Large crowd opposes dairy appeal

More than two dozen citizens offered testimony during a public hearing on an appeal of the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to approve a conditional use permit for the Bernie Brown dairy on Jan. 12.

It has been nearly a year since Brown first submitted the preliminary site plan and nutrient management plan to P&Z. A month later P&Z sent forward a recommendation to the Board of Elmore County Commissioners to request that the state siting team begin its review. On April 7, 2004, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture returned a determination of "Low Risk" and asked the applicant to submit a modified site plan as the facility area would be moved from Section 17 to Section 19. After reviewing the modified site plan, the "Low Risk" determination remained unchanged.

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.

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.

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.

A motion to approve the application for a conditional use permit and confined animal feeding operation for the Bernie Brown dairy with additional conditions received five 'yes' votes with two planning and zoning commission members voting 'no' during the Sept. 29, 2004, meeting.

P&Z voted 5-2 to approve the application for a conditional use permit and confined animal feeding operation for a dairy with the following conditions: the applicant will be required to have an odor management plan; applicant will have an aggressive bird abatement plan to minimize the number of birds on premises; operator will not hold the United States Air Force liable for any negative impact on production or any other dairy concerns due to flyover and/or jet noise; operator will bear fiscal responsibility for any upgrade or construction necessary to handle increase in traffic as determined by the state and local jurisdictional highway district or department; applicant will enter into a memorandum of understanding to this effect with each entity which will consent; applicant will abide by all regulations required by all state, local and federal agencies; irrigation well on the property will be protected to the satisfaction of the Department of Water Resources; and the facility will remain in compliance with Zoning and Development Ordinance and Confined Animal Feeding Operation Ordinance.

Speaking of behalf of the group of citizens appealing the P&Z decision, Catherine Brown noted Elmore County's Comprehensive Plan speaks to issues of negative impacts. She explained that people feel their lives will be negatively impacted by allowing the dairy.

She noted the base must be protected from possible encroachment, from possible contamination of its public water system and from the dangers posed by birds attracted by the dairy. She urged the commissioners to protect not only the quality of water, but the quantity of water, noting the base has seven public wells within its confines.

She asked the commissioners to consider the air quality, flies and odors, reminding the commissioners the base is directly downwind from the proposed dairy site.

She also addressed the issue of property values. "If it is true that dairies bring an increase in property values," she said, "Magic Valley should be rolling in wealth."

Representing the applicant, Darwin Vander Stelt explained the dairy cannot use more water than is currently used. "The Department of Water Resources won't allow it," he said and noted the wells would be metered.

Fears that waste would end up contaminating ground water were unfounded he said. The Clean Water Act is rigorously enforced and the proposed dairy has submitted its required nutrient management plan.

Vander Stelt said the dairy will not be a nuisance nor a health hazard. He pointed to the Clean Air Act noting its focus on air quality, not just land use issues. He explained that because the diary is using a dry scrape rather than a flush system, the loading rate on the lagoons will be lower than the acceptable standards.

Vander Stelt noted the dairy will use the same bird control program as the Air Force uses.

Noting the claim that property values will be reduced, he pointed out that other factors enter into the equation. It has been his observation that farm values increase after dairies locate in the area.

He asked people to recognize the extreme expense involved for clean-up. "With the costs so high, people do take care." He also pointed out that dairies are in a highly regulated industry -- with inspections at least four times per year and the reports kept on file with the Idaho Department of Agriculture.

Once the appellant and the applicant had the opportunity to state their cases, the floor was opened to all others wishing to offer input.

K.C. Duerig said he believed the dairy application did not meet all nine standards required of all conditional use permits. In his opinion the proposed 10,000 head dairy was not compatible with the existing use of the site. He felt the proposal did present a potential hazard and he questioned if the infrastructure would be able to handle the increased truck traffic.

Barbara Raber noted that she had already called the sheriff's office three time to complain about the existing TLK Dairy. She noted that she and her family had been having health problems since TLK had opened. Adding yet another, much larger dairy, she felt the health problems would only get worse.

Beth Duschene noted that in the 1950s dairies were small, 'mom and pop' operations. But dairies continued to grow and, she pointed out, by the mid-'80s problems stemming from the large dairies in California meant many sold out. She stressed she did not want the dairies to bring their problems here. Cows are not more important than people. She submitted a number of letters from people who were not able to attend the hearing and asked they be part of the record.

Tracy Laurick said she does not want to live in an area where the stench prevails, the flies are overpowering and water is polluted. She asked the commissioners to consider the path of destruction if the dairy is permitted.

