killarney Turtle Mountain has apparently indicated to operations that they are now free to leave their manure lagoons uncovered year around. And the level of offensive odour has been noticeably greater since they discontinued following the condition, apparently last summer. Supposedly operators were to add an "enzyme" which council had been assured would alleviate the offensive odours, but in at least three cases it has not been satisfactory, and indeed the character of the odour has not been altered as would have been expected had the expensive enzymes been added and uniformly mixed to the extent necessary to work. Thus the primary condition of the approvals a decade ago appears to have been violated, apparently with the approval of the current council, which apparently was based upon testimony from an operation whose judgement Council seemed reasonable to trust. However, because the proposed easing of the condition did not get a public hearing, Council apparently did not receive contrary opinion upon which to make an informed judgement. The easing of the primary condition that the lagoons be covered, might have been an illegal ruling as it did not get a public hearing, and also if doing so has been "detrimental to the health or general welfare of people living or working in the surrounding area, or negatively affected other properties or potential development in the surrounding area" 106(1)b(ii), which local residents state has indeed now occurred.

The rural residents of Killarney Turtle Mountain have not been adequately protected as required of the municipality by The Planning Act of Manitoba. I therefore object to Killarney-Turtle Mountain Municipal Zoning By-Law no. 2-2016, on the basis of the above points.

I propose amendments to 2-2016 prior to approval by the Minister and Third Reading by Council of KTM:

- Table 6-3 be amended by deleting the four columns under "Single Residence", and change the words above the other columns, "From a Designated Area", to "From a Residence".

Under Livestock Operations - General Provisions,

- Amend 6.2 c) as necessary to ensure that it cannot be construed to imply, that barns and lagoon locations which may have been too close to residences according to the old By-Law are now deemed to be okay, unless in compliance with the new by-law.

- Also amend 6.2 d) as necessary to ensure that it cannot be construed to imply, that the apparent authorization by council for lagoons to no longer be covered becomes valid henceforth. A public hearing of at least all residents within 3 kilometers minimum is required by The Planning Act to be held first before that original condition of the lagoons being covered might be removed by Council, subject also to Minister's approval.

- Change 6.2 h(iii) from "Council may..." to read "Council shall include conditions intended to reduce odours from the livestock operation, including manure storage facility covers from April 15 to September 30, plus wind shelter fencing if the cover is floating and subject to wind removal."

- Also add 6.2 h (iv) "Council shall include the condition that no noxious gases be emitted from the livestock operation." (I should have stated "noxious or offensive emissions such as noise or odours")

If Council finds this to be too many small amendments, then I propose that the "Agricultural General Zone", allowing for the largest of barns and lagoons, be replaced in its entirety by the "Agricultural Limited Zone".

The Planning Act requires the Bylaw to be reviewed within five years, so if it becomes apparent the above amendments may be too restrictive, they could be eased then, but at least rural residents would have some time of freedom from threat of more uncovered lagoons being established near to their residences without compensation for their loss of quality of life and with possible negative health consequences.

This objection includes my attached earlier letters and 2005 Ninga Referendum.

Grant Rigby, Farmer in Killarney Turtle Mountain To be posted for the public on: www.grantrigby.ca




Sept 7 mailing: To Killarney area Farmers: This Objection is apparently now to be reviewed by the Manitoba government's Municipal Board, who may decide that a Public Hearing should be held. (Or they might decide this objection is frivolous.) (Or the Minister may issue an order.) If there is a Hearing, then affected rural residents and barn operators should give their own direct testimony. You might also communicate to the Minister in advance - via Deputy Minister's fax 204-945-5255

If you do not want uncovered lagoons to become a "normal farm practice" then I suggest that every occurrence of an objectionable emission be complained via email to the Manitoba Farm Industry Board: agboards@gov.mb.ca Add to the same email to build an evidential string of reports, being honest and descriptive, noting improvements. (Then chat, share and plan for clean air via electronic social media.) http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/index.html --click on "Farm Practices Protection".

Also, insist that ag lenders provide funds for environmental enhancements by adding payments onto the end of the mortgage. Limiting emissions will increase the value of the security by making it attractive for neighbours to bid and retain the barn operation, instead of colluding to buy cheap to burn and doze it.

The industry that brought to us uncovered anaerobic manure lagoons, is likely aware that elsewhere, in Illinois for example, lagoons can be in the open for dairy barns but are covered for hog barns.




To: Citizens of the Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain

Re: ZONING BY-LAW NO.2-2016

This By-law is essentially an amalgamation of the two separate by-laws from the two municipalities, the town and the country, existing prior to their amalgamation several years ago. No substantive changes of the by-laws were contemplated by Council. On July 13 a public hearing was held, and the following was the only submission.

Proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law, regarding new or expanding intensive livestock barns:

Table 6-3 in the by-law allows for the establishment of livestock barns containing up to 700 hogs or 20,000 broiler chickens, immediately adjacent to the hired operator's residence, or as close as 100 meters from any other "single residence", or 530 meters from a "designated area" for residences. I have proposed the columns in Table 6-3 for a single residence be deleted, and thus a minimum of 530 meters from all residences be required. The only exception should be the owner's residence providing no children live there. I also propose that unless barn emissions are sanitized and the septic lagoon is covered whenever not frozen, all residents within one mile must in confidence give prior approval for the barn and lagoon. And liquid manure applied to fields must be covered under soil to limit gases.

Discussion: There appears to be no public evidence that all intensive livestock barns, with fans running all night, are now or always will be safe to live nearby. Air emissions from barns are somewhat sanitized by the sun's ultraviolet radiation killing microorganisms, directly or via creating ozone from oxygen. But sunlight's sanitation cannot occur at night, when air is also moist and thus ideal for the survival of bacteria and mold, and atmospheric inversions hold barn emissions low near residential homes.

The potential hazards in livestock barn and septic lagoon emissions include aerosolized bacteria, molds and viruses pathogenic to human mammals, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, allergens from flakes of animal skin and feather, black decay mold from aging wet barns, and hydrogen sulfide from lagoons. Anaerobic manure storage, and continuous venting of barns at night, are modern practices for which no protection of near-by persons is implemented. Covering lagoons, plus screening for flies and UV light treatment of barn emissions, might provide adequate protection, but our municipality requires no protective effort.

Using $3,000 from barn taxes for analytical equipment, we could monitor barn emissions for safety.

By allowing bullying of rural residents who are close to proposed barns, our existing by-law reveals our municipality deems them less worthy of protection than other citizens, and their health and enjoyment of life can be sacrificed. This is a repugnant breach of ancient principals of British/Canadian common law prohibiting nuisance and negligence, however provincial Farm Practices Protection Act shields and ratchets up any common odorous practice. Our by-law might also delay criminal assault charges. Wilful government sanctioned neglect of protection of children and of the respiratory-ill conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights protection of all citizens from government. Manitoba Government has left municipal Councils, via zoning by-laws, as the last and only protector of residents when morality is weak.

Grant Rigby, Killarney area farmer. (We once had a fan-ventilated liquid-manure barn.) August 8, 2016