HomeMy WebLinkAbout690257.tiffBEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
In re Application of MONFORT
FEED LOTS, INC. for approval
of a Proposed 100,000 Head
Cattle Feeding Operation in
Section 9, Township 4 North,
Range 66 West, 6th P.M.
REPORTER'S 1RANSCRIPT
APPEARANCE S:
MILLER AND RUYLE, Attorneys at Law, 1004 9th Avenue, Greeley,
Colorado, by: Robert A. Ruyle,
appearing for the Applicant.
MR. JAMES H. SHELTON, Attorney at Law, 1025 9th Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado; and MR. JAMES W. HEYER, Attorney at Law,
1700 Broadway, Denver, Colorado,
appearing for the Protestants.
MR. SAMUEL S. TELEP, Attorney at Law, Greeley, Colorado,
appearing as County Attorney for
the Board of County Commissioners.
Pursuant to Notice, hearing on the above application
was held in the District Courthouse, Third Floor, Greeley,
Colorado, on Wednesday, May 21, 1969, at the hour of 2:30
o'clock p.m., before the Board of County Commissioners,
MARSHALL ANDERSON, Chairman; HAROLD ANDERSON and GLENN
BILLINGS, members of the Board.
PL0774
690257
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call this hearing to order.
At this time, we would like the record to show that
this cause came on regularly to be heard by the Board of
County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado,
at the hour of 2:30 P.M., May 21, 1969 as provided in the
Notice of Hearing that was duly published.
Let the record show that this hearing concerns the
petition of Monfort for the installation of a cattle feeding
operation in the rural area south and west of LaSalle, Colorado,
and more particularly described as being in Section 9, Township
4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado,
including other adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity
that may be included into a contemplated general feed lot
operation.
There is no requirement for a hearing on a matter
such as this under our Weld County Zoning Resolution.
Monfort has a right to put in a feed yard in the area inasmuch
as the area has been zoned agricultural; however, subject to
approval by the Board of County Commissioners as to location.
Let the record further show that the purpose of this
hearing is to decide the question whether rights of others
are paramount to the right of Monfort as to the use of his
property for a commercial feed lot.
Petitioner Monfort, in the first instance, asked for
this hearing; however, petitioner first had to make formal
application with the Weld County Planning Commission just
like anyone else would.
The Planning Commission during its regular monthly
meeting on May 5, 1969, entertained many items of business
-2-
that day and Monfort was just one of the items of business
before the Commission on that day.
The Planning Commission as a result of the meeting
with the Monfort people recommended favorably as to the
location on which Monfort proposed to build a commercial
feed lot operation, but this recommendation is only a
recommendation and is not binding on this Board.
Petitioner, Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. in the opinion
of this Board, has an established right, a property right,
subject to the approval of the Board as to location.
Now, in view of the fact that some people in the
County are protesting Monfort's right, it appears to the
Board that they have the burden to show that their rights
are superior to Monfort's. Accordingly, we ask that such
people shall be heard first. The petitioner, Monfort, with
certain established rights as to the use of his property,
shall have an opportunity to be heard after the protestants.
Of course, either side shall have the right of cross
examination. Additionally, the Planning Commission Chairman
and the County Health Officer will have an opportunity to
testify.
There is no provision under the Weld County Zoning
Resolution for a public hearing in a matter such as this.
Monfort has a property right subject to the approval of the
Board only as to the location. Such a commercial feed lot
as proposed by Monfort is permissable in an agricultural
zone, and this area as was just described in which Monfort
proposes to put his feed lot has been zoned agricultural.
Now, this Board feels that inasmuch as this matter
-3-
has received much publicity, it is in the best interests
of Weld County and the people of Weld County that this hearing
be held before the Board makes a decision, even though the
Zoning Resolution does not require such a hearing.
Let the record further show that the Board of
County Commissioners was presented with a Motion by some
protestants to continue this hearing and another Motion
to have a public hearing before the Planning Commission of
Weld County. There is no precedent for such a hearing under
our Weld County Zoning Resolution and therefore, both Motions
are denied. It is the feeling of the Board that no good
purpose would be served by a continuance in this matter.
For the record, I would like to state that this hearing
has been published as mentioned, and everyone hopefully
has been given an opportunity to be present at this hearing
and to be heard.
There is no precedent for this hearing as I mentioned
awhile ago and there is no provision for it under our Zoning
Resolution. We are here simply because we felt it was in
the best interests of Weld County and because we felt that
the question was important enough to have a public hearing
before we made a decision.
In this connection, any one other than Monfort and
the protestants who have appeared of record, this includes
the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and the County
Public Health Officer, in this Court Room who wants to be
heard on this matter will be given three (3) minutes to
make an expression either in favor of or against the
location that is requested by Monfort for said commercial
-4-
feed lot. The time limit is imposed so the hearing will not
be unduly prolonged.
We would like to announce at this time that we have
provided a Court Reporter and that anyone giving testimony
will be sworn, and as I mentioned awhile ago, may be
subject to cross examination.
Let the record further show that the petitioners
are present and represented by Kenneth Monfort, president,
and represented by counsel, Robert Ruyle and David Miller.
Let the record further show that certain protestants
are present and represented by counsel, James Heyer and
James Shelton.
Now we are ready to begin this hearing and we ask
whether the protestants are ready to put on any evidence
or testimony that they might have.
MR. SHELTON: Mr. Chairman, I note from the state-
ment that you have entered into the record that you deny
the motion for a continuance of thirty days in preparation
therefor.
I won't burden you with repeating all the items. I
do want to make clear to the Commissioners that we desire
to be heard on that motion and that if you do not wish to
hear us on the same, that we want the notation entered that
we do object to the hearing of the matter today because it
fails to provide us opportunity to obtain all witnesses that
we would want.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your objection will be noted, Mr.
Shelton.
MR. SHELTON: All right.
-5-
I would further advise the Commissioners, you
have stated that the burden would be on the protestants
to overcome the apparent right of Monfort in the location
of their proposed feed lot at the location that they
represented to the Planning Commission, and we recognize
and the position that the Commissioners take thereto.
I would advise the Commissioners that we have
informed counsel for Mr. Monfort, the petitioner, that we
came in anticipation that we would proceed as we have in
the past. The experience that I personally had before
other Boards of one requesting something such, for example,
as a liquor license
first, and then the
by the petitioners.
We have no objection to that approach, but you
gentlemen of course can set any rules you desire. I have
or anything of the sort, would be heard
objections thereto, and then a rebuttal
advised counsel, Mr. Ruyle, that we have certain witnesses
who cannot be here. In fact, I think we had expected to
come on sometime at 3:30 or thereafter with our witnesses,
and we would ask that they proceed with their position and
we come second, and they can rebut what we place therein, if
you permit. But it does not remove our burden to meet the
obligation of overcoming.
MR. RUYLE: Mr. Commissioner, we have no
objection to proceeding in the framework with Mr. Shelton's
statement. We are prepared with our witnesses, and the
information that we have agreed to furnish to the Commissioners
on the matter, and we will either go first, last, or in between,
whichever way you would like to have us proceed. If it
-6 -
conveniences Mr. Shelton and his witnesses, we will start.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's agreeable with both parties.
MR. SHELTON: Yes.
MR. RUYLE: If it please the Commission, I have just
a few opening statements, and then we will proceed in a
fashion which will be in the nature of an informal hearing,
to the extent that we feel that the people who have some-
thing to say can best say it in a narrative type of form
rather than in stating a question and answer summary.
I would like to introduce to the Commission, Kenneth
Monfort, vice-president of Monfort Feed Lots, who will make
a brief opening statement. The statement of Mr Monfort
will be followed by Dr. Duane Flack, the chief resident
veterinarian at the present feed lot north of Greeley.
We also have witnesses, Larry Knee, who is the
treasurer of Monfort Feed Lots; Leroy Johnson, who will be
the manager of the proposed feed lot, if it's approved by
the Commission; Floyd Oliver, Jr., of the Colorado Pipe Lines;
John Frazer, from Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk; and Mr.
Glenn Paul of the Weld County Health Department.
These individuals, I acknowledge to start with, as
being the persons who will present testimony and statements
to the Commission in support of the proposed location.
As a brief opening statement, I would like to say
that we believe that the matter has been considered before
the Planning Commission on a very informal basis. The
statement of the Planning Commission
location be recommended for approval
was an A -Agricultural Zone. I think
basically was that this
on the basis that it
the Commissioners are
-7-
familiar with the proposed location being one mile east and
approximately one-half mile south of the twin bridges of the
Platte. The land has been in part owned by Monfort Feed Lots
for more than fifteen years. They have had a farming operation
in that particular vicinity prior to the time that any part
of the County was zoned for any purpose.
The zoning of the Commissioners being A -Agricultural,
in this present location, prompted us to explore in this
particular site for the possible expansion of the feed lot,
recognizing its long range and long term standing as an
A -Agricultural Zone.
One of the other significant factors which prompted
us to look into this aea was the lack of residential develop-
ment in the immediate vicinity. The natural barriers of
the flood plain of the South Platte River border the
City of Greeley and other residential areas from the south
bank of the South Platte River where the feed lot is proposed
to be located.
Just recently in the high waters, half a mile or
three quarters of a mile on each side of the South Platte
River was under water, and I think this substantiates our
original recognition that the flood plain of the river can
constitute a sufficient buffer zone, and was one of the
factors in considering this as the feasible location for
the commercial feed lot.
The other more unique features from the economy
standpoint of the feed lot are its proximity to natural
gas and underground water supplies which are required to
water the cattle at the lot. The availability of domestic
-8-
water.
The significance of the traffic pattern, which
is readily accessible to U. S. Highway Number 85, and to
U. S. Highway 85 By-pass that takes the traffic from
the feed lot to the packing plant out of the normal
residential areas of the community.
We have made a particular effort to provide health
standards which will meet the requirements of the present
and anticipated requirements of the Health Department, and
have made a significant effort to design this feed lot to
eliminate some of the health problem and, if the protestants
will forgive me using the word, odor problems that feed.
lots historically have had in our region.
The long range plans of the feed lot would appear
not to interfere with the long range growth plans of the
general area.
I would like to turn the matter over mw to Mr.
Monfort for his statement.
Thank you.
MR. MONFORT: Gentlemen:
We are pleased to be able to present our proposal - -
our case before you, the County Commissioners of Weld County
today. You and I know what is involved. We both know that
our request is not for a change in zoning, but rather for
approval of a site selection for a new feedlot. We
could, within the law, come before you with the assumption
that we have a right to locate this new facility in this
location. We could deal with this hearing in a completely
factual, non -philosophical way. We could say that those
-9-
who oppose this proposal are completely wrong and out
of order.
But to do so, would be to ignore many important
things within our society today. We agree with your
decision to hold this public hearing for we believe
our request deals with the welfare of the public. We are
asking approval of our site. We will back up this request
with data and plans which we believe should alleviate any
doubts you might have. We will even try to calm the fears
of those who oppose this facility. But I would first
like to talk to you briefly about not the facts, but the
philosophy of our case and the implications to our
community.
As you may or may not know, I was born in Greeley.
Both of my parents have lived in the Greeley community
for longer than they care to admit. My four children live
in Greeley and attend Greeley public schools. For our
family this has always been home and will continue to be so.
Without getting involved in details, I believe that I can
honestly say that we have, in many ways, done our best to
make Greeley a better place to live.
We have done this by supporting various community
and private projects, by taking part in the affairs of the
community and by the employment practices of our operation.
The community in turn has been good to us, we have prospered
and found it a delightful place to live.
I say this only to try and convince one and all
that we would not knowingly hurt this community. Because
of this, we are pleased that the final decision of location
-10-
is to be determined by you County Commissioners, duly
elected by the people of the community. You are the
arbitrators, the decision makers in regard to the welfare
of the people of Weld County.
We are pleased to present our case, for we believe
it a good. one. We have studied, we have searched, we have
used all the skills we possess to pick a location that
would be the best, for here we have had a chance to use
all of our past experience. We think we have done this
wisely but we find that there are others that disagree.
To pick a location for this facility, we split
our criteria into two parts. One part obviously dealt
with economic factors, for as a business concern,
particularly a business concern soon to be publicly held,
we must show profits to have a reason to exist. These
economic factors dealt with such things as availability
of land, electrical power, natural gas, labor, roads,
rail facilities and water.
But an even bigger set of criteria dealt with
community factors. Could we control any water pollution - -
I sponsored the water pollution law of the State of
Colorado, so obviously I believe in it and obviously we
not only must but wish to comply. What about the odor - -
we must be away from and downwind from any concentration
of population. Can we control the dust - - it will take
nearly two million gallons of water a day at times. Can
the area be landscaped and beautified - - we want this to
be a showplace not only for our neighbors but the national
and international customers and potential customers that
-11-
come to Greeley in ever increasing numbers. At our present
feedlot we draw over 15,000 tourists annually. Will the
taxes and employment help or hurt the community.
We believe we have found a location with a happy
blending of economic feasibility for us and benefits for
the community. Now it is up to you to tell us whether we
are right or whether we erred.
If your decision is that ours was wrong, we will
suffer some hardship. We will own some land that we would
rather not own. We will have spent some money for plans
that will be wasted. We will have lost valuable time
in our expansion plans. Our contractors have hired people
and bought equipment to do their particular phases. But
our plans can be changed. Other areas within Colorado
seemingly would like to have the facility. In fact we
have had many contacts before and since our announcement.
Such a change in our plans would, of necessity, change our
planning for a doubling of production at the packing plant
and the addition of the Consumers Products division. All
I am saying here, is that our whole proposal must wait your
decision here today.
Your decision must be based on many facts. It
must deal with the future growth of this area. It must
deal not only with Kirby Hart's well being but the well
being of others within this county who are still more
concerned about owning a $10,000 home than selling a $10,000
lot and who can only own his home if they get a better job.
It must deal not only with the fact that this kedlot would
be five miles from Greeley West, where my children do or
-12-
will go to school, but also with the adequacy of education
in RE -1 where many of the taxes that will be paid will be spent.
It must deal not only with the grumbling of other
feeders in the area who do not wish the competition for
feed but also with the farmers in the area who need more
competition for the crops they produce.
Your job is not easy. We have not, nor do we now,
exert any so-called pressure on you. If you deem this bad
for the community, we would rather know now than two years
from now. If the consensus is against this facility, it
is up to you, the elected officials to tell us.
I would like now to go to the technical presentation
and to do this I will introduce our chief veterinarian, Dr.
Duane Flack, who is in charge of disease and pollution
control for our company.
Thank you.
MR. SHELTON: Mr. Commissioners, as you say, this
is not a formal hearing, it's an informal hearing, and just
informally, I just now asked Bob Ruyle if I might make an
opening statement on our position before the presentation of
the factual matters and he has consented thereto.
I would like to say at the outset that I have no
quarrel with what Kenneth Monfort says as to all of us
being here today to seek what is in the best interests
of this community. I would want to say first, and through-
out this and afterwards that Kenneth Monfort is my friend.
I intend that he continue to be my friend regardless of
who is successful in this matter. And I am sorry that
it involves a situation where people confront each other
-13-
who would not otherwise have occasion to be opponents.
I would like to say further, for the record,
that I am not as well acquainted with Mr. Warren Monfort.
By reputation I an told that he is one of the finest
men in this community, and I have no question of that.
And it is not our intention in this proceeding to argue
that there is any malice whatsoever on the part of Mr.
Monfort or the company or anyone who is appearing here
on their behalf, nor do we intend to introduce anybody
to speak from a malicious standpoint.
We think that you should determine the matter
on the merits. We recognize the problem that you do
have.
We do disagree with the conclusions that Mr.
Monfort and the proponents make concerning the benefits
to this community and what is in our best interests.
I would like to state at the outset that it is
in our belief that any five or six people, if this were
any notion that some people in the Dos Rios area have a
right to stand in the way of progress of this community,
they may have a legal right to do that, but I am talking
about equity and fairness, and I don't believe that you
gentlemen should make a decision that harms this community.
By the community, I don't mean just Greeley, I mean all of
Weld County and the communities particularly of Weld
County, but half of the population of this County is in
close radius to Greeley, and I say that you should maT:d
a decision that will be in the best interest of our
community, not for five or six people who oppose it, not
-14-
for the Monfort parties or their company, if this is
against the best interest of the community as a whole
Our objection is to the location of the facility.
That you might be fairly advised, we do not argue what
the zoning regulations of this County presently provide.
We don't argue that the law permits the Commissioners to
establish a Planning Commission and to receive recommenda-
tions thereby. We submit that the decision is yours, that
you are the ones that will finally have to make the decision.
You will have to make it on the basis of location and the
question of the numbers of cattle that will be involved.
We are not talking about, as we all recognize,
a matter of a small farmer. We are not talking about a
small commercial feeder. We are talking in fact about an
industrial feeder.
We think the record will show that if this is not
the largest feedlot in the world north of Greeley, it is
one of the largest feedlots. And we have set forth in out
Petition for Rehearing our points that offensive odors
will flow over the City of Greeley, that this will effect
people physically, healthwise and psychologically. That
the people of the City of Greeley, of this community, have
a right to be free from that and have a right to be free
from the increased truck traffic and the pollution of
water. We agree that this is our obligation to prove
these things.
Now, we submit, and this will be a matter of a
legal proposition, and I appreciate that this will be
difficult for the Commissioners as such, because we don't
-15-
expect you, as lay people, to be informed on the finer
points of the law when we as lawyers oftentimes argue
of the finer points. But we want you to realize that
it is our position that neither the Planning Commission
nor the Board of County Commissioners, by establishing
standards, can legislate away constitutional rights of
citizens of the United States. So that all people that
we have here in this hearing, in fact I presume all of
us here in this community are citizens of the United
States, and that they have an absolute constitutional
right to not have the property taken from them, except
by due process. And we do advise you that we believe
that we can present, and if we had time to bring the
expert witnesses, and we will offer what our expert
witnesses would provide to show you that this mould
endanger the health of the community.
Now, I think that a fair observation to be made
is that all of us, I think it is fair to say, that if we
had known the problems that might arise from a location
of a large feedlot north of Greeley thirty years ago, some
different plans should have been made. No one is angry
at anyone for what happened in that. We don't come here
to argue that anyone failed in their public duty. They
simply didn't have awareness. Nor do we in any way argue
that the Monforts in any way intended harm to anyone.
We do submit that thirty years from now someone
will look to the decision that is made by this Board and
as to what they do for the community of Greeley, and that
we want to attempt to point out to you the factors that we
-16-
think you should consider and that we will do so in the
light of an pproach that will in no way be an attack
on any person or malicious in any nature.
MR. RUYLE: I would like to have Dr. Flack proceed.
(Whereupon, Dr. Flack was duly sworn to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.)
DR. FLACK: If I may, I am going to stand up instead
of sit down because I do want to use the clipboard behind us
here. The easel.
