∑ SB 163 has two goals. First it reduces the authority of counties to zone agriculture by stating that “counties shall be guided by the following policies of the state of South Dakota.” This language leaves counties to only decide where they want the agricultural districts located within the county.

∑ This bill also sets forth seven policies of the state that will homogenize zoning from border to border. These seven points are also written to limit counties' powers and give factory farms access to wherever they choose to set up and do not give solid thought to those counties who are experiencing growth.

∑ These policies tell counties to avoid urban sprawl, but not how to deal with it. Taking this head-in-the-sand approach will create more, not fewer, problems for our cities. Shouldn't we plan for and address growth rather than being in denial?

∑ Another point states that environmental protection is the concern of the state and federal government. Environmental protection is everyone's concern and it starts at the local level. People should be fully empowered to address environmental issues with their zoning ordinances. Who's drinking the water and breathing the air?

∑ The bill contains non-discrimination language that has a familiar and comforting ring accept for the phrase “or place of residence”. Discrimination against someone race, religion or sex is a vile thing, and we all should work hard to stamp it out. County zoning ordinances that require CAFO owners to live on their operation are not discriminatory in that same vile manner. This is simply language to allow investors to set up factory farms here in South Dakota while they live far away.

∑ Next, by removing all discretionary powers from the county commissioners on the granting of permits, it will take away your right to refer certain county zoning decisions! Counties will have to set up iron-clad zoning ordinances that leave no room for discussion or weighing the pros and cons of individual operations. This will make the granting of permits administrative, so that it is not referable by the people!

∑ Sioux Falls attorney Jim Abourezk has denounced the bill, saying that “SB 163 is designed to deprive South Dakotans of the right to vote on such matters as granting permits for giant hog factories, and is one of the sneakiest tricks I have ever seen attempted in the years I’ve observed politics in this state.” Abourezk represented citizen coalitions in Hutchinson and Bon Homme Counties who fought for their right to refer their county commissions' decisions allowing large-scale hog farms, a right reaffirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court. He said that the language in SB 163 was not apparent at first, unless a person was familiar with the Supreme Court's rulings on this issue.