Hays ? In a closely watched case, the Kansas Supreme Court will consider whether counties can impose stricter rules than the state on large hog farms and other confined feeding operations.

In February 2002, Norton County commissioners adopted laws requiring a top on waste lagoons to control odor and protect groundwater, more deep-soil testing, and a distance of three miles between confined feeding operations. Later that year, District Judge Michael Barbara tossed out the regulations, ruling they violated a 1998 state law that bars counties from changing the statutory provisions governing confined feeding operations.

But the Norton County Commission has steadfastly defended its regulations, insisting the state’s rules do not do enough to protect the county’s residents and natural resources.

Norton County Atty. Doug Sebelius said Tuesday he anticipated the case being scheduled for oral arguments within the next couple of months.

“First, a final decision will be reached quickly, and second, we feel we will get a full and fair hearing and have all seven justices being given an opportunity to review this and not a three-member panel of judges,” Sebelius said.

The Kansas Livestock Assn. and several producers sued commissioners after the regulations were adopted. Allie Devine, the association’s legal counsel, said Tuesday the law was clear: Counties do not have the authority to write their own animal feeding regulations.

“We were very pleased with what Judge Barbara said. He made a very clear decision and we hope the Supreme Court will follow it,” Devine said.

But Sebelius said Barbara’s ruling disregarded the importance of local government acting to protect local citizens and the state’s natural resources.

The Kansas Association of Counties, which also joined the lawsuit on behalf of Norton County, also argued the judge fundamentally misunderstood home rule and applied an improper methodology.

In his ruling, Barbara said the elements of home rule argued by Norton County did not apply because counties were not allowed to “exempt from or effect changes to state law.”

The county association said the case had “potentially profound implications” for each Kansas county and for “every local government in the state.”