MR. RUYLE: Would you give your name and address and
your occupation just to start it off.
MR. FLACK: Duane Flack, 2828 Eleventh Street Road,
Greeley, Colorado. Veterinarian, employed by Monfort Feedlots.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you talk up, please.
DR. FLACK: Yes. I don't know if I am talking to you
or the audience or the jury over here.
(Laughter.)
Well, Mr. Commissioners, I think we have gone through
the basis for the setting of the scene, so to speak, as far
as the history of why it is the desire of the Monforts to
locate a new feeding establishment in this general area.
Mr. Ruyle has given you
procedures that we have
the background as far as the
gone through in our effort to
comply with our responsibility to you gentlemen as well
as the people of the Planning Commission and the people
of this area.
Kenny has asked me to go through the technicalities,
of the design and the layout
or the
technical aspects
of the facilities that we propose. I am sorry that I
-17-
can't turn this easel in such a way that everyone can
see it. But I will try to describe to you gentlemen
the factors.
First of all, we have a map of the general
area concerned. The green mark or the green square here
at the top of the map representing the present feedlot
site. This being the City of Greeley, (indicating). The
Poudre River in between the City of Greeley and the
present Monfort feedlots. The South Platte River coming
from the south in the area of Platteville, along the
west side of Platteville in a northerly direction and
then turning east to the confluence east of Greeley and
on to the east (indicating). The proposed location for
the new feedlot would be this area on the south side
of the Platte River, also marked in green (indicating).
You gave the legal description as Section 9,
Township 4, Range 66, this area being marked off in
miles square.
You will note that the feedlot lies approximately
as the crow flies, so to speak, five miles directly south-
west from the nearest point, to the nearest point of the
city limits of Greeley, to the nearest point of the
proposed feedlot. This also could be described as
approximately four miles to the southwest, mostly west
of LaSalle, or two miles directly north of the community
of Gilcrest.
I have marked on the overlay other feedlots of
the general area. And I would prefer not to use head counts,
-18-
because these are other gentlemen's feedlots and their
exact head counts I am not aware of and I certainly
could be in error if I were to do so.
But it has been pointed out that the area is
an agricultural area as far as zoning is concerned,
properly to be set up for the development of feeding
operations. It is also an area that has been used
over the past number of years for this purpose.
Note the feedlot here (indicating). We have a
feedlot approximately a mile and a half directly east,
of considerable size, which belongs to Jim Miller.
We have feedlots to the south of it, small
farmer feeders all up and down the road that we commonly
refer to as the Pecham Mile.
The Nesom Feedlot is directly a mile to the
south, which would be here (indicating). The Eckhart
Feedlot to the southeast, approximately a mile (indicating).
Directly to the west of the area we have a
feedlot that is operated by the Ehrlichs, commercial
feeders, and they are also, as I understand it, using
the feedlots that I refer to as the Garrison Feedlot
over on the twin bridges area.
There is also the Colorado Alfalfa Products, a
small feedlot lying in the Miliken area.
The Farrs have a small feedlot just merely a
half a mile from here (indicating).
The Godfrey-Bodem Road, there is a small feedlot
of the Kammerzells that is between the two rivers just
a half mile to the direct north.
-19-
And then the Domke's Feedlot, which is two to three
miles north of our proposed site.
I think this area has been used for this purpose
for a number of years and is well established for that
purpose.
We had other requirements that we had to meet to
try to develop a new enterprise of this type.
Number one, was the availability of a railroad.
The Union Pacific Railroad does have a line that comes
out of LaSalle directly to the west, to cross the north
side of our present location, or our proposed location,
that angles on down to the south and to the west as it
goes toward Denver, or to the northwest over to the
Miliken, Johnstown area.
Mr. Ruyle mentioned the availability of the
highway connections. The present feedlot being on an
oil road directly two miles north of Gilcrest, or two
miles directly east of Highway 85 Bypass, which will
give us good access as far as incoming shipment or
outgoing shipments of cattle to the highway bypass
and to the City of. Greeley and into the packing plant
on the northeast corner of town.
Another item that has to be considered quite
extensively is the water availability. As Kenny
mentioned, the sprinkling system will require up to
a couple million gallons of water a day. We also have
to have the drinking water availability for the cattle,
and we had to have a supply of domestic water to supply
the boilers for the steam flaking process that we use
-20-
to prepare our feed for the cattle.
The central well water districts lie in the area,
so that we can obtain our domestic water from that source.
There is a large number of established irrigation
wells on the site to provide us with the necessary water for
cattle drinking and for the sprinkler system.
Another item that had to be brought into considera-
tion was the availability of natural gas, and this is
going back to the steam process and the process we are
talking about where we have to have the natural gas to
run the caterpillar engines that in turn turn the generators
to turn out the power that runs the whole mill, as well as
the steam for heat and steam for the flaking process. The
natural gas line comes down across from the north on
its route to the City of Denver, and I believe it's
something like a half a mile or a mile and a half, in
this section (indicating), up next to it as far as
availability to that gas line.
The labor was a point that Kenny brought up that
I would also like to mention. And this being something
that the operation and the maintenance and the management
of a feedlot operation is becoming more and more a
technical skill, as the years go by, instead of a man
going out with a scoop and shovel and a cart and calling
himself a cattle feeder, now you put him in a truck with
something of, in the vicinity of six, seven, eight, nine
and even ten thousand dollars in value. So we have to
have an easily available and trainable labor supply.
I think the area is extremely well blessed for
-21-
this type of supply, and is one thing we certainly
took into consideration.
We have mentioned the problems of pollution
control. I want to get into that a little more in
detail when I get on to the next part.
Another item that goes along this line is
the soil texture of the area. But this again, I will
discuss in a little more detail in a minute.
Now, if I may set this down - -
MR. RUYLE: Just a moment, I would like tD have
the reporter mark the exhibit from which the witness
has testified as Applicant's Exhibit Number 1 for
purposes of identification.
(Whereupon, Applicant's Exhibit 1
was marked for identification by the
Court Reporter.)
MR. RUYLE: I would also like for the record to
reflect that Applicant's Exhibit 1 includes two sheets,
one being a transparent sheet with red indications marking
the location of the other feedlots in the approximate
area as described by Dr. Flack.
DR. FLACK: Now, if I could call your attention
to this next poster.
All this amounts to is a blow-up of the area
of the proposed site. I think we probably ought to
put credit where credit is due. I certainly don't
want credit for the design of the feedlot facility.
Mr, Leroy Johnson, who is plant superintendent at the
present feedlot, and will be the superintendent of this
-22-
proposed feedlot, upon its approval, is really the
one that should get the credit for laying out what I
think is going to be one of the most efficient feedlots
that I have ever had the privilege of witnessing. But
there are some of the aspects of the design that relate
to these pollution control items, and, consequently, I
have been given the honor to go ahead and explain it to
you.
The area you see here is the section involved
(indicating). The main service area of the feedlot will
lie on the northeast corner of the site, this being east
(indicating,) this being north (indicating,) this line
across the top being the accessing railroad siding or
the railroad trackage. The blue line you see coming
up here along the side is the Union Ditch and this is
the road, the continuatim of the Godfrey-Bodem Road that
winds across (indicating) and over to the west of the
twin bridges area which would lay over here.
This will be the service area (indicating) on
this easterly portion.
The railroad siding will extend from the existing
trackage directly to the south. It will be a double
track facility, with the elevator and mill situated
approximately half way in the middle of this trackage
to facilitate the switching of cars, the unloading of
grain, the unloading of cattle.
In the mill, which will be right adjacent to it,
will be the steam flaking process equipment, as far as
the flaker is concerned, the steam machine, the boilers,
-23-
the engine for the generating of power and so forth.
This mill will have a capacity in excess of fifteen
hundred tons a day, this is the total feed capacity,
in order to supply the feedlot.
The elevator is designed for twenty-five
thousand bushel capacity, to start with. In the same
area will be the office and service area across this
parking area (indicating), and in this office will be
the console controls, all of the weighing and batching
of the feeds out of the mill in the elevator. The
truck scales are located to the west of the proposed
office building. The service and business offices will
be in that building. The feed laboratories, the kitchen
and the lunchrooms, the employees lunches. And to the
east of that will be an off-street parking area for
all employees' automobiles and the visitors'cars, and
for business men and so forth that have business in the
feedlot.
So this traffic will not interfere with the
feeding traffic as far as the feedlot traffic is
concerned.
The feedlot is designed with a double set of
alleys. I think you gentlemen are familiar enough with
the basic design of feedlots and feedlot needs to under-
stand what I am referring to in saying that there will
be a separate set of alleys for the feed alleys and cattle
alleys so that the feed trucks can operate, and then you'll
have the median, and then another alley, and you are un-
interrupted as far as the cattle movements are concerned.
-24-
And this alley can therefore be hard surfaced for dust
control and maintenance service. The cattle areas also,
we will feed into these between this, from the pen areas
from the outside edges, and it will be in these alleys
that our water lines will be located, the pick-up points,
as far as the drainage system is concerned.
The service shops will be located near the main
gate into the feedlot. This will be approximately a twelve
thousand square foot building, where the office will be,
in the vicinity of ten thousand square foot building surface
area (indicating).
The pens will number approximately two hundred
and ten pens will be in this quarter section here (indicating),
and the two quarters down here (indicating), minus the one
area of the bluff that cuts across the corner.
The entire feedlot will be surrounded by a fifty
foot green belt. This will be an area of landscaping, grass,
trees, and hedges that will surround the entire feedlot.
A separate sprinkling system is being designed to service
this part.
All pens will be designed with concrete feed bunks,
concrete feed slats and concrete areas around the water
tanks to facilitate maintenance and upkeep.
The hospital and care area for the cattle will be
located approximately across the west side of the northerly
portion of the feedlot.. This will facilitate the traffic
for the movement of the cattle in the feeding area.
The drainage system is the next item I want to
get into.
-25-
I am afraid you probably can't see this real well
from the distance, but if you will note, in the cattle
alleys we have a set of red lines that flow from the south
to the center of the feedlot. What this amounts to, and
I am going to ask Mr. Oliver to go into the specifics of
this a little more in just a moment, but there will be a
primary header tile between the center of the feedlot and
across the north end of the feedlot. The pens will be
graded to a one to two percent slope to facilitate
drainage to the backs of the pens where the catch up
points will be, with feeder tile going down this alley
underground into the header tile, which will collect
all excess run-off water, should such exist, and take
this to a primary holding pond area at the northwest
corner of the feedlot.
We have calculations that were put together by
Mr. Tom Norton, who sas doing his graduate work at
Colorado State University last year and worked as part
of his engineering study program on a research program
sponsored jointly by this organization as well as the
Colorado Cattle Feeders Association, as well as other
members of the Colorado Feeders, as well as a number of
Greeley farmers, and I
Commerce was on that.
designed the preferred
would have the desired
believe the Greeley Chamber of
But as a part of his study, he
slopes of pens at which point you
point of a pen being capable to
absorb a given amount of rain, so as to not have an excess
amount of run-off, but yet steep enough that when you had.
an excessive rain such as we had here a few weeks ago, that
-26-
the pens would absorb the rain, and you would have the
run-off, and you then could see how it would facilitate
it, which we feel is the primary point in any accumulation
problem when you are talking of water. His calculations
showed by the formulas he developed on that study program
that the given area that we are talking about as far as
the number of pens is concerned, has a desired slope of one
to two percent, that we could calculate on a twenty-five
year storm, he gave his figures for a one year storm and
five year, twenty, twenty-five, fifty, one hundred, but
a twenty-five year storm would calculate out a run-off
quantity of approximately sixty-eight acre feet,
or in the vicinity of two million gallons of water
The holding ponds that we have designed along this
side will have a capacity of approximately three million
gallons of water. We are allowing ourselves approximately
a fifty percent margin of error.
We have also purchased the land that lies
to the northwest of this holding pond which lies
below the level of the feedlot, which is irrigated
farm ground, as well as the ground to the direct
west of it, of the southerly half of the feedlot,
which ;,fives us an ample anoiznt of ground to use
the collected water on as irrigation water, which
is tFcdesira fie method of disposal of this water
at ti 'resent_ time.
If ot':.er design factors in the future
come up with treatment programs and so forth for
this wat•.r, that would be ?reerable over the
-27-
irrigation purposes. We have plenty of available
space to install what facilities would be desirable.
Now, there have been a few points made
as far as possible pests, fly control, mosquito
control, this type of thing. I think the best
thing to use here as an example, or as an
explanation, would be our present feedlot location.
We receive a great many compliments from
sources completely outside of the present interests
as far as our control programs in this area are
concerned. The same basic principles will be
applied here, fly control, mosquito control.
The fly and mosquito aspect will be
controlled by the use of a thermo-fogger.
Any problem as far as ground pests are
concerned, rodents and so forth, will be under
a contract program such as we have now with a
licensed pest control agent. So I think these
areas aren't of any concern.
We have another program, and this is one
that Kenny brought up and this is wind direction
in selection of the site. We were desirous of
locating ourselves in such a way as to be downwind
to any population centers now or in the future.
It's a well understood fact or has been in
my book that the prevailing winds of this area are
from the north, northwest. In trying to find actual
testimony, other than our own records, I found there
were very very few agencies that do in fact keep
-28-
these records over long periods of time to justify
these assumptions. But we have found some records
associated with the Federal Aeronautics Association,
which I think will be able to verify this.
Now I would like to call on a few gentlemen
at this time to verify a few of the points I have
made.
Now, Bob, what procedure do you want to go
through?
MR. RUYLE: I think we can start with Floyd
Oliver.
DR. FLACK: Mr Oliver, of the Colorado Pipe
Lines, I have asked to make a few statements concerning
water supply, the well water circumstances, anything
he might like to add as far as the water, specifics.
MR. RUYLE: Prior to Mr. Oliver's testimony,
I would like to have the exhibit from which Dr. Flack
was just testifying marked as Applicant's Exhibit No.
2.
(Whereupon, Applicant's
Exhibit No. 2 was marked
for identification by the
Court Reporter.)
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Mr. Oliver, will you state your name and
address for the record.
A I am Floyd Oliver, president of Colorado
Pipe Lines. I love at 2508 20th Street
Road in Greeley.
-29-
Q What is the representative capacity of Colorado
Pipe Lines as applied to the proposed location
of the feedlot and construction that is contemplated
at that location?
A Colorado Pipe Lines will assist in design and
installation of all water systems, sprinkling
systems, storm drainage systems, and other water
and sewage facilities that are needed.
Q What experience has your company had, in particular
in this field of work?
A We have installed all of the water system as it
exists at the feedlot up north, and have done
numerous water line projects in the last thirty
years.
Q This is your general contracting business, is
that correct?
A Yes.
Q Proceed, Floyd.
A Located within the three hundred acres that will
be developed here are twelve irrigation wells ranging in
capacity from six hundred to thirteen hundred gallons a
minute. So it is one of the few sites that provide an
adequate amount of water to water a feedlot of this size.
This feedlot, when developed and built, will use water in
excess of three to four million gallons a day on a hot
summer day.
These wells will be developed into a cattle
watering system and a corral sprinkling system, two
separate independent systems.
-30-
There will be three wells used for the corral
sprinkling system, two of which will have sixty horse-
power motors on them and pump one thousand gallons of
water a minute.
And one of them will have a fifteen horsepower
motor a minute and will be pumping three to four hundred
gallons a minute, under high pressure for sprinkling and
the cattle and fire protection.
The cattle watering system will use the other
six wells and be developed in each pen. The sprinkling
system is a system used on the present feedlot up here
whereby we use a large volume sprinkler that will
cover four corrals at one time. The sprinkler is moved
from location to location and can apply better than an
inch of water per hour. Two of them are generally used
at one time.
We will bring soft water in the small Weld County
District lines two miles east of this site to develop
the water for the flaker and hospital and office and
garage facilities.
The storm drainage plan has been outlined by
Duane, and will consist of large diameter underground
concrete drainage down the main alleys with lateral
lines running into that, trapping all water into a
holding pond and being able to hold it there and dilute
it, if necessary, with well water, and then take it
underneath the Union Ditch and apply it to other lands
which the Monforts own downstream in this area (indicating),
sprinkling onto the land.
-31-
This method has been very effective in getting
rid of runoff water, of storm runoff water off of
feedlots.
Basically that is the plan for the water system
and the storm drainage system. If you have any questions
I would be glad to answer them.
Q Floyd, I would like to ask a few questions just
to pick up the loose ends. You are also in the
business together with your father, or have been,
of installing irrigation and domestic wells in
our general area?
A That's right.
Q You are familiar with this process?
A Yes.
Q How many wells are located on Section 9 as the
area is described for the location of this
feedlot?
A I believe there are twelve irrigation wells on
that site.
Q Do you know the estimated capacity of those
irrigation wells?
A They vary from six hundred gallons a minute to
thirteen hundred gallons a minute.
Q Now, are these wells and their capacity suitable
for providing water as you have described the
needs?
A Yes, they are adequate.
Q With your familiarity of the County, do you consider
this to be a unique location as the result of the
existence of the present irrigation wells?
-32-
A Yes, I do, because it would be impossible probably
to find three hundred acres of land that has the
water capacity that exists on this acreage.
Q And is that primarily because no new wells can be
drilled?
A No new wells caibe drilled for feedlots or any
purpose that requires a discharge pipe larger
than two inches for fifty gallons a minute.
MR. RUYLE: Thank you.
MR. SHELTON, Gentlemen, I would like to direct a
question to Mr. Oliver.
BY MR. SHELTON:
Q Floyd, I believe you have stated that this is
in your opinion the only location where a feedlot
of this capacity, by that we are talking about
one hundred thousand head of cattle, could be
located. There are locations where feedlots
of lesser capacity could be located as far as
water is concerned, is that not right?
A That is true.
Q And those might be up to as much as thirty thousand
head?
A Depending upon the location.
Q But I mean they could be located in separate locations
and provide as much as that?
A Oh, I suppose so, yes.
MR. SHELTON: No other questions.
MR. RUYLE: One other thing: I would like to have the
record reflect that the testimony of Mr. Oliver was reflecting
-33-
the locations of the storm drainage lines as pointed out
by Dr. Flack on Applicant's Exhibit No. 2, for the record.
DR. FLACK: Kenny just corrected me on one statement
that I made, and Floyd made the same mistake.
We ieferred to the grounds to the west out here as
far as the irrigation purposes, as ground we now own. This
ground is optioned and would be picked up if we should, we
don't actually own it.
All right. Then, I would like to ask Mr. Glen Paul,
who is the head of the Weld County Health Department who we
went to with our suggestions at the time this once became
published, and submitted our plans and proposals to him
and discussed the design with him, for his approval.
MR. PAUL: I am Glen Paul, director of Environmental
Health Service of the Weld County Health Department.
I would like to read a letter here.
(Reading.)
To the Board of County Commissioners, Courthouse,
Greeley, Colorado. Attention: Mr. Marshall Anderson,
Chairman.
