Commissioners hear CAFO comments

After working on revisions to the ordinance for confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for the past six months, the Board of Elmore County Commissioners were ready to present it to the public and hear their comments during a public hearing Oct. 13.

Written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. Oct. 27, giving the commissioners time to take all of the testimony under advisement before they make a decision. If substantial changes are made, another public hearing will be scheduled.

Anticipating a large gathering of concerned citizens, the commissioners moved the hearing, originally scheduled to be held in their offices in the basement of the courthouse, to the main upstairs courtroom, adding extra seating. All of the extra seating proved to be unnecessary, however with the audience barely filling the existing seats.

Chairman Commissioner Larry Rose explained that the board had worked both with the Ag coalition and the group opposed to the dairies as they tried to come to a solution, giving and taking some from each side, in amending the ordinance. Because more than a dozen people had signed in to offer testimony, the commissioners asked comments be limited to four minutes, granting a brief extension to individuals representing a group.

A number of individuals offering testimony suggested there should be more clarification in the ordinance's 'definitions' section.

"CAFO, also referred to as a 'concentrated animal feeding operation' or 'confined animal feeding operation' means a lot or facility where the following conditions are met:

(a) animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 90 consecutive days or more in any 12-month period;

(b) crops, vegetation, forage growth or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility; and

(c) the lot or facility is designed to confine or actually does confine as many as or more than the numbers of animals specified in any of the following categories: 700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry; 1,000 veal calves; 1,000 cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves; 2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more; 10,000 swine each weighing less than 55 pounds; 500 horses; 10,000 sheep or lambs; 82,000 chickens. Two or more concentrated feeding operations under common ownership are considered, for the purposes of this definition, to be a single animal feeding operation if they adjoin each other or if they use a common area or system for the disposal of wastes."

K.C. Duerig questioned the 90-day duration, noting the Clean Water Act at the federal level addresses a 45-day period.

He also suggested the requirement that new CAFO facility areas be located a minimum of two miles outside the defined area of impact of any incorporated municipality within Elmore County and two and one-half miles from the legally described perimeter of Mountain Home Air Force Base, was not sufficient to protect unincorporated communities, citing Hammett and King Hill as examples. He said he would like to see the Orchard Training Range have the same consideration as Mountain Home Air Force Base, with a buffer zone around its perimeter also.

While the amended CAFO ordinance addresses setbacks of one and one-half miles from the Snake and/or Boise Rivers, he would like to see that increased to two miles to protect the rivers.

Tracy Laurick asked the commissioners to require a bond rather than proof of liability insurance for all CAFO facilities managing liquid waste. She said insurance coverage can change and when you file a claim for something you thought was covered, it is too late to find out about an exemption. She suggests operators should be required to post a bond comparable to those required for mining operations. As the operation expands, she believes the bond should go up also.

Dave Bergh, speaking on behalf of the Ag Coalition, praised the commissioners, saying the coalition feels that it was a good document overall. However he did question the increased set back for the base, noting they could see no justification for the additional half-mile increase. It seems an arbitrary distance, he said and severely impacts the land owners.

At the request of the commissioners, Mark Patton, representing the state's regulators for dairy farmers, also addressed some issues with the amended ordinance.

He felt there were several items that should have greater clarity. There are several references to 'animal waste management system' within the document and he felt they were not always as clear as they might be. In 'definitions' the waste management includes utilization of animal waste, while under the definition of expanding CAFO, it says 'an existing CAFO that increases the capacity of its animal waste management system. The waste management system is again addressed in the definition of 'material change' but does not clearly state how radical the change in the size and/or location of the animal waste management system is -- five acres, fifteen?

He also had concerns regarding references to water rights. He suggested eliminating the designation of 'stock' water right or 'commercial' water right, leaving it as merely a water right.

The commissioners are expected to make a decision on adopting the ordinance during their Oct. 31 meeting. Further significant changes to the document will call for another public hearing.