Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Unfiled Nutrition Management Plans
Subject to Disclosure

Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho State Dep't of Agriculture, 146 P.3d 632 (Idaho 2006), the Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the District Court of Ada County's ruling that nutrition management plans (NMPs) filed without using the Idaho OnePlan system were matters of public record available to the public regardless of whether the NMPs were no longer housed at the Idaho State Department of Agriculture.

Background

The plaintiff, Idaho Conservation League (ICL), brought an action against the defendant, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), requesting that various NMPs for cattle feedlots be disclosed under the Public Records Act. Id. at 633. The Idaho Legislature adopted the Beef Cattle Environmental Control Act, requiring beef cattle feedlot operators to provide an NMP for ISDA approval for each of their facilities. Id. The ISDA retained all the records of NMPs from various feedlots on file and routinely provided them to the ICL and others upon request. Id. Following an amendment to the law, the ISDA no longer retained the files and returned all NMPs to the respective feedlot operators. Id.

The ICL requested the NMPs for four feedlots, Aardema, Conversion, Sunnyside, and Big Sky, under the Public Records Act, and the ISDA could not provide the NMPs because the NMPs had been returned to the feedlot operators. Id. The ICL then brought this action. Id.

The district court held that the NMPs for Aardema and Conversion were public records available for public disclosure. Id. The district court also held that the NMPs for Sunnyside and Big Sky were not public records available for public disclosure because they were filed using the Idaho OnePlan which was exempted from disclosure. Id.

Arguments

The ISDA argued that the public had a right to inspect public records in its possession but, because it returned the NMPs to the feedlot operators, those records were not in its possession. Id. at 634. The ISDA furthered argued that the district court erred in its application of the term custodian. Id. at 635. The ICL argued that the district court erred in finding that the NMPs for Sunnyside and Big Sky were exempt from disclosure because they were filed using the Idaho OnePlan system. Id. at 636.

Analysis and Holdings

The court stated that it did not matter whether the ISDA had possession of the NMP, but rather whether the NMP is a "record subject to examination by the public." Id. at 634. "A public record includes . . . any writing containing information relating to the conduct or administration of the public's business prepared, owned, used or retained by a state agency." Id. (citing I.C. § 9-337(12)(11)). Therefore, a document can be a public record even when it is not retained by the agency. Id.

The court held that NMPs are public records because they are not exempted from the statute, and they can be examined by the public. Id. at 635. The court reasoned that the policy behind the statute made clear that the public had a right to examine public records, and that policy should not be thwarted because it is no longer housed with the ISDA. Id.

The court defined custodian as "the person having personal custody and control of the public records in question." Id. The court held that the discussion of who is a custodian for the purposes of the statute had no bearing on the case because it did not effect whether the NMPs are exempt from disclosure. Id.

The court found that the Aardema and Conversion NMPs were public records and they were not exempt from the statute. Id. Therefore, they may be examined by the public. Id.

Regarding the Sunnyside and Big Sky NMPs, the court held that these NMPs were not available for public inspection because the statue expressly provides that public records are available to the public unless expressly exempted by statute. Id. at 636. The court found that there was demonstrated legislative intent that the Idaho OnePlan was available for use in areas other than the soil conservation district provisions and applied to NMP information. Id. "The information submitted via the Idaho OnePlan 'shall be deemed to be trade secrets, production records or other proprietary information and shall be kept confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 9-340D, Idaho Code.'" Id. (citing I.C. § 22-2718(4)(f)). Therefore, an NMP submitted using the Idaho OnePlan system would be exempt from public disclosure. Id.

The case was decided on August 28, 2006; this summary was posted January 10, 2008.