Some of the most interesting landuse issues in recent years have not taken place in the courts,but rather the state legislatures, where governing bodiescontinue to debate which level of government is ultimatelyresponsible for making land use decisions with regards tolarge-scale confinement facilities. Missouri, like other states,is still trying to figure out how to allocate decision-makingauthority over agricultural uses in the state. The Missourilegislature in early 1996 grappled with the question of whether localzoning bodies should have the authority to zone agriculturaluses. Iowa, in contrast, has struggled with the question ofwhether or not to return zoning control over agricultural usesand structures to local entities.
In Missouri, for example, oneprovision in an early version of a bill ultimately passed wouldhave disallowed any local zoning provisions regarding animalfeedlots. This provision, which would have granted "sole andexclusive control" over such decisions to the Department ofNatural Resources, was not included in the final bill signed bythe Governor. This final bill did include setback provisions providingfor specific setback distances between livestock facilities andany public building or residence. Under the new statutoryprovision, the Department of Natural Resources
must require concentrated animal feeding operations to adopt the following buffer distances between a facility and any public building or occupied residence, except a residence owned by the operation:
- one thousand feet for operations with at least 1,000 animal units, as defined by rule by the department;
- two thousand feet for operations with between 3,000 and 6,999 animal units; and
- three thousand feet for operations with 7,000 or more animal units.
Existing operations are exempt from the buffer distances, as are operations which have received a written agreement signed by all residents within the buffer distance.
The new statutory provision alsoincludes a notice requirement, mandating Class I animal confinement facilityowners to give notice of application for construction permits tothe county government and to all adjoining landowners within 1½times the buffer distance.
In Iowa, the debate over state vs.local control was much different. The Supreme Court’s decisionin the Thompson case (mentioned previously) caused apublic outcry and a bill in the Iowa legislature would have givenzoning control over large-scale livestock confinement facilitiesto local governments. The bill, however, did not make it through the legislaturein 1996, thus did not become law.
Copyright 1996, All RightsReserved.