Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Cafo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yankton County approves CAFO permit for 5,600-head swine operation with road, water-monitoring and tree requirements
Summary
The county approved a conditional-use permit for the James Field Colony CAFO to house 5,600 swine finishers after public support and commission-requested conditions including a road-use agreement, groundwater monitoring wells and tree plantings; the application drew discussion about haul routes and neighbor outreach.
The Yankton County Commission (sitting as the permitting authority) approved a conditional-use permit for a proposed Class A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) that would house 5,600 swine finishers and total 2,240 animal units. Planning staff described the proposal and the commission attached conditions addressing haul routes, groundwater monitoring and tree plantings before voting to approve the permit.
The CAFO applicant presented site plans to the commission and planning staff noted the location in Yankton County and applicable ordinance sections. Ray Ub, a Mission Hill resident and century farmer, spoke in support: "These people are good people," he said, urging the commission to support local agricultural investment and value-added production that keeps feed and manure local. No opposition speakers stepped forward during the public-comment period.
During deliberations commissioners praised the thoroughness of the application and raised specific conditions. Commissioners required a road-use agreement with the county highway superintendent to govern heavy-haul impacts and potential repairs, the installation of groundwater-monitoring wells to protect local water resources, and the planting of trees as a visual and environmental buffer. Commissioners also asked that haul routes be specified and encouraged use of state highways where feasible to reduce wear on local gravel roads.
A motion to approve the CUP (with the listed amendments) was moved and seconded and carried by voice vote. The permit includes conditions consistent with the county ordinance and the planning commission’s recommended findings; commissioners noted the applicant had engaged nearby neighbors and incorporated mitigation measures. The county did not record a roll-call tally in the public record; the clerk announced the motion carried.
Next steps include documenting the road-use agreement with the highway superintendent and formalizing a groundwater-monitoring plan before issuance of the permit. The commission’s packet and planning staff will contain the written conditions and the permit file for public review.
