Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CAFO Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commission on CAFO setbacks, biosecurity and caps as staff seeks clearer setback math
Summary
A lengthy working-session discussion on proposed CAFO rule changes focused on whether a new 'feet-per-animal-unit' metric (1.32 feet/unit) would shrink setbacks for small operations; residents urged larger minimum setbacks, anti-stacking language and caps, while staff said many compliance and condition issues are addressed through the conditional-use-permit process.
The commission spent a major portion of its meeting on proposed amendments to concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) rules, taking extensive public comment on setback math, animal-unit thresholds and enforcement.
Toby Brown, planning staff, summarized the proposal to reframe setback calculations and to change the permitting threshold so that 200–999 animal units would be a permitted special use and 1,000+ animal units would require a conditional-use permit. He told the commission the intent was to make standards more even across sizes and to clarify how setbacks are measured from the "production area." Brown also read two incoming correspondences, including one from South Dakota State University's Department of Animal Science discussing the SD Odor Footprint Tool (SDOFT).
Many residents objected to the proposed 1.32 feet-per-animal-unit metric for smaller classes, saying it would allow very large poultry or swine operations close to dwellings. "I don't really care to have 11,100 turkeys come in at 264 feet from my door," Bethany Eric told the commission, urging that the lower classes retain larger setbacks (she suggested a 0.25-mile baseline for small classes). Commenters also called for protections against 'stacking' — related LLCs combining resources to bypass unit limits — and recommended caps on maximum animal units per operation.
Staff and commissioners discussed trade-offs: some members warned that raising minimum setbacks could push applicants into larger classes or discourage small producers; staff noted that conditional-use permits allow site-by-site conditions and that many earlier permits lacked written caps that are now standard. On enforcement, Brown said Lincoln County's compliance model is complaint-based with periodic proactive reviews when permit conditions exist; staff said they lacked capacity for daily inspections but pursue voluntary compliance and court remedies when necessary.
Next steps: Commissioners asked staff to bring a refined package that clarifies the animal-unit math, considers minimums (one suggested starting point was 6.60 feet per unit as a discussion baseline) and evaluates caps and anti-stacking language; the commission scheduled further working-session discussion before final recommendations.
