Oh Hog Manure!

[Chief Grey Bear]

Something sure does smell. And I don't think it is the hog poop!

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_011220325.html

[Chief Grey Bear]

Here is another story published by the Globe on the same farm.

Court pondering appeal in township-zoning case targeting hog CAFO

By Wally Kennedy

wkennedy@joplinglobe.com

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — An apparent violation of the state Sunshine Law with regard to public notice of a meeting could void the subsequent adoption by the Richland Township Board in Barton County of a zoning handbook designed to control hog CAFOs .

That was one issue brought Thursday before three judges with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, by Robert Brundage, counsel for Kenoma LLC, the hog company that the township sued in July 2007 after it allegedly violated the township’s new zoning rules.

Brundage, in oral arguments before the panel, argued that the township’s zoning handbooks were void and unenforceable because the board allegedly violated the Sunshine Law. A special judge who was appointed to hear the lawsuit in Barton County Circuit Court concurred with Brundage’s assertion on that issue and ruled in favor of Kenoma in December 2007.

Brundage asked the court whether it was going to permit “a small group of people to railroad through a zoning ordinance or uphold the Sunshine Law.”

The township appealed the 2007 court decision on grounds that state law gives the township the right to regulate land-use areas as they relate to factory hog farms, and that the township followed the law, including adequate public notices, to make that happen.

John Price, attorney for the township, said the rural board was aware that it needed to file a public notice of the meeting. He said it did so and substantially complied with the intent of the Sunshine Law. Price said the board published a notice of the meeting in a Barton County newspaper and described the type of action — the adoption of zoning rules — to be considered. But the notice did not appropriately state who was adopting the rules, one judge noted.

Price said the people who read the notice understood what was to take place during the meeting. Other actions were taken to post notice of the meeting in public places, he said.

Price argued that Kenoma did not contest the issue when the notice was published because it, too, was aware that the township’s board was preparing to adopt zoning laws after township residents in April 2007 overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to do so.

Eighty-one percent of the 206 township residents who cast ballots in the election voted to enact the zoning regulations.

Price said the court should not lose sight of the main issue, which is whether the township can with “validity adopt township zoning regulations with regard to the use of areas of land for CAFOs.”

A similar case in Putnam County against Premium Standard Farms was thrown out when the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a township could not regulate farm structures, such as barns and animal-waste lagoons.

“The zoning handbook adopted by Richland Township has nothing to do with regulating farm structures,” said Price. “The Premium Standard Farms case had nothing to do with the density of farm animals.”

The judge in the circuit court case rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it was regulating hog densities rather than farm structures. The township attempted to limit the number of hogs per barn to 799 per 160 acres. The Kenoma operation, which Brundage said is too small to be considered a real concentrated animal feeding operation, has 2,400 hogs.

Kenoma is a farmer-owned company contracting with Synergy, a pork producer with offices in Lamar and Sully, Iowa. Kenoma raises nursery pigs to be finished in Iowa. Kenoma owns the structures and employs workers; Synergy owns the hogs.

The appellate panel could take three weeks to three months to issue a decision on the appeal.

First of two

The appeal involves the first of two legal actions against Kenoma and Synergy. In November 2008, more than 30 people with homes in rural Barton County filed a nuisance lawsuit against the companies.

The property owners, represented by Charles Speer, a Kansas City lawyer who specializes in environmental law, allege that odors stemming from the concentrated animal feeding operations have deprived them of their ability to enjoy their homes and have caused “substantial damage” to their quality of life.