show me lawyer blog and news

Howard County Health Ordinance

Posted by on Jul 26, 2018 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Below, find the entire text of the Howard County Health Ordinance, No. 2017-02, as currently in effect in Howard County, Missouri. This ordinance is subject to the advisory vote of the people of Howard County on August 7, 2017. If you would like to download the text in PDF format, a link is available at the bottom of the page.


ORDINANCE 2017-02     


WHEREAS, §192.300, RSMo, provides that the County commission may make and promulgate Ordinances as will tend to enhance the public health and prevent the entrance of infectious, contagious, communicable or dangerous diseases into such county; and

WHEREAS, §192.300, RSMo, provides that the County Commission may establish reasonable fees to pay for any costs incurred in carrying out such Ordinances and that any such fees generated shall be deposited in the county treasury and shall be used to support the public health activities for which they were generated; and

WHEREAS, §192.300, RSMo, provides that any person, firm, corporation or association which violates any such Ordinance adopted, promulgated, and published by the County Commission is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prosecuted, tried and fined as otherwise provided by law; and

WHEREAS, the County Commission or County Health Department has full power and authority to initiate the prosecution of any action under §192.300, RSMo; and

WHEREAS, H.B. No. 1207, 1288, 1408, and 1409 of the Missouri 88th General Assembly, §640.710.5, RSMo, recognizes that local controls may be used to regulate concentrated animal feeding operations; and

WHEREAS, health standards and criteria for concentrated animal feeding operations consistent with state law have been prepared based upon state law and professional studies presented to and considered by the Howard County Commission; and

WHEREAS, the adoption and enforcement of said standards is hereby found to be necessary in order to enhance the public health and prevent the entrance of infectious, contagious, communicable or dangerous diseases into Howard County; and

WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of Howard County, Missouri, passed and approved an ordinance establishing health regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations on April 24, 2017; and

WHEREAS, the County Commissioners now wish to clarify and revise, without changing the intent, certain portions of this ordinance;



Unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary, words used in the present tense include the future tense and words used in the plural include the singular. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings unless otherwise indicated:

1.1        ANIMAL UNIT (“AU”). A unit of measurement to compare various animal types at a concentrated animal feeding operation. One animal unit equals the following: 1.0 beef feeder or slaughter animal; 0.5 horse; 0.7 dairy cow; 2.5 swine weighing over 55 pounds; 15 swine under 55 pounds; 10 sheep; 30 laying hens; 55 turkeys; 100 broiler chickens or an equivalent animal unit. The total animal units at each operating location shall be determined by adding the animal units for each animal type.

1.2        ANIMAL UNIT EQUIVALENT. An equivalent animal type and weight that has a similar amount of manure produced as one of the animal unit categories set forth in the definition of “animal unit” herein. This also applies to other animal types which are not specifically listed.

1.3        ANIMAL WASTE. Any animal excrement, animal carcass, feed waste, animal water waste, or any other waste associated with animals.

1.4        ANIMAL WASTE WATER. Any animal excreta, any liquid which comes into contact with any manure, litter, bedding or other raw material or intermediate or final material or product used in or resulting from the production of animals or products directly or indirectly used in the operation of a CAFO, or any spillage or overflow from animal watering systems, or any liquid used in washing, cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, or manure pits, or any liquid used in washing or spraying to clean animals, or any liquid used for dust control on the premises of a CAFO.

1.5        APPLICATION. The injection of animal waste or animal waste water into the land.

1.6        CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION (“CAFO”). All land and/or a lot, facility, parcel, or operating location in which animals have been, are or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of forty-five (45) days or more in any twelve (12) month period and a ground cover of vegetation is not sustained over at least fifty percent (50%) of the animal confinement area. A “concentrated animal feeding operation” shall not include any land area, structure, lot, year, or corral or other area which does not meet the numerical threshold for animals as set forth in the classification system of §2 of this Ordinance. (For purposes of this definition, the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation means and refers collectively to an animal production facility which includes at least one feedlot, livestock lagoon, and a plant filter area. For the purposes of this definition, “animal confinement area” includes the buildings or structures, including feedlots, in which animals are confined, but does not include contiguous land used as plant filter areas over which liquid waste is applied and/or other areas upon which grass or crops are used for waste disposal, landscaping, or land upon which crops or other vegetation are raised independently from the animal feeding operations. A CAFO does not include a feeding operation that has a capacity of less than three-hundred (300) AU per acre).

1.7     CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. A construction permit/letter of approval required of a CAFO by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources pursuant to the Missouri Clean Water Law.

1.8     COUNTY HEALTH PERMIT. Written authorization issued by the Howard County Commission to construct, modify, or operate a CAFO.

1.9     DRY HANDLING WASTE. Manure (urine or feces), litter, bedding, or feedwaste from animal feeding operations.

1.10      FEEDLOT. Any land area, structure, lot, yard, or corral or other area, whether enclosed with a roof or unenclosed, wherein livestock are confined in close quarters for the purpose of fattening, feeding, growing, raising, or birthing such livestock for final shipment to market or slaughter. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, a lot or structure which contains three hundred (300) AU’s per acre for the foregoing purposes shall be considered a feedlot. A feedlot does not include unenclosed pasture areas which are used for the raising of crops or other vegetation upon which livestock are allowed to graze or feed.

1.11      LAND. Any plot, parcel, lot or other area of land owned or leased by the CAFO to qualify for the capacity of “1 acre per 4 AU” formula for wet handling or “1 acre per 8 AU” formula for dry handling.

1.12      LEASE. A written contract for the exclusive use of real property, which contract specifically grants unto the lessee the right to apply animal waste and animal waste water to the leased premises.

