Commission makes designation ahead of Feb. 1 deadline
County commissioners last week voted to adopt a 90-square-mile zoning overlay in a south-central portion of Millard County as part of a new state law forcing rural counties in Utah to support confined animal feeding operations.
Commissioners, after taking public comment, followed a recommendation made earlier this month by the planning and zoning commission.
A law passed during the 2021 state legislative session, SB130, was specifically crafted in the aftermath of Millard County’s 2020 ballot initiative that nearly banned large-scale hog farming operations.
That initiative grew out of an earlier moratorium on new swine CAFOs and a subsequent strengthening of local ordinances restricting where such operations can be located within the county.
Officials mostly believed a Feb. 1 deadline spelled out in SB130 needed to be met, otherwise the county’s existing CAFO zoning restrictions would have been nullified by the new law.
Adam Richins, the county planner, was asked before last week’s public hearing what the overlay accomplishes for potential CAFO owners.
“This is simply to identify an area and create a zoning district, which is in essence an overlay in which, as a conditional use permit, those applicants could come in and have surety that they would be eligible,” he said. “Basically, we are green-lighting a certain area for CAFOs.”
Richins noted also that while restrictive, the county’s existing zoning ordinance still allows any applicant to apply for zoning changes if they wish to pursue a CAFO anywhere in the county.
“Traditionally, the county has had the position of waiting for applicants to come and propose uses and determining with the applicant, in the public process of receiving public input, if that location was of sufficient size and if there were things that should happen or should not happen,” Richins said.
Currently, CAFOs of all types are allowed within the county’s ag industrial zoned spaces.
SB130, however, forces counties to demarcate an area containing both public and private lands, of “reasonable” size, and with “sufficient” proximity to power, transportation and water resources.
Opponents of the legislation pointed out last year that less-than-concise language in the bill potentially sets small counties up for legal challenges from well-heeled corporate producers should the areas set up for CAFOs not meet their specific needs.
Few public comments were received by commissioners ahead of passing the overlay.
One person from Meadow urged them not to pass it, fearful that the county would be inviting development that could change the character of rural areas. Another commenter shared concerns about water supplies—existing CAFOs in Beaver County access water using wells. One other person said it seemed the county was merely proposing the area to satisfy the statutory language of the law and not much else.
Commissioner Dean Draper opened deliberations by explaining that planning commissioners considered a dozen different areas in the county before settling on one that borders Beaver County, where current industrial hog farming is already taking place.
Adding some background, Draper explained that only four counties in the state are exempt from SB130—all heavily- populated and located along the Wasatch Front—and that the remaining counties were scrambling to meet the law’s requirements.
Draper explained that while there were some saying the bill’s Feb. 1 deadline would be extended, he felt it was too risky to the county’s existing CAFO ordinance to bet on an extension.
“By not having something in place, as I understand it, it leaves the county without any say in anything that is going on,” he said. “Twenty-nine counties went through the roof when this bill was put through there about taking away local sovereignty from local counties.”
Commissioner Evelyn Warnick said she appreciated the work of planning commissioners in identifying the area to be designated for CAFOs. She asked whether there was much disagreement in choosing the location. Richins told her there was a lot of information considered and good-faith debate to pick the most appropriate location.
Commissioner Bill Wright said he was in favor of waiting to see if the legislature was finished tinkering with the SB130’s amendments to state code, since a deadline extension would give counties more time to work.
“I think the legislation will change…my opinion would be that we just wait until they get done messing around,” he said, before acknowledging that he was probably alone in thinking that.
Wright also commented at length that just because an area is being designated for CAFOs, it does not bind future commissions from making changes later. He also said the overlay is not intended to create a county- level policy that CAFOs will only be considered in this new area.
County Attorney Patrick Finlinson weighed into the discussion briefly, supporting those assumptions. He said that the county’s current CAFO ordinance can always be changed and is not a static document. He also said the county can at some point expand the new zoning overlay if it chooses.
“All this is is complying with the state mandate by creating an area where they (CAFOs) are presumptively going to be allowed,” he told commissioners.
Warnick eventually made a motion to adopt the ordinance setting the CAFO overlay. It passed unanimously.
The area designated includes three six-mile long strips of land running east to west along the Beaver County line, represented on maps as portions of townships 26 South in ranges 8 West, 9 West and 10 West. In addition, two 36-square-mile blocks in Range 8 West, townships 24 and 25 South were selected.
