8/14/2019 Appendix C: 1-23-10 Letter to Cassia Co BOCC

1/2

January 23, 2010

Mr. Dennis Crane, Chairman

Mr. Paul Christensen, CommissionerMr. Clay Handy, Commissioner

Cassia County Board of County Commissioners

Cassia County Courthouse1459 Overland Ave.

Burley, Idaho 83318

Greetings Mr. Chairman and Commissioners,

Let me begin by sending my sincere apologies for not being able to be in attendance for your

public hearing on Cassia Countys proposed chicken CAFO ordinance on January 11th. I hadevery intention of being there! However, an unforeseen emergency situation developed on the

Friday prior to your hearing, and I was unable to arrange a substitute representative in that time

frame. The emergency situation was this: We are currently at the table with variousstakeholders on Negotiated Rule-Making on Pathogen Drift from Dairies Utilizing Pressurized

Irrigation Systems. We discovered last moment that ISDA did not have the technology available

to facilitate a Skype presentation on Tuesday 1/12/10, that we had arranged by Johns HopkinsBloomberg School of Public Health researchers (who were, at that time, in Bermuda conducting

research). I spent the better part of the day of your hearing at ISDA with our I.T. expert and

ISDAs head I.T. person, addressing these technical issues . None of our members in Cassia

County were able to be in attendance due to work schedules.

That said, one of my members was kind enough to send me the audio C.D. of your deliberations

and I have just finished listening to the recording in its entirety. Based on that recording, I haveseveral items that I would like to address. My hope is that these comments will prompt the Board

to hold an additional hearing on the proposed change from a 4 mile biosecurity radius between

facilities to a 2 mile biosecurity radius for facilities with 50,000 birds or less.

1. I would like to extend ICAREs sincere thanks for the Boards evident careful and

thoughtful consideration of our comments. However, listening to the recording of thehearing, it was also evident that the Board or someone else had discussed the changes

proposed in our comments prior to the hearing and had already settled on the changes that

the Board would adopt. I am slightly troubled by this: as the discussion is not on record,

there is no way for ICARE (or anyone else, for that matter) to track how and why the

decisions to adopt certain changes and leave others were made. ICARE respectfullyrequests that the Board hold another hearing to discusson the recordcomments

submitted prior to the last hearing, and publicly deliberate the merits and rationale ofaccepting or rejecting proposed changes

2. Contrary to the lack of public discussion about ICAREs proposed changes, the Board did

have an extensive discussion about a changeproposed by industry representativestoroll back the draft ordinances 4-mile biosecurity radius between facilities to 2. However,

during the discussion, no logical reason was presented for the proposed change other than

8/14/2019 Appendix C: 1-23-10 Letter to Cassia Co BOCC

2/2

industrys preference. Instead, representatives of Hy-Line and Magic Valley Poultry

argued that the biosecurity area was just for biosecurity. In ICAREs opinion, this

circular argument does not provide an adequate basis for the Boards decision toimplement a substantial change to P&Zs draft ordinance. The Board had no discussion

and heard no testimony about what, exactly, biosecurity is or why the draft ordinance

called for a biosecurity zone in the first place. The Board did ask a P&Z Commissionerwho was present about P&Zs deliberations on this matter, but it did not publicly review

the record. Based on the question posed to the P&Z Commissioner, it appeared that the

Board did not review P&Zs deliberations pertaining to biosecurity areas beforeimplementing the change. All of this is in stark contrast to the treatment given changes

deemed unsubstantial that were recommended by ICARE and adopted by the Board. If

industrys proposed changes were truly not substantial, it is difficult to understand the

concern about the possibility of appeal evident on the recording. The Board was clearlyuncertain about whether the change was substantial, yet chose not to return the matter to

P&Z for review. Based on this, we request that the Board hold another hearing to

determine whether industrys proposed change is indeed substantial. The hearing should

include presentations about the reasons for biosecurity as well as a detailed review ofevidence, testimony, and other pertinent information related to biosecurity. If, based on

the evidence presented, the Board decides that the change is substantial, it should bereturned to P&Z for review.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Alma Hasse, Executive DirectorICARE

PO Box 922

Fruitland, ID 83619