COMMUNITY PETITION UPDATE More than 300 petition responses have been collected for DWEE. We are tracking the agency’s review and its decision on whether to hold a public hearing in Cherry County. TRACK CURRENT STATUS →
Protect Cherry CountyPublic records · Water · Community voice
Facility ID 124885: Community petition collection complete · Corrected written-comment deadline: July 31, 2026 · Official DWEE notice
Independent, source-based community information

The TK Angus permit is not final.

DWEE has published a preliminary intent to approve—not a final permit. More than 300 community petition responses have been collected, and Protect Cherry County is tracking DWEE’s review, the request for a public hearing, and any final agency action.

Primary records firstQuestions labeled clearlyAgency responses tracked publicly
Track current status See agency responses Download the public-record report
Preliminary stageIntent to approve—not a final permit
300+ responsesCollected through the community petition effort
DWEE response pendingHearing decision not yet announced
124885DWEE Facility ID
4,999 swineAt least 55 pounds, as corrected
600 cattleFeeder cattle listed in the notice
2 buildingsProposed with underfloor deep pits
What this website is

A public information hub—not an agency finding.

This site separates verified records, agency statements, community comments, preliminary analysis, and unanswered questions. It is independent of DWEE, TK Angus, Settje Agri-Services, Cherry County government, and the Middle Niobrara NRD.

Communication standard: “Not found” means a document was not located in the records reviewed; it does not prove the document does not exist. General Sandhills science helps frame questions, but it cannot replace site-specific groundwater, soil, engineering, and nutrient-management evidence.
Current record

What we know—and what still needs answers

The strongest public discussion begins with a disciplined line between verified facts and unresolved technical questions.

Community update · July 31, 2026

Petition collection is complete; agency action remains pending.

Protect Cherry County collected more than 300 petition responses requesting denial of the permit as presently proposed and an in-person public hearing in Cherry County. DWEE has not yet announced whether a hearing will be held or issued a final permit decision.

Verified in the reviewed record

  • DWEE assigned Facility ID 124885 and Program ID LWC 66-1028.
  • DWEE inspected the site in April 2026 and determined that a Construction and Operating Permit was required.
  • DWEE received an application and notified Cherry County and MNNRD on May 15, 2026.
  • DWEE records identify Settje Agri-Services & Engineering as the application preparer.
  • The corrected notice describes two buildings with underfloor deep pits, 4,999 swine at least 55 pounds, and 600 feeder cattle.
  • The corrected written-comment period was July 1–31, 2026.
  • MNNRD materials describe regional groundwater and surface water as connected and identify the Ogallala as a major regional aquifer.
  • USFWS reported no known federal refuge nexus and no Fort Niobrara refuge environmental review.

Still unresolved in the reviewed record

  • The complete Title 130 application-completeness and technical-review record.
  • Final engineering design, calculations, and agency approval comments.
  • Site-specific groundwater baseline and monitoring rationale.
  • A complete nearby-well inventory and protective-response plan.
  • Facility water demand, well registrations, pumping rates, annual use, and MNNRD classifications.
  • Land-application maps, usable acreage, nutrient balances, testing, timing, setbacks, and reporting.
  • Written application of MNNRD nitrate-management and groundwater rules.
  • Cherry County and MNNRD comments to DWEE—and DWEE's response.
  • State wildlife, wetland, habitat, and groundwater-dependent ecosystem review.
  • Whether DWEE will hold a public hearing in or near Valentine.
The proposal

Plain-language project snapshot

These details come from DWEE's corrected public notice and application-notification records. They describe the proposal, not proof that every requirement has been satisfied.

ID

Applicant and identifiers

TK Angus Co.
Facility ID 124885
Program ID LWC 66-1028

⌖

Legal location

NE ¼ SW ¼ Section 14 and SW ¼ SW ¼ Section 13, Township 33 North, Range 27 West, Cherry County.

#

Animals and structures

Maximum 4,999 swine weighing at least 55 pounds; 600 feeder cattle; two proposed buildings with underfloor deep pits.

→

Permit stage

DWEE's corrected notice states an intent to approve, subject to review of written comments and a final decision.