1.13      LIVESTOCK. Cattle, sheep, swine, poultry, and other animals or fowl, which are being produced primarily for use as food or food products for human consumption.

1.14      LIVESTOCK LAGOON. An excavated, diked, or walled area designed for the biological stabilization, treatment and/or storage of liquid wastes generated by a feedlot.

1.15      NUTRIENT APPLICATION LEVELS. The levels of nutrients applied to the plant filter area.

1.16      OCCUPIED DWELLING. Any residence, or any church, school or business which has been in use at any time during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the date upon which a permit is issued by the Department of Natural Resources for the construction of a CAFO. In regard to “setback” distance, cemeteries, conservation areas, and public use areas will be treated the same as occupied dwellings.

1.17    OPERATING PERMIT. An operating permit and/or letter of approval required of a CAFO by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources pursuant to the Missouri Clean Water Law.

1.18    OWNER. Anyone who owns, either individually and/or with any other persons, any of

the following interests in the real property upon which a CAFO is situated:

1.18.1 Fee simple title,

1.18.2 A leasehold interest,

1.18.3 Any interest in an entity which holds fee simple title; or

1.18.4 Any interest in any entity which has a leasehold interest.

1.19    PERSON. Includes natural persons and also includes corporations, partnerships, associations, and any other business or charitable entities, including a natural person who has supervisory authority over the operation of a CAFO, whether or not such person is an owner of the CAFO, and a natural person who applies animal waste or animal waste water originating from the CAFO.

1.20    PLANT FILTER AREA. Land used or reserved for the application of liquid wastes from a Livestock Lagoon.

1.21    POPULATED AREA: Any circular area inscribed by a radius of 1,442 feet and a circumference of 9,059 feet (this area includes no more than one hundred fifty [150] acres) and that has at least ten (10) occupied dwellings. Areas on CAFO property are excluded from this area. The area is measured in a straight line from the nearest occupied dwelling to the nearest CAFO confinement building, confinement lot or other confinement area, or waste handling facility. (See Figure 1).

1.22    SETBACK: The distance for the CAFO facility to the nearest occupied dwelling not on CAFO property, as measured in a straight line from the occupied dwelling to the nearest CAFO confinement building, confinement lot, other confinement area, or water handling facility.

1.23    SLOPE: The vertical drop divided by the horizontal distance of a land area multiplied by one-hundred, and expressed as a percentage.

1.24 WET HANDLING WASTEWATER: Water containing waste or contaminated by waste contact, including process-generated and contaminated rainfall runoff.



2.1       A Class I CAFO is one that has capacity of 2,000 or more AU.

2.2       A Class II CAFO is one that has a capacity of 1,500 to less than 2,000 AU.

2.3       A Class III CAFO is one that has a capacity of 1,000 to less than 1,500 AU.

2.4       A Class IV CAFO is one that has a capacity of 300 to less than 1, 000 AU.



3.1     No CAFO shall be constructed, operated, used, or established within Howard County unless a County Health Permit has been issued by the Howard County Commission. To apply for a County Health Permit, the proposed CAFO shall submit to the County Commission all of the application materials submitted to the Department of Natural Resources for an operating permit and an application fee as established by the Howard County Commission pursuant to Section 11 of this Ordinance. If the CAFO is issued an Operating Permit, and if the proposed CAFO meets the requirements of this Ordinance, then the County Commission shall also issue a County Health Permit. If the proposed CAFO is not subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), then to apply for a County Health Permit the proposed CAFO shall submit a plan to the County Commission showing the location of the proposed facility, the number of proposed animal units, the proposed method and location of animal waste disposal and the name and address of the owner of the land on which the CAFO will be located, if different from the owner of the CAFO. In such case, if the County Commission determines that the proposed CAFO complies in every respect with the terms of this Ordinance, then the County Commission shall issue a County Health Permit.

3.2        An application for a County Health Permit shall be submitted to the County Commission for approval. The County Commission may refer the application to the Howard County Health Department for its review and recommendations. The recommendation of the Howard County Health Department may be reported to the County Commission at the public hearing prescribed in Section 3.3 of this Ordinance. The recommendation of the County Health Department may be considered as evidence at such hearing, but shall not be considered binding on the Howard County Commission.

3.3       At least one public hearing shall be held by the County Commission before approving any County Health Permit. Such public hearing may be continued from time to time and additional hearings may be held. The receipt and consideration of evidence at said hearings shall comply with the requirements of §536.070, RSMo.

3.4     Once a CAFO has received a County Heath Permit, the CAFO must apply for a renewal of said permit each calendar year. All applications for renewal permits shall be submitted, along with the applicable renewal fee, at least thirty (30) days prior to the anniversary date of the issuance of the initial County Health Permit. If the County Commission determines that the CAFO has complied in all respects with the permit previously issued, then the County Commission may issue the renewal permit. Otherwise, the County Commission shall not issue a renewal permit and the CAFO immediately shall cease operation.

3.5       It shall be a violation of this Ordinance and unlawful for any person to operate a CAFO without first obtaining a County Health Permit from the County Commission.

3.6       It shall be a violation of this Ordinance and unlawful for any person to operate a CAFO with a number of Animal Units in excess of the number specified in the permit issued by the County Commission.

3.7       It shall be a violation of this Ordinance and unlawful for any person to apply animal waste or animal waste water in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Ordinance.



Prior to issuance of a County Health Permit, the County Commission shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the following:

4.1       The proposed CAFO shall be in compliance with the provisions of Sections 4 through 7 of this Ordinance, as applicable.

4.2       All Livestock Feedlots and Livestock Lagoons shall be designed in such a manner as to avoid the degradation of the quality of surface or subsurface waters, water courses or other bodies of water.

