Contentious crowd marks CAFO hearing

An Elmore County Planning and Zoning meeting came to an abrupt adjournment Aug. 8, as residents wishing to be heard disrupted the proceedings.

A public hearing on June 23 for a conditional use permit and confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) in an Agricultural A Zone was held open after the commission requested more information in a few areas and some clarification to include comment from the highway district, the State Department of Transportation, as well as a baseline water study for nitrate levels at the site of the proposed dairy.

Clifford Brown, attorney for the applicant, Bernie Brown, reported the requested baseline study nitrate information had been submitted to the growth and development office Aug. 4.

When an audience member requested an opportunity to speak, she was denied, setting off the audience in a disruptive display accusing the commission of violating civil rights and shouting to "let her talk."

She was asked to sit and be quiet but refused. Security was asked to escort her from the hall. She again refused to leave and backup assistance was called. Deputies from the Elmore County's Sheriff's Office responded as well as a city police officer.

Unable to maintain order, the chairman of the commission, Nick Nettleton, adjourned the meeting. Once the crowd appeared to have settled down the meeting was reopened, and legal counsel Phil Miller explained how the process is supposed to work.

Each application for a conditional use permit is examined by the Planning and Zoning Commission to see that all of the required information is provided and determined to be accurate. If each of the nine standards, required before any conditional use permit is granted, are met Planning and Zoning members ask the Board of Elmore County Commissioners to request the state's siting team be notified.

The siting of confined animal feeding operations is a complex and technically difficult undertaking requiring assistance to counties and other units of local government as they exercise their land use and planning authorities. Idaho Code notes it is in the interest of the state of Idaho that state departments and agencies use their particular expertise to assist counties in the environmental evaluation of appropriate sites for confined animal feeding operations.

The CAFO site advisory team with representatives from the state department of agriculture, department of environmental quality and department of water resources travel to Elmore County to determine environmental risks and submit a suitability determination. The department of agriculture serves as the lead agency for the team.

CAFOs increase social and environmental impacts in areas where the facilities are located. After review and analysis of a proposed site the team will create a document that identifies the environmental risk categories, describe the factors that contribute to the environmental risk and set forth any possible mitigation of risk.

The site advisory team reviews the information provided by the county, along with its findings from the site visits, and issue a written determination within 30 days.

The recommendation(s) of the siting advisory committee is not binding on the county planning and zoning commission nor on the Board of Elmore County Commissioners, but will provide more and expertise information for the county to base its decisions.

Once the siting team's determination of the impact risk level is received, a public hearing is scheduled.

Approximately 40 people offered testimony during the June 23 hearing. Because of some of the concerns raised during that testimony, the planning and zoning commission requested more information and clarification in a few areas. The hearing was held open to allow an opportunity for the information to be gathered before the commission issued a decision on the application for a conditional use permit.

Miller noted that under Idaho case law the decision to issue a permit must be based on the applicant's meeting the requirements, the standards, set before them, not on public opinion.

Once more the audience became disruptive, shouting and accusing, not allowing the process to continue. And once again the meeting was adjourned. Members of the planning and zoning commission cleared their table and left the building with a security escort.