The Webster County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to approve a recommendation letter supporting a construction-permit application from Summit Farms Corp. LLC for a proposed swine confinement in Section 2 of Jackson Township, subject to a county-request that electrostatic fencing be installed and operated before any animals occupy the barns.

The action followed a staff presentation that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources had completed a site evaluation and given the proposed project a master-matrix score of 460. Jeff Johnson, planning and zoning administrator, told the board that "site data concludes there is no well within 100 feet, no public use within 4,001 feet, no weapons within 2,000 feet, and no protected waters within 2,000 feet," and recommended the board approve the permit application.

The recommendation letter approved by the board asks the applicant to install electrostatic fencing adjacent to the ventilation fans and to maintain the fencing during operation; staff said the fencing would be required "prior to any animals occupying the buildings." The board also discussed encouraging the applicant to plant trees around the barns as a visual and odor buffer.

Why it matters: The proposal prompted multiple written and oral objections from residents who said the facility could harm air and water quality, reduce property values and affect quality of life. Supervisors and staff said the county’s authority is limited by state law and that the Iowa DNR retains permitting authority, but that working with the applicant may produce additional odor mitigation commitments.

Staff presentation and DNR review
Jeff Johnson told the board the proposed operation would house a maximum of 4,999 feeder–finisher swine in two new confinement barns with deep-pit manure storage. He said the Iowa DNR conducted a site evaluation and the project received a passing master-matrix score of 460. Johnson summarized the site review, including the setback and resource checks described above, and recommended approval of the permit application with a condition that electrostatic fencing be installed and operated adjacent to the ventilation fans prior to occupancy to reduce odor.

Public opposition and applicant response
Several residents submitted written comments and read letters at the meeting. A commenter who identified himself as Ben Anderson wrote that approving the project would be "appalling" and warned it would threaten property rights; Glenda Benson and Maria (Marina) Schmidt wrote separately that prior nearby confinements had produced odors and reduced quality of life. Other residents said the legal notice for the hearing was hard to find and requested clearer notice to neighbors.

Representatives for Summit Farms, including Mitch Baum and consultants from Pinnacle (identified in the record as Drew and Amber), described the site layout, ventilation and mitigation measures. Baum said the planned buildings have fans on three sides and that Summit typically plants trees around sites; he suggested the board consider a tree-planting plan instead of the electrostatic fencing recommendation. Amber with Pinnacle said she could review the master matrix and added technical context.

Board discussion and vote
Supervisors voiced divided views about the county’s authority. One supervisor said the county can register objections but that the DNR retains permitting authority. Another argued it was more effective to work cooperatively with applicants to secure mitigation measures. A motion to approve the recommendation letter, including a condition that electrostatic fencing be installed and operated in compliance with manufacturer recommendations before animals occupy the facility, was moved and seconded. After in-meeting debate, the motion passed when the board chair cast a tie-breaking "aye."

Distinguishing discussion and decision
Discussion: Residents raised concerns about odor, water contamination, property values, road impacts and notice to nearby property owners. Staff and consultants discussed engineering features (deep-pit design, perimeter drain tile and inspection boxes), DNR setback rules and mitigation options such as tree plantings and electrostatic fencing.
Direction/assignment: The board directed staff to include the electrostatic-fencing recommendation and supporting materials (including a published study provided by a speaker) in the letter and comments the county will submit to the Iowa DNR.
Formal action: The board approved the recommendation letter and instructed staff to include the electrostatic-fencing condition in the county’s submittal; the chair cast the tie-breaking vote to adopt the motion.

What the record does not show
The board did not adopt a local ordinance or regulatory prohibition, nor did it formally deny or approve a DNR permit; those determinations remain within the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The record does not show detailed enforcement steps or an inspection schedule from the DNR sent to the board.

Next steps and follow-up
County staff said the chair’s signed letter will be forwarded to the DNR with the county’s comments and the supporting study materials that residents and consultants provided. The DNR retains responsibility for final permitting and any inspections or compliance actions.