In 2003, the Idaho Legislature adopted an emergency measure that precluded civil actions against field burners in 10 Northern Idaho counties. On Monday, the Idaho Supreme Court said, in effect, “No it didn’t.”

The case hinged on whether a district court judge who ruled the law unconstitutional was correct when he said the measure was “a local or special” law. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion said the law applied to all farmers who burn their fields in Idaho.

Does anyone really believe that the law was passed with all Idaho farmers in mind? Dissenting Justice Wayne Kidwell doesn’t, noting the special permits and smoke-management rules in the law that apply only to those farmers in the 10 northern counties.

The law states: “In the counties specifically identified in this subsection, no person shall conduct or allow any crop residue burning without first registering each field with the department each year before burning is conducted, and without authorization of the department.”

Kidwell also noted that the law failed the arbitrary/capricious test because it rested on the fallacy that the crop can be grown only by burning the fields. Grass growers in Washington and Oregon operate without starting fires.

Two years ago, the same court struck down a state law that allowed a half-cent sales tax in Kootenai County, because it applied to only one county. Kidwell alone voted consistently in both cases.

Opponents of field smoke have already indicated they will challenge the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in federal courts, and a reversal wouldn’t be surprising. Neither side sees a legislative remedy for sufferers of field smoke because of the heavy influence of agricultural interests on lawmakers.

Idaho’s rush to protect grass farmers ignores the growing number of people and businesses who want it to stop. Late-summer burning forces those with breathing problems to stay indoors and casts a pall on tourism-related activities. Even Canadian border towns, such as Creston, B.C., have lodged complaints.

The state has implemented some control measures, but it refuses to conduct the cost-benefit analysis recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Such a study in Washington state found that there was a nearly $3 million annual benefit to banning grass-field burning. A permanent ban was imposed in 1998.

The state of Idaho is damaging its credibility by refusing to gather empirical data on the overall costs of field burning, which would include health-related expenses. Instead, it is narrowly focused on the small number of farmers who burn their grass fields. The state Department of Agriculture also refuses to hold public hearings before certifying each year’s burn.

A farmer called the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision, “a breath of fresh air.” The people downwind beg to differ. In all likelihood, the ruling only served to delay an inevitable ban on field burning.