Iowa and Right to Farm: an Analysis of the Constitutionality of Right to Farm Statutes Across the United States

• Jurisdiction: Iowa,United States,Federal
• Citation: Vol. 53
• Publication year: 2022

53 Creighton L. Rev. 623. IOWA AND RIGHT TO FARM: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RIGHT TO FARM STATUTES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

IOWA AND RIGHT TO FARM: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RIGHT TO FARM STATUTES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

-Beau R. Morgan '21

I. INTRODUCTION

While not all right to farm statutes are exactly the same, the statutes similarly provide farmers with certain protections against nuisance lawsuits. ^[1] These protections extend to farmers in their normal activities on their farming operations while limiting neighboring landowners from bringing suit because of such activities. ^[2] These statutes, however, often do not completely bar neighboring landowners from bringing a suit against the farmer, but limit the amount of time that the neighboring landowner can bring suit. ^[3] Most statutes only allow a few years for the neighbor to bring suit, either where a new farm has just begun operation or where the farm has entered into a new form of operation. ^[4] These statutes are designed to protect farmers from the burdens of the legal process and potential monetary damages that may be awarded to their neighbors in a nuisance suit. ^[5]

Right to farm statutes have been addressed by some state courts, although Iowa has addressed its statute more frequently than other states and has come to different conclusions. ^[6] Iowa has been one of the only states to find that its right to farm statute creates an unconstitutional taking of a landowner's property. ^[7] Unlike any other state court decision in an analysis of a right to farm statute, the Iowa Supreme Court has held in three separate cases that Iowa's right to farm statute is unconstitutional. ^[8]

This Note will discuss the Iowa Supreme Court's conclusion in relation to the constitutionality of Iowa's right to farm statute in Bormann v. Board of Supervisors ex rel. Kossuth County, ^[9] Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., ^[10] and Honomichl v. Valley View Swine, L.L.C., ^[11] and why the court's decision is not applicable in most applications of right to farm laws in other states. ^[12] First, this Note will provide a general description of right to farm statutes. ^[13] Next, this Note will describe the facts and holdings of the right to farm cases that have gone before the Iowa Supreme Court. ^[14] This Note will then discuss other state courts' holdings related to the application of those state's right to farm statutes. ^[15] Finally, this Note will argue that the Iowa Supreme Court's holding is not applicable in an analysis of other states' right to farm laws. ^[16]

II. BACKGROUND

A. WHAT IS RIGHT TO FARM?

The goal of right to farm statutes are to provide farmers immunity from nuisance actions brought against them because of their farming operations. ^[17] Today, all fifty states have right to farm statutes. ^[18] Right to farm statutes ordinarily define which agricultural operations are covered by the statute. ^[19] This can include certain considerations regarding the size and value of the operation, as well as, whether all agricultural-based businesses are covered. ^[20]

Other factors must also be considered for agricultural operations to receive protection. ^[21] The factors often considered are the: (1) land use changes; (2) length of time the operation has been in existence; and (3) functions of the operation since inception. ^[22] For right to farm statutes to offer protection to farmers certain requirements such as a farm to be in place for a certain period of time or requiring the plaintiff to come to the nuisance must be met. ^[23] Some statutes require a farm to be established for one year with no significant change in operation, which effectively provides a statute of limitations for suchsuits. ^[24]

B. ROOTS OF RIGHT TO FARM

Today, while all fifty states have right to farm statutes, before the 1980s most states did not. ^[25] In the late 1970s, in response to changes in the agricultural industry, states started to create right to farm statutes. ^[26] During this time, the combination of an increase in urban density and an agricultural boom throughout the United States caused rural America and suburbia to grow closer. ^[27] The urban sprawl caused more agricultural land to be consumed and drove the United States government to investigate the increasing loss of agricultural land in the United States through the publication of the National Agricultural Lands Survey ("NALS"). ^[28] NALS assessed about three million acres of American farmland being converted to nonagricultural uses annually. ^[29] The increasing urban sprawl in the late 1970s and early 1980s placed residents who had never experienced rural life, right next to farming operations. ^[30]

