Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee debates animal operation setback increases; sponsor offers amendment to retain 1‑mile maximum
Summary
Senators discussed House bill 21‑74, which would raise allowed maximum setbacks for large animal feeding operations; sponsor Paul Thomas proposed an amendment to cap the maximum at one mile and leave odor‑modeling optional for local governments.
Senator Paul Thomas pressed the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee on a bill that would raise maximum setback distances for large animal feeding operations, saying the current draft goes “beyond where we need to go.”
The bill in question, referred by participants as 21‑74, was described by Thomas as the product of an interim model zoning task force. Thomas said the bill “increases the setbacks” above the current North Dakota maximum and cited proposed distances for larger operations: “to a mile and a quarter for 17,500 animals, a mile and a half, and over 25,000 a mile and 3 fourths.”
Why it matters: The bill would set statewide maximums that counties or townships may adopt but not exceed. Thomas said the current law sets a one‑mile maximum for local setbacks and that the bill’s larger maximums could make siting large operations effectively impossible in parts of the state. He told the committee the task force recommended changes for smaller operations but that the largest setback in the bill “is a wide reaching scope” and could leave “nowhere in North Dakota a place where you could put one of these” if jurisdictions strictly followed the larger distances.
Discussion and amendment: Thomas proposed an amendment (explained in committee testimony and described as changing the maximum setbacks on page 6) to set the maximum setback at one mile for operations of 7,501 animal units or more. He said the amendment would preserve the task force’s recommendations on smaller operations and would retain the bill’s odor‑modeling tool as an optional method local governments could use to justify zoning farther than the set maximums. As Thomas described it, the odor model “gives the townships and counties the ability if that tool shows an odor problem to zone farther than whatever we set here.” He emphasized the modeling tool is optional, not mandatory.
Areas of tension: Committee members asked whether property purchase or local zoning processes could effectively change the practical impact of the setback (for example, if an operator purchased nearby residences). Thomas responded that counties and townships could adopt a zoning ordinance that sets a smaller maximum and that the bill “just says you can't be at two miles,” i.e., it creates a ceiling rather than a mandate. Multiple members acknowledged constituent communications and competing interests from agriculture organizations on both sides of the issue.
Status: The committee paused the bill to seek the sponsor’s attendance and said they would consider the proposed amendment and further input before taking formal action. No final vote or formal adoption of the amendment was recorded in the transcript.
Ending: The committee stood at ease to allow time for follow‑up with the sponsor and to consider the amendment further.
