Topeka ? Three of the seven Kansas Supreme Court justices reacted skeptically Thursday when attorneys for Norton County argued it could impose tougher regulations on feedlots than state law requires.

The justices were asked to overturn a district court ruling that the county cannot impose its tougher rules because a 1998 Kansas law gives state government the sole power to regulate feedlots.

Norton County imposed its regulations in 2002, and 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. The state’s highest court could rule as soon as March 19.

Mary Carson, a Lawrence attorney representing Norton County, said the law did not explicitly ban county regulation.

She acknowledged no county would have the power to exempt feedlots from state regulation completely or to impose rules in conflict with the state law. However, she said, Norton County’s regulations supplement state law and are not in conflict.

“The state established a regulatory floor, if you will,” she said. “Norton County welcomed the state regulations. They just didn’t think they go far enough to address local concerns.”

But Justices Donald Allegrucci, Carol Beier and Robert Davis said they saw a conflict because state law set standards for feedlots and Norton County, as Davis put it, “authorizes something less.”

Allegrucci said, “Why isn’t that a conflict? I meet all the state regulations, but I still can’t operate in Norton County.”

Carson still saw no conflict, comparing Norton County regulating a feedlot more strictly to a local government telling taverns they must close at 1:30 a.m., instead of 3 a.m., as specified by state law.

Dennis Gillen, a Wichita attorney representing the feedlot owners, said that if Norton County could impose its own regulations, a patchwork of conflicting regulations could arise. After the Supreme Court hearing, he said each of the suing feedlots could be forced to spend $100,000 to comply with Norton County’s regulations.

The Norton County rules differ 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.

Gillen said the Legislature intended to have the state regulate feedlots when it enacted the 1998 law. He said if justices examined the legislative history, “You will find nothing that supports the position of Norton County.”

But Jim Kaup, an Overland Park attorney also representing the county, said legislators could have been explicit in banning county regulation.

The case is John David, et al., v. Board of Commissioners of Norton County, No. 89,822.