CAFO speech given 14 Jan 2016 at County Commissioners Meeting in Vermillion approx 7:30PM

If anything this is going to improve my speech making.

Speech given before Clay County, South Dakota Commissioners on whether
they should allow CAFO's "confined animal feed operations" speaking of
cattle and pigs in enormous numbers, industrial scale, to enter the
county.

I AM OPPOSED to this CAFO idea

I spoke before to the planning commission, on this issue saying that
the gem and jewel of Clay County is the University of South Dakota in Vermillion and that CAFOs in the county would hinder and spoil and
work counter to having a University. The smell, the numerous huge
truck traffic, the noise, the pollution to ground water. And to the
treatment of animals for the trend is against confinement but a better
life for slaughter animals. And the trend towards meats where animals
roam pasture. And the trend recently that we should cut back on meats
as claimed by the National Health Institute that we eat far too much
meat and as dangerous as what tobacco smoke was in the past. Meat has
now been placed in the same category of health risks as is smoking.

I know of no graduates or undergraduates at USD eager to get a job
working for CAFO, and so that should tell the Commissioners that they
have a wrong fit, and that they should have never even bothered to
consider CAFOs. The first priority of any large new business is
whether it fits with existing conditions, a University in the county.
Have the Commissioners done their homework and found that USD would be
the first and only college that allows industrial animal feeding next
to the college? I know of no Iowa University that allows this. Will
USD be listed last as a school with a "good enough environment" or be
called the Mo Piglet U.

Look for new business that fits with the Univ SD, such as Google or
Apple locating here or say a Geothermal engineering firm or solar or
wind engineering firm.

Also, I believe the Commissioners, by even considering CAFOs have
broken a covenant and trust with past Commissioners and with all those
that built rural homes who planned for a mixed Clay County of rural
homes along with farming, not industrial animal feedlots. Their homes
would fall in price value drastically. Perhaps a 100,000 home falling
to 20,000 next to a CAFO. And worse, the homeowner seeing a 4 fold
increase in taxes on his now 20,000 home in order to pay for the
maintenance of the roads by CAFO trucks. How can any Commissioner
siding with CAFOs justify their endorsement when all the past
commissioners structured our county as a bipartisan mix of homes with
farming.

Has this Commission done its homework and whether a CAFO is industrial
zoning, no longer agriculture, and can a lawyer call for a lawsuit on
this matter?

I question the legality of having a few people of the Commissioners
voting on an issue that changes the entire landscape of this county's composition of homes mixed with farmland with University. Should such
a major change be passed by the "few imposing their will" on the many
and majority of people living here? In the case of Hyperion Oil
Refinery, in a different county, at least it was voted on by all the
residents.

Should such a major change to our County be left up to a few, or
should it be voted on by the many. I think in the South Dakota statues
of law that there must be a clause wherein a county faces a major
change, that the people vote for or against and not have the will of a
few impose their desire on the majority who do not want the change.

I do not know if the Governor of SD is calling for Clay County saying
"get those CAFOs in", since our previous governor was bent on
ramrodding in the Hyperion Oil Refinery with a Texas company to locate adjoining Clay County border. The will of a very few people imposing
themselves on the people and environment of Clay County.

If it is the Governor involved in this CAFO business, then he should
wisen up to the fact that there are good businesses and there are bad businesses for people and that no business is better then bringing in
bad business. Their job, is not to bring in every sort of new
business, but only good business.

Wisen up to the fact that South Dakota is loaded with Geothermal
especially in the Black Hills with its Hotsprings. And that if the
Governor wanted good great new business, develop those geothermals
such as what California has in the The Geysers producing 1517 MW of
electric power. I am convinced the Black Hills can supply the
electricity needs of not only all of South Dakota, and mothballing the
coal plants, but that the Geothermal of Black Hills can supply all the electricity needs of Nebraska and Iowa.

I do not know if Clay County has geothermals to build a electric
station, I do know, however, that I have a building on a concrete slab
with a geothermal well so that the building is 20-30 degrees cooler in
summer and 20-30 degrees warmer in winter without having to turn on
anything.

Geothermal is the future and South Dakota is blessed with geothermal,
so much so.

So, is our Governor a leader, a leader for our state and nation in
developing Geothermal, or is our governor backward looking and wanting
to develop industrial scale animal feed lots. Just to say-- I brought
in new business.

So, lets get smart and wise on bringing in business to Clay County.
Let us enhance the University, not make it the smell pig University,
for not even Iowa as far as I know allows CAFOs near its universities.
Let us consider only good businesses that fit into the existing
community and which makes us proud that we still have clean air to
breathe, not smelly, not noisy from trucks, and our water safe, and
our home values not fallen in price since we are surrounded by CAFOs.

AP

NOTE: I feel the opposition is not going to win this, and any suggestions by people would be appreciated. We finally won the battle of the oil refinery, but it looks like the CAFO is going to bowl us over. Can we demand this CAFO issue be put on a ballot
rather than have a few Commissioners decide?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)