Laws to settle dust irritate horse owners

Scottsdale prides itself on its horse culture, so when outraged ranch owners complain that controversial federal anti-dust mandates threaten to put them out of business, city officials listen.

At the behest of City Councilwoman Betty Drake, also a horse enthusiast, officials are working toward creating exemptions for equestrian owners to city ordinances passed last month.

The new rules require private property owners to apply anti-dust treatments, such as chemicals, water or crushed rock to unpaved areas where vehicles travel on commercial properties, and on residential properties larger than 3,000 square feet, among other things.

While equestrians say the new laws could harm their horses and put an unreasonable financial burden on them, Drake said state law required the city to enact the federal restrictions by the end of last month.

“We had to adopt the ordinance to stay compliant with the law,” she said. “I’ve been hearing from quite a few citizens and, of course, the horse people are upset.”

Among them are Reggie Huff, owner of the 15-acre Desert Ridge Equestrian Center, 29251 N. Hayden Road. The facility provides boarding and training for horses. The cost of putting dust-stabilizing chemicals all over his property could doom his enterprise, he said.

“This whole horse business is a low-margin business,” Huff said. “It’s going to be devastating. I don’t know if we’re going to be able to stay here.”

The laws, he said, were created by people in Washington out of touch with Arizona.

“As if these horses walking around are going to stir up more dust than the construction sites,” Huff said. “To go and spray this plastic stuff all over the property is ludicrous.”

Last week, the council voted unanimously to draft a legal review of whether it’s possible to exclude livestock activity areas from having to use dust stabilizing agents.

The report could come back to the council on April 15, Drake said.

“Horses walk all over the place and those could be dangerous and unsafe,” she said of the chemicals. “We would add a definition to our ordinance to cover that, then exclude those areas. If you have an area that’s used for livestock activities, the city ordinance wouldn’t apply.”

Failure to adopt the new rules could have meant the loss of $1 million to $2 million in federal transportation funds for Scottsdale. Complying with them, however, means the city will spend nearly $500,000 to hire three new full-time employees and buy two vehicles and a water truck.

The discussion of amending the laws is a step in the right direction, said Amy Ganley, owner of the Apache Peak Equestrian Center, 29607 N. Hayden Road. But at this point, it won’t affect a referendum drive aimed at overturning the city ordinances, she said.

“All they’ve done is vote to consider and look at some options,” Ganley said.

“Everything is still in play.”

The new regulations are to take effect in October for commercial properties, and in October 2009 for residential properties.

City officials also could approach the Legislature about the requirement to stabilize unpaved driveways and parking areas on large lots with single-family homes. Such lots may only get a few vehicles trips per day, while unpaved roads with a much larger volume of traffic may not have to be treated for dust. And that’s unfair, Drake said.

“Why are the private property owners being subjected to more punitive regulations than the public?” she asked.

Larry Person, city senior environmental coordinator, said Maricopa County regulations provide that unpaved roads need not be treated for dust unless they get at least 150 vehicle trips per day, on average. On roads the city does treat, it uses a chemical called Soil Sement, which breaks down into sugar over time. He said the chemical does not pose a risk to animals.

“We’ve been using this product since 1998,” Person said. “One of the criteria was safety.”

Officials are unlikely to enforce the anti-dust measures on private property unless they receive a complaint, according to Nancy C. Wrona, director of a the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Quality Division, in an April 1 letter to state Sen. Carolyn Allen, R-Scottsdale.

“First, county air quality officials have said that, in the absence of a complaint about dust going beyond a property line, the county is unlikely to conduct any inspection or issue a citation,” Wrona wrote. “Second, there is no expectation on the part of the county that horse property owners will be required to control dust in a manner that will be harmful to their animals.”