4.3       All Livestock Feedlots and Livestock Lagoons shall be designed in such a manner as to avoid the degradation of air quality. In no event shall the concentration of gases at the boundary of the land resulting from the operation of a Livestock Lagoon or Livestock Feedlot exceed the following levels:

Gas                                Maximum Allowable                Exposure Period2


Carbon Dioxide (CO2)               5000                                    not applicable

Ammonia (NH3)                     5                                        not applicable

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)                  10                                          2 hours

Methane (CH4)                   1000                                    not applicable

Carbon Monoxide (CO)                  50                                         One hour

In parts of pure gas per million parts of atmospheric-air.

2 The time during which the effects of the noxious gas are felt by an adult human or a 150-pound livestock.

4.4      The applicant shall demonstrate that the soils on the premises, including any soil-plant filter area, are suitable for and compatible with the proposed Livestock Feedlot operations with respect to the location of Livestock Lagoons and the application of liquid, slurry or solid animal waste onto or into the soil on the premises. Further, no animal waste from a Livestock Lagoon shall be applied when soils are water saturated, frozen, or covered with snow, or when other soil conditions would result in waste runoff.

4.5      The Livestock Feedlot of Livestock Lagoon shall demonstrate that it shall at all times be operated in compliance with any required local, state or federal permits, licenses or other approvals, and in compliance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations.

4.6      The CAFO shall own or lease one acre of land for each 4 AU of capacity for wet handling systems or must own or lease one acre for each 8 AU of capacity for a dry waste handling system as specified in the County Health Permit. The land must be in a contiguous tract for all wet handling systems. The Nutrient Application Levels for the CAFO shall comply with Appendix A hereto, which Appendix A is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in its entirety herein.

4.7        Animal waste and animal waste water from a CAFO shall not be applied to land with a slope greater than 10%.

4.8        Animal waste water injected or knifed into the soil shall not be applied within one-thousand (1,000) feet of an occupied dwelling which existed prior to the date the CAFO is constructed. Dry animal waste shall not be applied within five-hundred (500) feet of an occupied dwelling which existed prior to the date the CAFO is constructed. This rule shall not apply to occupied dwellings owned by the CAFO. The owner of an occupied dwelling may apply for a variance from this rule as part of the application for a County Health Permit.

4.9        Animal waste and animal waste water shall not be applied within one-thousand (1,000) feet of any sink hole or well or spring or other water supply or one-hundred (100) feet from any stream (including intermittent streams) or strip pits. This rule shall not apply to waste lagoons on the CAFO property, but shall apply to all other wells, water supplies, streams, ponds, strip pits, lakes, springs and sink holes on the CAFO property.

4.10      No County Health Permit shall be issued for a livestock and/or poultry manure storage system or other system of manure storage that is of like and similar nature that prevents feedlot runoff unless such manure storage system is in compliance with all Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) regulations for the control of wastes from livestock feedlots, poultry lots and other animal lots and said manure storage system has obtained a permit from DNR, if necessary, for the pollution control devices to be installed. Such manure storage systems shall be located at least two-thousand (2,000) feet from an existing residence.



5.1        No CAFO shall be located within one mile of any Class I CAFO and no Class I CAFO will be located within one mile of any other CAFO. No Class11,11I or IV CAFO shall be located within three-fourths (3/4) mile of any Class II CAFO. No Class III or IV CAFO shall be located within one-half (1/2) mile of any Class III CAFO. No Class IV CAFO shall be located within one-fourth (1/4) mile of any Class IV CAFO. The distance shall be measured from the nearest point of one CAFO’s confinement or waste containment system.

Setback Distances

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Class I

1 mile

1 mile

1 mile

1 mile

Class II

1 mile

3/4 mile

3/4 mile

3/4 mile

Class III

1 mile

3/4 mile

1/2 mile

1/2 mile

Class IV

1 mile

3/4 mile

1/2 mile

1/4 mile


5.2 No Class IV CAFO shall be located within 1,000 feet of an occupied dwelling. No Class III CAFO

shall be located,within one-fourth mile of an occupied dwelling. No Class II CAFO shall be located with one-half mile of an occupied dwelling. No Class I CAFO shall be located within three-fourths of a mile of an occupied dwelling, and this setback requirement shall increase by one-fourth of a mile for each 500 AU (or fractional portion thereof) of capacity in excess of 2,000 AU. This rule shall not apply to occupied dwellings owned by the CAFO or to dwellings not in existence at the time of issuance of the County Health Permit.

Size of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

Minimum Distances From Occupied Dwellings


3/4 mile


1/2 mile


1/4 mile


1,000 feet

5.3        No Class I CAFO shall be located within two (2) miles of a populated area. This setback shall increase one-fourth (1/4) mile for each 500 AU (or fractional portion thereof) of authorized capacity in excess of 2,000 AU.



6.1        No health permit shall be issued unless adequate security has been furnished to ensure proper cleanup and disposal as required by sections 6.2 and 6.3 hereto.

6.2        A cash or surety bond shall be furnished to the Howard County Treasurer for any manure storage system. A manure storage system may include one or more lagoons at any single CAFO. If the bond is a surety bond, the surety shall be approved by the County Commission and found to be of reputable character and financially sound with respect to the obligation incurred. The bond shall be furnished before construction and during the operating period. The bond shall remain with the County Treasurer until the operator has complied with all Federal, State and Local laws in operation of the facility and until the prompt clean up and proper disposal of any waste improperly handled or disposed of at the facility and restoration of the premises upon which the facility is operated. If a cash bond is posted, all interest earned thereon shall become part of the bond subject to terms and conditions, including the condition of release. The County Commission shall give approval before release of the bond.

