Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization
Hog Feedlot Owners' Due Process and
Takings Claims Dismissed
Ursula T. RansburgNational AgLaw Center Research Fellow Fellow
Landowners brought an action against the owners of a neighboring hog feedlot, the corporation that owned the pigs grown at the feedlot, the county board of commissioners that allowed the feedlot to be constructed, and a county official. Overgaard, et.al. v. Rock County Board of Commissioners, No. Civ. A. 02-601, 2003 WL 21744235 (D. Minn. July 25, 2003). The landowners alleged that the county violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and their rights to substantive and procedural due process when the county allowed the feedlot to operate, requested declaratory relief, and raised claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and inverse condemnation. See id. at *3. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota rejected the plaintiff landowners' § 1983 claim, holding that they did not have a constitutionally-protected property interest created under state law that was needed to maintain a § 1983 claim. See id. at *5. The court also dismissed the plaintiff landowners' state law claims with prejudice, finding that those claims should be handled by a state court. See id. at *8.
Overgaard Pork was a feedlot owned by defendants Chad and Scott Overgaard. See id. at *1. Defendant Schwartz Farms, Inc. owned the hogs that were raised on the feedlot and retained control over many functions of the feedlot pursuant to an "Independent Contractor Agreement." See id. Rock County ("County"), a municipality created under Minnesota law, and John Burgers, Director and County Feedlot Officer of the Rock County Land Management Office ("LMO") were also defendants in this action. See id. Plaintiffs Mable Overgaard and her sons, Glen and Loren Overgaard, all resided in close proximity to the feedlot. See id.
In the late 1980s or early 1990s, Chad and Scott Overgaard raised heifers on a farm owned by Abe and Anna Oydna. See id. Although the Oydnas died in 1997, Chad and Scott continued to use the Oydna farm to raise heifers. See id. The Oydna farm was never registered as a feedlot. See id. at *2. Chad and Scott bought the Oydna's farm at an auction in 1999 and continued to use buildings on the farm to store heifers and calves. See id. In January, 2001, after an inspection by the LMO, the site was registered as an existing feedlot. See id.
In February, 2001, Chad and Scott Overgaard met with John Burgers "to determine what would be necessary to obtain a permit for a hog feedlot on the old Oydna site." Id. They provided the LMO with a copy of their building plans but did not submit a feedlot expansion application. See id. One month later, the LMO sent a "Notification of Application" form to the chairperson of Kanaranzi Township. See id. at *3. The notification "erroneously indicated that Chad and Scott Overgaard had submitted an application for a new feedlot, when in fact they had only submitted construction drawings for an expansion." See id. Nevertheless, the next month Chad and Scott submitted the application fee and the feedlot and building permit applications. See id.
Chad and Scott were provided with the names of those landowners within 5000 feet of the building site, all of which needed to be contacted in order to provide proper notice of their intention to construct a feedlot. See id. They later submitted proof to the LMO that they had provided notice to those landowners. See id. On May 21, 2001, the County issued Chad and Scott Overgaard "a Land Use Permit for the hog confinement building and a Construction Short Form Permit for the feedlot . . . and construction of the hog confinement building began." Id. The plaintiffs complained about the hog confinement building the same week construction began. See id. In August, 2001, the plaintiffs complained a second time to the County about the hog feedlot. See Id.
In March, 2002, the plaintiffs sued, "asserting that the establishment of the feedlot was prohibited by Minnesota Statutes, Minnesota Rules, and County Ordinance." Id. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that Rock County, through its employee John Burgers, "gave preferential treatment to hog operations, inappropriately permitted the Overgaard Pork feedlot to operate, and thus violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Overgaard Plaintiffs' rights to substantive and due process." Id. The plaintiffs also raised several state law claims,"including a claim for inverse condemnation under the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, a request for declaratory relief, and claims for nuisance, trespass, and negligence." Id.