While the draw to a more laidback lifestyle caused many of these individuals to escape the cities, the draw to the rural areas was short lived. ^[31] The new neighbors began complaining about noise, odor, and dust because of the proximity to their agricultural neighbors. ^[32] From these complaints, the neighbors brought nuisance lawsuits against the farmers. ^[33] Farming operations in the United States were facing serious economic problems related to the 1980s farm crisis. ^[34] In addition to these nuisance lawsuits against farmers, the cost of such would have an even greater economic effect on farmers, possibly forcing some out of business. ^[35] Knowing the impact agriculture had on state economies, the publication of the NALS and the farm crisis pushed many state legislatures to enact right to farm statutes. ^[36]

C. COMING TO THE NUISANCE

The encroachment of urban citizens on rural land has caused most right to farm statutes to include the coming to the nuisance doctrine. ^[37] Coming to the nuisance arises when a defendant asserts that the plaintiff chose to move next to the defendant's property. ^[38] However, generally the fact that a plaintiff moved near the defendant's property is not a complete defense, but is only one factor for the court to consider. ^[39] Right to farm statutes bridge this gap for landowners who are being sued for nuisance by providing a complete defense against those who have come to the nuisance. ^[40] Right to farm statutes, since their beginnings were designed and implemented to prevent nuisance actions against farmers from those who were moving to the rural areas. ^[41] With the increase of commercial farming in recent years, the issue that arises is whether these new farming operations will still be protected from nuisance suits. ^[42]

However, in three separate cases, the Iowa Supreme Court has found the Iowa right to farm statute unconstitutional. ^[43] Following revisions and amendments to the right to farm statute in the Iowa legislature, the Iowa Supreme Court still found the law unconstitutional. ^[44]

D. IOWA AND RIGHT TO FARM

1. Bormann v. Board of Supervisors In and For Kossuth County

In Bormann v. Board of Supervisors ex rel. Kossuth County, ^[45] the Iowa Supreme Court addressed whether the Iowa right to farm statute, which provides immunity from nuisance suits, would result in a taking which would violate both the federal and Iowa constitutions. ^[46] Bormann challenged the Kossuth County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") decision regarding a piece of property which established an agricultural area. ^[47] Because of the Board's decision to approve the property as an agricultural area, the decision gave the owners of the property immunity from nuisance suits because of Iowa's right to farm statute. ^[48] Bormann argued that because of the approval and subsequent immunity from nuisance suits, the decision resulted in an unconstitutional taking. ^[49]

In the court's analysis of the Iowa right to farm statute, it found that the immunity from nuisance suits in the statute created an easement on the property. ^[50] The right to farm statute creates an easement on the neighboring property because it allows farmers to continue their farming operations, which without the easement, would constitute a nuisance. ^[51] The court found the easement created an unconstitutional taking because it created a property interest, finding that a state cannot regulate property to provide immunity from potential nuisance suits without providing compensation to those affected by the nuisance. ^[52] The court held the Iowa right to farm statute to be unconstitutional, as it creates a taking of private property, violating the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. ^[53]

2. Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C.

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed the Iowa right to farm statute again in Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C. ^[54] In Gacke, the plaintiffs, Joseph and Linda Gacke, sued Pork Xtra, claiming that Pork Xtra's hog confinement facilities constituted a nuisance. ^[55] The plaintiffs argued that Pork Xtra's facilities caused a personal injury and decreased the value of their property. ^[56] Pork Xtra used the Iowa right to farm statute as an affirmative defense, but the defense was denied by the district court, which held that the statute resulted in an unjust taking. ^[57] Pork Xtra appealed the district court's ruling that the right to farm statute was unconstitutional as to hog operations. ^[58]

Pork Xtra argued that the Iowa Supreme Court's holding in Bormann v. Board of Supervisors ex rel. Kossuth County, ^[59] is not applicable to the issue at hand, because the right to farm...