After reviewing the plans and inspecting the site
of the new Monfort Feedlot, I will make the following
statement: If the plans are followed as stated by the
Monforts, I do not see any health hazards.
MR. RUYLE: Mr. Paul, you are the county officer
in charge of the administration of the air and water pollution
control statutes of the State of Colorado for the area in
which the proposed location is described?
MR. PAUL: Yes.
-34-
MR. RUYLE: I would like to have the record reflect
that Mr. Paul's written statement be introduced as Applicant's
Exhibit No. 3 and be submitted, for the record.
(Whereupon, Applicant's Exhibit
No. 3 was marked for identification
by the Court Reporter.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Accepted.
MR. SHELTON: No objection to the introduction of
the exhibit.
I would like to ask a question, unless you have
something further, Bob. May I ask him a question?
MR. RUYLE: Go ahead.
BY MR. SHELTON:
Q Glen, what training do you have for the position that
you have, what is your background?
A I have a B.S. Degree in Premed. I have a Masters
Degree in public health. I have been on the job
for twenty-three years.
Q Principally in Weld County, is that correct?
A In all of Weld County.
Q All right. Your statement regarding the health
conditions are based on your own knowledge and
experience, not based on experts who have given
you the answer to this question, is that right?
A That's right.
Q So you are relying on yourself.
And would it be fair also to say that in making
this answer that you do, that it does not effect
the health, that you are relying on standards that
-35-
were supplied to you by the State by statute, is
that correct?
A That's right.
MR. SHELTON: No other questions.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Mr. Paul, in your experience in our county, have you
had occasion to review the conditions of the present
feedlot north of Greeley?
A I have.
Q And is your experience and your testimony on the
design and location of the present feedlot based
in part on your experience with the developments
of the feedlot north of Greeley?
A I would say the new feedlot is much more advanced.
We, years ago, from the housekeeping, it vas
impossible to keep good clean housekeeping there
until they did build the lots up. They didn't have
under drain for the water. They didn't have a
sprinkling system up until a few years ago, and this
is all planned in the new feedlot.
Q Now, you are in charge of administering the State's
statutes designed to protect the public against air
and water pollution, is that correct?
A I am.
Q Do you believe those statutes are satisfactory as to
their character for application of this County?
A I think so. I am not an attorney, and I do have some
people here from the State Health Department. I have
a man from the water pollution, I have a man from
-36-
the air pollution, if there is any questions
pertaining to the laws there, you could cover
the questions with Mr. Fred Metor or Joe Columbo.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let Mr Paul's letter be a matter
that will be part of the record.
Any more questions?
MR. SHELTON: Well, I might ask him another question.
Glen, speaking of the feedlot facilities of the
north lot, of the Monfort Feedlot facilities about a mile
north of Greeley right now, Mr. Ruyle asked you questions
on that. I believe you stated they had improved the
facilities.
Are you competent in the field to state what effect
this has on the respiratory system of a person?
MR. PAUL: No.
MR. SHELTON: Or the effect that it has on the
nose or asthetic effects?
MR. PAUL: No.
MR. SHELTON: Or any effect on the nervous system of
any person?
MR. PAUL: No.
MR. SHELTON: Nor do you know anything about what it
does to people who have asthma or bronchitis or anything of
that sort?
MR. PAUL: No, I am not a medical doctor.
MR. SHELTON: No other questions
DR. FLACK: I made one other reference to the wind
directions and the wind problems of this, and I would like
to call on Mr. Don Frazer of Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk
-37-
to explain to the Commissioners the wind diagram.
This is taken from, as I understand it, from the
Civil Aeronautics Association.
(Whereupon, Applicant's Exhibit
No. 4 was marked for identification
by the Court Reporter.)
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Will you state your name and address.
A Donald R. Frazer. I live at 2507 14th Avenue Court
in Greeley.
Q Are you employed?
A I hope so.
Q By whom?
A By Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk.
Q In what capacity?
A As senior engineer.
Q How long have you been so employed?
A I have been employed with this firm since 1961. I
graduated from Civil Engineering from Colorado State
University; registered in the State of Colorado since
1961.
Q And in your capacity and employment with Nelson, Haley,
Patterson and Quirk, consulting engineers, have you
had occasion to investigate the wind conditions in
the approximate area of the City of Greeley?
A I have at the Weld County Municipal Airport which is
located approximately three and a half miles east,
almost due east of Greeley.
And would describe to the Commissioners what survey
Q
-38-
experience you have had with those wind records?
A All right. In 1962 we were employed as engineers
for the Airport here at Greeley. As part of the job
we had to develop so-called wind rows, which this is
a reproduction of the wind rows that we developed
at that time.
There are no formal wind data available. There were
not at that time. There presently are still no
extensive formal wind data available for the City of
Greeley.
Therefore, we were required in 1964 to develop the
wind rows in conjunction with the airport development.
These wind rows were developed at that time from
private observations, interviews with pilots flying
off the Greeley airport, operators operating off the
airport who had extensive knowledge of the conditions
there, prior to 1962.
Since that time I have had personal opportunity to
check the accuracy of this, and it is reasonably
accurate. The thing that is - - One thing I must
explain here, the wind rows is necessary to an airport
for three reasons, or three aspects of wind.
One is the wind velocity.
Two is the wind direction.
Three is the percentage of the time that the wind comes
from that direction.
What has been developed here then are, there are three
circles shown on this wind diagram. The center circle
indicates calms, which are wind velocities of zero to
-39-
four miles per hour.
The second circle indicates fifteen miles per hour.
The third circle out here indicates wind velocities
of twenty-eight to thirty miles per hour.
This wind rows indicates that we had at the Weld
County Municipal Airport, we have calms, or fifty
percent of the time this would indicate the wind is
zero, less than four miles per hour, fifty percent
of the time. Now, on calms, we have no indication
of what direction the wind is coming from.
I think the question before the house here, velocities
has very little bearing, so what I would like to do
is simply go around and read the percentage of the
time of which the winds would come from the various
directions, keeping it in mind that fifty percent
of the time the wind is less than four miles per
hour.
From due north, the wind would, comes from the, wind
comes from the due north approximately six percent
of the time.
From the northeast eleven percent. From the east
four point nine percent. From the southeast four
point five percent. From due south, three percent.
From tfesouthwest, four percent. From due west,
four percent. From the northwest, twelve and a half
percent.
That I think - -
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, is that twelve and a half percent
of fifty percent?
-40-
MR. FRAZER: No, that is twelve and a half percent of
one hundred percent. In other words, the total of these
figures out here, plus the fifty add up to one hundred percent.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Is it fair to analyze this exhibit in stating what
percentages in your opinion the winds come from the
north quadrant?
A For the site, yes.
Q And very few - -
A For the Airport site.
Q Very few, a lesser number of the percentages of winds
come from the south blowing north, is that correct?
A According to this three percent of the time the
wind is coming from due south. Six percent of the
time it's coming from due north.
MR. RUYLE: Thank you.
We would move the admission - - Oh, one other question,
Don. Has this been recognized as an official document or
record of any State or Federal agency, to your knowledge?
MR. FRAZER: Yes, this is presently the accepted wind
rows for the Weld County Municipal Airport as accepted by the
Federal Aviation Agency.
MR. RUYLE: Thank you.
We move the admission of Applicant's Exhibit No. 4
from which the witness has just testified.
MR. SHELTON: I would say, Mr. Commissioners, unless
we make an objection specifically, we do not object to the
admission of any particular exhibit. The record could show
that they be admitted without objection.
-41-
Don, if I understood this correctly, fifty, you
say that fifty percent of the time the air is calm, in effect,
for practical effect no wind, and these others add up to
fifty percent of the other times when the wind is blowing
enough to be effective, is that correct?
MR. FRAZJ;R: Yes, that's correct.
MR. SHELTON: Do you have any knowledge or any experience
or have you made any study in how far manure odors are carried
from one hundred thousand head of cattle?
MR. FRAZER: No, sir.
MR. SHELTON: No further questions.
MR. RUYLE: Is the exhibit accepted?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will accept the exhibit.
MR. RUYLE: Thank you, Don.
DR. FLACK: Well, gentlemen, with that I would just
like to summarize my portion of the presentation by saying that
it'S our sincere desire that the general construction as
proposed of the feedlot will not only emphasize efficient
operations, but attractiveness and a pleasant design.
We feel confident that this will be one of the most,
if not the most advanced designed, equipped, efficient, and
attractive cattle feeding facilities that the world knows.
A true asset to the area, physically as well as financially.
And with that, we will submit the last of the posters, which
is an artists conception of the finished product.
MR. RUYLE: We would like to have the last exhibit
marked as Applicant's Exhibit No. 5.
(Whereupon, Applicant's Exhibit
No. 5 was marked for identification
-42-
by the Court Reporter.)
DR. FLACK: If I may just illustrate what I tried
to show in the diagram on the picture.
This area, this general direction being an easterly
direction, this being north (indicating) this area in here
being the service area I described, the parking will be here
(indicating), with the office building located in this area.
Directly across this surfaced area are the mills and.
the elevators to the south. The service shops with the main
entrance to the feedlot in this area (indicating). This
alley going down this direction would be the main service
alley as far as the feed alleys are concerned. The feed
alleys run here (indicating). The hospital building and so
forth would be back along the back side out here (indicating).
MR. RUYLE: For the record, we would indicate that
the picture is viewing from east to west, with the river
located generally in the northwest corner of the picture, and
the elevator and improvements along the east side of the
described area.
Referring the Commissioners to one of the aspects of
the original - -
MR. HEYER: I beg your pardon, sir, are you concluded
with the witness? May I ask a few questions of Dr. Flack?
MR. RUYLE: Dr. Flack is not through.
MR. SHELTON: Well, we thought he was finished.
DR. FLACK: I am.
MR. RUYLE: Then you may cross examine.
MR. HEYER: Mr. Chairman, my name is James Heyer. May
I ask permission to ask some questions of this witness?
-43-
MR. CHAIRMAN: Permission granted.
BY MR. HEYER:
Q Dr. Flack, with respect to Exhibit 5, where is the
City of Greeley in that picture?
A Well, it would be out of sight. There is a hill in
the road.
Q Sir, I want to ask you a few questions, and I am going
to do it in a form of posing a statement to you and
asking you whether or not you agree with the validity
of the statement. The first one is this:
Flies transmit a wide range of enteric diseases. Certain
serious diseases are transmitted by flies, mosquitoes
and rat fleas, and are of considerable public
health significance.
Is that a valid statement as far as you are
concerned?
A It would be, yes.
Q The presence of heavy organic pollution from sewage
and industrial wastes enhances the environment for
excessive production of those species of mosquitoes
associated with the transmission of enteric disease.
Is that a valid statement?
A Would you repeat the first part of the statement.
MR. HEYER: Mr Reporter, would you read it to him.
(Whereupon, the last question was read
aloud by the Court Reporter.)
A This would be true if you are referring to organic
matter. Organic pollution from the standpoint of
an odorous or gaseous nature, no.
-44-
Q Well, as the statement was read to you, do you
find quarrel with it, or generally is it valid?
A I would agree that it would be valid if it was
described as to what it was referring to in the
normal organic pollution.
Q All right, sir. The next statement is this:
Several species of biting and non -biting gnats
and black flies breed extensively in the waters of
the South Platte River Basin. These insects cause
severe human annoynance and occasionally are involved
in disease transmission.
Is that a \alid statement?
A To the best of my knowledge, it probably is. Although
there is work being done by U. S. D. A. at the
present time trying to survey the actual presence
or significance of some of these so-called black
gnats and so forth, and this is really not real
well substantiated material.
Q All right, sir. Thank you.
The presence of organic pollution in the
breeding waters creates a favorable larval environ-
ment and results in increased production of these
insects.
A Yes.
Q That is true?
A Yes
Q The most serious house fly problems in the South
Platte River Basin stem from the extensive breeding
of flies in the accumulated manure piles associated
-45-
with cattle feedlots and stockyards.
A
Q
I don't think that could be substantiated.
Very well. This is the next statement.
Manure piles provide the type of warm,
organic environment required for fly larvae
ment. Many of these farms and feedlots are
close proximity to basin streams.
Is that a valid statement?
moist,
develop -
in
A If you break it down, part of it would be. The
aspect concerning the organic matter of a refuse
piles being suitable breeding places for flies
is a valid statement.
Q Manure piles?
A Manure piles, yes, sir. This is a valid statement.
Q Thank you.
Significant vector populations of mosquitoes,
rats, and flies exist in the South Platte River
Basin and constitute a serious public health hazard.
These vectors, especially mosquitoes and rats, are
directly associated
in the water of the
A No, I don't believe
with the organic pollution present
Basin.
that is a valid statement. I
believe the records, the Colorado State Health
Department would
disease problems
this area due to
Q Thank you.
mosquitoes.
statement.
not substantiate that we do have
from a public health standpoint in
these causes.
Now, directing your
Would you say that
-46-
attention to
this is a true
Mosquitoes are the vectors of principal public
health significance in the Basin, South Platte
River Basin.
A Mosquitoes are capable of being vectors of certain
diseases, that would be valid.
Q Viral encephalitis, commonly known as sleeping
sickness or brain fever, is now the most important
mosquito -borne disease in the United States and in
the South Platte River Basin.
Would you agree with that?
A I wouldn't be capable of giving that relationship.
Q You do not know whether that is true or not?
A No, sir, I don't.
Q Next.
There are no effective chemotherapeutic
measures for the prevention of or treatment of
human cases and some individuals, particularly
children who recover from the disease, often suffer
permanent mental disability.
A You are referring here to the viral encephalitis?
Q Yes.
A I think that would be true of that disease.
Q Thank you.
Entomological investigations have shown that
these mosquitoes occur in great number throughout
the Basin and have considerable impact as a nuisance
problem aside from their disease carrying potential.
A Probably be true.
Q Thank you.
-47-
I don't know if I am pronouncing this right,
perhaps you can correct me. But Culex tarsalis,
is that the way you pronounce it?
A You are close.
Q What is correct? Help me out here.
A Culex tarsalis, I believe.
Q Tarsalis. Culex tarsalis is the single most important
vector of encephalitis for man and horses in the Basin,
South Platte River Basin. Do you know whether that
is true or not?
A I don't know if this would be the only one involved
or not. It's one.
Q All right, sir.
Dispersion studies have shown that the adult
culex tarsalis will fly as far as ten miles.
A I don't know specifically on that. I wouldn't be a
bit surprised.
Q Thank you.
Concentrations of these mosquitoes may create
public health problems by interfering with the normal
outdoor activities of both children and adults during
the summer months. Children frequently require
medical attention and even hospitalization for
treatment of secondary infections and allergic
reactions from mosquito bites.
A I wouldn't be able to answer that, I don't know. I
don't know if that would be a valid statement or not.
Q Thank you.
In addition to their public health importance,
-48-
large numbers of biting mosquitoes also cause
severe economic losses by reducing the efficiency
of agricultural and industrial workers; by reducing
the vitality of farm animals and thereby lowering
meat and dairy production; by interfering with
outdoor recreation and entertainment; and by
lowering real estate values. In the form of more
tangible losses, considerable expenditures are
made each year by municipalities and individuals
for chemical controls and screening to provide
partial protection from mosquitoes.
MR. RUYLE: I object to the form of the
question, Your Honor, being one designed to be
incapable of direct examination without analysis.
If counsel would provide the Doctor with a written
statement so he can analyze it and refresh his
recollection as to each independent assertion,
perhaps he could give some capable answer. I
would instruct the witness not to answer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's hard to follow, but let's
get down to facts. I don't even understand it.
MR. HEYER: I want to, the question, of course,
the question, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the
witness acknowledges that to be a valid statement
MR. RUYLE: I renew my objection of the length
of the form of the question and ask that counsel be
required to present a written statement of the question
to the witness and let him analyze it. He is incapable
of answering on direct recollection, in my opinion.
-49-
MR. HEYER: I would be glad to do so, Mr.
Commissioner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Rephrase your question.
MR. HEYER: Well, I will provide him with a
written statement.
Mark this please, as Exhibit A.
(Whereupon, Exhibit A vas
marked for identification by
the Court Reporter.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
BY MR. HEYER:
Q Dr. Flack, I am going to hand you a pamphlet which
is entitled "Significant Vector Problems in the
South Platte River Basin" published by the United
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Public Health Service, Region H, Denver, Colorado.
And first I am going to ask you if you are
familiar with that publication?
A Not this specific one, no. I haven't seen it before.
Q Now, sir, will you turn to page six and I will point
out to you a little penciled check mark. I would
like to have you read from there to there (indicating)
out loud, and state whether or not you agree with
that proposition.
A (Reading)
In addition to their public health importance,
large numbers of biting mosquitoes also cause severe
economic losses by reducing the efficiency of
agricultural and industrial workers; by reducing
-50-
the vitality of farm animals and thereby lowering
meat and dairy production; by interfering with
out door recreation and entertainment; and by lowering
real estate values. In the form of more tangible
losses, considerable expenditures are made each year
by municipalities and individuals for chemical controls
and screening to provide partial protection from
mosquitoes.
May I break this down into parts, because it
very definitely has parts, the statement.
Q Have you finished reading it?
A
Yes.
Large numbers of biting mosquitoes also cause
severe economic losses by reducing the efficiency
of agricultural and industrial workers.
I would have to state I have had no occasion
to be aware of such a fact in our circumstances,
so that I couldn't say it has. If there were such
a thing present, it potentially could have that
effect. We don't have this problem.
By reducing the vitality of farm animals and
thereby lowering meat and dairy production.
Here again, that would be valid providing you
had this large number of mosquito population. We
do not have it. So it would not be a valid state-
ment with reference to the topic at hand because we
don't have the large number of mosquitoes.
By interfering with outdoor recreation and
entertainment; and by lowering real estate values.
-51-
I am not a real estate man and. I am not
involved in the recreation business, so I should
not answer.
In the form of more tangible losses, considerable
expenditures are made each year by municipalities and
individuals for chemical controls and screening to
provide partial protection from mosquitoes.
In reference to our own circumstances, we do use
a thermo fogger for insect control, but this is aimed
primarily at the common housefly. We haven't had a
mosquito problem at our present location, with one
exception. Two years ago, three years ago, during
the time of the heavy flood, there was a lot of
back water in the ground lying to the direct south
of our present location. This is quite a swampy
area and it was not too long after we had acquired
this ground, and this swampy ground did at that
time provide some of the circumstances which you
have tried to make reference to here as if they
were routine circumstances, which do induce the breeding
of the mosquitoes. Andwe had to control that zone
by two applications from an aerial sprayer to cut
down the problem or eliminate the problem.
That particular problem is under the direct
supervision, or at least the direct observation of the
Weld County Health Department, and I am quite sure
Mr. Paul would be happy to testify as to the specifics
of that one time that we have had a mosquito problem
in this area.
