What a loading of shit Wisconsin farmers are dealing with . The state ’s highest court ruledmanurefound in wells neighboring a farm field as a pollutant — rather than a farm imagination . General farm - insurance policy tend to rule out pollutant from their coverage , so if the manure from your farm cause a problem for someone else , you could be held responsible with no insurance safety meshing to catch you . you’re able to fall into — or up , as they say—”Shit ’s Creek ” without a boat paddle .
The Wisconsin Supreme Court come to this conclusion because ofa lawsuit from 2011that alleged dairy farm husbandman sprayed moo-cow manure on a playing area and contaminated neighbors ’ wells . ( by the bye , the farmers had a nutrient - direction plan contrive by a certified craw agronomist and approved by their county Edwin Herbert Land and water preservation section . ) The farmers ’ insurance society said it did n’t have to pay because manure is a pollutant . The Wisconsin Court of Appeals said the policy company did have to ante up becausemanure is not a pollutant , but just now , the United States Department of State supreme court reversed that decisiveness . Imagine being the sodbuster who ’s been put on this roller - coaster ride !
stern : Friend or Foe ?
The lawsuit points out that farmers do n’t view manure as a pollutant , rather as a worthful resource . At this moment , it ’s a elephantine liability . Now that Wisconsin has accept this base , other states can follow . The insurance company does n’t cover manure - related damage under the farm - chemical substance clause in its policy , because manure is n’t a chemical . And it does n’t handle manure contamination of a well because at that point , manure becomes a pollutant .
I see where the policy fellowship is coming from — waterpollutionis make bypollutants — but to not have manure covered in some manikin under a farm insurance policy seems pretty ridiculous . read the language in the policy , though , it ’s kind of obvious that manure is n’t compensate . It says the companionship does n’t pay for bodily injury or property damage if it results from “ the factual , so-called , or threaten discharge , dispersal , seepage , migration , release , or get away of ‘ pollutants ’ into or upon realm , water , or strain . ” And it defines “ pollutant ” as “ any solid , liquid , gaseous , thermal , or radioactive irritant or contaminant , including acids , alkalis , chemicals , exhaust , smoke , carbon black , vapor , and waste . ‘ Waste ’ include material to be reuse , reclaimed , or recondition , as well as disposed of . ”
Yep , we do look up tomanureaswaste .
Check Your indemnity !
We ’re farmers , not lawyers . ( Well , I ’d imagine some of you are lawyers , but overall … ) This makes it really crucial for someone who interpret the natural law and empathize husbandry to look at your farm patronage documents , especially yourinsurance policies . These ag - attorney / lawyer - farmer types are not always prosperous to come by , but you might cognise of one in your area , or you may find help through theAmerican Agricultural Law Association , Farmers ’ Legal Action GrouporFarm - to - Consumer Legal Defense Fund .
Also , be smart about your manure direction . ( I ’m not saying the Farmer in this case were n’t chic about it — I know nothing about their single situation . clear , they did at least some of what I ’m about to suggest . )
get a line more about manure management on HobbyFarms.com :
« More The News Hog »
