Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization & Agriculture

County Exceeded Its Authority in Enacting Amendment
to CAFO Zoning Ordinance

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Ramsey County Farm Bureau v. Ramsey County, 755 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 2008), the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that a county had exceeded its authority by enacting an amendment to its animal feeding operations ordinance that regulated more than the location of a feeding operation, the type of animals allowed, and the size of the operation, as authorized by state statute.

Background

On June 20, 2006, the Ramsey County Commission voted to adopt an amendment to the county zoning ordinance for animal feeding operations, but notice of the amended ordinance was not published in the official county newspaper until March 2007. Id. at 922. The plaintiffs brought a declaratory judgment action against Ramsey County seeking a declaration that the amendment and the underlying ordinance were invalid, but the district court granted the county's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Id. The plaintiffs appealed. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the zoning ordinance was invalid because Ramsey County did not comply with post-enactment statutory publication requirements, the ordinance regulated matters preempted by state law, the ordinance was not a zoning ordinance, and Ramsey County did not have authority to enact the ordinance. Id.

Ramsey County argued that it had substantially complied with post-enactment procedures, the plaintiffs had notice the ordinance had been approved, and the plaintiffs had not claimed they were prejudiced by the failure to strictly comply with statutory requirements. Id. at 923.

Analysis and Holdings

Regarding the notice requirements for newly adopted ordinances, the court agreed that state law required a county to publish notice of the adopted ordinance in the official county newspaper immediately, but the court reaffirmed its prior holding that strict compliance was not necessary and only a substantial failure to comply will render an ordinance invalid. Id. at 923. The court found that although the county had not immediately posted notice of the adopted ordinance, it had substantially complied with the statutory notice requirements. Id. at 924. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were prejudiced by the delay, and they had actual notice of the ordinance. Id.

The district court had applied N.D.C.C. ch. 11-33 (2005) and determined that Ramsey County had the authority to enact the amendment and that the ordinance was not pre-empted by state law, but the court explained that at the time of the lower court's ruling those provisions had been repealed by 2007 amendments, so the declaration should have been made under the current version of the law. Id. at 925-26. The court found that the current version of N.D.C.C. § 23-25-11(9) explicitly limited a county's authority to regulate animal feeding operations and stated that a county may do no more than regulate the location of the operation, size of the operation, and the type of animal, and the court concluded that counties could not enact environmental regulations for animal feeding operations as part of their zoning ordinances. Id. at 928. The court therefore held that Ramsey County had exceeded its authority by enacting an amendment that was outside the scope of what the statute authorized, but it remanded the case for further determination of whether portions of the underlying ordinance were still valid. Id.

The case was decided on September 23, 2008.