Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 11, 1992 TAG: 9201130229
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
REASONS FOR STIFF FINE AGAINST DAIRY FARMER
THE WINKLE dairy-farm fish kill prompted a letter to the editor (Jerry, Nanci and Becky Dudley, Dec. 23) that is quite misleading. The Dudleys suggest we turn our attention to the manufacturer of the liquid-manure tanks to make sure they are being built and installed to specifications, rather than focus on Mr. Winkle.They fail to mention that, to take a short cut, Winkle had the tank's pipes replumbed to bypass any safety valves, thus defeating the manufacturer's safety design. The most "top of the line" equipment in the world will fail if the owner acts in a negligent manner!
The Dudleys attempt to compare a $9,350 Occupational Safety and Health Administration fine against Hercules to a $50,000 State Water Control Board proposed fine against Winkle. Yet, the lower fine for Hercules was in large part because the two women who died did not follow the rules, thus paying the ultimate penalty themselves.
The Dudleys state, "Perhaps Winkle should be fined, but $50,000 is absurd. It was an accident." Proven negligence is a serious violation.
The Dudleys suggest there should be a smaller fine; however, this is the largest fish kill in Virginia's history, and includes 300 members of an endangered species. As an alternative, Winkle could offer to provide payment via a land donation to a conservation land trust which would be even more appropriate than money. This could include the area around the dry creek bed.
The $5,000 spent by the SWCB to count the fish was well-spent, because it allowed the public to know the facts. If the Dudleys are concerned about dairy farmers, they too should know the facts. This particular dairy farmer is not only his own worst enemy but other farmers' as well. JUANITA F. CALLIS ROANOKE