6.3      The cash or surety bond schedule is as follows:

6.3.1. Class IV- No bond required

6.3.2. Class III- $30,000.00

6.3.3. Class II- $50,000.00

6.3.4. Class I – $70,000.00 and $20,000.00 for each additional 500 AU over the 2,000 AU



Where, due to an extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition of a specific piece of property, the strict application of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to, or an exceptional and demonstrable undue hardship upon, the owner of the property as an unreasonable deprivation of use as distinguished from the mere grant of a privilege, the County Commission may authorize, as part of the application for a County Health Permit, a variance from the strict application so as to relieve said demonstrable difficulties or hardships, provided the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent, purpose, and integrity of the regulations, standards and criteria established in this Ordinance.



A CAFO lawfully in existence at the time of the enactment of Ordinance 2017-02 is exempt from the terms and conditions of this Ordinance. A CAFO lawfully in existence after the enactment of Ordinance 2017-02 is exempt from any terms and conditions of this Ordinance that were not established in Ordinance 2017-02. However, before a CAFO in existence at the time of the enactment of this Ordinance may expand or change its operation in terms of a change of classification or amount or manner in which animal waste or animal waste water is applied or disposed of, the CAFO shall be in compliance with this Ordinance in every respect and shall obtain a new County Health Permit.



The proper disposal of dead animals and after-birthing material shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of occurrence.



10.1   No application for approval of a County Health Permit shall be accepted until the applicant has paid all processing fees as set forth below. Fees paid shall be non-refundable except as provided in Section 10.4 below.

10.2   The fee amount shall not exceed the amount needed to recover the cost of inspection,

investigation and review of the proposed application, which fee amounts are based upon the anticipated costs of review, inspection and investigation, and which fee amounts have taken into consideration the need for special investigative services including geologic inspections, hydrologic inspections, groundwater monitoring, soils evaluation, and other unique costs of a scientific or technical nature associated with the processing of the application. For purposes of this Ordinance, the administrative fee amounts shall be as follows:

Classification of CAFO


Class I


Class II


Class III


Class W


10.3                There shall be established with the County Treasurer an escrow fund for each application for a County Health Permit, for the purposes of reimbursing the County Commission and the County Health Department for services rendered in connection with administration of this Ordinance. Said escrow account shall include the proceeds of project review fees established pursuant to this Section. The funds contained in said escrow account shall be used solely to reimburse the County Commission or County Health Department for actual costs associated with administration of this Ordinance, for actual services rendered for investigation, administration and processing of a County Health Permit including costs associated with the retaining and compensation of experts on scientific and technical issues associated with the application, and costs associated with public hearings. The County Treasurer shall disburse payments based upon billings supplied by the County Commission or the County Health Department and approved by Commission.

10.4 The applicant for a County Health Permit may apply to the County Commission for a credit against the fee previously paid in the event that a portion of the costs of review and processing is duplicative, pursuant to the standards of applicable case law or statutes then in effect. After the approval, conditional approval or denial of a County Health Permit, the County Treasurer shall refund to the applicant any unexpended or unencumbered balance of the escrow account established pursuant to this Section or said application.



Any person violating this Ordinance shall be subject to punishment by imprisonment or fine as provided by law. Each day a person operates a CAFO in violation of this Ordinance, and each time a person applies animal waste or animal waste water in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Ordinance, shall be considered a separate offense.



The chapters, sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by the valid judgement or decree of any Court of competent jurisdictions, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or sections of this ordinance since the same would have been enacted by the Board of County Commissioners without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional or invalid phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section.



Whenever any part of this ordinance shall be repealed or modified, either expressly or by implication, by a subsequent ordinance, that part of the ordinance thus repealed or modified shall continue in force until the subsequent ordinance repealing or modifying the ordinance shall go into effect unless therein otherwise expressly provided; but no suit, prosecution, proceeding, right, fine or penalty instituted, created, given, secured or accrued under this ordinance previous to its repeal shall be affected, released, or discharged but may be prosecuted, enjoined, and recovered as fully as if this ordinance or provisions had continued in force, unless it shall be therein otherwise expressly provided.


This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Board of County Commissioners, except as provided above.





The Department of Natural Resources recommends using a “Plant Available Nitrogen” (PAN) approach to determine the nitrogen application rates for animal manure and wastewaters. Other cookbook methods, such as the “Conservative” and “Intensive” management approaches are based on average textbook numbers. The actual nitrogen content of any individual operation may vary significantly from the textbook average numbers; thus, actual testing results from each operation should be used.


The PAN method uses actual on-site testing results as a basis to develop and implement a specific land application plan that is tailored to each individual operation. The land application rates are based on the amount of nitrogen that will be available for crop uptake during the growing season. This requires testing applied wastes and soils; predicting and recording crop yields; and calculating nitrogen removal for each specific operation. Predicted nitrogen volatilization, denitrification and mineralization rates are used to determine the plant available nitrogen. Thus, the organic wastes from the animal feeding operations are utilized as a “nutrient resource.” The recommended nitrogen availability rates for the PAN approach are shown below. Alternative nitrogen availability rates on a site-specific basis may be considered by the department upon submittal of adequate documentation. See reference #1 and #3.

PAN Formula: wPAN = CNR — span

CNR = pounds per acre of nitrogen utilized by harvested crop:
[crop yield unit/acre] x [lbs N/yield unit] x [% crop removal]

sPAN = soil PAN in pounds per acre:

[% organic matter in soil] x [OR rate]

OR = nitrogen availability rate for soil organic matter based on soil CEC and crop season (See Reference #2 and #5):

Summer crops: 10 for CEC 18; 20 for CEC 10-18; 40 for CEC 510.

