Bill would let counties, townships use odor-modeling tool for animal feeding operation siting; statewide debate unfolds in committee

Senator Paul Thomas told the House Agriculture Committee the bill he co-sponsored would give counties and townships the option to use a science-based odor-modeling tool when deciding setback distances for animal feeding operations. "This has nothing to do with the Department of Environmental Quality," Thomas said, stressing the proposal concerns local zoning authority for siting, not environmental permitting.

The bill would preserve existing statutory setback distances but authorize local political subdivisions to use an odor footprint or odor-dispersion modeling tool — developed for North Dakota by the Department of Agriculture and modeled on tools used in Nebraska and South Dakota — to set site-specific setbacks if local officials choose to do so. Supporters, including Commissioner Doug Goehring and representatives of commodity groups, told the committee the tool would incorporate facility type, mitigation measures, topography and long-term weather data to map an "odor footprint" rather than relying on a single-radius circle for all sites.

Commissioner Doug Goehring said he chaired the interim model-zoning task force that recommended the tool. "One of the best contributions from the task force was an effort to create an odor-modeling tool for our state," Goehring said, adding that South Dakota State University and regional partners had been contracted to develop the model and that the tool would be calibrated to North Dakota conditions and weather data. Department staff showed committee members a Nebraska example and explained the model creates a site-specific map based on animal type, size, manure system and prevailing wind patterns.

Farm groups and commodity associations — including the North Dakota Pork Council, North Dakota Corn Growers and North Dakota Soybean Growers — testified in favor. They described the tool as a way for local planners to consider operation-specific factors (biofilters, digesters, vegetative buffers and other mitigation) in siting decisions and as a means to expand livestock market opportunities in the state.

Opponents and concerned citizens urged caution. Testimony from township officers and residents in lake-region counties said the bill does not resolve road-use and infrastructure costs for large operations and warned it could reduce protections for people who already live near proposed facilities. Public-health and environmental concerns surfaced: one witness, citing fine particulate matter and endotoxin science, said odors can indicate airborne hazards and urged the committee to withhold approval until the model—s inputs and accuracy are fully known.

Department staff demonstrated key features of the Nebraska tool and said North Dakota's version is expected to be ready for testing in May and available for local use after additional outreach; the bill as written includes an effective date to allow the department time to finish development and local training. Sean Quistle of the Department of Agriculture told the committee, "we see as an opportunity" to replace a single-radius setback with a site-specific footprint and said the department plans to have the tool available to political subdivisions and to provide training before it becomes effective.

Committee members questioned enforcement, public-health metrics, whether the tool would increase or reduce setbacks in practice, and whether local governments had asked for the tool. Supporters said the tool is voluntary and designed to produce defensible, science-based siting maps; opponents asked for stronger local enforcement mechanisms and the ability for local jurisdictions to increase setbacks if they deem it necessary.

The hearing drew lengthy testimony from industry groups and multiple citizens on both sides. The committee did not vote on the bill at the hearing and set a schedule to continue testimony and technical demonstrations before taking further action.