The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court ruling that upholds state preemption over local regulation of controlled animal feeding operations, rejecting challenges brought by Cedar County Commission and several other parties in a case that highlights the tension between state agricultural policy and local environmental concerns.
In *Cedar County Commission v. Governor Michael Parson* (Mo. 2023), the state's high court issued an opinion on March 21, 2023, affirming summary judgment in favor of Governor Michael Parson and other state officials. The appellants had challenged the validity of section 192.300.1 and its effect on local county ordinances regulating controlled animal feeding operations, commonly known as CAFOs.
The appellants in the case included Cedar County Commission, Cooper County Public Health Center, Friends of Responsible Agriculture Inc., Jefferson Jones, Susan Williams, and Fred Williams. Wanda Cassell later intervened and was added as a party. They faced off against respondents including Governor Parson, Gary Pendergrass as chair of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, Ashley McCarty as chair of the Missouri Clean Water Commission, Missouri Pork Association, and Missouri Cattlemens' Association.
The dispute originated from Cedar County's efforts to regulate large-scale animal feeding operations within its jurisdiction. In May 2016, Cedar County Commission adopted a public health ordinance regulating CAFOs, enacted pursuant to section 192.300, which authorized counties to enact public health ordinances provided they did not conflict with rules or regulations from the state Department of Health and Senior Services or the Department of Social Services.
The case centers on section 192.300.1, a state law that appears to limit local governments' authority to impose their own restrictions on agricultural operations. The appellants brought several challenges to the validity of this statutory provision and argued that it improperly interfered with local counties' ability to protect public health and environmental quality through CAFO regulations.
Controlled animal feeding operations have become a contentious issue across Missouri and other agricultural states, as these large-scale livestock facilities can generate significant environmental impacts including water pollution, air quality concerns, and odor issues that affect neighboring communities. Local governments often seek to regulate the placement, size, and operation of these facilities to protect residents and natural resources.
The Circuit Court of Cole County, presided over by Judge Daniel R. Green, initially heard the case and rejected all of the appellants' challenges. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state officials and agricultural organizations, finding that section 192.300.1 validly preempts local CAFO regulations.
In its brief opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court noted that it has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution and affirmed the circuit court's judgment without extensive elaboration on the legal reasoning.
The decision represents a victory for agricultural interests and state officials who argued that uniform statewide regulation of CAFOs is preferable to a patchwork of varying local ordinances. Agricultural organizations typically contend that consistent rules across jurisdictions provide certainty for farmers and livestock operators while preventing regulatory conflicts that could harm Missouri's significant agricultural economy.
Conversely, the ruling represents a setback for local government advocates and environmental groups who argue that communities should retain the ability to impose stricter protections than state minimums when addressing local environmental and public health concerns related to large-scale animal feeding operations.
The case reflects broader national debates about the appropriate level of government regulation for agricultural operations, particularly as livestock production has increasingly consolidated into larger facilities that can have regional environmental impacts extending beyond individual farm boundaries.
Missouri's agricultural sector represents a significant portion of the state's economy, with livestock and crop production generating billions of dollars in annual revenue. The state has sought to maintain business-friendly policies for agricultural operations while balancing environmental protection and public health considerations.
The Supreme Court's affirmation of state preemption in CAFO regulation may influence how other local governments across Missouri approach agricultural zoning and environmental protection ordinances. Counties seeking to regulate large-scale livestock operations will need to work within the framework established by state law rather than implementing independent local standards.
The decision also clarifies the scope of local government authority under section 192.300, establishing that while counties may enact public health ordinances, those regulations cannot conflict with or exceed the limitations imposed by state agricultural policy as codified in section 192.300.1.
For agricultural operators, the ruling provides greater regulatory certainty by confirming that state-level approval processes and standards will govern CAFO operations rather than potentially varying local requirements that could create compliance challenges across different jurisdictions.
The case underscores the ongoing tension between state and local authority in environmental regulation, particularly in areas where economic interests intersect with public health and environmental protection concerns. As agricultural operations continue to evolve and consolidate, similar disputes over regulatory authority are likely to emerge in Missouri and other agricultural states.