-52-
Q Your problem, I believe, you said is flies?
A I would be if we didn't control it
Q Well, now - -
A Could be, I should say.
Q Flies of course are one of the greatest public
health hazards, aren't they?
A Somebody from the Public Health Department would
have to answer that.
Q Do you know anything about the ways in which a fly
carries disease causing substances?
A Well, strictly mechanic in this situation of the
common house fly, because they are a blood sucking,
biting thing.
Q Do you know the five ways in which a fly can
transmit a disease to a human?
A Mechanical being primary.
Q Well, on the mouth parts of the fly, that is one way,
isn't it?
A This is mechanical.
Q And in their vomitus, that is another way, isn't it?
A This is mechanical.
Q And on their legs and body hairs?
A Mechanical.
Q That is true. And on the sticky pads of their feet?
If you want to turn to page nine in the booklet
before you, I am referring to the top paragraph. Do
you see what I am referring to here?
A Yes. But these are all mechanical means. In other
words, the common housefly does not actually puncture
-53-
the skin and try to suck blood from the victim
animal. There are flies that do this, but we have
had no concentration of the biting flies or biting
fly problems.
Q I didn't ask you that, sir. I didn't ask you that at
all.
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
My question was this: This statement appears in
that pamphlet before you and. I want to know whether
you recognize it as being a valid statement. The
house fly is important because of its ability to
transmit disease causing organisms?
Yes
And then there are five ways in which a fly can do
that.
All of them mechanical.
And the fifth way is through the intestinal tract
by means of fly feces.
That is true, isn't it?
Yes.
Now, isn't it a fact that these are the diseases that
a fly can transmit to a human, and you may follow me
in the same paragraph, typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera,
I don't know how to pronounce this, bacillary
dysentery, - -
A Bacillary dysentery.
Q Would}ou read them, sir.
A I can't find the line where you are at.
Q First paragraph, the third line from the bottom.
MR. RUYLE: Mr. Commissioners, I object to this
-54-
entire line of questioning. It's beyond the
scope of cross examination under any conditions.
This information was not testified to by the
veterinarian, resident veterinarian, and it's
designed for a medical doctor's analysis, of
which he has not testified as to his qualifications.
It's delaying the hearing, in my opinion, Your Honor.
No useful purpose can be served by this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let him continue once
more.
MR. HEYER: I am about through, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry. But this is a subject that the witness
skipped over rather lightly, and I am trying to
find out how familiar he is with the problem.
DR. FLACK: Do you want me to read the diseases
that can be carried by mechanical vectors?
Q (By Mr. Heyer, continuing) Would you read that,
please.
A By any mechanical vector fly, which would be one.
Diseases transmitted in such manner include typhoid,
paratyphoid, cholera, bacillary dysentery, infantile
diarrhea, amoebic dysentery, pinworm, roundworm,
whipworm, hookworm, tapeworm, anthrax, and tularemia.
Q Now, sir, there are just two more statement I want
to ask you about there in that second paragraph.
Just clarify the accuracy of this for me.
The life cycle of the housefly begins with the
egg and goes progressively through three larval stages
to the - - what is that?
-55-
A Pupae.
Q And finally to the adult. In rural areas the most
common breeding medium is manure.
A Yes.
Q True?
A Yes.
Q And then a little further down.
Within the Basin a serious housefly problem
does exist in the manure piles adjacent to many
of the cattle feedlots, and many of these feedlots
are closely associated with Basin streams.
Is that true?
A Yes. But I would like to ask you to read the rest
of the statement that you left out.
Q You may read what you want to later. I just want
you to answer my questions.
MR. BILLINGS: This is an informal hearing, and
I think if Mr. Flack wishes to read the rest of that
sentence, it's permissable.
MR. HEYER: Whatever you wish.
A I think this portion he states as far as the breeding
of fly eggs and manure, I think we all see the facts.
Cattle manure, pig manure, sheep manure, right on
downthe line, any type of organic material will
certainly make an adequate hatching medium for fly
eggs. The comment that I am referring to in this,
that he made the statement in rural areas, common
breeding medium is manure, although almost any warm,
moist organic material is used.
-56-
Q (By Mr. Heyer, continuing) Do you have any
knowledge, Dr Flack, about rats or how one might
expect to find rats in proximity to a feedlot?
A I do, yes.
Q Would you tell us what you know about that subject?
A I think - - What do you mean, how you find them,
visual observation.
Q Are there any rats around cattle feedlots?
A Usually.
MR. HEYER: Usually. Thank you. You may examine.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Duane, in all the hypotheticals that counsel has
asked you, do you find any applications of those
in specific relation to the proposed location of
this commercial feedlot?
A No.
Q Has your experience as the resident veterinarian
of feedlots indicated complete and adequate control,
in your opinion, of all of the hypothetical pest
and insect and disease problems described by counsel
in the last statement?
A May I elaborate on that a little bit, Bob?
Q Yes.
A The comments that the gentleman has made and the
quotes he has taken out of this pamphlet of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which
was one designed specifically to describe the importance
of vectors, significant vectors, are very definitely
true. The mosquitoes, or I should say the insect
-57-
rodents, or any such animals, have a public health
significance from the transfer of disease, public
health as we recognize it, as well as those that
have to do with animals. Such vectors, whether they
be mechanical or whether they actually are involved
in the life cycle of the causive agent of a disease,
whether they be mechanical or viral, are certainly
an important fact to us, with our situation of
one hundred thousand cattle, and the control of any
such problem is as much a concern to us and as much
effort is put into it on our behalf, because of our
interests in the operation of our feeding establishment,
as well as those that would be associated with the
public health of the community in the area. We work
quite closely with the Weld County Health Department,
as we do with the State Health Department, and I
would be happy to have questions asked of Mr. Paul
as to our present circumstances. I can testify as
to the lack of any problems, disease -wise, that would
be associated with mechanical or viral vectors in
our feedlot, because this is my particular responsibility
to see to it that we do not have these problems at
our present location.
Q Do you expect this problem, based upon your experience,
at the proposed location?
A They potentially could, if you didn't have a design
program to control them. This is what health control
and health programming is. We will naturally have
such a control. We have to in order to be in the business.
-58-
MR. BILLINGS: What is the date of that publication
that was entered into evidence?
MR. RUYLE: 1965.
BY MR. HEYER:
Q Dr. Flack, are you in charge of the odor problem
on the north lot?
A I guess I am.
Q Have you done all you can do about the odor problem
from the north lot?
A We are doing everything we possibly can.
Q And we can expect the same then from the south lot?
A You certainly can expect every effort to be made.
MR. HEYER: Thank you.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q One other question, Duane. In the control of odors,
is there any identifiable gaseous matter connected
with cattle feedlot odors?
A Specifically identifiable, no. Well, no, wait a
minute.
Q Measurable?
A Measurable identifiable, no. This is an area of
concern in the study of feedlot odor control, is the
logical approach as to identify the malodorous substance,
try to identify the means by which it is produced so
as to be able to attack that means and ontrol it
through a logical approach as opposed to methods
which have been suggested by a number of firms. This
is a process that is under study at the present time
by Colorado State University.
-59-
Q Is Monfort Feedlots, Inc., involved in participating
in the studies?
A Yes, sir. Both through the actual monetary help of
these studies, projects in construction with other
interested aspects of the cattle feeding industry,
and then also through the staff of Colorado State
University.
Q Mechanically, the feedlot uses all known safeguards
to reduce odors that are presently acknowledged to
be successful?
A Yes, sir.
Q And have you designed your program to do so in the
future should such a mechanical devise be developed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Or discovered, maybe is a better word.
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. HEYER:
Q One further question. Dr. Flack, as far as identifying
the malodorous substances, isn't it a fact that the
malodorous substances are air borne particles or
molecules of manure and urine?
A No.
MR. HEYER: That is all.
MR. SHELTON: We would like to have Exhibit A entered
as a document from which the questions were propounded
to the last witness.
MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Shelton, do you have any later
publications of this?
MR. SHELTON: This is the only one we have.
-60-
MR. BILLINGS: Let the record show that it was
published in March, 1965.
MR. RUYLE: We have one additional witness, Mr.
Commissioners. Referring to the purposes of the zoning,
it occurred to us that item number four as identified,
and the purposes of the Weld County Planning Commission's
resolution was that zoning was for the purpose of public
tax base to be stabilized and maintained. We have developed
a little bit of economic testimony which I think has a
bearing on this and I would like to ask Larry Knee, the
treasurer of Monfort Feedlots, to give some statistical
background on the economics as to this particular proposed
location.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Will you state your name and address.
A Larry Knee, 1321 Thirty-first Avenue, Greeley.
Treasurer of Monfort Feedlots.
Q Larry, you have prepared some statistics on the
economic impact of the location as proposed of the
new feedlot.
A Yes.
Q State those, if you will, please.
A We have projected that land acquisition and construction
for the new feedlot complex will cost $4,250,000.
Estimated breakdown of this figure is as follows:
Land, 500,000; Elevator, 250,000; Flaker
Mill, 1,000,000; Other buildings, 200,000; Pens,
1,500,000; equipment, 500,000; and miscellaneous,
300,000.
In addition, the lot will maintain a grain
-61-
inventory of $900,00 and with a 100,00 head
capacity will have a cattle
$25,000,000 in value. When
capacity, the 125 employees
inventory of around
the
feed lot is at
(Many of which we hope
we can get from the immediate area) will receive a
payroll in excess of $1,000,000. Excluding any
Denver purchases, $350,000 will be spent locally
for repair parts and operating supplies. Utilities,
fuel, insurance and other miscellaneous expenses
will cost another $250,000. Property taxes are
estimated to be $469,688. We cannot predict the
cost of the cattle but we estimate an assessed
valuation of $6,250,000 and a mill levy of
$75.15 per M. This mill levy breaks down as
School District RE 1 42.80
General Fund 26.46
follows:
267,500
165,375
(Of this 26.46 mills, 16 mills goes to the county
for expenditures other than schools or $100,000. The
balance of 10.46 mills or $65,375 goes to the Weld
County Schools of which school district RE 1 gets
6.9% or $4,511 and school district 6 gets 45.46% or
$29,719.)
Water District 1.00
Fire Districts 2.90
Aims Junior College 1.99
75.15
The 1969 school budget for RE 1 is $898.000
6,250
18,125
12,439
469,689
so that
the projected property taxes for the RE 1 schools would pay
around 307 of the budget. To give you an idea of the local
-62-
feed that would be required, we can use last years figures
on our current feed lot facilities.
Silage: We
directly to farmers
Green Hay:
directly to farmers
contracted 10,473 acres and paid out
$1,517,000.
We purchased 2,603 acres and paid out
$153,000.
Shelled Corn: On about 7,500 acres we purchased
$894,000 of corn grown in the local area. Total acres
amount to 20,576.
In 1968-1969 we initiated a manure bonus plan and
coupled with an attractive selling price, we moved in excess
of 300,00 tons and ere unable to fill all of our manure
requests.
We do in addition, pay $1,300,000 to local freight
lines on cattle
supplement
constantly
additional
and grain and over $1,000,000 in feed
to a local elevator. Monfort Feed Lots is
seeking new and better methods and I am sure
capital expenditures will be spent each year on
improvements
in replacing
we have over
flaker mill,
here that 75
this is cons
about 60,000
and as time goes along we will make expenditures
worn out equipment. At our present facilities,
100 units of motorized vehicles besides elevator,
scales, shop and office equipment. I will add
of our motorized vehicles are licensed, and while
iderable for a feed lot, Weld County issues
licenses so I guess we are not hogging the roads.
All of our equipment is strictly driven for business
and not for pleasure nor malicious purposes.
I would like to close with the one figure which is
the only onetcombined.with all of Monfort enterprises and is
-63-
for the benefit of the medical profession. For the 909
Monfort employees, the company's insurance carriers paid
out $265,000 in a policy year in hospital and medical bills
almost all of it locally. Before you jump to any wrong
conclusions, none of the claims showed feed lot disease or
odor disease or whatever one might call it if it existed.
These are just some figures and do not tell the whole story
(incidentally since January 1, in the "off" tourist season,
we have had visitors from 42 states and 21 foreign countries)
but I don't think that they indicate that Monfort Feed Lots
is selfish. It would be possible to give you a history of
profits over the years but I think it only necessary to say
that profits have always been poured bads into the company
thus creating more feedlot jobs, packing plant jobs, and
other jobs in the community and increasing the markets for
the farmer This to me sounds like the good old American
free enterprise system at its best.
MR. RUYLE: No further questions
MR. SHELTON: I would trust that his figures are
accurate. I have no questions at all.
MR. RUYLE: I have one question.
Q (By Mr. Ruyle, continuing) Larry, these expenditures,
payroll and taxes, are based upon an annual base?
A Yes.
Q And the mill levy from which you have testified was
obtained from a Weld County Assessor for the year 1968?
A Yes, that's correct.
MR. RUYLE: Mr Commissioners, this basically
concludes our formal presentation of why we propose
-64-
to select this location for the expansion of
Monfort Feed Lots.
I have been contacted by others. I see some
friendly faces in the audience and I would like to
ask if there are others here who have something to
say in support of the applicant's location to
determine that they are in support of the location,
since this concludes the applicant's presentation.
If they would identify themselves, if they would
like to speak, I think it's proper that they speak
at this time. I recognize some of them are farmers,
and it's getting late in the afternoon, and they
would like to leave.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, now the three minute rule
will be in effect. Allow your people the three
minutes.
MR. BILLINGS: State your name.
MR. HORNBINE: Phil Hornbine. I represent the
employees of the Monfort Packing Company through
their bargaining representatives. My statement will
be very short, well within the two or three minutes.
As employees, of course we have a vital interest
in the success and progress and expansion of the
Monfort Enterprise, and we think this is a great
advance, and should certainly receive the approval
of this commission. But I speak here not only as a
representative of these people as employees, but I
wish to emphasize, may it please the members of this
Commission, that these employees, over seven hundred
-65-
of them, are also residents, citizens and tax
payers of the County of Weld and City of Greeley.
And we are not interested in this matter, in this
issue before the Commission only as workers, as
employees. My clients are interested in this issue
as residents of this county. We are interested in
the health. We are interested in the welfare. We
are interested in continuing to maintain Weld County
as an ideal place to live. And we believe that the
proposed feed lot will enhance the prosperity and
desirability of Weld County as a place to live, as
a place to work, as a place to raise your family.
Now, we have heard a lot of talk here about
flies, about mosquitoes, about odors. But I
submit to the Commission that Monforts are proposing
to do nothing that has not been done in this county,
and in every agricultural county in this State for
countless years, for almost a century, raising
livestock. That is all they are proposing to do.
Of course where you have livestock you are also
going to have odors. But there certainly, we think,
is nothing objectionable about the odors that come
from livestock. We think that this is one of the
aromas, I think it would be more properly called, is
one of the pleasures of living in agricultural community.
And I hope this will always be an agricultural community.
And those of you who object to such an odor, if they
prefer to live in the smog of a big city, why then
of course that is an alternative. But I think the
-66-
great majority of people living in Weld County
appreciate the many blessings that they have, and
this includes one of the biggest assets of livestock
raising, and we hope the Commission will approve
this application.
Thank you very much.
MR. SHELTON: Mr. Commissioner, may I ask this
gentleman one question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
MR. SHELTON: Mr. Hornbine, where do you live?
MR. HORNBINE: In Denver, Colorado.
MR. SHELTON: That is all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have somecrore witnesses?
MR. RUYLE: I have none.
If there are other people who wish to speak,
please come forward and identify yourselves.
MR. STRONG: I am Curtis Strong, formerly Harry
N. Strong Construction Company of Platteville. Now
we operate Mountain Aggregates Company.
We have built four airports and assisted to
build two others in the area. The furthest away
was Broomfield. We assisted in that We built the
Loveland -Fort Collins Airport, one hundred percent.
We were involved in the Greeley Airport. And I own
two airports, one at Platteville ad one in the Greeley
area. And now we are working on an airport at
Fort Lupton. And all of them, the direction of the
runway is so that the wind comes just like it is
coming in the window right now, from the northwest.
-67-
This is the prevailing wind in this area. Every
airport that we built has got the same direction
of runway. The main runway, and the prevailing wind
is northwest.
Now, I am kind of a selfish guy too and I was
thinking about something else, too. I own three
farms west of Platteville where we raise a lot of
corn, and one thing and another that we like to get
rid of. And if we can have an outlet of this type
in our area we sure, it will sure help the area.
And I am speaking not only for myself, but a bunch
of my neighbors down there, too.
Thank you.
MR. RUYLE: Where do you live, Mr. Strong?
MR. STRONG: Platteville.
MR. SHELTON: No questions.
MR. SHADE: I am Bill Shade, and I am here
representing an organization called the LaSalle
Development Foundation, Incorporated. It's a non-
profit organization newly formed composed of mostly
individuals living in the LaSalle, Colorado area,
and of people who are interested in that area. The
purpose of the organization is to develop not only
the business resources of the area, but also the
recreational and educational facilities as well.
The organization has asked me to indicate that of
approximately forty individual members, thirty-nine
are definitely in favor of the Monfort proposal, that
is the proposal to locate a feedlot of the magnitude
-68-
at the indicated area.
I have here an affidavit which I would like to
have introduced into evidence. It's accompanied
with a list of approximately forty individuals,
exactly forty, with an indication after their names
of their feelings on this issue. And the affidavit
is signed by the president of the organization, Mike
Leland, indicating that the results of this survey
were conducted within the last thirty-six hours, and
so that the veracity of this document is substantiated.
I suppose it should be marked as one of the
applicant's exhibits rather than having a new
numbering system started.
MR. SHELTON: I have no objection thereto.
MR. RUYLE: We have no objection. It will be
Applicant's Exhibit 6.
MR. TELEP: Why don't you just introduce it
into evidence as an instrument in favor of the
petition of Monfort?
MR. SHADE: All right. And as I say, it's an
affidavit, two page affidavit dated May 21, 1969,
signed by Mike Leland, so that will identify it.
Thank you.
MR. WILHELM: My name is Ken Wilhelm. I am a
representative of Caterpillar Tractor, I sell heavy
earth moving equipment. I live two miles from the
Monfort Feedlots.
I am kind of sorry my seventy year old father
isn't here today, because I grew up not a half a
-69-
mile from the Monfort Feedlots, and I made it.
And I didn't know it was that tough to live that
close and fight those flies and mosquitoes. But
we really didn't experience too much of that in
growing up, and I am sure the farmers in that area
have nothing against the Monfort Feedlot as far as
the mosquitoes and flies go.