What the proposal description does not establish by itself

It does not, by itself, establish that final engineering calculations satisfy every standard, that the land base and nutrient plan are sufficient, that groundwater monitoring is or is not required, that every local or NRD approval applies or has been obtained, or that future operations will comply with permit conditions.

Permit timeline

How the current record developed

Initial inspection

DWEE documented the existing operation, proposed swine-building area, watershed context, soil observations, and runoff conditions.

Permit required

DWEE determined that a Construction and Operating Permit application was required before regulated construction.

Application notifications

DWEE notified Cherry County and MNNRD and invited site-specific comments.

MNNRD rules amended

The district adopted amended groundwater-management rules, later reported effective July 1.

Original and corrected notices

DWEE corrected the public notice after identifying incorrect animal information.

Public-records request

Protect Cherry County submitted request RM-2026-515 for the complete permit and technical file.

Corrected comment period

Written comments were accepted before the agency's final decision.

Community petition effort completed

More than 300 petition responses were collected for DWEE, including requests to deny the permit as presently proposed and hold an in-person public hearing in Cherry County. The agency’s response remains pending.

Protect Cherry County community graphic summarizing the TK Angus proposal and call for clear answers
Community education graphic. Proposal facts should be checked against DWEE's corrected notice.
Show Cherry County the math graphic about manure and nutrient calculations
Nutrient management

“Trust us” is not a nutrient-management plan.

Before approval, residents should be able to see the field-level math that supports safe manure storage and application—along with enforceable testing, recordkeeping, and verification.

Numbers the public record should show

Annual manureTotal volume and total available nitrogen and phosphorus.
Usable land baseExact fields, controlled acreage, exclusions, and rotation.
Crop demandRealistic yield goals and nutrient-removal assumptions for each field.
Existing creditsSoil, irrigation water, organic matter, legumes, prior crops, fertilizer, and prior manure.
Maximum safe rateWhether nitrogen or phosphorus limits each field and why.
VerificationManure and soil sampling, application records, weather limits, inspections, reporting, and enforcement.

Community calculation: A resident estimated the proposed land base could be roughly 100 acres short and could lead to about 100 pounds of excess nitrate-nitrogen per acre using a 1.2-pound nitrogen-per-bushel corn assumption. That calculation has not been independently verified because the complete field-level NMP inputs are not publicly available in the reviewed record. DWEE should release the exact inputs needed to confirm or disprove it.

Nutrient plan checklist

Questions that need field-specific answers

These questions are designed for the agency record. They do not assume the answer.

Production and acreage

  • What annual manure volume and N/P totals are expected?
  • How many acres are legally controlled and usable each year?
  • What fields or acres are excluded by setbacks or conditions?

Rates and credits

  • What crop and yield assumptions support each rate?
  • Is each field limited by nitrogen, phosphorus, or both?
  • Are all prior nutrient sources credited before application?

Testing and records

  • How often are manure and soil sampled, and at what depth?
  • Who verifies actual application rates?
  • What data must be submitted and made available?

Timing and setbacks

  • What limits apply to frozen, saturated, or snow-covered soil?
  • What restrictions apply before heavy rain?
  • What setbacks protect wells, homes, streams, wetlands, and drainageways?

Contingencies

  • What happens during drought, hail, crop failure, or reduced uptake?
  • Is there enough storage when fields cannot receive manure?
  • How are routine and catastrophic mortalities handled?

MNNRD application

  • Which groundwater or nitrate-management zone contains each field?
  • What well, sampling, certification, and reporting rules apply?
  • Where is the written applicability determination?
Water and groundwater

Regional connection makes site-specific review more—not less—important.

The Sandhills' groundwater, wetlands, springs, wells, and streams are closely connected. General science explains why careful review matters; it cannot predict this site's performance without site data.