Woody Wing, testified that he felt people are being badly misled. He addressed water concerns and explained the only way to get it into the ground is to pour it into the well. He explained that subsidies are paid to growers so that people can buy food cheaper. Dairies are good for the economy, he said. He pointed out that dairies meant that people would be employed year around and urged people to look to other areas and to see all the new homes that are being built near dairies.

Hal Franck asked, "Are we creating a monster?" He specifically addressed the smells and the problems the dairy could mean for the base. He asked the dairies to pare down to a size we will be able to handle.

Debra Bessey asked the commissioners to consider the environmental impact of so many dairies being located so close together, noting there were already five dairies approved for a small area. She expressed concerns for Mountain Home Air Force Base with the potential for bird strikes and the quality of life for the people living on base. She was worried about property values being decreased, and questioned if the aquifer could support increased demands. She also wondered about the roads and the ability to handle the truck traffic the dairies would bring. "How many is too many?"

Bill Richey, the governor's special assistant for the military, said he is opposed to the dairy. He felt the location so near the base was unacceptable and would have a negative impact on the quality of life. He asked the commissioners to protect the base from encroachment, pointing out the dairy will be due east of base housing. He urged them to take action to protect the base.

Dick Berry also expressed concerns about Mountain Home Air Force Base. He noted that with another round of base closures looming on the horizon, there should not be any marks against MHAFB.

Arlene Hoagland said she had already submitted written concerns on air quality. A white paper addressed manure emissions and carcinogens. She stressed the concerns were not driven by just one dairy, but the accumulation with four to six others.

Dave Hoagland pointed out that people are concerned -- concerns with issues of manure, of water, of flies. "This is a train wreck coming," he said. He explained people have been conducting a fact finding study. These are not just assertions, but facts, he said.

Catherine Brown also stressed the information being turned over to the commissioners was fact. She said that no dairy has ever had its license revoked and said dairies are not being inspected four times a year as reported. "The Department of Agriculture does not have the resources to inspect each dairy in the state four times per year."

Gene Smith said he is concerned the waste will leach into the water supply and pointed out that water levels in wells are going down. He is worried about the water supply. He also sees the dairy as a threat to the base and points out that the loss of the base would create a serious problem.

A young farmer who produces dairy hay/corn silage, noted the tremendous economic impact the dairy has on him. He sees the farming process as married to the dairies. He noted there is little profit in shipping his product out of the area.

Glenna Hoagland noted that if you follow the money you will see that subsidies do not mean cheap food for you -- you are still paying for it, but through taxes.

Troy Smith pointed to the many benefits the Magic Valley has seen as a result of the dairy industry. He noted the number of new schools, new manufacturers moving into town and the economic growth of the communities.

Dave Bergh said while he does have concerns, he believes that can be a compromise. As a grower, he noted his costs have skyrocketed, while the prices he can demand for his products have gone the other way.

Carl Latona said we need to expand in manufacturing opportunities and need to keep in mind land owner rights. He said he had a number of questions as pointed out that the dairy is in the Birds of Prey area and asked how you can put a bird control plan in place while not affecting the birds of prey. He asked about who will pay fines imposed if a dairy fails to comply with standards. He noted the area is covered by fractured basalt and pointed out the aquifer runs toward the base. He said that factory farms in other area have been proven to have problems, and noted the economic impacts if there should be lagoon seepage. He asked the commissioners to show constraint.

Laurice Bentz explained that no one wants the base to close. "But why must it be an either/or situation?" She offered magazine articles on how manure can be converted to 'green' energy.

Matthew Blanksma said the water rights for a dairy will actually mean a reduction in the use of water. He also noted the waste management plan will recycle the nutrients, putting nutrients back into the soil, and ultimately add value to the county's land.

Bernie Brown noted that he has already made a big investment to develop his dairy in Elmore County. He had been sure to follow whatever had been asked of him in the permitting process and felt he should be allowed to do what the law allows.

Cliff Brown, also noted the dairy proposal met all the laws. He asked the commissioners weigh the testimony and apply the facts. Pay attention to the evidence, he urged.

As the testimony drew to a close, Commissioner Larry Rose said all the written testimony would be available for review at the county clerk's office until Jan. 26. If anyone has any written rebuttal after reviewing the documents, he asked they be specific. Written rebuttal must be submitted to the clerk's office by 5 p.m. on Feb. 2, in order to be considered as part of the testimony.