The other reason I am here, I have been selling
in this area for nine years. There are many, many
feedlots in this area and I would like to say that
Monforts are second to none, in fact head and shoulders
above every feed lot in this area. They are aware of
the problems of odor and the control of manure. They
have worked with us, we have worked with them, and
people have come here from the Caterpillar Tractor
in Peoria. They have worked with this problem
and Leroy Johnson, we have experimented with new
machines out there to control this. And as I say,
they have worked head and shoulders above everybody
in trying to control this. And they are doing the
same thing on the new feedlot. We have ordered a
couple new machines to try out down there to keep
the odor and so forth at a minimum by controlling
the actual accumulation of this manure in the area.
So I feel that they are going to no end to try to
help you people in controlling the problem initially
rather than letting it build up in this area.
Are there any questions?
MR. SHELTON: Yes. How many cattle were on
-70-
feed in the Monfort Feedlot north of town when you
grew up there?
A Oh, I am not sure how many are there now, but I would
guess twenty-five or thirty thousand.
MR. SHELTON: All right. Thank you.
MR. RUYLE: I would like to have -- MR. WILHELM: But I live two miles from there
now, and they are all there right now.
MR. RUYLE: Have you had occasion to live on the
Monfort Feedlot premises?
MR. WILHELM: Well,I would rather not get into
some of the shady parts of my life. I would rather
not be questioned on that question. I did live on
the feedlots for two years.
MR. SHELTON: I won't question him on that
point.
MR. MARTINSON: My name is Myron Martinson. I
am president of the School Board of R.E. 1, and I
would like to bring you the comments of the school
board.
They unanimously adopt the resolution that they
favor the proposed feedlot to be located in R.E. 1.
Their reasoning was many reasons, mostly financial,
though. They feel that the aid of the Monfort Feedlots
will he able to give la a financial aid in the form
of reduced, if not reduced, at least no larger increase
in our taxes to the patrons of R.E. 1.
Therefore, we urgently request that you approve
the favorable consideration of Monfort Feedlots. We
have groups in our area, P.T A ., and so forth, that
-71-
have made petitions and taken them and circulated
these petitions among the patrons of R.E. 1. And
we have these here to present to you at this time.
So if you would like these as part of your evidence,
we have them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will accept them as part of
the record.
MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Martinson, do you have an
exact count of the number of people that have signed
those?
MR. MARTINSON: No, I don't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What towns does that include, Mr.
Martinson?
MR. MARTINSON: It includes Platteville, Gilcrest,
and LaSalle.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions?
MR. SHELTON: Yes.
Mr. Martinson, what amount of money does your
school district get from the, or is it proposed that
you will receive from the feedlot?
MR. MARTINSON: The proposal that Mr Knee had
indicated was two hundred thousand dollars, but I am
not sure if that is correct.
MR. SHELTON: I believe he stated that school
district 6 would get twenty-nine thousand. Does that
seem correct to you as a figure?
MR. MARTINSON: It could be on last years
apportionment, but since the legislature has re-
apportioned the way the taxes will be, it could be.
-72-
MR. SHELTON: I have just talked about probably.
MR. MARTINSON: Yes.
MR. SHELTON: And so two hundred thousand dollars
as opposed to twenty-nine thousand dollars to school
district 6, I want to ask you a question. If the
numbers were reversed and school district 6 received
two hundred thousand dollars, and your district
twenty-nine thousand dollars, do you think there
would be any difference in opinion of your people?
MR. MARTINSON: I think they would be happy to get
the twenty-nine thousand dollars.
MR. SHELTON: No further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ruyle, do you have any questions
of Mr Martinson?
MR. RUYLE: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to
speak further?
MR. CROSIER: I am Dean Crosier, Mayor pro tem of
the town of Gilcrest.
I have a letter.
(Reading) Dear Sirs, At the regular meeting of
the Board of Trustees of the Town of Gilcrest a_
May 12, 1969, unanimous support was expressed on
behalf of the proposed feedlot to be constructed
by Monfort of Colorado two miles north of Gilcrest.
In addition, I have been authorized to speak
for the Town of Gilcrest in favor of the proposed
feedlot if it seems that such support would be
needed.
-73-
Sincerely, Dean Crosier, Mayor Pro tem.
MR. SHELTON: I have no questions of this
gentleman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ruyle?
MR. RUYLE: No questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will accept your letter.
MR. CROSIER: I might say the Town of Gilcrest
will receive no financial aid.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wishes
to be heard at this time?
MR. HANCOCK: I am Tom Hancock.
Not very many years ago I lived very close to
the feedlots up here. At the present time I live
a very short ways south of where the proposed site
is, and I can see no objection whatsoever to it.
I might say that if people around here who travel
around the states a little bit, they would find
many odors being much more objectionable, and you
will find a lot more rats and flies in a lot of the
cities.
So I think it's one of the finest things to help
this community. It's time we looked ahead to see
what is coming up for us. Are we going to go forward
or go backward.
That is all I have to say.
MR. SHELTON: No questions.
MR. HARVEY: My name is Dale Harvey, president
of the LaSalle Voluntary Fire Department.
As of Monday night we took a vote amongst the
-74-
department, which consists of twenty-seven members,
and inactive members. They are in unanimous approval
of the Monfort Feedlot at its proposed location.
MR. SHELTON: No questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
MR. SODMAN: Yes. My name is Wayne Sodman. I
am union steward for the packing house people at the
present packing plant.
As their elected representative, most of the
fellows have to work and they can't come to meetings
such as this and talk. I would like to say that it's
a consensus of opinion of all people working there
that this would be one of the biggest changes to
the community that we have seen since we have been
in this area. We have to remember we are not only
talking in excess of one hundred jobs at the proposed
feedlot, but this will in turn provide four or five
hundred people for the packing plant, an additional
five hundred for the proposed consumer products
facility, and we we definitely in favor of granting
the petition.
MR. ELLIOT: I am Bill Elliot. We are large
property owners in Greeley, and we would like to
recommend that you approve this. We have no objection
to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
MR. SANDEL: I am Robert Sandel, president of
the LaSalle Land Development, director of the South
Platte National Bank, president of the LaSalle Land
-75-
Development, and president of the Fire Protection
Unit, and we are in favor of this proposal.
MR. RUYLE: I would like to ask Bob Sandel one
question. Bob, the LaSalle Land Development Company
is involved in a subdivision business and that sub-
division is located immediately west of the town of
LaSalle, is that true?
MR. SANDEL: Right.
MR. RUYLE: How close is that to the proposed
location?
MR. SANDEL: Two and a half to three miles.
MR. RUYLE: Directly south and east?
MR. SANDEL: West, southeast, southwest.
MR. RUYLE: I mean your subdivision is south
and east of the proposed location?
MR. SANDEL: Yes.
MR. FLACK: Norm Flack, manager of Mountain
Savings and Loan up here on the corner.
We are primarily in the business of making real
estate loans at Mountain Savings. It is our sole
purpose. We think business is good. Learned
counsel indicated that this type of a problem has
recessive, depressive effects on real estate values.
We think business is good. We are in favor of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else that has anything
for the applicant?
If not, we will ask for a show of hands of
everybody in the room who is in favor of the
application.
-76-
MR. BILLINGS: Could we start by row. Would
the back row stand up. The people in the back row
in favor of this please stand up. Thirteen.
Next row, please.
MR. SHELTON: Six.
MR. BILLINGS: Next row, please.
MR. SHELTON: Seventeen.
MR. BILLINGS: Next row.
MR. SHELTON: Twelve.
MR. BILLINGS: Next row.
MR. SHELTON: Eight.
MR. BILLINGS: Next row.
MR. SHELTON: Twelve.
MR. BILLINGS: First row.
MR. SHELTON: Nine. Two.
MR. RUYLE: And four here.
MR. SHELTON: Kenny is a big fellow. You can
make one and a half for that.
MR. MONFORT: This may be one of the first
elections I have won for a long time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to take a ten minute
recess.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
(After recess.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue.
MR. RUYLE: If it please the Commissioners, I
would like,for the record, I woulu like a summary of
the count of the people that were in s1:.. ort of this
application.
-77-
MR. CHAIRMAN: Seventy-nine.
MR. RUYLE: We have nothing further at this time
to present for the applicant.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we will hear from
the opposition.
MR. SHELTON: I wish to call Dr. Winchester.
BY MR. SHELTON:
Q Will you state your name, please.
A My name is A. M. Winchester. I reside at 2127 14th
Street Road.
Q In Greeley, Colorado?
A Greeley.
Q What is your occupation, sir?
A I am a professor of Biology, Colorado State College,
also a member of the Board of Examiners in Basic
Sciences for the State of Colorado.
Q What is your educational background?
A I have an A.B., Baylor University. M.A., Ph.D.
from the University of Texas. I have had post-
graduate training at Harvard University, University
of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of
Munich, Germany.
Q Have you authored any texts or textbooks?
A Yes, I have authored five widely used textbooks in
the field of biology.
Q And what are these textbooks used in then?
A They are college level textbooks used for college
classes in various states and countries. Quite a
number used in foreign countries. They have been
-78-
translated in three foreign languages.
Q Are you a member of any honorary societies in your
field?
A I have been awarded the, as a fellow in the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, an award
usually given for some outstanding achievement. And
past president of the Academy of American Science,
among others.
Q Can you give to us a definition of air pollution?
A Well, I would say anything is pollution which creates
unfavorable odors in the air. I would think that
would be a satisfactory explanation.
Q Dr. Flack has testified, if I recall this correctly,
were you present when Dr. Duane Flack testified?
A Yes, I heard his testimony.
Q He testified something to the effect that, if I
understood him correctly, that odors and specifically
cattle feedlot odors were not carrying in the air
urine and feces molecules.
A Yes.
Q What is your answer as an expert in biology, and
the training that you have in answer to that?
A Any odor, of course, to be detected means there has
to be molecules transferred through the air from a
substance to a certain area of the nasal membrane
of the nose, in their nose. There it dissolves in
the mucuous and there are nerve endings there that
detect these molecules that have come from the
substance which you smell.
-79-
Q Would it be correct to state that the feedlot odors
of cattle would be the gaseous molecular substance
of urine and feces?
A Yes, that would be a correct statement. The volatile
parts of these substances which gets in the air is
what you detect.
Q Does that mean in effect that you smell feedlot odors,
you are in effect breathing into your system the
gaseous molecules of urine and feces?
A Yes, that would be a correct assessment.
Q How long have you lived in the community of Greeley?
A Six years.
Q Are you aware of the location of the existing feed-
lot?
A Yes.
Q Of Monfort's approximately one mile north of Greeley?
A Yes
Q Assuming any person living in the wind area, within
we'll say a mile or two miles of the proposed feedlot
in any direction, since I believe the one gentleman
testified the wind blows in all directions in this
area - -
A Yes.
Q Wouldthat feedlot odor, if it is of the same type as
one hundred thousand head on feed north of Greeley,
be smelled by people in that area?
A Well, there is no question there but what it definitely
is smell, and to a rather great extent. The degree
of odor, of course, depends on the actual number of
-80-
molecules. The more substance you have to give off
the molecules, actually, the greater the distance
you are going to be able to smell it. This, of
course, is effected by wind direction, which can
travel, of course, quite a few miles from the
source of the odor.
Q Now, taking the proposed feedlot and considering
your experience with the existing feedlot of
Monforts north of Greeley, can you give an opinion
as to whether the proposed feedlot, if it had odors
similar in nature and amount as the feedlot presently
existing on Monforts' lots one mile approximately
north of Greeley, can you give an opinion, based
in your field, as to whether this would have an
effect on the health of people within an area of,
say up to five miles?
A I would say in my opinion, yes. Unpleasant odors
have a nauseous effect. You smell anything bad
enough you vomit. If it's not quite so bad you don't
vomit. You feel sick to your stomach. And this
then is a matter of degree. And in the case of
this, it wouldn't get to the point perhaps of making
a person vomit. I do know of some who complain of
feeling sick to their stomach because of the odor.
Q Of the present existing odor?
A Yes, as it exists at present.
Q Well, then based on your answer that you have just
made to me, would it be your professional opinion
that if the new feedlot is located as proposed, and
-81-
has one hundred thousand head of cattle, and I am
telling you that the approximate same number is
located in the existing feedlot north of town,
would you say that this would have an effect on the
health of the people in the community of Greeley?
A I would think that it would, based on what we get
from the other lot, and the location of the new lot,
presuming similar odors from the new lot, I would
think it would.
MR. SHELTON: You may inquire.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Dr. Winchester, I believe you stated that the air
pollution was an obnoxious odor in the air. Is that
your definition?
A That would be true, something unpleasant to the human
being smelling it.
Q If someone was allergic to or didn't like the scent
of roses, would this be air pollution under your
definition?
A No. We do not refer to allergies or allergic responses
as being due to air pollution.
Q
If someone doesn't like
fall under the category
a certain smell, does that
of air pollution?
A If it is noxious to the person, yes, to the person
involved.
Q So that your opinion as to whether or not feedlot
odors are unpleasant odors in part is based upon
your own desires to smell or not to smell
odors, is that correct?
-82-
feedlot
A Mine, plus many of my neighbors
have expressed similar feelings
Q Then not one based primarily on
but your personal experience?
and others who
toward it.
your profession,
A Not on my profession. Well, I don't quite under-
stand what you mean by my profession.
Q As a biologist - -
A Yes.
Q That does not qualify you to speak on what is noxious
and not noxious in the opinicaof individuals, does it?
A Yes, I think it does.
Q All right. Now, you have identified the molecules
or gaseous odors.
A Yes.
Q This is different than solid particle matter that
might also be identifiable with odors, is that not
true?
A Molecules, of course, are solids, they can exist
either in a
temperature.
solid gaseous form, depending upon
It's all a matter of temperature that
is involved. Water exists as ice,
or it can be a liquid or it can be
a matter of temperature. So there
difference
is a solid
would be a
it can be
a solid.
is really
a gas
So it's
no
between them. The molecule, of course,
entity, and what we are talking about
solid entity floating in the air.
Q But it is identifiable, dependent upon its physical
state?
A Yes. Temperature.
-83-
Q What investigation of feedlot odors have you made?
A None whatsoever, except by my own feelings and that
of the people that I have talked to in Greeley.
Q Are you personally opposed to feedlot odors?
A I find them unpleasant. Perhaps not so much as some
others I have talked to, but I do find them unpleasant.
Q Do you know of any physical diseases or disorders that
you personally can specifically trace to feedlot
odors?
A Only such things as loss of appetite. People usually
don't have a good appetite for food when there is
an unpleasant odor in their surroundings. I know
of people who have, are awakened at night, the odor
wakes them at night. They have to keep their
windows closed to try to keep out the odor during
warm weather so that they can get some sleep. It's
become so strong that it will actually wake them up
at night I have had quite a number of people tell
me this.
Q But no known disease, per se?
A No infectious disease, no.
Q That you have been specifically able to identify or
trace to feedlot odors?
A That's correct, yes.
Q Have you made any special investigation of any of the
feedlots in this particular area, not necessarily
relating to the feedlot of Monforts or to this
community - -
A I had one of my graduate students do a study of water
-84-
in conjunction with the packing plant and feedlot
out here.
Do you want to know what they found? Maybe not.
Q Do you have any way to identify feedlot odors as to
particular feedlots? Does one feedlot give any
different odor than another?
A No, I don't know that I would say that I have any
evidence that there is a distinction between them.
Q And then does the size of the feedlots, by size alone
have any predominance as to the amount of odor that
might be emitted?
A Yes, I would say so. As indicated, whether or not
you would detect an odor depends on how many molecules
there are in the air. You have one pile of manure
you may smell it a couple of hundred yards,
depending on the wind. If it's twice as big, you
might smell it even further. They tend to defuse
out according to the square of the distance from the
source, so if you have more to begin with, naturally
you are going to be able to smell it at a greater
distance.
Q Then a feedlot of thirty thousand head that was
concentrated in a one quarter square mile area and
covered the surface with manure, would produce just
as much of an emission as a one hundred thousand
head feedlot quartered in the same premises, is
that true, the area saturated with manure?
A Well, I wouldn't want to say definitely. If it
was covered with manure that would be approximately
-85-
right. If it was solid with it. However, I wouldn't
think that would be tFe case.
MR. RUYLE: I have no further questions.
BY MR. SHELTON:
Q Well, Doctor Winchester, it would he a very obvious
human observation that one hundred thousand head of
cattle pass more manure and urine than thirty
thousand, would that be correct?
A Yes.
Q And the greater the concentration or the amount
supplied from one hundred thousand, would, if
confined in a relatively small area as has been
illustrated in this hearing today, would convey
much stronger odors than thirty thousand in the
same area?
A I would think so. In answering the question the
way he put it, was if you have a saturated amount
and if you just add some on top of that, you are
not going to get a great deal more, but naturally
in any lot there is going to be a scattering, and
I don't think you would gat the same.
Q All right. I believe Mr. Ruyle elicited that you
had a student who made some studies. Could you tell
us what the results were?
A This was about the same. They generally found when
there is an area giving any sort of pollution of
matter in water, as the water gets more turbid you
tend to get a droop to your plants. Your plants are
water purifiers, they give oxygen, which is a water
-86-
purifier, and so above the area where the pollution
is dumped, and below you get an entire different
type of growth, you get a growth of the fungae,
the bacteria, the organisms of decay and your tissue
die. Your other water life, your plants along the
side tend to die. You tend to get a greater erosion
of your banks of your streams, and you get a vicious
cycle started which can have very far reaching effects.
We frequently don't realize that you could have one
little item in your environment disturbed and the
end result can be tremendous, because you get a
whole chain of reaction which can end up in very
far reaching and sometimes harmful and unpredictable
effects. Sometimes we can't predict until it happens,
and then it's too late to figure it out.
Q Doctor, I think you have the capacity to answer
beyond my capacity to question. I will ask no
other questions.
MR. RUYLE: I have no other questions.
MR. HEYER: Mr. Chairman, may I call Mr. Holmberg
BY MR. HEYER:
Q Will you state your name please, sir.
A My name is James S. Holmberg.
Q
A
Now,
near
I am
Mr. Holmberg, are you a co-owner of some property
the proposed south feedlot?
one of the owners of the two hundred and forty
acres that corner on the property to the southwest.
Q Sir, I wonder if you would take the exhibit, I have
forgotten what the number is, whichever one . . . . I
-87-
would be referring now to this applicant's exhibit 1.
Would you point out for the Commissioners where your
two hundred and forty acres are?
A Well, there are no section numbers on this plat.
However, Section 17 corners Section 9 directly to
the southwest. We have the northeast quarter and
north half of the southeast quarter of Section 17,
which would be located right in this direction (indicating).
MR. RUYLE: I think it would be the opposite
corner here.
Q (By Mr. Heyer, continuing) The green area is the
proposed lot, so you would be to the southwest of
that?
A We would be right here (indicating.)
Q All right. Mr. Holmberg, how long have you owned
that ground?
A About four and a half years.
Q Now, would you tellthe Commissioners, in your own way,
what use you had planned for that tract prior to the
announcement of the applicant's new proposed feedlot?
