Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-6529 (2026)

Applicability to agricultural land — Counties may regulate siting of certain animal operations and facilities. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Applicability to agricultural land — Counties may regulate siting of certain animal operations and facilities. 

(1) No power granted hereby shall be construed to empower a board of county commissioners to enact any ordinance or resolution which deprives any owner of full and complete use of agricultural land for production of any agricultural product. Agricultural land shall be defined by local ordinance or resolution.

(2)  Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a board of county commissioners shall enact ordinances and resolutions to regulate the siting of large confined animal feeding operations and facilities, as they shall be defined by the board, provided however, that the definition of a confined animal feeding operation shall not be less restrictive than the definition contained in section 67-6529C, Idaho Code, including the approval or rejection of sites for the operations and facilities. At a minimum, a county’s ordinance or resolution shall provide that the board of county commissioners shall hold at least one (1) public hearing affording the public an opportunity to comment on each proposed site before the siting of such facility. Several sites may be considered at any one (1) public hearing. Only members of the public with their primary residence within a one (1) mile radius of a proposed site may provide comment at the hearing. However, this distance may be increased by the board. A record of each hearing and comments received shall be made by the board. The comments shall be duly considered by the board when deciding whether to approve or reject a proposed site. A board of county commissioners may reject a site regardless of the approval or rejection of the site by a state agency.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Friends of Minidoka v. Jerome Cnty., 281 P.3d 1076 (Idaho 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends of Minidoka v. Jerome Cnty., 281 P.3d 1076 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 49× “The comments shall be duly considered by the board when *311 deciding whether to approve or reject a proposed site.”
Olson v. Ada Cnty., 665 P.2d 717 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 18× “The district court accepted respondent’s argument that I.C. § 67-6529 allows him to construct a dwelling house on the ten-acre parcel as part of his full and complete use of his agricultural land for the production of an agricultural product, ruling that respondent’s…”
Idaho Dairymen's Ass'n v. Gooding Cnty., 227 P.3d 907 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 10× “These provisions, as relied upon by Gooding County, demonstrate that the State has not comprehensively regulated CAFOs. The Associations also allege that the Ordinance has gone beyond traditional functions of planning and zoning, and consequently, the County has violated I.”
Chisholm v. Twin Falls Cnty., 75 P.3d 185 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 6× “The initial amendment, in April 2000, allowed the board of commissioners to "enact ordinances and resolutions to regulate the siting of large confined animal feeding operations and facilities, as they shall be defined by the board, including the approval or rejection of sites…”
Whitted v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 44 P.3d 1173 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 4× “In addition, Idaho Code § 67-6529 prevents regulations that deprive owners of the full and complete use of agricultural land.”
Taylor v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 210 P.3d 532 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 4× “Although LLUPA does not define "prime agricultural land," I.C. § 67-6529 sets forth that "agricultural land" is to be defined by local ordinance or resolution.”
Tidwell v. Blaine Cnty., 537 P.3d 1212 (Idaho 2023). · cites it 2× “3d at 1087 (quoting I.C. § 67-6529(2)). From 12 that, Plaintiffs extrapolate that their proximity to Parcel C, coupled with the potential for diminished property value, confers standing on them.”
Kirby Vickers & Cheryl Vickers v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. Of Commissioners (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “Although LLUPA does not define ―prime agricultural land,‖ I.C. § 67-6529 sets forth that ―agricultural land‖ is to be defined by local ordinance or resolution.”
— Idaho Code § 67-6529(1) — 1 case
Idaho Dairymen's Ass'n v. Gooding Cnty., 227 P.3d 907 (Idaho 2010). “These provisions, as relied upon by Gooding County, demonstrate that the State has not comprehensively regulated CAFOs. The Associations also allege that the Ordinance has gone beyond traditional functions of planning and zoning, and consequently, the County has violated I.”
— Idaho Code § 67-6529(2) — 3 cases
Friends of Minidoka v. Jerome Cnty., 281 P.3d 1076 (Idaho 2012). “The comments shall be duly considered by the board when *311 deciding whether to approve or reject a proposed site.”
Idaho Dairymen's Ass'n v. Gooding Cnty., 227 P.3d 907 (Idaho 2010). “These provisions, as relied upon by Gooding County, demonstrate that the State has not comprehensively regulated CAFOs. The Associations also allege that the Ordinance has gone beyond traditional functions of planning and zoning, and consequently, the County has violated I.”
Tidwell v. Blaine Cnty., 537 P.3d 1212 (Idaho 2023). “3d at 1087 (quoting I.C. § 67-6529(2)). From 12 that, Plaintiffs extrapolate that their proximity to Parcel C, coupled with the potential for diminished property value, confers standing on them.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.