The court explained that § 1983 "is not in itself a source of substantive rights, but instead is a vehicle for asserting federal rights conferred elsewhere" and, therefore, "a plaintiff asserting claims under section 1983 must identify a specific constitutional right allegedly deprived under color of state law." Id. (citations omitted). Noting that the present case was quite similar to its recent decision in Kuhl v. Halquist Farms, Inc., No. Civ. 02-1156, 2003 WL 21517361 (D. Minn. June 26, 2003), the court explained that "the primary issue . . . is whether or not Plaintiffs have asserted a cognizable federal claim for relief as to their due process claims." Id. It added that, "[h]ere, as in Kuhl, the issue turns upon the question of whether or not Plaintiffs have asserted a protected property interest sufficient to trigger due process protection." Id.
The court recognized that "[p]rotected property interests are created by state law, but federal law determines whether property interests rise to the level of constitutionally protected property interests." Id. (citations omitted). It further recognized that "[s]tate law can create a property interest by explicitly creating a property right, by 'establishing statutory or regulatory measures that impose substantive limitations on the exercise of official discretion,' or by 'understanding between the state and the other party.'" Id. (citations omitted).
The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that they have "a 'protected property interest from the . . . feedlot program rules, together with the County Ordinance' and 'a protected property interest in right [sic] to be free from nuisance conditions from agricultural operations.'" Id. (citation omitted). It held that the state and county laws that the plaintiffs relied upon "do not create a property interest sufficient to create a property interest under section 1983." Id. The court also held that nothing in the state and county laws relied on by the plaintiffs "gives the Overgaard Plaintiffs a legitimate claim of entitlement based upon limited decision-making discretion." Id. It stated that because the County had significant discretion in determining whether a feedlot permit should be issued, "there was no guarantee that the Plaintiffs would be absolutely 'entitled' to the benefit that they seek- the denial or revocation of the building permit and construction short form permit issued to the hog feedlot." Id.
The plaintiffs' also asserted that the Minnesota Right to Farm Act 561.19, subd. 2 (a) of the Minnesota Right to Farm Act's created an easement over the neighboring property that allows a nuisance to continue and that this easement constitutes a taking that formed the basis of a substantive due process claim. See id. (citing Minn. Stat. 561.19, subd. 2 (a)). Section 561.19 provides that "[a]n agricultural operation is not and shall not become a private or public nuisance after two years from its established date of operation if the operation was not a nuisance at its established date of operation." Id. at *7 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 561.19, subd.2(a)). The plaintiffs based this assertion on the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Bormann v. Bd. of Sup'rs In and For Kossuth County, 584 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Iowa 1998).
In Bormann, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa Right to Farm Act "created 'an easement in the property affected by the nuisance . . . in favor of the [farm operation's] land . . . because the immunity allows the [farm operators] to do acts on their land which, were it not for the easement, would constitute a nuisance.'" Id. (citation omitted). Thus, the Bormann court determined that the Iowa Right to Farm Act resulted in a taking of property without just compensation. See id. (citation omitted).
In distinguishing Bormann, the court held that
[w]hile Bormann may seem persuasive at first glance, the Court finds that Bormann's holding is not applicable to the Minnesota Right to Farm Act. In Minnesota, the Right to Farm Act creates a two-year window before the immunity from nuisance suit applies. This is different from Iowa, where the Right to Farm Act creates immediate immunity from nuisance suit. In Minnesota, because neighboring landowners maintain their ability to bring suit for at least two years, no easement is created and the neighboring landowners are not deprived of any property rights.
Id.
Noting that the plaintiffs have a two-year window to bring a nuisance suit under the Minnesota Right to Farm Act, the court stated that because this window had not yet expired, the plaintiffs "have not yet been deprived of any property interest, as suggested by Bormann, by which to assert a due process claim." Id.
The court declined to address the plaintiffs' state law claims. See id. It explained that a federal court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when a federal claim is properly before the court. See id. It also explained that a court has the discretion to dismiss the remaining state claims after all federal claims have been dismissed. See id. The court stated the following:
Here, the court has granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's federal claims, and only Plaintiffs' state law claims remain. The court recognizes that significant interests in comity exist in this important area of state and county law. As such, the court determines that the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice. ...The court . . . finds that those are matters of significant state concern that are appropriately handled by the state courts.
Id.
The case was decided on July 25, 2003; this summary was posted Dec. 10, 2003.