A Well, at the time we purchased the property, and still
today, it had approximately forty to sixty acres of
irrigatable land which is good for corn growing, and
about two hundred acres of which was pasture. But
this pasture was apeculiar sort, because it contains
warm water sluice which lends itself very well to
sports, duck hunting in particular. And it was our
plan to develop this property over a period of years
for sporting purposes, first, and then after we had
-88-
developed it to the point where we hoped to develop
it for those purposes, we would have residential real
estate property all the way around the
looking this water.
Q Are you, sir, speaking of luxury class
thing?
A Yes, this would tr a whole development
homes all mixed in with ponds, fishing
horseshoe over
home type of
of luxury
streams, lakes.
Q Has anyone attempted to purchase that tract of ground
from you?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell the Commissioners who and why?
A I couldn't name names. I have been called several
times by realtors in Greeley.
Q Well, now, has the State of Colorado, Department of
Game, Fish and Wild Life?
A The State of Colorado has indicated a desire to
purchase it. We have not received a formal offer.
Q For what purpose?
A We were advised
by the game warden that it was their
desire tonake a refuge out of it, game refuge.
Q Has that land recreational value and also value as
a wild life or refuge?
A We declined to sell it, but the game and fish
department and the federal fish and wild life service
have both indicated a desire to cooperate with us
in developing the property. Last year we spent
several thousand dollars on the initial development.
This year we have taken all the cattle off of it with
-89-
the idea of letting the natural grasses grow and
seeding various types of feed grasses. We have
been assured that we would have the cooperation
of these agencies.
Q Now, based upon your conversations with the federal
wildlife service and the State Game and Fish
Department, what have you learned with respect to
the value of this area as a recreational site as
compared to other areas in the state?
A It's been said it's the best duck hunting place
in the State of Colorado.
Q What does the new proposed Monfort south lot do to
your plans?
A Well, our plans initially, our feeling was that
Greeley could go only this way, because obviously
it couldn't go north.
Q You mean southwest?
A Yes. And eventually the town would move out toward
our property thus making it more valuable. And it
was our long range plan to use this as a recreational
place until such time as we went ahead and developed
it otherwise.
Q And your plans included the development of this as
a residential area?
A Yes. Luxury type residential area.
Q To the southwest of Greeley, right?
A Correct.
Q Now, Mr. Monfort's proposal stands in the way of your
plans?
-90-
A Well, it wipes us out.
MR. HEYER: That is all.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Mr. Holmberg, were you aware that this was located
in an egricultural zone?
A I believe we are, yes. I don't think - -
Q You were aware of that when you bought it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you made any efforts during your plans and
specifications for a residential development to
have the property zoned other than agricultural?
A We haven't got to that stage, no, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, the entire area of two hundred
and forty acres, except for about forty acres along
the road, is in a deep areathat is covered with
naturally warm running water at the present time,
except for some pasture areas intermittently
dispersed, isn't that true?
A Well, I wouldn't say it's exactly deep. There is
a ridge and it drops off perhaps fifty feet.
Q Is it true that generally speaking this land has
been used only for duck hunting purposes and
pasturing of livestock during the past seventy-five
years?
A Well, I can only testify to about four years.
Q And it has during that period of time?
A That's correct. It was actually, there was a
dwelling house on it that was built some years ago
which was abandoned and finally was destroyed.
-91-
Q It was abandoned?
A That's correct.
Q No one lived along the property?
A That's correct.
Q No one lives on it at the present time?
A That's right.
Q And there are no residential facilities that are
suitable for occupancy at the present time?
A Not at this time.
Q This has been an area which has been trapped for
muskrats and - -
A Yes, it's generally a very fine area for that sort
of thing.
Is there anything in your opinion that would prevent
the future use of that property for the same purpose
by the location of the proposed feedlot?
A Yes
Q What?
A I think it would be unwise for anybody to invest
money in homes there.
Q I say for the purpose that it has been used for
in the past seventy-five years.
A Well, of course it definitely affects the hunters who
are on the land, there is no question. I wouldn't
say that it's going to affect the ducks. The ducks
are going to fly in there. I am not sure how ducks
react to that.
Q Then the fact that this is going to completely ruin
your plans for residential development is based purely
Q
-92-
on your own personal opinion as the thing presently
is existing?
A It's my personal opinion and the opinion of my
associates, yes.
MR. RUYLE: Okay. That's all.
BY MR. HEYER:
Q Mr. Holmberg, is it true that since you purchased
the land it has more than doubled in value by reason
of its recreational advantages?
A I can only say that based upon offers we have had
that that would be my speculation. We have not had
it appraised, and we have had a number of people
make substantial offers for the opportunity to
get in.
Q And you turned down $100,000, haven't you, for that
ground?
A Yes.
Q Now - -
A No, I can't say that.
Q Well - -
A I have turned down the equal portion. That would amount
to - -
Of one hundred thousand dollars. That is one offer.
Q For your part ownership?
A One offer.
Q Yes. Now, if this feedlot goes in, will this tract
have any more value, in your opinion, as a recreational
site or as a residential area, in your opinion?
A Well, my opinion, based upon my knowledge of other
-93-
feedlots a:td driving by them on the highway, I don't
think I would want to hunt ducks out there or go
fishing out there.
Q Or live there?
A Or definitely not live there.
Q And your plans will be cancelled as far as this
ground is concerned?
A That's correct.
MR. HEYER: That's all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any more questions,
Mr. Ruyle?
MR. RUYLE: One other question.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q Where do you live, Mr. Holmberg?
A I live in Golden, Colorado.
Q What is your occupation?
A I am an attorney for an oil company.
MR. RUYLE: No further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have another question.
BY MR. BILLINGS:
Q Mr. Holmberg, I would like to ask a couple of
questions.
You have talked about making this areaa place
for duck hunting and sporting, sports of different
types, and I would wonder is this going to be for
a private club or is this going to be open to the
public?
A This would be, at present plans, a private club.
Q How many members would be in this private club?
-94-
A Well, actually there are six people that have a
share in the property, the ownership. Depending
upon what was developed or how valuable the property
was for the purposes it was developed for, there
could be anywhere from ten to twenty-five. Actually
it will presently support about twelve to fifteen
permanent duck hunters, if that were done.
Q Is this property, is it also, what type of fish are
in there, or is there summer game also?
A The ponds which we have only began to develop we
have been assured will support trout very well. As
of now, there is nothing but carp. We haven't gotten
to that stage of the development.
MR. BILLINGS: I have no further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a ground lease with
the Game and. Fish Department? Surface rights?
MR. HOLMBERG: No, sir, not right now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all.
MR. SHELTON: We wish to call Mr. Kirby Hart.
BY MR. SHELTON:
Q Will you state your name, please.
A Kirby Hart.
Q And what is your occupation?
A I am a stock trader, securities trader.
Q Not liv:r:ock?
A Well, they call them cats and dogs, some of them.
Q Mr ii.art, do you live in any area in the vicinity of
the proposed Feedlots?
A Yes, sir. I live, I would judge between two and two
-95-
and a half miles pretty much straight north, perhaps
east of north a little.
Q How much property do you own in that area?
A Well, individually my wife and I own some five and
a half or six acres. With two other associates we
own in the neighborhood of five hundred and some
odd acres.
Q And where is that five hundred acres located in
location to the proposed feed lot and your present
home?
A Well, the farm upon which we live, called Dos Rios,
the name coming from the confluence of the Big
Thompson and South Platte Rivers, and it, it is
generally this area here (indicating), to the feed
dump on the Ashton School Road.
Q Would it be correct to say it's just across the
river north of the proposed feed lot?
A Yes.
Q Do your lands adjoin the river?
A Our lands, I can't speak exactly, but I would say
that we have a mile of the Big Thompson and the
Platte after they join. We have all of the north
bank for approximately a mile.
Q For approximately a mile?
A Then our farm sort of staggers down here and embraces
part of the South Platte River, and for a distance,
and I can't tell you how far it is, several hundred
yards, it covers, it includes both banks of the
Platte River, as I recall.
-96-
Q All right. Mr. Hart, how long have you and your
associates owned this land referred to as Dos Rios?
A Since March of 1963, I believe.
Q And what development have you made of that land to
date and what development do you have in mind?
A Shortly after we bought it, we went to the Planning
Commission and asked for and received an estate zoning
for this area. And in the summer, late summer of
1963, we platted it into basically five acre tracts
with some green belts, leaving out all the river
bottom land, and making sort of a permanent easement
to property owners in this Dos Rios Subdivision, for
want of a better name, making that land available to
them on a permanent easement basis for recreational
purposes. And we did make some restrictions as to
what use it could be put to. We, for example, do
not permit hunting, because we have children's
horses and children's dogs and children chasing
children's dogs down there. And we have disbanded
firearms and that sort of thing. But it's basically
for the recreational use of the people who live
there.
Since we have platted it, we have sold some, oh
eight or nine sites, as I recall it.
Q Are the- residential home sites?
A They are.
Q What size?
A It is a covenantedarrangement whereby they can only
build one family dwelling. There are no covenants
-97-
in terms of size, but they are only permitted to
build one single family dwelling on it per roughly
five acres.
There are two platted smaller sites that are
something less than an acre, something over a half
an acre.
Q Can you state the average sales price of the eight
or nine sites you have sold?
A Well, basically we have sold them on a sort of a
basic formula of five thousand dollars an acre. By
the time the utilities, gas lines and water lines
and the underground irrigation lines, the fences
are run to and put around the property, the lots
cost, oh, over eight thousand dollars.
Q Now, who puts in those improvements you just described?
Do you put them in, or someone else?
A The corporation, the legal entity that owns the
Dos Rios Corporation.
Q So the land cost is five thousand dollars, you put
improvements of three thousand dollars thereon, while
you sell it or during the process of sale, so you're
talking about raw land alone, and not the total cost
of improvements, it's five thousand dollars per acre?
A Per site.
Q All right.
A It would be between three and six.
Q All right. That is five thousand dollars per site.
And it would vary in acreage. Do you know the number
of sites that you had platted in there?
-98-
A There are nineteen platted now. We have room to
plat another sixty, I suppose, if se leave the
existing green belts, the existing river bottom land
for recreational purposes, it wouldn't be suitable
for homes
Q All told, seventy-nine to eighty sites were in
effect contemplated?
A Yes, I think that is a fair statement.
Q At a price of five thousand dollars per site?
A Yes.
Q Have you grown up in an agricultural area?
A Yes, sir
Q Are you familiar with the presently existing Monfort
Feedlot located north of Greeley about one mile?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know the number of cattle that are presently
on feed in that feedlot?
A Not of my own knowledge, no, sir. But I know what
I have heard, somewhere between one hundred and one
hundred and twenty=-five thousand.
Q All right. The proposed feedlot would carry some
one hundred thousand head, as proposed in the
application to the Commissioners. Considering the
experience that you have observed in the feedlot to
the north, a mile north of Greeley, and the one
hundred thousand, approximately, also is going to
be put in the south lot, what effect, if any, do
you know that this will have on your property? By
that I am speaking of the group that you are in
-99-
association with.
A I believe it will sharply diminish the value of
the property.
Q Will it make sales more difficult?
A Yes, I think so.
Q Would it make the price less?
A That may be acadeca.c.
Q I am afraid I don't understand the answer.
A Well, I am not sure, and I am not sure that anyone
will particularly wish to buy a site in that area.
Q In other words, you mean there may not be sales
because of this?
A I think that is a possibility, yes, sir.
Q All right. Do pu personally have any objection to
the location of the feedlot in relation to your own,
the proposed feedlot, in relation to your own home?
A Yes.
Q As presently located. And what is the reason?
A I moved down here in 1963 from Nunn. My wife and I
had a chance to acquire my family home in Greeley
near Glenmere. We decided, as a personal matter, we
did not want to do it, we discussed it with my parents,
primarily on the grounds, or, no, at least partially
on the grounds that that house having been there
since 1941, it was subject to the odor from the
feedlots. And we decided to set out away from them,
so far as we could. And that was one of our criteria
in acquiring the Perney farm, which is where we now
live.
Q Can you tell me the value of your hom , as presently
-100-
located at Dos Rios?
A I would say that, I honestly don't know, because I
have always been afraid to add a column of figures.
It would exceed ninety thousand dollars in terms of
cost.
Q Do you know how many homes have presently been built
on the Dos Rios area?
A There are three; four, five, six, seven I believe.
Can you give the Commissioners an estimate of the
Q
value of those, of the
A I am really not much of
average of those?
an expert on that, counsel.
I'd say they are substantial homes.
-101-
Q Are they comparable to yours?
A Oh, yes, I would think so. I have never inquired
and I am not an expert on it. But they are nice
homes.
Q All right. If the proposed feedlot is granted by
the Commissioners at the location proposed, will
this have any effect on you as such, individually?
In other words, would you do anything relating to
your property or your home?
A I would be inclined, I think, to move.
Q You say you would be inclined to move?
A Yes.
Q From the area?
A I think so, sir.
Q Mr. Hart, in addition to the residences that have
been built in the Dos Rios area and contemplated
originally there, have there at present been any
other residences located within say a mile of your
area?
A Well, there is a neat, rather landscaped trailer
park - -
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't hear you.
A There is a trailer park on the hill which would be
right in this area (indicating), which is less than
a mile from my house. And then
division is probably a mile and
straight north of my home. So
the Arrowhead sub -
a half north of my,
it would be a mile
and a quarter north of the north edge of our - - It
wouldn't be that far. It would be a mile north of
-102-
the north edge of our place. The farm immediately
east of us, I have heard, I have never talked to
the principals, but it would be this farm (indicating),
there is one house constructed there on that farm
now of some scope. And I understand that there
hopefully will be others within that area. That
would be a mile east.
MR. SHELTON: I have no other questions.
BY MR. RUYLE:
Q You have indicated you have two other associates,
who are those?
A Dos Rios is a sub -chapter, is a corporation which
is owned equally by Phillip Weaver and Donald
Allely and myself.
Q That is Dr Weaver and Dr. Allely?
A Yes. Both are physicians, yes, sir.
Q And you said that you own accumulatively approximately
five hundred acres, is that correct?
A I can review if you wish. The original farm we
bought was four hundred and eleven acres. We have
sold about forty-five or fifty. Then we bought the
bad eighty. How many acres is the bad eighty, Doctor?
Seventy-two or something, and then there is the farm
of some one hundred and five acres further west.
Q Now, the total purchase, it's true that Dr. Flack
has purchased eighty acres in this general area from
you, is that true?
A Yes.
Q And he presently owns that?
-103-
A Yes, sir. I assume so. I don't know of my own
knowledge.
Q Now, the acreage that you still retain, how much of
it is within the flood plan of the South Platte
River or Thompson River?
A Oh, I judge one hundred and ten to twenty acres.
Q How much of it was under water a week or so ago?
A That would be the same.
Q About one hundred and ten acres?
A Well, no, under water, but for practical purposes,
it's not accurate to say it was under water, because
a lot of it was up above the water, but it was
surrounded by water. Yes, it was unreachable.
Q Now, when did you first start to sell houses out
there, or lots, I mean?
A Well, during the time, initially there was a piece of
ground acquired by the owners, if it matters I can go
through that chain.
Q Well, commercially when did you make an effort to
sell lots?
A Well, under the construction of my house in August of
1963 is when I started. The architect who designed
the house purchased a lot, the contractor who built
my house, the masonry contractor purchased a lot at
that time. So it was actually in August of '63 when
Niel Carpenter, well, it was between August of '63
and November of '63 that the architect who designed
my house and the contractor who erected the blocks
bought lots.
-104-
Q Well, since that time in 1963 then you have sold
three or four other sites?
A Correct.
Q At the present time you have said that you have
invested in an extensive irrigation system and a
water system, is that correct?
A We have put in an underground sprinklingsystem, no,
we have put in an underground water system to take
water from a pump which we have a well permit for.
The pipes are extended to serve all but four, I
believe, maybe five of the nineteen existing platted
lots.
Is it extended to the sides and to the property line?
Q
A With the exception I noted. There are either four
or five lots we haven't brought to loop on down to.
Q And that is the irrigation line you are talking
about or the domestic water?
A There is an irrigation line. It starts up from a
pump, and eight inch line.
Q What about the domestic water?
A That is furnished under tap fee arrangement which we
originally had with the Little Thompson Water District
which is now Central Well.
Q And you have only developed those taps for the
existing sites, is that correct? In other words,
you haven't laid any water lines for sixty or eighty
lots which you potentially have for sale?
A If I understand it correctly, yes, that's correct.
I think I understand it. We have acquired, I
believe we have acquired some ten additional taps
-105-
have we not? Yes, we have acquired ten additional
taps which we pay for on an annual basis that are
not in any use but are programmed for use with these
other lots.
Q Now, at the present time you work in Denver, is that
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you have always worked in Denver since you moved
into this particular area?
A No, sir.
Q From Nunn?
A No, sir.
Q When did you first start to work in Denver?
A Full time in 1966.
Q And you commute back and forth?
A Yes, sir
Q Now, you have looked at the exhibit Number 1 which
you have identified as having your property on, and
you are familiar with the other feedlots that are
identified in the red area marked on the exhibit?
A I believe so.
Q All of those feedlots in fact were in existence when
you moved out there and built your house, were they
not?
A That's correct. They were not and are not carrying
one hundred thousand head of cattle
Q So you don't object to these feedlots?
A That is not true. I object to them when I can smell
them.
-106-
Q Well, you just got through testifying on direct
examination that you moved away from the city, in
the Glenmere Park area, to be away from feedlots
and now you move to an area that you know has these
feedlots there and now you have told me you now
object to them when you smell them. Can you?
A I don't think there is a contribution there.
Q Can you?
A I don't think there is a contribution.
Q Now you are the head of what we have been reading
about, Operation Fresh Air, is that correct, an
unincorporated association?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you like to describe to me what that is and
who you are, as an unincorporated association?
A It's a group of people who have two interests. One,
to attempt to avoid what we think may be a diminution
of our property, and therefore include people who
live in the Dos Rios area, including some as far
away as Arrowhead. There have been people who have
come forth to offer assistance and time and money in
this effort to avoid the feedlots being constructed
here. The group further, I think, is properly
described as loose and disorganized, but I think it
is also a group who feels that, very strongly that
this industry about which this hearing concerns itself,
is of major, if not paramount importance to this area
and to its citizens. And I think it's, if this group
can be said to have a goal, it would be to, as I
-107-
interpret it, it would be a goal to somehow isolate
whatever objectionable factors there are about this
major industry to some area where it doesn't impinge
or in some fashion so that it does not impinge on
the air that we breathe, the life that we lead. The
goal I would say of this group, which Dr. Weaver has
outlined in another form, has been publically reported,
would be to see if the citizens of this County can't
make some sort of an effort to establish an area
where a large enough and a well enough financed
and cared for area to give the beef industry a chance
to grow on into the next century.