Winter crops:  5 for CEC 18; 10 for CEC 10-18; 20 for CEC 5 10.

wPAN = wastewater PAN application rate in pounds per acre:
[(TKN-ammonia N) x MR] + [ammonia N x VR] x [nitrate N x.9]

MR = nitrogen availability rate for mineralization: Mineralization of organic nitrogen in animal manure is slowly raised over the first five years but reaches constant by the fifth year when animal wastes are added every year. See reference #3.

Waste Type

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5 +

Lagoons: all animal types






Poultry: Slurry/dry litter






VR= nitrogen availability rate for volatilization + denitrification: Ammonia nitrogen availability varies depending on weather conditions and application method. Department recommends factors (See Reference #3):

VR= .60 for sprinkler irrigation or surface application; and
VR= .90 for surface application followed by incorporation.


Crop yields should be based on actual measured yields for each field. Crop uptake of nitrogen should be based on nitrogen uptake per actual unit (ton or bushel) of crop removed from the field. Annual crop nitrogen rates for pasture land and for land in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) should not exceed a PAN of 65 pounds/acre/year. See Reference #2 and #5.


Soil testing should be conducted in the spring of each year as near as possible to the start of water application for the year. Soil PAN (sPAN) is predicted based on soil testing for percent (%) Organic Matter times the nitrogen availability factor. This method predicts nitrogen availability from plant residues but does not predict original matter added by animal wastes. New predictive methods such as the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT) may also be considered.


Material to be land applied should be tested for Nitrogen as follows:

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogren (TKN) as N;

Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) as N; and

Nitrate/Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3/NO2) as N.

Wastewater, sludge and biosolids should be sampled and tested separately if each is to be land applied. Anaerobic lagoon wastewater samples must be collected at lagoon depths and locations which represent the range of lagoon water levels to be removed. Samples should be collected at the same relative depth as the irrigation pump intake level. If a lagoon is to be stirred or mixed to facilitate removal, the sample should be collected immediately after stirring and again near the completion of pumping.

Plant Available Nitrogen from applied wastes (wPAN) should be based on testing as near as possible to when wastes will be land applied. Testing should be conducted once every two to three months during land application periods. Nitrogen content may vary significantly throughout the year due to differences in moisture content, animal diet, stocking rates, rainfall amounts, temperature, and other factors. For example the nitrogen content in a swine lagoon varies by as much as 30 percent depending upon the season of the year. See Reference #4, Table 37.


Nitrogen is only one of the nutrient factors that should be considered when developing a nutrient management plan for each field. Contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) concerning how to develop a complete Nutrient Management Plan. See Reference #5.



Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), April 1992.

Soil Test Interpretations and Recommendations Handbook, University of Missouri Department of Agronomy, December 1992.

Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, MWPS-18, Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, Second Edition, 1985.

Missouri Approach to Animal Waste Management, Manual 115, University of Missouri Extension, 1979.

Nutrient Management, Missouri Conservation Practice Standard 590, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), July 1993.


If you have any questions regarding this publication, please contact Frank Miller or Ken Arnold at (573) 751-1300.

This information was revised January 23, 1997, by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Program, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102.



 Howard McMillan, Western District Commissioner

 Richand Conrow, Eastern County Commissioner

 Sam Stroupe, Presiding Commissioer





Health Ordinance (PDF format, 165 kB)

Supreme Court extends Sales Tax to Dance Classes

Posted by on Jan 16, 2016 in Local Government Concerns | 0 comments

Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court determined that dance classes were subject to state sales tax because they are fun, as well as educational. Will this open the door for taxing yoga classes or karate classes? And what does that mean for local governments who also impose sales taxes?

In the case, Miss Dianna’s School of Dance v. Director of Revenue (SC95102), the Supreme Court agreed with the State Director of Revenue and instructed the dance school to pay over $18,000 for past due sales taxes from 2007 to 2009. Under Missouri law, the state imposes a 4% sales tax on admission charges or fees paid to any place of amusement, entertainment or recreation, and the Director of Revenue determined that that tax included dance classes.

The state law has an exception for educational classes, and for years, Miss Dianna’s School claimed their classes were primarily educational, and therefore, not subject to tax. However, the Supreme Court decided that because fun and diversion were a substantial part of the dance classes, they were subject to tax under Missouri law. The Court looked at three factors, but the top consideration was how the company held itself out to the public. In Miss Dianna’s case, the school often advertised that their classes were “full of energy, fun and structure.” These words helped subject the school to the sales tax.

This case could bring significant changes to the businesses which will be required to collect sales taxes as part of their classes. The taekwondo dojang that advertises its classes as fun and focused could now be mandated to collect sales tax, and if it fails to do so, the Director of Revenue could impose fines and interest upon the amount that should be collected. Likewise for the yoga program that promotes itself as a relaxing method to live healthier.

Places of amusement have always been subject to this particular sales tax, but the new decision by the Supreme Court will require businesses to reconsider whether the programs they offer are solely educational, or if they have a component of fun and diversion. If they are fun, program managers should strongly consider whether they should start collecting sales taxes on their program fees.

Promissory Estoppel & the Statute of Frauds

Posted by on Mar 3, 2015 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Missouri law includes a Statute of Frauds, which requires all transactions involving real estate to be made in writing.[1] The purpose of the statute is two-fold. First, it encourages the parties to take such agreements seriously by requiring them to formalize their agreement into writing. Second, the requirement ensures that there is good evidence relating to the transaction, because the sale of land is a significant exchange. A written agreement provides the greatest proof when a dispute arises.

However, shortly after the drafting of the Statute of Frauds, Missouri courts recognized that there are situations which need to be excepted from the written requirement of the statute. These exceptions fall into three broad categories: first, when it is necessary to prevent individuals from using the statute to defraud one of the parties; second, when the doctrine of promissory estoppel may be used to remove an oral contract from the statute’s written requirements; and finally, when there has been full or partial performance by one of the parties.[2] These three categories are closely linked, as most situations will trigger multiple concerns.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to enforce an agreement when one party has partially fulfilled their portion of the agreement. Specifically, promissory estoppel requires four elements: First, there must be a promise made between the parties. Second, one of the parties must rely on the promise to their detriment. Third, the non-relying party must have reasonably expected the other party to rely on the promise. Finally, there must be an injustice in allowing the non-relying party to escape from enforcement of the promise. The focus of promissory estoppel is that it would be unjust to allow one party to breach the oral contract after the other party has already fulfilled their portion of the agreement. Promissory estoppel is derived from the court’s equitable power to grant relief even when there may not be a written agreement.

In Missouri, an oral contract can be valid and enforceable, even if it would normally violate the Statute of Frauds, if one person has partially fulfilled their responsibility under the contract.[3] This approach recognizes that the second goal of the State of Frauds (providing good evidence of an agreement) can be met by showing that one party has acted to their detriment in reliance upon the contract. For example, if a party has already conveyed a portion of real estate, the court will consider that as strong evidence that an agreement existed, even if it was not made in writing. It also recognizes that Missouri courts possess great power in equity to craft remedies to address issues of significant injustice.

[1] RSMO § 432.010 (A contract for the sale of land is one among several types of contracts that must be made in writing under this statute.)

[2] Mika v Central Bank of Kansas City, 112 S.W.3d 82, 88 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003)

[3] Shumate v. Dugan, 934 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996)

Expenses of Probate Administration

Posted by on Feb 27, 2014 in Estate Planning | 0 comments

Many people do not realize that a Last Will & Testament must be probated by the court following their death. This process can be lengthy and often runs from at least six months up to several years before all of the property is finally distributed. Additionally, the process can incur significant fees that may deplete the estate’s assets. Careful planning in advance can help ensure that your assets will be distributed quickly and efficiently following your death.

Through the probate process, a personal representative or executor must be appointed to manage your estate while it is being probated. One of the first duties of the personal representative is to complete an inventory of the estate detailing every asset that is to be distributed. Then, the estate must publish notice in the newspaper announcing to any creditors that they may file a claim against your estate for any past due bills. After the publication, the estate must remain open for a minimum of six months to allow creditors time to file their claims. Once all of the claims are filed, the personal representative must determine which claims should be paid and which need not be. After the claims are paid, property may need to be liquidated if it cannot be distributed in its present form.

Although a good attorney can handle many of the details of the probate process, the personal representative or executor must still participate in reviewing and approving documents for the court. Because of the waiting periods and court schedule, most probate cases take approximately nine to fourteen months to resolve. However, large estates may take longer, while smaller estates may be completed in a more timely fashion.

In addition to the length of the process, many people are concerned with the expenses associated with probate administration. Along with court fees and publication costs, both the personal representative and estate attorney are entitled to a statutory percentage under Missouri law. This percentage is based upon the value of all of the assets of the estate that are involved in the probate process. An example of these fees is provided below:

Example 1 (Estate Value of $150,000)


Personal Representative Fee

Estate Attorney Fee

For the first $5,000 (5%)



For the next $20,000 (4%)



For the next $75,000 (3%)



For the next $300,000 (2.75%)



Total Fees:



Total Fees Paid by Estate:


In Example 1, an estate of $150,000 in assets is a reasonably modest estate. It may include a house, a vehicle or two, a small pension or other bank accounts and miscellaneous person property. However, the fees paid during the administration of such a modest estate quickly become rather substantial during the probate process. And of course, in larger estates, the expenses of probate administration can become even higher.

Although there are some benefits to probate administration, many people prefer to utilize other methods to distribute their property to save the time and money of their heirs. If you would prefer to have your assets distributed without the hassle of the probate process, you should discuss your wishes with your attorney. He or she can provide you with valuable insights and help you ensure that your property will be distributed following your wishes in the most efficient way possible.

Sunshine Law & the Tentative Agenda

Posted by on Dec 4, 2013 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Sunshine Law & the Tentative Agenda

Allowing citizens to participate in government is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. The Missouri Sunshine law outlines standards for governmental agencies to ensure that they open their information to the general public. One of those standards requires agencies to provide notice of their upcoming meetings so that the public can attend. And the law outlines specific requirements for those notices that ensure the public has certain details about the upcoming meeting.

Before each meeting, a public agency must post a notice of the meeting that provides the date, time and place of the upcoming meeting. If local news agencies have requested notice of the meetings, the agency should send copies of the notice to those news outlets. The notice should also be posted in a public place at the agency’s primary business location, or at the location where the meeting is held.

In addition to the above details, the notice of the meeting should include a tentative agenda to be followed by the public body. There is nothing in the statute that limits the agency’s ability to alter or add to the tentative agenda at the actual meeting itself, as the law only requires a tentative agenda. Some public agencies begin their meetings by offering the opportunity for members to add items to the agenda. Although publishing every item to be discussed is certainly a best practice, agencies are not prevented from adding items by law.

The notice for the meeting must be posted at least twenty-four hours before the scheduled meeting, unless an emergency situation dictates otherwise. In the event of such an emergency, the agency should take care to note the emergency in the meeting minutes, so that there is a clear record of what events prevented the posting of the notice in advance.

Complying with the Missouri Sunshine law not only protects the public agency from lawsuits, but it also ensures that the citizens of the community have a fair opportunity to participate in the business of our government. And since citizen participation is one of the founding principles of the United States democracy, it is certainly a goal worth putting a little extra time into pursuing.

Closing County Roads in Missouri

Posted by on Nov 7, 2013 in Agricultural & Farming Issues, Local Government Concerns | 0 comments

Missouri county roads are the lifeline of the local community in many ways. They allow goods and merchandise to be transported to and from the local residents and businesses. They also provide avenues that help connect friends and family for weekend visits and holidays. And they provide the daily backbone of travel to and from work and entertainment that brings together our homes with the outside world.


County roads also place a large responsibility on the local government to manage and maintain often hundreds of miles of paved, gravel or dirt roads. Occasionally, those roads that best suited one generation become less important, or even and unnecessary burden years later. County roads that fall out of public use can be vacated, or released from government control in two ways. The Missouri statutes provide a formal process to vacate a county road (RSMO § 228.110), as well as the option to vacate a road simply through non-use (RSMO § 228.190).

The more formal process begins when twelve local citizens petition the County Commission to order that the road be vacated. The petition must be presented and read by the commission on the first day of the term, which may be the first Monday in January, April, July or October. Notice of the petition must be posted in three public places for a period of twenty days, and all persons whose lands are crossed or touched by the road must be served with a copy of the petition. Finally, the petition must be read again on the first day of the next term of the County Commission, and this reading is generally followed by a hearing held by the commission.

This process is designed to give landowners, and others interested in using the county road, an opportunity to be heard and participate in the decision making process. Because closing a road can have significant effects upon those whose land borders the road, they must receive direct notice through service of a petition. Others may learn of the request by reading the notices posted in public places. Those who may disagree with the vacation of the roadway should have an opportunity to protest and be a part of the discussion before the County Commission.

The second method for vacating a roadway is based upon the failure of the public to use the roadway. When a county road has been abandoned for an extended period of time, the law presumes that the road is no longer a public roadway. In the State of Missouri, this period must be no less than five years. However, the abandonment by the public must be clear, and even infrequent or intermittent use by members of the public is sufficient to defeat a claim of abandonment. The state law has a strong presumption against abandonment of public roadways, so the petitioner has a heavy burden in showing that the county road has been abandoned. However, if abandonment can be proven, there is no need for a formal petition to be heard by the County Commission.

Roadways are a vital asset of the community. But, for neighboring property owners, and for the citizens that pay taxes, roads that are rarely used or poorly maintained do little to assist anyone. The laws of the State of Missouri allow such roads to be closed and for the land to revert back to the appropriate landowners when it is clear that the road will no longer be used for public use.


Impeachments for Mayors & City Councils

Posted by on Nov 5, 2013 in Local Government Concerns | 0 comments

Impeachments for Mayors & City Councils

Our system of government provides many checks and balances to ensure that no one individual can amass too much authority. One of those important checks allows a legislative body to impeach elected officials who may step outside their bounds. For city councils, they may occasionally be faced with mayor or alderman who continuously goes beyond their authority in taking actions on behalf of the city. Or they may have to deal with an elected official who disregards the law and is causing a disruption to the city operation.

It is clear that Missouri law provides only one method to remove a member of the Board of Alderman from office: Impeachment. RSMO § 79.240 allows the mayor, or a member of the Board of Aldermen, to be removed from office with the consent of two-thirds vote of all members of the board. The removal must be based upon “cause shown,” which Missouri courts have interpreted to include any legally sufficient ground or reason for the impeachment.[1] The reason should relate to, or effect, the administration of the office and be related to the rights and interests of the public. Such reasons could include an act of improperly performing his duty, exceeding his authority or failing to fulfill his responsibilities.[2]

Any process for impeachment should afford the mayor, or other official, notice of the allegations made against him and the opportunity to be heard. These are the basic due process rights that are protected by both our state and federal constitutions. Because of these requirements, the standard practice for impeaching an elected official includes two steps. First, the governing body adopts the Articles of Impeachment which outlines the accusations made against the offending official. Then, an impeachment hearing is scheduled. Both steps of this process would be open to the public under the Missouri Sunshine Law.

At the impeachment hearing, the agency’s attorney presents the case for impeachment to the governing body, while the official may be represented by private counsel. Witnesses and other evidence can be adduced in the same manner as would occur at a trial, and it is then up to the Board of Alderman to consider the impeachment evidence. At the conclusion of the evidence, the governing body votes upon the Articles of Impeachment. In the case of a municipality, a two-thirds vote is required upon at least one article to result in an impeachment. In the event an official is impeached, he or she may appeal the matter for review in circuit court.

Of course, the impeachment process can be an expensive burden upon the city, as well as an embarrassing affair for all those involved. Aldermen and mayors would do well to be cautioned against using impeachment in all but the most extreme circumstances. Although censures and formal reprimands have little actual force, they can often be effective in bringing a problem to the attention of others, and possibly, allowing the removal of an officer to be done through the next election, rather than an impeachment hearing.

[1] Boyer v. City of Potosi, 77 S.W.3d 62, 71 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002), citing Fitzgerald v. City of Maryland Heights, 796 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. App. 1990).

[2] Id. See also McCallister v. Priest, 422 S.W.2d 650, 657 (Mo. banc 1968).

Orders, Resolutions & Ordinances

Posted by on Oct 19, 2013 in Local Government Concerns | 0 comments

Orders, Resolutions & Ordinances

Local governments in Missouri always act through the council or board that makes decisions for the local community. This can include decisions ranging from hiring a new staff member, recognizing retiring staff members, purchasing a police vehicle, creating a law against public nuisances,  or entering multi-million dollar contracts that bind the agency and its taxpayers for years to come. Since the only way a governmental body can act is through the deliberate process of the council or board, every action requires some method for making those decisions. Depending on the importance of the decision being made, there are different levels of formality given to each decision.

The most common and basic action of a local government may be taken through motions or orders entered in the minutes of the organization. The decisions are made with very little formality, but always include the votes of those present. Many times, votes may even be taken by voice vote, or a simple call for yeas and nays.  Frequently, organizations use these common methods to approve the hiring of a new staff member or approving minor purchases.

