Topeka ? Counties cannot regulate feedlots more strictly than the state does, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday, handing feedlot owners a legal victory over Norton County.

The Supreme Court said in a unanimous decision that a 1998 Kansas law gives state government the sole power to regulate feedlots, which prevents counties from using “home rule” powers granted by Kansas law over local affairs.

The Norton County Commission imposed its regulations in 2002, arguing that its standards supplemented the state law. But the Supreme Court said the county’s action created a conflict by outlawing activity state law would permit.

“The county’s argument that there was no conflict here is nothing more than a word game, exalting form over substance,” Justice Carol Beier wrote in the court’s opinion.

Jim Kaup, a Topeka attorney who represents the county, said the Supreme Court’s decision would limit significantly the home rule powers of the state’s 105 counties. He said the decision appeared broad enough to apply to more than just feedlot regulation.

“It’s hard to imagine the outer limits of the fallout,” he said. “It moves power more toward state government and away from local government.”

Norton County’s rules differed in several dozen respects with state law. For example, the state law says a feedlot may bury dead animals on site, without being more specific. The Norton County rules require the animals to be buried at least three feet deep and covered with quicklime, so that the carcasses will decompose more quickly.

After county commissioners imposed their regulations, the owners of three feedlots and the Kansas Livestock Assn. sued. When the district court sided with the association and the feedlot owners, the county appealed.

Allie Devine, a former Kansas agriculture secretary and the Livestock Assn.’s general counsel, said the Supreme Court’s ruling meant livestock producers no longer faced the threat of local authorities imposing their own regulations.

An attorney for the feedlot owners had suggested they might be forced to spend $100,000 to comply with the county’s standards.

Steve Baccus, an Ottawa County farmer who is president of the Kansas Farm Bureau, called the Supreme Court decision “an enormous victory for Kansas farmers, ranchers and rural communities.”

“Had this case gone the other way, it could well have meant 105 separate sets of livestock regulation, and that’s nothing but hardship and headaches for producers,” Baccus said in a statement.

Norton County Atty. Doug Sebelius said the county simply wanted to address its own, local environmental concerns.

“It was not a very good day for Mother Earth,” Sebelius said in a telephone interview. “Kansas, it just looks like to me, is just backward in this area of environmental regulation.”