INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — A measure that would prevent local governments in Indiana from superseding the state when it comes to allowing huge livestock operations has been placed on the back burner.

Whether the proposal will come back up for consideration during the 2015 state legislative session is not known, but one possibility is it might go to a study committee before it is bought up again. Both sides of the issue are watching closely.

Specifically, Senate Bill 249 would prevent local municipalities from adopting rules that go over and above the requirements of state law that govern construction of livestock structures in areas zoned for agricultural use. The bill, submitted by state Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Jean Leising (R-Oldenburg), is in response to some counties adopting restrictions tougher than what’s already in the books at the state level, to keep out large cattle and hog farms.

Justin Schneider, senior policy advisor and counsel for Indiana Farm Bureau (IFB), said some counties have gone as far as placing their own moratoriums on livestock farms to further review the proposals, even if the plans meet all existing local zoning requirements.

‘’They still wouldn’t let them build it because there was some opposition,’’ he explained.

Naysayers, though, believe gaps exist at the state level that can allow livestock operations to slip through and wind up in areas where they might pose a public safety risk, and that local governments that would be impacted the most should be able to narrow those cracks.

“What this bill does is essentially yanks that ability. It undermines the authority of local government to do what they feel is best to proper balance agricultural development and the health and well-being of their citizens,” said Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Indianapolis-based Hoosier Environmental Council.

Kharbanda also said local officials know best where livestock operations would be more of a threat to the groundwater, air or any structure, like a businesses that relies on tourism and recreation that might be negatively impacted by thousands of cattle or hogs in close proximity.

They’re also in tune better with any residential neighborhoods, churches or schools that might be nearby, he said. He added legislation adopted last year already tipped the scale of power more toward farmers and an equal balance for both sides is needed, particularly on matters that could impact public health and safety.

Kharbanda welcomed the decision last week by the Senate Ag Committee to table the matter. If it goes to a study committee, he said more of an understanding of state and local policy, if nothing else, could be achieved.

“I think that’s a benefit to anyone regardless where one stands on this issue,” he said.

The IFB has not come out with an official position on S.B. 249, to avoid jeopardizing its relationships with any of the counties. But, the organization sees nothing wrong with agriculture being practiced in areas zoned for farming, said Schneider.

He also feels both sides beginning to talk is a positive, given the complexity and magnitude of the issue. “Starting the conversation is good,” said Schneider, who emphasized that zoning falls under the responsibility of counties, and the state has control over issues involving the environment – and sometimes the categories in terms of public perception can overlap.

“That often gets mixed, and that becomes a challenge,” he noted.