Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

County Health Ordinance Targeting
CAFOs Unenforceable

Kaleb K. Hennigh
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Worth County Friends of Agric. v. Worth County, 688 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa 2004), the Supreme Court of Iowa held that a statute enacted by the state legislature to prevent county regulation of concentrated livestock facilities was constitutional and that it expressly preempted a county ordinance imposing certain standards on concentrated livestock operations.

Background

Plaintiff "Friends of Agriculture" (Friends) was an association that sought a declaratory judgment that a Worth County (County) ordinance that regulated air, waste, and water qualities associated with concentrated animal feeding operations within the county was "invalid and illegal." See id. The ordinance established contaminant standards and required that "water quality monitoring wells" be installed on livestock operation premises. See id.

The County enacted the ordinance under its home-rule authority granted under article III, section 39A of the Iowa Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that "[c]ounties . . . are granted home rule power and authority, not inconsistent with the law of the general assembly, to determine their local affairs and government . . . ." Id. Friends brought an action against the County, claiming that Iowa Code § 331.304A(2) preempted the county ordinance. See id.

Section 331.304A(2) provides in pertinent part that

[a] county shall not adopt or enforce county legislation regulating a condition or activity occurring on land used for the production, care, feeding, or housing of animals unless the regulation . . . is expressly authorized by state law. County legislation adopted in violation of this section is void and unenforceable . . . .

Id.

The trial court held that the county ordinance was preempted by § 331.304A(2). See id. The County appealed the trial court's decision to the Iowa Supreme Court. See id.

Arguments

The County argued that under the Iowa Constitution it had the authority to enact the county ordinance and that because the ordinance was a "public health ordinance" not designed to directly regulate "confinement structures" it did not conflict with Iowa Code § 331.304A(2). See id. The County further argued that § 331.304A(2) was unconstitutional because it violated the home rule authority granted to the county under the Iowa Constitution. See id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court held that the county ordinance was expressly exempted by § 331.304A(2). See id. It stated that although the County labeled the county ordinance as a health law, the "plain effect" was the regulation of "livestock confinement operations." See id. The court also stated that the county ordinance created an "irreconcilable conflict" with the state statute because the legislature clearly intended statewide regulation of animal production facilities. See id.

The court also held that § 331.304A(2) was constitutional. See id. The court acknowledged that the constitutional home-rule amendment granted counties local legislative ability, but emphasized that a county ordinance could not be inconsistent with existing state law. See id.

The case was decided on October 6, 2004; this summary was posted Jan. 13, 2005.