A does not violate the Missouri Constitution, the Missouri.
The unanimous ruling upholds a to toss the case before trial. It says county ordinances attempting to set rules for industrial farms are invalid.
At issue is Missouri鈥檚 policing of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which are industrial facilities capable of raising thousands of hogs, cows or chickens at a time.
Despite complaints from rural neighbors, the state鈥檚 policies toward the industrial farms have become friendlier in recent years. In 2019, the Missouri General Assembly passed a bill prohibiting county CAFO rules that are 鈥渋nconsistent with or more stringent than鈥� state law or regulation.
Two years later, they tightened it even further. County ordinances now can鈥檛 be 鈥渋nconsistent with, in addition to, different from, or more stringent鈥� than state rules.
In effect, it .
CAFOs are commonly bemoaned by rural neighbors who complain about the smell and worry that the massive amount of manure produced by the animals 鈥� which can number in the hundreds of thousands for hogs 鈥� could pollute groundwater.
Improper maintenance at CAFOs can spell disaster.
Two years ago, a CAFO owned by Smithfield Foods, one of the world鈥檚 largest pork producers, when an employee failed to close a valve and drained the wastewater lagoon.
The spell polluted between 12 and 15 miles of nearby creeks and tributaries. It turned the water nearly black and contaminated it with up to 30 times the level of ammonia safe for wildlife.
for the spill.
Concerns about environmental and health harms led several counties to impose restrictions on CAFOs, including requiring them to be setback from neighboring homes and imposing air and water quality requirements.
Twenty Missouri counties imposed some sort of restrictions on CAFOs before the state restricted local regulation, according to a .
Stephen Jeffery, an environmental attorney, represented the plaintiffs in the case, which included two counties that had imposed CAFO ordinances, a nonprofit called Friends of Responsible Agriculture Inc., and rural neighbors of a proposed facility. The group appealed the .
He argued that the 2019 and 2021 state laws violated the 鈥淩ight to Farm鈥� amendment of the Missouri Constitution, which grants authority to counties to regulate agriculture.
But the , written by Chief Justice Paul Wilson, said the appellants failed to prove the 2019 and 2021 state laws violate the Right to Farm amendment.
鈥淚t cannot be said that the amended section鈥iolates the Right-to-Farm Amendment by conflicting with the counties鈥� article VI powers because those powers are only as broad or as narrow as the General Assembly wants them to be,鈥� Wilson wrote.
Jeffery also argued that the 2021 law was unconstitutional because it was so broad. The CAFO language was amended onto a bill that also dealt with school districts, police boards, county courts and sewer districts.
The bill wound up being described as 鈥渞elating to local government.鈥�
The Supreme Court rejected that argument too. The question, Wilson wrote, is not whether the title is broad.
鈥淚t plainly is,鈥� Wilson wrote.
He went on: 鈥淩ather, the question is whether this title is so broad that it fails to provide clear notice to legislators or interested citizens as to the bill鈥檚 contents. It is not.鈥�
Wilson wrote the bill is 鈥渟ufficiently clear鈥� to give a legislator or citizen interested in tracking CAFO legislation notice 鈥渢hat they may want to examine its contents and track its progress.鈥�
At the very least, Jeffery argued last year, the 2019 and 2021 state laws shouldn鈥檛 apply to counties with existing CAFO ordinances. He said it should only prohibit new ones.
The Supreme Court rejected that, saying any ordinance in conflict with the two state laws 鈥渋s void from and after the effective date of the 2021 amendment regardless of when the ordinance was adopted.鈥�
This story was originally published on the