~70%Approximate share of Niobrara River flow attributed in the MNNRD plan to groundwater seepage.
~80%Approximate share of the MNNRD underlain by the Ogallala Aquifer.
~85%Approximate district land cover described as pasture and grassland.
Conceptual cross-section of water movement through sandy soil to groundwater, wells, wetlands, springs, and the Niobrara River
Conceptual illustration—not to scale and not a site-specific hydrologic model. Sources include MNNRD, USGS, USDA NRCS, EPA, Nebraska DNR, and DWEE.
Water-review questions

What a site-specific record should explain

  • Groundwater elevations, seasonal variation, flow direction, and distance beneath the proposed pits.
  • Nearby private, livestock, domestic, irrigation, and public wells—and a response plan if water quality changes.
  • The technical basis for requiring or not requiring monitoring wells and baseline private-well sampling.
  • Facility water demand, source wells, pumping rates, annual use, well registrations, and MNNRD classifications.
  • Deep-pit liner or concrete performance, joints, seepage prevention, inspection, leak response, emergency pumping, and closure.
  • Surface-water, wetland, drainageway, heavy-rain, snowmelt, and spill pathways.
Rural water well pump in an agricultural landscape
Private-well owners are responsible for testing and maintaining their own wells.
Sandhills wetland and cranes
Groundwater supports wetlands and habitat across the region.
Smith Falls waterfall in Cherry County
Cherry County's water resources support recreation and tourism.
Ranchers riding horses across Sandhills grassland
Healthy land and water sustain ranching families and livestock.
Public records

What has been requested—and what remains incomplete

A complete record is needed to evaluate the preliminary decision. This tracker describes the state of the community's working file, not the agency's full internal file.

Submitted

DWEE request RM-2026-515

Submitted June 29 for the complete application, revisions, technical review, nutrient plan, groundwater records, engineering, correspondence, and supporting documents.

Still needed

Cherry County record

Current zoning rules, CUP record, findings, minutes, recordings, correspondence, approvals, and official litigation documents.

Still needed

MNNRD technical record

Comments to DWEE, staff analysis, Board materials, well records, management-zone maps, and written applicability determinations.

Still needed

Complete nutrient plan

Field maps, usable acreage, annual manure and nutrient totals, field balances, crop assumptions, tests, setbacks, weather limits, records, and contingency capacity.

Still needed

Engineering and groundwater review

Final sheets, calculations, reviewer memoranda, monitoring determination, baseline conditions, nearby wells, seepage protection, failure response, and closure.

Still needed

State resource review

NGPC and other state-agency records concerning wildlife, wetlands, fisheries, habitat, and groundwater-dependent resources.

32Working audit items
4Confirmed in reviewed records
7Partially addressed
16Not found in reviewed materials

Audit limitation: These are document-management categories, not final legal or compliance findings. Five additional items require agency or legal interpretation. “Not found” does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Start with the strongest record

Read these nine sources first

Official records carry more evidentiary weight than summaries or advocacy materials. This reading path begins with the corrected DWEE notice, then moves through the site inspection, permit process, water planning, rules, public comments, and the sourced community compilation.

New to the issue?Follow the numbered order below.
Researching deeply?Use the searchable 22-item reading list.
Open full reading listDownload Excel list
01
DWEE permit notice

Corrected Notice of Intent to Approve — TK Angus Co., Facility ID 124885

Explains the proposal, corrected animal category, permit status, and the July 1–31 public-comment period.

Reading note: Read the notice first. Use the corrected notice rather than the earlier version.
Open source →
02
Site and inspection

DWEE Initial Livestock Waste Control Inspection

Documents the existing operation, proposed building location, watershed context, soil observations, and reported runoff after heavy rain.

Reading note: On the DWEE page, open “All Program Documents” and locate the initial inspection.
Open source →
03
Permit process

DWEE Permit-Required / Request Application Submittal Letter

Shows DWEE determined that a Construction and Operating Permit was required before regulated construction.

Reading note: On the DWEE page, open “All Program Documents” and locate the April 23 letter.
Open source →
04
Groundwater planning

Middle Niobrara NRD Voluntary Integrated Management Plan

Provides regional context about connected groundwater and surface water, the Ogallala Aquifer, and Niobrara River flows.

Reading note: Regional context is important, but it does not replace site-specific testing.
Open source →
05
Water and fertilizer rules

Middle Niobrara NRD Rules and Regulations — amended June 5, 2026

Covers water wells, groundwater-use classifications, nitrate management zones, fertilizer reporting, and soil/water sampling requirements.

Reading note: Ask MNNRD how these rules apply to the proposed wells and manure-application fields.
Open source →
06
State water policy

Governor’s Water Quality and Quantity Task Force Final Report

Explains statewide nitrate, drinking-water, water-quality, and water-quantity priorities.

Reading note: This is policy context, not a permit-specific decision.
Open source →
07
Local public comment

Little Outlaw Canoe, Tube and Kayak Public Comment

Raises Niobrara River, tourism, groundwater monitoring, manure-management, emergency-response, financial-assurance, and hearing concerns.

Reading note: A public comment documents the commenter’s concerns; technical claims should be checked against primary records.
Open source →
08
Organizational position

Friends of the Niobrara Position Statement

Requests denial absent stronger safeguards, long-term monitoring, financial assurance, further environmental review, and a public hearing.

Reading note: Treat it as an issue list and advocacy position, not as an agency finding.
Open source →
09
Public compilation

Protect Cherry County Master Investigation & Public Record

Organizes the permit history, evidence, agency responses, verified facts, unresolved questions, and recommended follow-up.

Reading note: Use it as a roadmap. Verify important claims in the original sources.
Open source →

Source-labeling rule: Inclusion does not mean every claim has been independently verified. Use original agency records for publication, legal review, or technical analysis.

Source library

Evidence and document index

Search by evidence ID, source, topic, or status. Project evidence IDs are internal organizational labels—not agency document numbers.

Responses and public participation

What organizations have said

Agency responses and public comments are described according to their actual scope. A response can be important without answering every technical question.

MNNRD
Acknowledgment

Mike Murphy confirmed on July 2 that the community's letter and resource information were received and shared with the MNNRD Board. The response did not provide substantive technical answers, the NRD's permit comment, or a written rules-applicability analysis.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Agency response

USFWS reported no known federal refuge nexus and no Fort Niobrara refuge environmental review. This leaves a separate question about what state wildlife, wetland, habitat, or groundwater-dependent ecosystem review occurred.

Little Outlaw Canoe, Tube and Kayak
Public comment

Requested stronger safeguards, monitoring, and a public hearing. This is evidence of the commenter's position, not an agency technical finding.

Friends of the Niobrara
Position statement

Raised objections and requested monitoring, further review, safeguards, and a hearing. Technical and legal claims should be checked against primary records.

Other outreach
Responses pending or incomplete

Outreach has included Nebraska Game and Parks, the National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy, Sandhills Task Force, Center for Rural Affairs, and other organizations. This site will distinguish nonresponse, acknowledgment, substantive response, and formal public comment.

Governance and transparency

Documented roles without unsupported accusations

The public can ask direct conflict-of-interest and disclosure questions while still being precise about what has—and has not—been established.

VerifiedDWEE's May 15 NRD notification identifies Settje Agri-Services & Engineering as application preparer. State task-force records identify Dean Settje as Founder and President of Settje Agri-Services, a task-force member, and a member of the Nitrate Legacy and Drinking Water Access subcommittee.
Not establishedThe reviewed record does not establish that the Governor's task force reviewed, recommended, or voted on the TK Angus permit; that Dean Settje participated in a permit-specific state decision; that an ethics law was violated; or that a specific recusal duty applied.
Reasonable questionsDid the task force or a subcommittee discuss permit-specific matters? What disclosure and recusal policies applied? Were any disclosures made? Did the applicant's consultant participate in any DWEE technical or policy discussion affecting this specific application beyond representing the applicant?
Public-comment archive

Review the issues raised during the comment period

This builder remains available as a reference to the technical concerns and agency actions community members requested. Entries stay in your browser and are not submitted or stored by this website.

Deadline and archive notice. The corrected written-comment deadline is July 31, 2026. Confirm the current permit status and any future participation opportunities on the official TK Angus notice page. After the deadline, use this builder as a reference—not as proof that a new comment can still be submitted.
1Choose issues
2Add your connection
3Request action
4Review and submit
1. Which concerns should your comment include?
2. Add your personal connection
3. Choose the action you want
4. Add optional details

This tool preserves the types of concerns raised during the public-comment period. Confirm current DWEE procedures before attempting any new submission.

Frequently asked questions

Clear answers without shortcuts

Is the permit already approved?

