Much has been written about how, for more than ten years, the people living in the vicinity of Green Land dairy farm have had to put up with the overpowering stench of manure. I am told that what was a moderate issue before 2015 has now become unbearable.

Foul-smelling liquid faeces has repeatedly spilt onto the Railway Trail in Smith’s, creating a serious public and environmental health hazard. This rancid sewage has even been spilling into neighbours’ yards and into at least one actual house. These years of persistent violations and substandard farm management at Green Land, along with the lack of enforcement by government officials, are unacceptable. Yet it persists.

It's time to look more closely at some of the root causes of the problems and ask to what degree they have been caused by: ineffective cross-ministry responsibilities, lack of enforcement of the rules and regulations in place to prevent such pollution, and decision-makers who are political appointees, not subject-matter experts.

One of the main causes of the dairy pollution seems to go back to the original 2015 planning application for the barn and manure pit (P0197-15), the process for which had a number of challenges. There was mention in the paperwork of a 2014 “pre-consultation" with the farm owner at the time, but it is not possible to know exactly what was discussed or agreed to, as pre-consultations are not a documented part of a subsequent application and are not available for public scrutiny.

I was surprised to see that the description for the work proposed for the 2015 application, as it was gazetted, was for a Proposed Pre-fabricated Structure for Dairy Operations only. There was no mention of a manure pit.

Within the application’s supporting documentation, the dimensions of the pit were originally stated to be a 10’ rectangle, but when a reviewer pointed out that the pit “looked larger than that”, a correction was made confirming it would be 100’ x 25’ x 14’-15’. That’s a big difference and something else that could have escaped notice.

A chartered planner reviewing the file for neighbourhood residents suggested that the pit be relocated on the site, and despite an additional recommendation from the Department of Health that it be 145 feet from the nearest residence, records seem to indicate that it was only moved by 15 feet before the application was approved in November 2015. There was so much frustration with the process that the former owner of the farm submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman and later sold the farm. What were the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation?

Adding to the problems are a number of the conditions of approval that were slow to be met, if they ever were, and we are left asking if the farm even has a final certificate of occupancy. The Department of Planning gave approval for a partial occupancy for six months, until all the siting and pit issues were met. However, if after one year it was deemed not to be the optimal location for the pit, the owners were supposed to abandon it and fill it in. This did not happen.

Approval was also granted on the basis that biofilters be added to the manure pit. If this did happen, they didn’t work!

Another condition of approval was for a comprehensive manure management plan. A search for legislation by that name was unsuccessful, but it did turn up the following:

“A Comprehensive Manure Management Plan in Bermuda must comply with local environmental legislation, primarily the Waste and Litter Control Act 1987 (with responsibility assigned to the Minister of Works and Engineering).”

Further research reveals that “manure management” is controlled primarily by the Public Health (Offensive Trades — Storage, Treatment and Transport) Regulations 1966, made under the general authority of the Public Health Act 1949, with the responsibility for that Act assigned to “ … the Minister for the time being responsible for health and related matters”.

The primary reason behind the lack of enforcement of the conditions of approval and other legislation governing the various issues at the farm could be related to the processes and functionality of cross-ministry responsibilities.

Also, there is a web of potentially applicable legislation that governs the industry, but trying to include details of them all would have been too confusing to include here. Be assured though, there is legislation, and there are penalties.

For too long now, government ministries have favoured a collaborative approach with the farm’s owner instead of the enforcement of the applicable regulations. This has to stop.

What has been allowed on Green Land dairy clearly violates the regulations, and enforcing the penalties could have resulted in regaining control of the situation.

Under the provisions of the Public Health (Milk and Dairyfarm) Regulations 1952, the chief environmental health officer has the power to refuse, suspend, or, with the minister’s approval, revoke a dairy farm’s operating licence for any contravention of those regulations.

Additionally, the pit used at Green Land farm could also be considered a controlled plant on the basis that a significant activity on the dairy site includes the treatment and disposal of sewage. This would mean that it is subject to the Clean Air Act 1991, which has clear regulations governing “offensive odours”.

Liquid manure releases a cocktail of gases, including hydrogen sulphide (H2S), methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3). Hydrogen sulphide, in particular, is a colourless gas and is toxic, corrosive and flammable, with that familiar “rotten egg” smell.

Another government department that is involved is the Department of Estates, as the landlord of Green Land dairy. What are the terms of the farm’s lease, and why is taxpayer money being used to pay for the clean-up of the tenant’s mess? I hope we can agree that this is not an appropriate use of public funds.

Then, how is the problem related to the fact that the ultimate decision-makers in government ministries are political appointments and not usually experts in the field of the ministry they are assigned to? I think it’s fair to say that politicians are primarily focused on the dynamics of power, public opinion and re-election, whereas professionals are primarily focused on technical expertise that leads to evidence-based solutions.

It must be noted that both political parties have been in power over the past decade, as this problem has become worse, and it hasn’t escaped notice that, as the sole purchaser of milk from this dairy farm, the principals at Dunkley’s Dairy could also have wielded their significant influence to fix the longstanding odour and pollution problems. Given that they have a monopoly on fresh milk, they owe us that, at the very least.

Green Land dairy farm is not the only farm in Bermuda, but it is at present the largest supplier of milk, and it is the only one creating a stink. The problems at Green Land are longstanding and extensive, and there is no excuse for this to have been allowed to continue for so long when there is a robust regulatory framework in place to protect the public and, indeed, the dairy herd itself. This whole mess could have been avoided through appropriate enforcement.

This piece is not finished without a similar indictment of the situation that those in the vicinity of St John’s Road are forced to live with. The pollution from Belco’s North Power Station is still spewing soot onto their roofs and into their freshwater tanks. The neglect is the same, with failings across multiple government ministries, and again where hands are thrown up into the air without any real commitment to resolution.

The Government must do better when it comes to governing industries that cause public issues. They must do what’s right for the public by addressing the deficiencies in cross-ministry co-ordination, giving greater weight to the subject-matter experts in their ministries and enforcing the rules and regulations.

• Kim Smith is the executive director of the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce