Attorney General Opinion No.

Kansas Attorney General Reports·Decided March 21, 2000·Published

Opinion

The Honorable Laura L. McClure State Representative, 119th District State Capitol, Room 278-W Topeka, Kansas 66612-1504

Dear Representative McClure:

You request our opinion concerning the authority of the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to regulate confined feeding facilities for swine. You ask a number of questions regarding the Secretary's authority to impose stricter standards than those enacted in 1998 Substitute for House Bill No. 2950, codified at K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-1,178 through 65-1,199). You note that those statutes set certain requirements on swine facilities depending on the size of the facility. Your first question is whether the Secretary of KDHE has authority to impose those requirements on facilities of a smaller size than indicated in the statutes.

In considering the powers of the Secretary of KDHE to regulate a swine finishing facility, the Kansas Supreme Court stated:

"Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and their power is dependent upon authorizing statutes, therefore any exercise of authority claimed by the agency must come from within the statutes. There is no general or common law power that can be exercised by an administrative agency."1

Thus, we must examine the statutes to determine the Secretary's power to regulate confined feeding facilities for swine. When a statute specifies that its requirements apply only to a facility of a certain size, the Secretary may not apply that statute to a different size facility unless there is another statute or regulation that allows him to do so. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-1,196 addresses the Secretary's general authority to regulate confined feeding facilities for swine, and states in pertinent part:

"(a) The express adoption or authorization of standards and requirements for swine facilities by this act shall not be construed to prohibit or limit in any manner the secretary's authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations establishing:

"(1) Standards and requirements for swine facilities that are in addition to or more stringent than those provided by this act if the secretary determines necessary for the purposes provided by K.S.A. 65-171d and amendments thereto." (Emphasis added.)

K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-171d sets forth the Secretary's responsibilities to prevent water pollution and provides in part as follows:

"(a) For the purpose of preventing surface and subsurface water pollution and soil pollution detrimental to public health or to the plant, animal and aquatic life of the state, and to protect beneficial uses of the waters of the state and to require the treatment of sewage predicated upon technologically based effluent limitations, the secretary of health and environment shall make such rules and regulations, including registration of potential sources of pollution, as may in the secretary's judgment be necessary to: . . . (2) control the disposal, discharge or escape of sewage . . . and (3) establish water quality standards for the waters of the state to protect their beneficial uses.

. . . .

"(d) In adopting rules and regulations, the secretary of health and environment, taking into account the varying conditions that are probable for each source of sewage and its possible place of disposal, discharge or escape, may provide for varying the control measures required in each case to those the secretary finds to be necessary to prevent pollution."

These provisions give the Secretary discretion to determine what standards and requirements are necessary to prevent water pollution by swine facilities, and to enact regulations that are in addition to or more stringent than those provided by K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-1,178 et seq. In our opinion, enacting more stringent standards includes applying requirements imposed by statute on larger swine facilities to facilities of any size if the Secretary determines that is necessary to effect adequate water pollution control.

It should be noted that several statutes allow the Secretary to impose certain requirements on any confined swine feeding facility regardless of size if he determines the requirements are necessary. For example, K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-166a authorizes the Secretary to require a water pollution control permit for a confined feeding facility with an animal unit capacity of less than 300 if the Secretary determines that it has significant water pollution potential. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-171d(g) provides that if a significant water pollution potential is identified for new construction of a confined feeding facility with an animal unit capacity of less than 300, the facility shall be required to obtain a permit from the Secretary.

You next ask whether the Secretary has authority to require more stringent separation distances than those required by statute. Separation distances are set forth in K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-171d. Pursuant to the portions of that statute quoted above, and to the authority provided in K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-1,196, the Secretary has authority to adopt rules and regulations that impose greater separation distances if the Secretary determines they are necessary to prevent water pollution.

You inquire whether the Secretary may impose more restrictive standards and requirements on confined swine feeding facilities by executive order or whether he must follow the Rules and Regulations Filing Act.2 Both K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-171d and 65-1,196 refer to the Secretary's authority to regulate by adopting rules and regulations. We could find no statutory authority for the Secretary to place requirements on swine facilities by executive order. Therefore, it is our opinion that the Secretary must use the statutory procedure set out in the Rules and Regulations Filing Act.

Your next question is whether the Secretary may impose more stringent requirements to control odor from swine facilities. K.S.A. 65-159 gives the Secretary power and authority to examine nuisances, sources of filth and causes of sickness that may be injurious to the health of the inhabitants of any county within the State. If a nuisance, source of filth or cause of sickness is found to exist on any property, the Secretary may order the owner or occupant of the property to remove the nuisance, source of filth or cause of sickness.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Attorney General Opinion No., (kanag 2000).

Attorney General Opinion No. (Attorney General Opinion No.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Department of Health & Environment
673 P.2d 1126 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1983)
State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Kansas Racing Commission
792 P.2d 971 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1990)