Judge Rules for Farmers & Rural Residents, Ordering Environmental Review of Factory Farm in Lac Qui Parle County

Contact: Deb Peterson, Land Stewardship Project, 507-223-7252 or 507-223-7509, Jim Peters, attorney, 320-763-8458 or 320-760-1292

3/8/02
LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY, Minn.—Siding with farmers and rural residents in a March 6 ruling, Minnesota District Court Judge Peter Hoff overturned the Lac Qui Parle County Commissioners' decision to deny a citizen petition calling for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on a proposed hog feedlot.

Judge Hoff ruled that the County Commissioners' decision to deny the petition for an EAW on the proposed factory farm was "arbitrary and capricious" and ordered an EAW to be completed before the controversial project moves forward. This ruling comes on the heels of a similar ruling in January by a Waseca County District Court overturning Waseca County's decision to deny an EAW petition on a factory hog farm.

The industrial style hog facility proposed for Lac Qui Parle's Providence Township is designed to house 3,000 finishing hogs, which is equivalent to 900 animal units. Minnesota law mandates environmental review at 1,000 animal units. However, 35 farmers and rural residents submitted a petition requesting that the county perform a discretionary EAW on the proposed project under Minnesota law. The county denied the petition on June 19, 2001.

"The whole petition group is excited about the ruling. It validates what we've said all along that there may be the potential for significant environmental and health-related impacts if this project progresses. We believed that the county circumvented the law and the judge said we were right," said Deb Peterson, a Land Stewardship Project member and neighbor to the proposed feedlot. "Hopefully, this ruling will force our county and other counties to take neighborhood concerns and EAW petitions seriously. We hope that it gives individuals within those counties the belief that the system can work the right way."

Jim Peters, attorney for the plaintiffs, said that this ruling should help promote enforcement of the clear standard that counties and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency should follow when deciding whether or not to require EAWs.

"If a petition for an EAW contains material information about the potential for significant environmental impacts, then an EAW must be ordered. That way the public has a forum for commenting on the project and governmental decision-makers will have the benefit of those comments," Peters said. "The county board violated clearly established law and acted arbitrarily. I believe that Judge Hoff recognized that when he ordered an EAW."

Peterson questioned why the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) did not step in and give the county direction. Lac Qui Parle County, like many rural counties, has authority to regulate feedlots through a delegation agreement with the MPCA. The MPCA is required to monitor these counties to make sure they are following state rules.

"It was apparent that Lac Qui Parle County officials either did not have an understanding of the law and how to handle our environmental review petition or they chose to ignore the law," said Peterson. "MPCA carries the responsibility along with the county when they delegate authority. MPCA needs to look at how they monitor feedlots and delegate authority to counties in Minnesota."

-30-

NOTE: For a copy of the ruling, contact Bobby King at the Land Stewardship Project, 507-523-3366.