| Ag News - State Ag News | ||
| Wednesday, 17 August 2011 09:17 | ||
Gary Bontrager wants Reno County to pay for the problems posed when trash blown from the Reno County Landfill littered his crop field. The county's insurance provider denied the $1,500 crop damage claim, but county commissioners are wrestling with their own response. Commissioners expressed concern Tuesday about the precedent they would set if they paid Bontrager. They requested he come to a commission meeting to explain how he established the $1,500 figure. Commission Chairman James Schlickau, a farmer, said he would expect litter if he farmed next to a landfill. He said he understood from Bontrager's comments at a previous meeting that the debris did not damage the combine, but there was a "pain-in-the-butt factor" because Bontrager had to get off the combine to pull plastic bags and other debris off the machinery, Schlickau said. Schlickau thought the county should deny the request, but Commissioners Brad Dillon and Dan Deming said they had mixed views on the issue. |
MY VIEWS ON THIS NEWS CLIPPING
I posted this news clipping that I found to make a point about landfill litter affecting neighbouring farm land. I did a little 'foiping' and block out names. The names really aren't that important. It's the story that is relevant.
It seems to me that there is a litter issue with the farmer because he has to stop his equipment, get off, and clean off the litter that has blown onto his property. If he was being paid by the hour, stopping and cleaning out the litter would be viewed as 'downtime' and a cost could be calculated. Obviously, if you are operating equipment and have to stop and start to clean out litter that comes from your neighbour, there is a 'pain in the butt factor'. I would agree with the Commission Chair that there needs to be some clarity in establishing the figure of $1,500. In fact, considering the cost of a combine these days, the actual cost of lost time may be much higher.
I don't agree with the Commission Chair that one should expect litter if he farms next to a landfill. What that really tells me is that there is a weakness in the litter control program for that landfill. I have no information on what litter controls may be in place, and it is entirely possible that the landfill operators do have an effective program on the landfill, but there is still litter escaping to the neighbours property. The litter control program should also include retrieval of that litter from the neighbours property. Perhaps that may require agreement between the landfill owner and the farmer for access, but putting in that effort to address the wayward litter would go a long way to building a positive relationship, than just saying 'litter should be expected". After all, the farmer didn't put the litter there, so why should he bear the cost.
I'm just saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment