Officials are reviewing CFO rule proposals

While some counties face challenges enforcing ordinances related to confined feeding, Jay County likely has the authority to adopt most recommendations made by a confined feeding study commission.
Earlier this month, that commission presented suggestions to the Jay County Plan Commission. The recommendations dealt with permitting and building processes rather than how the operations would be run after construction.
Since then, plan commission members have said they are reviewing the recommendations and plan to discuss them at their Nov. 12 meeting. Commission member Paula Confer said she expects the building and planning department to make suggestions as well. Once the commission has drafted an ordinance, a public hearing will be held.
Adams County has faced challenges not because counties have no power, but because its largest problem is one that falls under state authority.
Its most significant difficulty is dealing with improper manure application by smaller operations, plan commission director Mark Wynn said. It has been applied incorrectly or, in at least one case, dumped directly into a creek.
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are fully regulated by IDEM, while the state chemist’s office handles complaints about how the smaller confined feeding operations (CFOs) handle manure, leaving the county no authority to make manure rules.
Visits from the state chemist’s office tend to be “complaint-driven,” Adams County Commissioner Doug Bauman said. State chemist Robert Waltz confirmed that’s the case.
Without room to regulate manure, and with a dependence on complaints being made before problems get fixed, Adams County is trying to proactively educate confined feeding operators through meetings about proper manure handling procedures, Bauman said.
The Jay County recommendations make no attempt to regulate manure and don’t overlap with the state chemist’s authority, Waltz said.
But “if that language were to change radically, that would be cause for us to have some discussion,” he added.
Though the county’s proposed regulations don’t interfere with the state chemist’s job, some legal questions remain.
The highway department currently cannot require confined feeding construction traffic to take certain roads, nor can it require payment from operations whose traffic damages county roads.
The study commission recommended that the county engineer approve routes used for construction and have the power to require a bond to pay for repairs necessary because of construction, operation, and maintenance.
Having a bond would be “completely wonderful,” said county engineer Dan Watson, but he noted he wasn’t sure of the legality of such a measure.
A Jay County zoning ordinance for wind farms requires as part of the permit application “a transportation plan showing how vehicles would access the site and describing the impacts of the proposed energy project on the local and regional road system during construction and operation.”
It also requires highway department approval of the route used and allows for a bond to be required.
But construction hasn’t started on the proposed Bluff Point Wind Farm in southern Jay and northern Randolph counties, so the ordinance is untested.
Plan commission president Jim Zimmerman pointed out at the October meeting that those points are part of a contract with NextEra Energy Resources in addition to being in the ordinance.
Extra money for road repairs only comes in now if confined feeding operations donate it. Green Valley Ranch has contributed $20,000, but that won’t fix all the damage near its location on county road 300 South. Repairs could cost up to $100,000 per mile, Watson said.
He and the highway department currently recommend routes to operators, but have no authority to stop potentially destructive vehicles from using roads if they fall under the weight limits.
“You have to give them a way in, there’s no doubt,” Watson said, adding that restrictions have to be fair and not target particular projects.
At the same time, damaged roads are unfair to the people who live there, he said, and he’ll be pleased with any legal method that helps remedy that problem.
“I applaud their efforts to try to get something on the roads,” Watson said.
Other recommendations under review include:
•Requiring a new permit application for changes or expansions involving at least 20 percent more animals.
•Allowing changes in ownership without a new permit being required. Regardless of whether a transfer is made with the plan commission’s knowledge, the new operator is considered to accept the responsibilities and liabilities under the terms of the permit.
•Requiring permits for off-site satellite manure operations.
•The building and planning department contacting neighbors in a 1-mile radius and publishing a notice of the proposed confined feeding plan in the newspaper.
•A minimum of 10 acres for CFOs and 40 acres for CAFOs.
•Setbacks from residences of at least 750 feet for operations with less than 4,400 hogs, 24,000 ducks, 30,000 turkeys or 1 million chickens, and quarter-mile setbacks for larger operations.
•An inspection by a site selection committee composed of the county engineer, surveyor and representatives from the health department and the soil and water conservation district.
•Permit costs based on construction costs: $350 for up to $1 million, $1,000 for $1 million to $5 million and $2,500 for more than $5 million.
•Complaints be directed to the building and planning office and being investigated by the appropriate county or state office.
•An annual review of the Jay County water table by the Department of Natural Resources.
•County permits being valid for the same length as Department of Environmental Management permits, if applicable, or two years if not.