Q You mean you are inclined to centrally locate the
beef industry, as the agricultural economy now
exists,in some central location?
A I think that is a dream that is worth having. I
think it's doable.
Q Now, let me specifically ask you whether the other
feedlots would also come into this category. You
are speaking now generally of the industry, I assume?
A Yes, sir. I would think so. I think if it's true
that feedlots create odor, and if it's true that
odor is not entirely welcome, that there may be some
way in this modern era to solve the problem. Nobody
is going to quit eating beef. On the other hand,
people aren't going to quit smelling.
Q Now, you have been present here at the hearing today
and you heard the people and the elected officials
representing the people in the general area of LaSalle,
-108-
Platteville and Gilcrest, wholeheartedly endorse
the present location, haven't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you familiar with the terms of the motion that
was filed by your attorneys before this Commission?
A Generally.
Q Are you familiar with the motion in that it says that
the Commissioners concern should be the health, safety
and welfare cf the public, and check me if I am mis-
quoting, not just the economic gain of a few, is
that still your intent?
A I don't know how to answer because I don't understand
the question. I am sorry.
Q Well, that was your attorney's motion to this
Commission, was it not, that they consider that their
concern should be directed to the health, safety and
welfare of the public and not just the economic gain
of a few. Isn't that what you asked this Commission
to do?
A Yes sir.
Q And that is still what you want them to do?
A Yes, I think so.
MR. RUYLE: I have no other giestions.
MR. SHELTON: I have no questions.
BY MR. BILLINGS:
Q I would like to ask a question.
So far, it has been a policy of County
Commissioners that se don't like to go on assumption.
You have named three people so far who are land
-109-
owners in that area. And you have also said that you
have a fresh air association. But is this association
just you, or are there other people and how many are
there?
MR. SHELTON: Mr. Commissioner, we do have a
list of names that we could supply to the Commission
of the people involved.
MR. BILLINGS: I would like a list of those
names.
MR. SHELTON: And Mr. Heyer will state them
into the record. I don't know if he has them available
right now. But he will submit them to you in writing
at the conclusion of the hearing.
MR. BILLINGS: I have a few other questions
that I would like to ask Mr. Hart.
Q (By Mr. Billings, continuing) When you and your
associates purchased this land, what was the zoning
there?
A Agricultural.
Q Is it still possibly zoned agricultural or have you
had the whole five hundred acres changed into estate?
A The whole five hundred.
Q The whole five hundred is zoned into estate?
A Yes, sir.
Q I would wonder also, that you stated here that there
were approximately one hundred and ten acres of this
land that you owned under water in the area. Did
this come close to the homes that you live in, this
flood water? How far was it from your homes?
-110-
A Oh, it was, I'd say the closest it got to any home
was two hundred yards, lineally, and maybe, oh,
twelve or fifteen feet vertically. We are on high
ground.
Q This one hundred and ten acres I assume that you and
Mr Weaver, or Dr. Weaver and Dr. Allely own this
also, all three of you?
A Yes, sir.
Q We have heard a great deal today about rodents and
mosquitoes and flies. I would wonder if this
association or group of people have done anything
to take care of the mosquitoes and rats and rodents
and the flood in this area, if you have done anything
to take care of this area this year?
A Not this year. In '65 we sprayed it rather extensively.
Q Do you plan to do anything with this one hundred and
ten acres as far as flies and rodents and rats, as
presented into evidence here, that is on the Platte
River that you own area on the Platte River?
A Yes. We have in the past, I will assume we will do
it in the future.
Q Do you have records showing that this has been done
in the past?
A
Yes
Q Then I would ask you also, you had this
1963 and sold eight or nine sites. You
how many sites you have sold. How many
actually built out there? I'm a little
here. I haven't been out in that area
land since
weren't sure
homes are
at a loss
, I know where
-111-
the area is at, but I haven't been out there.
A There are seven homes.
Q There are seven homes. Has this group made an
effort to sell these lots, I mean it looks to me
as if we have only sold seven lots, and two of them
are sold to either the architects or contractors who
built your home, that it might be considered sub-
marginal land to me, it's river bottom land. You
have got a flood problem there, you have only sold
six or seven lots within a period from 1963 to 1969,
and I would, because I am not familiar with this
area, I need to clarify my own opinion on some of
these things that you have stated. You also stated
that you have a green belt developed around this
area, is this true? Is there a green belt developed
around this five hundred acres? Has there been
trees?
A If I said that, it was erroneous. If I recall what
I said, Mr. Billings, was that it was included in
the plat. There is a separation between tiers of
five acre sites that is platted as a green belt.
Q But there hasn't been anything done since 1963 on
this green belt. Has any of it been developed, the
green belt?
A Well, we have constructed two earth dams, one of which
washed out. We have put roads in and leveled some of
the ground to make it amenable for planting grass.
Q There hasn't been any development on this as far as
actual putting in of grass or trees?
-112-
A No.
Q You stated that you are a stock broker. Is this
stocks and bonds or is this grain?
A No, sir, I am a stock trader.
Q You are a stock trader. Is this in grains?
A Securities.
Q Securities?
A Yes. Stocks, bonds.
MR. BILLINGS: I don't believe I have any
other questions.
BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q Mr. Hart, how far do you live from the Kammerzell
Feedlot?
A Three quarters of a mile.
Q Now, which was is that?
A West and a little south.
Q And how far do you live from Weediman's?
A Three fourths of a mile.
Q Which way is that from your place?
A North.
Q And Farr's Feedlots are across the river, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Godfrey-Bodem?
A Yes.
Q How far is that from you?
A I can't, I don't know. It's on the map.
Q It's just across the river, isn't it?
A A mile straight south.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is all the questions I have.
-113-
BY MR. SHELTON:
Q Mr. Hart, these are relatively small feedlots
that Mr. Marshall Anderson is inquiring about,
not one hundred thousand cattle feedlots?
A Oh, no, I wouldn't think they feed, I don't know
how large Farr's is. These gentlemen will know
better than I. But I don't think I have seen
over four or five hundred head in any of them.
And in Kammerzell's Feedlot, three hundred. I
don't know, somebody would have to ask him.
Q All right, they are quite small?
A Yes.
Q And frequently empty?
A This is, this one is. I drive by it, (indicating).
BY MR. BILLINGS:
Q Mr Hart, I would like to ask you another question.
If I remember in some of the articles that I read
in the paper of some of your proposals, you felt
that this feedlot should move out into an area
clear out where there weren't any residential homes
at all. Is this not true? In other words, you were
referring to possibly dryland or wheat land?
A That is a possibility. I don't think that, I think
it's at least my position
Q Well, then, Mr. Hart, for the record, where did you
originally live? Was it in Nunn, is this correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q For the record, can you tell me if it would be possible
to get the type of water that a feedlot like this would
-114-
be necessary to have in any of the dry land area
from Nunn to Grover to Hereford to Firestone,
would it be possible to get?
A I don't know the requirement, and I don't know
the water figure.
Q I think the water was two hundred thousand gallons
a day, if I remember it correctly. Yes, approximately
two hundred thousand gallons a day just to keep down
the dust, and you are familiar with this dry land,
you grew up in that area. So I would, I think that
it would be good for the record, if a person who
grew up in that area could state whether that water
is available or not
two million gallons
out in an area such
in that area at a minimum of
a day, if they sere to move
as Nunn or in an area where
there wasn't any population?
A It wouldn't be possible in Nunn. I can speak to that.
MR. BILLINGS: No other questions.
MR. SHELTON: Gentlemen, for the record, you
asked names of people in this group. I will read
them in the record and deliver you the list.
Dr. Phillip Weaver. Mr. Kirby Hart, who just
testified; Dr. Don Allely; Russell Peterson; David E.
Montoya, who lives one and a half miles south of
Gilcrest; Mrs Walter Boyd, that would be Mrs. Dr.
Boyd, who lives in Greeley on Sunset Lane, Belair
Park; Mrs Robert Proctor; John E. Lett of Platteville;
Miss Josephine Jones of Greeley in Hillside; Mrs. James
Gilmore of Greeley on 5th Avenue; Mrs. George Hopper
-115-
of Greeley at 2214 20th Street, I presume.
I hand to you what would be marked whatever
is the next exhibit so that you will have the same.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be accepted into the
record.
MR. SHELTON: We have some offers of proof
we would like to make. I want to get this as
quickly as I can for you. We wanted, as we advised
you, to have time to call other witnesses. I would
like to have Mr. Heyer read those names into the
record and state what they would have stated.
I have discovered some information relating to
assessed valuations of which I will also have
tomorrow of the assessors of Boulder County and
Larimer County. And I can provide the same also
from Weld County.
There are some people who have asked the
opportunity to speak, but they do not as such represent
us. As such, I think these people should be allowed
to speak. I think there is a Mrs. Gilmore who asked
to speak. I think the three minute rule probably
applies.
MR. CHAIRMAN: For your information, we get paid
by the month, so our time goes on.
MR. SHELTON: Day and night.
MR. BILLINGS: Jim, we will give them the same
opportunity as we did the others. I have been timing
the others. They will be allowed three minutes.
MRS. GILMORE: My name is Mrs. Gilmore. Well,
-116-
I just have to say that a lot of people are like
sheep, they just talk with each other and say it's
wrong and it doesn't smell good. But then they don't
say anything when it's time to say it. So I will
put my two cents worth in and. I say it isn't a healthy
place to live. But you can't even send the children
out in the yard to play because it's a terrible smell.
And the flies, and I don't like them anyway, and it's
not well. And for years we save and finally bought
a place west of town and now the house, we had a
plan for it, it's drawn up and supposed to cost twenty
five thousand dollars and then you have a few miles
away a feedlot with one hundred thousand cattle, and
we thought we would make this our permanent residence,
but if that goes through, which it looks like, every-
body has to butter up and employees and people get
something out of it, they talk real nice, and this is
about the only thing you have going for you. Because
there are other industries, they can bring money in.
And we just say that a lot of our friends, they tried
to move clear out here from California, but if that
goes through, if the lot goes in, we will just plumb
move out of here. Just a few people that doesn't
mean much, but at least I had my say and I am against
the feedlot. It's already on one side of town. Since
the air is moving all over, at least it stays part
of the time in one place. We live on 5th Avenue now
and it's just terrible. I can't even sleep with a
open window. And even the people who work for you,
-117-
the ones that have something to gain, if they say
it doesn't smell bad, then they just lie.
That is all I have to say.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
MR. SHELTON: A Mrs. Noxon asked the opportunity
to dispute it.
MR. NOXON: Thank you. Money smells and money
talks. I think many of the people who are against
this have had to go home, and the people who have
opposed it look like they are in a small minority,
and yet when you talk to the community people, they
are opposed to this. Greeley can go two ways. We
can be a cow town or a town of an attractive place
to live. I am not talking about economics. Maybe
economically it would be as big an advantage as
everything else if we want to live with it. But I
do live here I grew up here. I have been away
from here and I have come back frequently. And we
always said, well, how is the money smelling tonight.
Usually it did. But I can, I am not held to this
town. I own property. I can sell it, I can leave.
And there are many people like that. I have been
involved in business with it in town here, in the
land development. We had people come in prior to this
that was coming in and looked at lots and would smell
this town and would go to Boulder, would go to Loveland,
would go to Fort Collins They won't even come to
look. That is all I have to say.
-118-
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else?
MR. SHELTON: Are there any other people in the
room who want to speak? You should speak now or
forever hold your peace.
MR. MASON: I am Mr. Mason, an employee of the
Monfort Feedlots since 1946. I want to tell you that
is a fine organization, and they have done so much
for people like me and they can do much for many
more. I thank them for myself and for everybody
involved with them in the future.
This health, I want to comment on this word
health. I have spent over seven thousand days
associated with that feedlot, lived with all of
its problems. I will stand on the record. I have
had no sickness and I know many of us with over
ten years of service with no sickness. Now I submit
to you that I resent this big issue of health. Take
a look. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who has
anything to say? We want everybody to be heard.
MR. BILLINGS: Whether you are for it oragainst
it, who has anything to say. You have a right to
come up and say it now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Weaver, do you have anything
to say?
DR. WEAVER: I have obviously been opposed to
the location of the feedlot and I suppose most of the
things I would say would be redundant. I think Kirby
has expressed very well how we feel about our personal
-119-
property. Not only the value of it, but also the
apsects of personal living, the odor, the dust, the
traffic and the other problems that will be raised
by a feedlot in that area. I think one thing that
has not been brought out well, I think that Mr. Heyer
and Mr. Shelton planned to do so, is to discuss another
aspect of the economics of this community. And that
is that I think another feedlot on the other side of
town is an expedient way of growth and that will
result in complete stifling of the town. I think
we are planning for five hundred new employees now,
for five thousand new employees in ten years. If I
were somebody coming from the east joining Eastman
Kodak and coming out here to live to enjoy the fresh
air, I certainly would not do it at Greeley. I would
pick one of the other towns, as many people seem to
be doing. I am opposed to the proposed site of the
feedlot.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants
to be heard?
MR.HEYER: Mr. Chairman, we have no more testimony.
But as a part of our case, however, I want to just read
into the record, if I may - -
MR. CHAIRMAN: You may.
MR. HEYER: A matter which in law we would call
an offer of proof.
As you gentlemen know, we requested but were
denied a continuance of the hearing in order that we
might gather the medical testimony and present it to
-120-
you that we feel is important.
Now, we - -
MR. RUYLE: Excuse me for just a moment. Just
for the record, I object to the offer of proof in
the sense that the Commissioners have ordered the
hearing and denied the motion. And this is strictly
for the record.
MR. HEYER: You understand this is just for the
record, Your Honor.
MR.TELEP: This is not evidence. These are
your own statements?
MR. HEYER: No, sir. I want to identify for
you the medical experts who cannot be here today,
but would have been had this hearing been continued,
and tell you in essence what they would have said
had they been here.
MR. TELEP: Off the record.
(Off the record.)
MR. RUYLE: Let me make the objection for the
record, now that we are back on the record, that we
object to the offer of proof in the sense that this
Commission has denied the motion for continuance and
there has been no foundation established as to why
these witnesses, of whom they purport to read testimony
of into the record, could not have been available within
the limitations of the time of the public notice, or
other notices which the protestants have had.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is overruled.
MR. HEYER: This will just take a moment.
-121-
Dr. Max Spencer of Provo, Utah, who is a
medical man and practicing physician. Had he been
here, he would have testified that the odor and
dust particles from cattle feedlots the size of the
north lot and the one proposed to the south, cause
in some people intrinsic asthma and bronchitis and
that the odor and fumes from feedlots affect the
respiratory system of man. And that there are also
people who are allergic to the dust from these lots.
Dr. George W. Sciple, who is a doctor of
medicine and is associated with the University of
Wisconsin at Madison, who has had extensive experience
with the United States Public Health Service dealing
with air and water pollution and the effect of
cattle feedlots.
Had he been allowed to be here he would have
testified that if the lot at this proposed location
be built, that it will constitute a serious environ-
mental deterioration to the Greeley community. And
in addition, from a physiological and physiatric
standpoint, it will create a mental health problem
and will cause stress, will cause human stress and
affect the citizens of this community in that respect.
Dr. Clarence Gordon, who is a Professor of Botany
at the University of Montana at Missoula. Had he had
the opportunity to be here, he would have testified
that the proposed feedlot at the location planned is
and will be an environmental health hazard that will
cause serious and permanent damage to the atmosphere,
-122-
which is what the citizens of this community
have to breath in Greeley.
And lastly, Dr. Burt Thomas, who is
Chairman of the Department of Biology at Colorado
State College in Greeley here. He is also a
zoologist and ecologist experienced in the matters
of water and air pollution. He could not be here
this afternoon because of his scheduling of classes,
I believe. But he would have testified that he is
against this proposed location because of the air
pollution problems that may be detrimental to the
health of the citizens of Greeley.
And that is all that I have to present,
gentlemen.
MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Heyer, I would like to ask
a question to kind of clarify it in my mind.
You have stated most of these doctors, now
they are all from where, Wisconsin and
MR. HEYER: No, sir, not all from Wisconsin.
Dr. Sciple is from Wisconsin.
MR. BILLINGS: What were the other locations
of the other doctors?
MR. HEYER: Dr. Gordon is a Professor at the
University of Montana, Missoula.
MR. BILLINGS: Unless my opinion is wrong or
my feeling is wrong, we have very expert medical
advice here in Greeley. We have one of the best
medical hospitals in the country. Wouldn't any
of these doctors in the Greeley area testify as to
-123-
the things that you want testified to here?
MR. HEYER: No doubt they would, sir. But the
two names that I have mentioned to you here are the
foremost experts in the world on the subject.
MR. BILLINGS: But they are not experts in
Weld County, are they? It seems to me that people
who live here would be more qualified.
MR. HEYER: You maybe wouldn't consider them
experts, sir, but all the rest of the world recognizes
them as the foremost authorities on the subject.
MR. BILLINGS: Thank you.
MR. SHELTON: Gentlemen, as I stated, I have
requested, I called this morning the assessor in
Weld County, Mr. George Barber, and received from
him the information of assessed valuations of Greeley,
from the City as such, from 1963 through 1968 in
millions of dollars. And in fact, the exact figure,
and I also called the assessor in Larimer County
for the information regarding Fort Collins and
Loveland, and to the assessor in Longmont and
Boulder for the records in Longmont and Boulder.
I have, for the record, the information that
they supplied me by telephone, and I verified it
reading back each number. They have agreed to
supply this to me by letter. It would be available
to you gentlemen tomorrow, I would assume. But I
would like to use the assessed valuations that
I have obtained in the matter of argument of economic
effects, and to submit the letters as such, corroborating
-124-
this. And I would give counsel a copy of the
same, and offer one as an exhibit.
MR. RUYLE: We have no objection to providing
the assessed valuations for what they are, assessed
valuations, and we object to the introduction of
these exhibits, or the ones from Larimer, Boulder
County as having any relevancy to the issues as to
the location of this particular feedlot.
MR. SHELTON: Well, gentlemen, we think this is
an economic matter for the entire community, and we
should know the effect, this is argument, as to what
it means. But I think - -
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will overrule your objection.
MR. RUYLE: I am just stating this for the
record, that we object to it in the sense there is
no foundation to show that these assessed valuations
or differences that may exist have any relevancy on
the feedlot industry or the particular location of
this particular feedlot.
MR. SHELTON: Well, gentlemen, I would submit to
you that this is for you to determine the value it
may have. 'would like to make argument in final
arguments on what I say is the economic effect in
the various communities. I think you should be
interested in the economic development of Greeley in
relation to all these other communities.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Jim, read them.
MR. SHELTON: Well, I have delivered them, and
I think it's sufficient to have that at this point.
-125-
And this would conclude our presentation. I don't
know whether Bob has some people to call in rebuttal
or not.
