Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Court Reverses Lower Court's Voidance
of CAFO Ordinance

Eric Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Gooding County v. Wybenga, 46 P.3d 18 (Idaho 2002), the Idaho Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court's voidance of an Idaho confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) ordinance even though an Idaho state commissioner violated a zoning and planning statute that prohibited participation by a commissioner with an economic interest.

Background

Gooding County filed a complaint against dairy farm for having more cows than the county ordinance on point permitted and seeking injunctive relief. Id. at 19. The farmers counterclaimed seeking judicial review of the county's limitation on dairy size and alleging a § 1983 action in response to county's attempt to limit dairy size, and subsequently, the farmers sought partial summary judgment on the grounds that the county ordinance was void. Id. at 20. The district court granted the farmers' motion for partial summary judgment, held that Ordinance 66 was void, and dismissed Gooding County's complaint. Id. It later certified the partial judgment as final, and Gooding County appealed. Id.

Arguments

Gooding County alleged that Plaintiffs operated a dairy farm in 1996 with approximately 200 cows, but then increased the size of their dairy operation in violation of County Ordinances 60 and 66. Id. at 19. Plaintiffs counterclaimed seeking declaratory relief on the grounds that Ordinance 66 repealed all prior ordinances dealing with the regulation of CAFOs, and Plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to be registered under Ordinance 66 as an existing operation with 945 cows. Id. Plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment on the grounds that Ordinance 66 was void because one of the county commissioners violated Idaho law by participating in the proceedings to adopt the ordinance when he had an economic interest in the outcome. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

In an appeal from an order of summary judgment, all disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Id. "Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Id.

The court held that according to Idaho law, members or employees of a governing board, planning and zoning commission, or joint commission that have an economic interest in any procedure or action before the body are prohibited from participating in the zoning process. Id. at 20-21. In the case at bar, even though a member of the Board of Commissioners had an economic interest in the adoption of a new CAFO ordinance, the court found that alone did not make the ordinance void. Id. at 22. Finding that the interested commissioner's absence on the day ordinance 66 was adopted was enough to purge the taint from his earlier participation in the adoption process, the Supreme Court held that the district court erred in voiding the ordinance. Id.

The case was decided on April 23, 2002.