September 30, 2005

Dear South Dakota Association of County Commissioners:

County Commissioners are being told that if a feedlot permit meets the guidelines, they have no choice but to pass it.

That is not true.

In 2004, the state legislature tried to pass a law that would have made it true. SB 163 said, "A permit applicant, who has met or exceeded all conditions in the plan and any applicable laws and zoning ordinances, shall be granted a permit...”

In other words, commissioners would be turned into rubber stamps automatically granting any permit that met guidelines. They would have no longer been able to use their best judgment in making decisions to accept or reject a particular permit.

That proposed law was defeated. It lost.

However, feedlot proponents went right ahead again pretending that they’d won. They tell commissioners they must pass any permit that meets guidelines and commissioners cannot exercise their own best judgment.

States attorneys are being misled by the same administration in Pierre that tried to pass this law in the first place.

To compound the fault, 1st District Planners which is paid as a supposedly neutral advisor to many counties in eastern South Dakota has become an advocate of the “right” of feedlot owners to expand. Counties are given bad advice -- particularly legal opinions which show up in documents then parroted by states attorneys.

Indeed, Executive Director Mike Held of the Farm Bureau has said that if counties turn down feedlots, "There are going to be some counties sued into bankruptcy." (source: "Friendly Fire," WNAX radio, April 29, 2005)

However, all feedlots are not created equal. Commissioners have the right (and the public responsibility and duty) to separate the good from the bad. Terrain varies. The degree of support or opposition from surrounding neighbors varies. Amount of support from voters varies from county to county. Some applicants have a history of being bad actors with violations and complaints filed against them. Some operations may threaten the existence and viability of other businesses in the area. Some practices greatly endanger public health. Others may pose too great a risk to aquifers and water. Residents in different counties and areas may have different tolerances for risk or differing senses of what trade-offs are worth making.

Some practices such as liquid manure lagoons greatly compound risks. Others such as “dry stacking” lower them. Bonding provides some level of protection requiring clean-up should an operation fail and providing a guarantee of paying back taxpayers for an environmental disaster. It also provides an outside assessment of the actual risk of an operation by a bonding company which is in the business of assessing risks.

The law is on the side of allowing commissioners and boards of adjustment discretion in making decisions on feedlot permits.

County commissioners should not allow themselves to be intimidated by threats of lawsuits. Even though feedlot proponents have deep pockets, the common citizens deserve government that stands up for them against the special interests that would push through all permits no matter what the cost.

Sincerely,

Charlie Johnson
Bill Du Bois
Luanne Napton