Technically, under Missouri law, a resolution is no different than an order or motion. However, in every day practice, resolutions often given the semblance of a greater formality to decisions made regarding special occasions. City governments frequently use resolutions to recognize individuals or community groups for their commitment to bettering their local community. Resolutions may also be used to provide direction to agency employees, or to express the opinion of the governing body on a particular issue.

For city governments that have mayor’s who possess the power to veto actions, orders, motions and resolutions are considered to be administrative, simply giving direction to the agency. Orders may be used to call a special election, and resolutions may be used to direct employees to carry out certain actions. Unlike ordinances, orders and resolutions are not considered law, but they instead direct the everyday business of the local community. And, because they are not ordinances, orders and resolutions are not subject to the mayor’s approval or veto.

The most formal mode of action to be taken by a governmental body is the passing and approval of an ordinance. A duly passed ordinance carries with it the full force of law in the State of Missouri. Violations of an ordinance can be prosecuted in the city court, for which the punishment can include fines and even limited imprisonment. Ordinances must be passed by the majority vote of the governing body, and in cities of the Third and Fourth Class, the ordinance must be approved, or vetoed, by the Mayor.

Understanding when each method of decision-making is appropriate can be a tricky task. For most actions taken by local government agencies, there is little direction given on what type of action is required. Generally, motions and orders can accomplish most common decision faced by a local government agency, and ordinances can be reserved for those decisions that face long term consequences.  Where certain actions or decisions require an ordinance, that requirement is most often outlined by state statute. Failure to follow the requirements of the state statute often result in courts determining that the decision was invalid because it was not properly made.

Missouri Park Boards & City Government

Posted by on Sep 16, 2013 in Local Government Concerns | 0 comments

One of the greatest resources any city government has is the employees and staff that help operate the community programs. Next in line, the natural resources and recreational spaces available help bring a spirit of peace and sense of community in shared spaces. Missouri law helps guide local communities in working together to create excellent parks and recreational facilities that work to bring the community together, and the local park board can be a bit asset in making that effort a success.

The Missouri Statutes allow for the creation of a park board to manage the city’s parks and money collected as part of the park fund. This park fund is made up of taxes paid in under the city park tax and any donations or gifts made to the Park Board. The Park Board is given exclusive control over the monies in the park fund under Missouri Statute RSMO § 90.550. However, this control does not diminish the oversight of the Board of Aldermen in setting the vision for the city’s parks and recreational programs.

The Board of Aldermen or City Council has some direct control on the actions of the Park Board. Members of the Park Board are appointed by the Mayor, with the council’s consent. Each member serves a three year term, and the statute provides for nine initial members. The Park Board then elects its own president and other officers as they designate through the board’s by-laws. The Park Board must provide a report to the council each year, on or before the first Monday in June, and members may be removed by the Mayor for misconduct or neglect of duty.

The by-laws of any park board may establish various officers and committees that will function under the authority and direction of the board. The most common officers include a President, Vice-President, Secretary & Treasurer. Committees can be formed for a variety of purposes, depending on the specific needs of the local community. Members of the committees are appointed by the President of the Park Board and the committees are to make written reports to the Park Board.

The creation of a park board does not take authority away from the Board of Aldermen, including the authority to buy or sell property that has been designated as a city park. Collins v. Vernon, 512 S.W.2d 470, 476 (Mo. App. 1974). The duties of the park board are considered administrative duties only. Id. The Board of Aldermen retains the power to enact any and all ordinances as necessary for the good government of the city, including those necessary to oversee the operations of the city’s parks and recreation programs. RSMO § 79.110.

Although the Missouri Statutes give control of the monies deposited in the park fund to the Park Board, it is reasonable to assume that the Board of Alderman or City Council retains the authority to direct the actions and expenditures of the Park Board by ordinance or by regulating their proposed budget. As the Park Board is administrative only, it is still left to the Board of Aldermen to make discretionary decisions regarding the future of the city parks & programs. Ideally, the Board of Aldermen and the city Park Board will work together to complement each other and bring out the best in the recreational programs of the local community.


Missouri Park Boards help facilitate the wonderful parks and recreational programs that are available in many communities, both large and small, throughout the State of Missouri.

Eminent Domain & Heritage Value

Posted by on Sep 13, 2013 in Agricultural & Farming Issues, Local Government Concerns | 2 comments

Most citizens are aware that the government is empowered to take land or property under certain circumstances. The court actions that arise in these situations are referred to as eminent domain. Both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Missouri require that the property owner receive “just compensation” when the government decides to use eminent domain to take their property. Most commonly, these situations arise in building new roads or seeking easements for new utility lines.

But for many Missourians, a fair market value wouldn’t do justice to the investment they have in their family farm. For some of those farmers, their families’ land has been passed down through multiple generations, and that bond between the family and the farm cannot be adequately reflected in an appraised value. That’s one of the reasons the Missouri Legislature created a special “heritage value” consideration in determining “just compensation.”

When the state government begins the process of taking property that has been owned by the same family for fifty years or longer, that family is entitled to a payment including the “heritage value” under RSMO § 523.039(3). This statute provides that the amount of just compensation is determined by taking the fair market value and increasing it by an additional fifty percent. So, a landowner is entitled to a final payment that equals 150% of the fair market value of the property.

In a case that goes to trial, the jury must first decide the fair value of the property by considering evidence from many sources, often including experts testifying about the appraised value. It is then left to the judge to increase the amount determined by the jury so that the landowner receives the just compensation which she is entitled to.

As with many court actions, the process can be complicated and seem daunting to those without advanced legal training. When anyone is involved in the process of an eminent domain action, it is usually best to seek the advice of an attorney who can help make sure that the landowner receives the full amount she deserves.