Research Priorities of the Saline County Study

(The first six priorities were set at the November 5 1997 meeting.)
(Amendments are indicted by footnotes.)
(The issue listed first has the highest priority.)
(Each subsequent issue has a lower priority than the one preceding it.)

1. Are there particularly valuable and vulnerable water resources in the County that justify protection efforts? What would be the economic impacts of protecting these water resources?
2. Are there particularly valuable and vulnerable natural areas in the County that justify protection efforts? What would be the economic impacts of protecting these sites? (1)
3. What effect, if any, do large-scale animal confinement operations have on the value of nearby property? How would the location, size and technology of animal operations affect the level and distribution of odor?
4. What is the capacity of land in Saline County to assimilate additional animal manure nutrients, and where in the county is that capacity? What would be the consequences of exceeding these capacities?
5. Are there legal options available to the State and/or county governments to influence or restrict agricultural uses of land? What would be the economic and environmental impacts of restricting the availability of land for certain types of animal agriculture? How would such restrictions affect landowners, property values, tax revenues and County services? (2)
6. How has County land use changed in recent years and what has been the economic impacts of these changes? How has growth in residential land uses affected county revenues and services?
7. (3)

Footnotes:
(1) From the minutes of the March 11 1998 meeting: "A motion was made and seconded that public historic sites be included in the natural area survey, but that non-public sites be included only with the permission of the owner. The motion passed by a voice vote with no audible dissent."

(2) From the minutes of the February 11 1998 meeting: "Vince Buck moved and Patti Carr seconded that the agricultural impact on Saline County’s economy be part of the baseline data as part of research objective #5. Motion passed with no audible dissent."

(3) From the minutes of the February 11 1998 meeting: "Richard Clemens moved and Patti Carr seconded that as the study finishes one issue that a new issue be added to the bottom of the list. The study list should not be considered finite with the initial six. Motion passed with no audible dissent."