MR. RUYLE: We will not offer any rebuttal
testimony.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will take a ten minute recess.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
(After recess.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call this hearing back
to order. Mr. Shelton, you may proceed.
MR. SHELTON: Thank you, gentlemen. I will try
to be as brief and direct as I can.
Gentlemen and counsel, I appreciate that the
Commissioners have had a considerable amount of
information given to them today. Much of it is
repetitious. The principal thing that I would want
to talkabout is what I think is significant, and that
is what we are going to do with Weld County, what we
are going to do with this community now and for all
time you could say. The decision you have to make is
probably the most serious decision that has to be
made by any Commissioners at any time. But I really
do think you have a real serious question to make.
I appreciate the candor with which you gentlemen
operate at all times. I know that to you that the
office, as anyone else in public office is, is an
office of trust. And you are going to have to make
a decision that is in the best interest of the people
of Weld County.
-126-
Now, our position in this matter is that the
simple setting up of certain zone regulations and
the creation of them by this Planning Commission
and the approval by the Commissioners cannot legislate
and take away from people certain constitutional
rights that they have. If it were so simple that
the Planning Commission could establish rules, the
County Commissioners could act thereon on the
recommendations made, and that this was the law
and it's all over and everybody forget it, this
would be a very simple decision to come to today.
There wouldn't be any reason for anyone to appear
and oppose this. The only basis that people appear
and oppose in this matter is that they submit, and
I am speaking on behalf of them, that they submit
that the planning and zoning regulations that have
been created for this county relating to agricultural
use are unconstitutional.
Now, I appreciate that throwing to you an un-
constitutional question is a real problem because
we as lawyers argue about what is constitutional
and not constitutional andthe Supreme Court oftentimes
defines this very closely. And you are going to have
to have legal advice in this matter, and we have
advised your counsel
brief on this of the
But the point I
that we will submit a
legal questions involved.
wish you gentlemen to consider
is that we submit that the mere establishment of
this land in the area that is proposed for a feedlot
-127-
as agricultural, and that commercial feedlots
are permitted therein, is not the sole question
that is before you. Because, as I say, if that
were it, it's obviously classified that way, and
commercial feedlots are listed unda_it.
Now, we submit to you one thing that we ask
you to consider, and that is the size of this
operation involved, one hundred thousand head of
cattle proposed, comparable to the one which
presently exists one mile north of Greeley. And
we submit that that is in excess of a commercial
feedlot. That this is an industrial feedlot and
industrial operation. And that agriculture alone
is not the question at all.
We recognize that commercial feedlots in
reasonable sizes are certainly permitted and allowable
if they do not affect the property rights of others.
But our point in this is that the classification in
this instance is erroneous. That is should not be
as a permitted use that they are proposing for the
reason of the size involved.
Now, we submit to you gentlemen that you have
before you an existing location one mile north of
town which gives you some idea of what we can expect
from the new proposed feedlot. And as I said at the
outset, we don't challenge and in any way question
the sincerity of the Monforts. We don't think they
are malicious people. We don't think they are under-
taking to harm ar.,.body intentionally. But the fact
-128-
that somebody doesn't intend to harm you can just
kill you as dead with a rifle that the guy intended,
and if it affects you economically the fact that
they didn't intend to harm you economically is
just i% damaging to you as if they maliciously
intended to.
As I say, these are good gentlemen. I represent
them as friends and have been on winning sides and
losing sides with them. But I submit to you that
knowing what the feedlot situation is north of
Greeley, you gentlemen have to consider what will
be the effect of putting the same thing on the south
side of Greeley.
Now, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
I don't know how many times I have heard people in
this community say, it's too bad that somebody
didn't know what the effect would be of the feedlot
on the north side of town when it started.
Mr. Monfort, Mr Warren Monfort had no idea of
the effect it ultimately grew to. He didn't know the
success he would have. And no one in the community
was aware, I am sure, of the effect that one hundred
thousand head of cattle would have on a community.
But the fact that the people were innocent at
that time can't excuse what we do today, I should say
correctly, what you gentlemen do, that is going to
lock in, would be the expression I would use, the
City of Greeley and this community, not just the City
of Greeley, but people who live in areas just outside
-129-
you might say, and that is half the people of Weld
County.
If you conclude that this should be granted,
then your knowing what the existing situation is
and the decision you made is not made from lack of
knowledge, or from ignorance of what the consequences
would be.
You know what a feedlot smells like, you know
the effect that it has on people. You know how it
smells to them, and I am going to talk about what
I think is the economic significance of it.
As I said at the outset, you have a position of
trust to make. That decision will be for the people
of this area to eternity, as far as I see it.
Now, as I said at the outset, I don't think
you should make a decision for the benefit of five
or six people or eight or nine that live in Dos Rios.
I don't think eight or nine people of Dos Rios have
a right to impede the progress of this community.
They might have a legal right. But I am talking
about a moral right in the sense of what I think is
fair. They might have a legal right to oppose it
and might use that. But that is not the question
before you. I am talking about fairness. I don't
think that a few people should stand in the way of
the feedlot operation of Monforts. But by the same
token, I don't think that the feedlot operation of
Monforts should stand in the way of the thirty five
thousand who already live in Greeley and the thirty
-130-
five thousand more that will ultimately live
here, even if we smell bad. We are getting people
even if we stink.
Now, frankly the feedlot odors we have to the
north of us now I think we would have to say in all
fairness, it smells. I want to submit to you that
this has an effect on us economically. And as I
told you, I will have these figures from the assessors
of these various counties and submit them to you over
their letterhead. But I would just like to go over
the effect that it has. I have reported to you the
effect from 1963, '64, '65, '66, '67 and '68, of
the changes, or I should say the total assessed.
valuation by the assessors of these various counties,
for Greeley, Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont and.
Boulder. And I appreciate that these other
communities have some situations of being closer
to the mountains, if you want to talk about that,
but we are in a position where we can look at the
mountains. All they see is dirt. Also Greeley was
the biggest community of all of these places in a
time past. I appreciate that Boulder is a bedroom
town, that this is a factor that you have to weigh
in your minds in deciding growth that has occurred.
But from 1963, with an assessed valuation of
forty-three million, three hundred twelve thousand
and thirty dollars for Greeley, in 1963, it grew in
1968 until it had fifty-two million one hundred and
fifty-five thousand one hundred forty dollars assessed
-131-
valuation. That was an increase of eight million
seven hundred forty three thousand and ninety dollars.
Fort Collins, on the other hand, started with
thirty-six million four
and seven hundred forty
seven million behind us
hundred nineteen thousand
dollars, and that is about
to begin with. Today they
are fifty-six million five hundred and one thousand
six hundred and ten dollars valuation. That is some
four and a half million beyond us. In that time,
their increase has been twenty million dollars, while
ours has been eight million seven hundred forty
three thousand dollars.
Loveland started at eighteen million two hundred
and eighty one thousand six hundred and twenty dollars
in 1963. And it grew to, 1968, to be twenty-six
million three hundred and sixty thousand six hundred
and twenty dollars, an increase of eight million
seventy nine thousand, almost identical with Greeley.
And look where they started, eighteen million.
We had forty-three million.
Then you have Longmont, which started in '63
with twenty-four million, three hundred twenty six
thousand six hundred and sixty dollars and came up
to thirty-six million, five hundred and ninety thousand
eight hundred and fifty dollars. An increase of
twelve million two hundred and sixty-four thousand
nine hundred and ninety dollars. Half again more
than we did.
Boulder went from seventy-five million in 1963
-132-
seventy-five million four hundred and eighty
thousand one hundred and fifty dollars, up to
one hundred and eleven million, one hundred
seventy nine thousand nine hundred and ten dollars.
An increase of thirty-five million seven hundred
and sixty dollars. They had an increase close to,
we'll say seventy or eighty percent of what our
size is.
I would like m point out in that time Greeley
increased twenty-five percent, these are rough
figures, you can figure them out exactly, I am
just roughing them off. Greeley increased about
twenty-five percent above what it was in '63.
Fort Collins increased about sixty percent in five
years of what it was in '63. Loveland increased
about forty percent above what it was in 1963.
Longmont increased almost exactly fifty percent
above what it was in 1963. And Boulder increased
about forty-seven or forty-eight percent of what it
was in 1963.
Now, if there is some reason why we are not
growing, there have been people who have testified
here that the odor is offensive to them. I think this
is a reasonable observation. The question you gentlemen
have to decide is whether this is going to be a
cattle feedlot town, a cattle feedlot industry town
with the odors that it has that go with it, and that
we don't grow in the same manner that other people
do. You can decide that everything I am talking about
-133-
of growth, that it has nothing to do with odor.
I am just telling you in my opinion it has something
to do with odor, very much so. And you are going to
have to decide whether you are going to create a
situation that will lock us in with feedlots and
effect the type of economy, and the type of industry
we will attract, and disregarding the dollars, dis-
regarding whether anybody is going to make a dime,
whether Greeley is going to grow, or if they are
going to grow, what kind of a town are we going to
live in.
People have a right, we submit, they have a
constitutional right, but this is not something that
you will probably pass on or think that you should
even do so. We submit they have a constitutional
right to fresh air. And this is one of our claims
in this matter. What is wrong with living in a
town that smells nice? What is wrong with living
in a town like these others that have economic
growth from industry other than feedlots. I submit
to you that I think that is very important that we
consider the quality of the life that we have. And
I think this is significant to the thirty-five
thousand that are presently in Greeley. And the
direction of growth that our city must grow, we will
just almost have to go out to the southwest, which
goes into the path where this is located.
Now, I would like to read to you a little bit
from an editorial from the Denver Post that was
-134-
published last night, because I think it's an
analogy, not a part of the record or anything,
it's just a matter of argument and the viewpoint
of some people that were writing, not a letter to
the editor, but the editorial staff of the Post
itself concerning the fact that it's contemplated.
that in Cheeseman Park in Denver a high rise apartment
building would be erected which would cut off the
view of people to the mountains in Cheeseman Park
and in Denver. Nothing to do with smell. Doesn't
make anybody sick, nobody dies, nobody goes to
hospitals, nobody has nausea, nobody vomits, nobody
Doesn't wake them up at night, unless they get cold
shoulders over it. But just the asthetic quality,
the type of city they would live in and this is
what the gentleman wrote as an editorial. And I am
quoting just a part of it because they are talking
about Daniel Boone and the question of what Daniel
Boone ought to do and so forth, and that is not the
issue. It's the quality of a community, and I would
like to quote. If a City such as Denver fights to keep
its natural and man made beauties and amenities, even
if that means doing some business man out of a fast
buck, everyone will profit more in the long run,
because it will remain a pleasure to live and do
business in the city. But any city which puts a
business man's chance to make a buck ahead of
preserving its beauties and amenities will soon become
a place in which nobody makes a buck, because nobody
-135-
will live there. The city will die of ugliness.
Gentlemen, this, I think, this editorial
explains why I am here before you gentlemen, why
I chose to participate in the hearing, why I chose
to appear as counsel for these people. And I submit
to you that you have to make the decision of what
is going to happen to our community and what is
going to happen to the quality of our life. And I
appreciate the difficulty in locating a feedlot in
other spots. And I would appreciate that it no
doubt would be not as economically desirable for
Mr. Monfort, if he has to divide his lot into units
of less than one hundred thousand and put them in
areas where he does have water and to therefore
locate at someplace other than this close to the
City of Greeley, I appreciate what was asked by
the Commissioner Billings about locating in the
dry lands I am not, frankly, competent to say
where there is water in the County. But I submit
that there are, this is an agricultural area, it
does have wells in other places on other farms.
And as the witness, Dr. Winchester testified, the
concentration of a feedlot and the concentration of
the odors is what makes it penetrate and have a
quality of carrying, as opposed to smaller units.
And. I am not trying to get Mr. Monfort to be down
on five thousand head units or anything of that sort.
But I do think that when we make a decision, which
you will have to make, and as I say, this is a trust
-136-
that you are going to have to make for all the
people
decide
of Weld County, you are going to have to
what is the best for everybody, and not
just alone of whether the question is economically
advantageous to Mr. Monfort to have it all in one
spot.
Now,
to say its
that's
I submit to you that if you are just going
classified that way and it permits it and
it, and you close the book and go, you
do that, and
coming here.
planning and
not critical
ness on the
are created
I submit
feedlots
feedlots
can go
I have wasted my time and yours by
But if you are going to look at the
zoning that you have created, and I am
of how it comes about, it's unthinking -
part of all of us when the zoning regulations
for this county, and as I say, agricultural,
to you should, yes, include commercial
in reasonable size, but not industrial
of a capacity that this will be and with the
impact on us that it will
Gentlemen, as I told
legal brief on the matter
have.
you, we will submit a written
to your counsel. We intend
to file it tomorrow. I will submit those letters
that I talked about.
I ask you to consider this on the basis of the
points that I have made. Thank you.
MR. RUYLE: Mr. Commissioners, I don't think there
is much reason for me to reiterate the testimony and
the evidence that is here. And as I understand it,
the protestants were to argue and sustain the burden
-137-
of proof as to why this location is not a good
location for a commercial feedlot. I only remind
you that Monfort Feedlots, Inc. did not initiate
the zoning. We only are here making every effort
that we can to comply with the zoning as the Board
of County Commissioners through its legal procedures
has set forth.
As far as the constitutional argument is
concerned, Mr. Shelton may file a brief and. I assume
that we will have an opportunity to file an answer
brief, if the Commissioners would like us to, after
we have had an opportunity to look at it. I think
it's the opportunity of the County Attorney to answer
the constitutional issue, although I would be glad
to assist him if I am requested.
The Board of County Commissioners has to look
at the whole county. All of us know that we live in
one of the largest counties in the United States.
Our county is larger than some eastern states. And
our county, for years, at least during my lifetime
and yours, has been backboned by the agricultural
economy, because of our size, our location, our weather,
suitable growing seasons, and the water that is
available in the northern Colorado area. And it
seems almost foolhardy to pin some lack of growth
on the Greeley community to this feedlot operation
that exists north of town, or the feedlot industry
as a whole. I have lived in Greeley all my life, and
I can't honestly say, as a lawyer or a citizen, that
-138-
I can notice any diminution in the quality of the
air during the last fifteen or twenty years. And
we all know that the location of the feedlots,
although its expanded in size, hasn't changed any,
and that fifteen or twenty years ago the feedlot
north of town, people suggested that it smelled
and that the odors, a few days per year, drifted
into town. There has been some insinuation that
people can't sleep at night because of the feedlot
odors, wherever they come from. Some of the people
in town can't sleep at night because of feedlot
odors. How can you predict that the feedlots have
destroyed the economy or will destroy the economy
of this community. I say there is no foundation for
that in this record and that is what you fellows
have got to decide this on, is the facts and what
has been proposed.
You have got people coming in here, substantial
people in the community, saying this location is
all right. You have got a handful of people that are
arguing the moral issues of the economy. And I live
here and my family lives here and I won't argue the
moral issues of our economy if I thought for one
minute that it was going to stifle the long range
growth of our community. But there is nothing in
this to justify it. Sure, Longmont and Fort Collins
and Loveland have grown. There are a lot of
explanations for it. All of us know those towns have
public power sources. Power is cheap. Cheaper than
-139-
we have it in Greeley, Colorado. In those sources,
that is one reason industry settles there.
The University of Colorado has expanded ten
times faster than Colorado State College. And
the University of Colorado, Colorado State University
has expanded six or eight times faster than our
college. There are numerous economic reasons why
this thing is slow in growth.
The protestants didn't even give you any economic
growth factors of Fort Morgan. There is a town that
hasn't grown at all, substantially, at all. And so
we are a little bit further from the natural attribute
of growth.
The one other thing that seems to be significant
in answering the economic growth is thatEastman Kodak
is established right across the street from a feedlot
that feeds fifteen hundred, two thousand head, Jack
Winters. He is right on the other side of the road.
And that feedlot, per se, there is no foundation that
this is an economic liability to our community. In
fact because of the size of our community and the
size of our county, that without the feedlot industry
and its growth in the past twenty-five years, we might
not be as well off as we are now.
I think going to the point of our argument that
we have sustained the reasonable requirements of the
location in that we have, without question, established
by our county health authorities, and they were not
cross examined on this, that this feedlot, if built
-140-
according to the proposal that has been made to
you in this location, that this location will not
violate any of the air or water pollution standards
of the State of Colorado. Under the law, the Board
of County Commissioners are involved with the
administering the air and water pollution, the
state legislation has spoken on this matter. They
have said what state law requires air pollution
standards to be. And they have appointed the health
department to regulate it. If we get out of
compliance with air or water pollution control,
we will be subject to the jurisdiction of the
health department in injunctive relief. This is
not one of the criterions on which the Board of
County Commissioners has to worry itself about.
We have established that this is not, I don't
think going to cause anybody a traffic problem. It's
located two miles away from U. S. Highway 85, which
is a commercial highway, which is a bypass around
Greeley, a commercial bypass purely for the purpose
of doing this particular thing. And from a traffic
standpoint, it couldn't be located in a much better
location. There is an industrial railroad that has
been identified as being in this area. The whole
concept of this plan seems to fit into this particular
location, considering all of the unique aspects of
the economy of feedlots and also it seems to be far
enough away, in my judgment, and Mr Monforts, from
the City of Greeley to not interfere with our pleasures
-141-
of life and where we live and where our children
live and go to school. It would be everybody's
hope that this is not going to construct a hazard
to anyone. There is absolutely no foundation that
anyone has become sick, ill, lame, or died because
of feedlot odors. And we have some substantial
people that are here that look fairly healthy that
have lived through this at much more severe intervals
than Mr. Shelton has purported. And I am one of
them. And as far as I can say, in closing, that
I probably wouldn't have been a lawyer because I
worked for the feedlot and I made enough money to
go to school. And if that is economic retardation,
well, as I said before, I am all for it. And we
hope that you will seriously consider this and
approve the location as being suitable for our
growth and will not retard the growth of the
community.
MR. TELEP: Let the record show that Mr. Shelton
and Mr. Heyer will submit a brief of what they think
the law is on the constitutional question, and
hopefully that they will submit it within a few
days.
Counsel for the petitioners will have an
opportunity to submit an answer brief in the shortest
possible time, at which time the counsel for the
protestants will have an olpertunity, if they want to,
to submit a reply brief.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we want to
-142-
thank all of you for coming. I think we have
heard all the testimony. Thank you all for
coming. We will take this hearing under advisement.
With that, we are adjourned.
(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at
7:20 p.m.)
-143-
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
)
COUNTY OF WELD
I, Joseph J. Rusk, Certified Shorthand Reporter,
State of Colorado, hereby certify that I took in shorthand
all the proceedings had and done in the foregoing hearing
on the 21st day of May, 1969. I further certify that the
foregoing 143 pages contain a full, accurate and complete
transcript of my notes.
di
Dated this •i `1 day of
Greeley, Colorado
:2a , 1969.
-144-
rr ,/,''a.•
Hello