No final approval is established by the corrected notice. DWEE described an intent to approve and stated that written comments would be reviewed before the final decision. Check the official notice page for any decision issued after July 31, 2026.

Why does the proposal say 4,999 pigs?

The reviewed public record confirms the proposed maximum, but it does not establish the applicant's reason for selecting that number. The federal Large CAFO size threshold is 2,500 swine weighing 55 pounds or more—not 5,000. Whether a federal NPDES permit is required also depends on discharge and program-specific facts. DWEE or EPA should provide a written applicability explanation rather than the public guessing.

Does no federal refuge nexus mean there are no environmental concerns?

No. USFWS reported no known federal refuge nexus and no Fort Niobrara refuge environmental review. That statement defines the scope of the refuge's involvement; it does not answer what state wildlife, wetlands, habitat, fisheries, or groundwater-dependent resource review occurred.

Does sandy soil automatically prove contamination will occur?

No. Regional soil and groundwater characteristics explain why careful site-specific review is important, but they do not prove a particular facility will contaminate water. A defensible decision requires site-specific hydrogeology, engineering, operating controls, monitoring, and enforcement.

What does “not found” mean in the audit?

It means the evidence was not located in the documents available to the community audit. It does not prove the evidence is absent from the complete agency file. The right next step is to request the document or a written agency explanation.

What can DWEE consider?

Relevant topics include livestock-waste storage and management, groundwater and surface-water protection, nutrient application, engineering, monitoring, spill prevention, setbacks, compliance, and the requirements of Nebraska's livestock-waste-control program. Local land-use authority and NRD water rules may involve separate agencies.

Can I comment without publishing my home address?

Use the official notice's required submission information and remember that comments may become public records. You can usually explain your connection—such as living in Cherry County or relying on a private well—without publishing unnecessary personal details. Ask DWEE directly if you need guidance on required identifying information.

What makes a public comment useful?

State your personal connection, cite the facility ID, identify a specific missing calculation, record, permit condition, or local fact, explain why it matters to water-quality review, and request a concrete agency action or written response.

Has a public hearing been granted?

No public hearing had been announced as of July 31, 2026. Community members requested an in-person hearing in Cherry County, and Protect Cherry County will post DWEE’s response when it becomes available.

What happens after the comment period?

DWEE reviews the submitted public record before final agency action. Protect Cherry County will track any hearing notice, agency response, revised permit material, or final decision. The preliminary intent to approve is not itself a final permit.

Downloads

Take the information with you

These project-created materials organize public information. Always compare proposal facts with the official DWEE notice and final agency documents.

29-page PDF

Master Investigation & Public Record

Timeline, project snapshot, audit framework, agency responses, governance review, verified facts, unresolved issues, and evidence index.

Download report
Community PDF

TK Angus Community Brief

A shorter public-facing summary designed for sharing and discussion.

Download brief
Archived resource

Public Comment Template

A record of the detailed concerns community members could personalize during the July 1–31 comment period. Confirm current DWEE procedures before using it for any new submission.

Download archived template
22-source workbook

Public Reading List

A source-labeled guide with a nine-document starting path, full reading list, source types, limitations, and shareable links.

Download ExcelView online →
Primary and scientific sources

Start with the source documents

Links can change. Search the agency site by document title or Facility ID 124885 if a direct link is moved.

  1. DWEE — TK Angus corrected public notice and current permit-status page
  2. DWEE — Livestock Waste Control Program
  3. Middle Niobrara NRD — Current Rules and Regulations
  4. MNNRD — Water Resources and Integrated Management materials
  5. Nebraska Water Quality and Quantity Task Force records
  6. 40 CFR §122.23 — Federal CAFO definitions and thresholds
  7. EPA — Animal Feeding Operations and NPDES overview
  8. EPA — Private drinking-water wells
  9. EPA — Drinking-water standards, including nitrate
  10. USGS — Water movement educational publication
  11. University of Nebraska–Lincoln — Nebraska Sandhills geography
  12. USDA NRCS — Fishberry soil series description
Track the record. Protect the water.

DWEE now has concrete questions to answer.

Protect Cherry County will track the hearing request, agency responses, new permit documents, and any final decision.

Track current statusReview the sources
Permit statusTrack DWEE’s response