Feedlots or Democracy?

by Bill Du Bois

November 2005, Dakota Farmer magazine

Not all feedlots are created equal. County governing boards are not infallible. Voters should retain their right to veto a bad decision.

A statewide initiative is being circulated in South Dakota to preserve the right to referendum on particularly controversial feedlot permits.

Feedlots or Democracy? The state’s leading newspaper put it just that boldly. They argued against the right to vote saying if people were allowed to vote, no feedlots would be permitted.

History shows differently. Collecting 5% of the signatures of registered voters within 20 days after a permit is approved is no small task. In the history of feedlot permits in South Dakota, despite over 180 permits having been granted, there have only been four times that signatures have been collected to refer a permit to a vote.

The initiative is fair to both sides. Producers need to know what to expect before breaking ground. The people need to retain their right to have a say on controversial permits. Giving voters 20 days to collect signatures to put an issue on the ballot after a permit is approved provides a safety valve against bad decisions.

If feedlot proponents succeed in taking away the right to referendum, we won’t be able to veto other decisions of local government. What if the board of adjustment is attracted to the idea of having a juice bar with nude dancers? Without referendum, their decision will be final with no recourse from the voters.

If big money interests behind a medical waste dump win the favor of the board, residents may find both their health and their property values endangered.

If you ever wanted an example of why we need the SAVE OUR VOTE initiative, take a look at what happened in Clear Lake (Deuel County) in late September. The board of adjustment (which is appointed not elected) approved a feedlot 1/2 mile directly uphill from the wellhead from which the county gets its water supply. State maps also show this operation is on top of an aquifer. East Dakota Water District testified the feedlot posed an unacceptable risk to public health. Rural water officials testified if it were approved, they would have to move the wellheads at a cost of millions which would substantially raise rural water rates for customers. Board members ignored all of this and approved it by one vote.

If it costs $4 million to move the wellheads and the Rural Water cooperative borrows the money at 6 1/2% interest, they will have to increase the rural water rates for every customer by $22.70 a month for 10 years.

You’d think now that citizens would bring the issue to a vote. But with an August South Dakota Supreme Court ruling, that’s no longer possible. If the board of adjustment (rather than the county commission) makes the final decision, a referendum is not possible. The only recourse citizens then have is to hire a high priced lawyer and go to court.

What’s wrong with this picture? Why shouldn’t we have a say over our lives?

Feedlots are not equal. We should separate the good from the bad. Terrain varies. The degree of support or opposition from surrounding neighbors varies. Amount of support from voters varies from county to county. Some applicants have a history of being bad actors with violations and complaints filed against them. Some operations may threaten the existence and viability of other businesses in the area. Some practices greatly endanger public health. Others may pose too great a risk to aquifers and water. Residents in different counties and areas may have different tolerances for risk or differing senses of what trade-offs are worth making. Some practices such as liquid manure lagoons greatly compound risks. Others such as “dry stacking” lower them.

Zoning boards don’t always get it right. Neighbors shouldn’t have to live with their bad decisions. Our democracy is too valuable to lose for the sake of any special interest.