HOUSE FILE 430

BY  SWEENEY

A BILL FOR

An Act providing for nuisance actions arising out of agricultural uses and practices.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

   Section 1.  NEW SECTION.  657.12  Actions against agricultural uses and agricultural practices.
   1.  Legislative purpose.  The general assembly finds that development in rural areas and changes in agricultural technology, practices, and scale of operation have increasingly tended to create conflicts between agricultural and other uses of land. The general assembly believes that, to the extent possible consistent with good public policy, the law should not hamper agricultural production or the use of modern agricultural technology. The general assembly therefore deems it in the best interest of the state to establish limits on the remedies available in those conflicts relating to the agricultural use of land which reach the judicial system.
   2.  Definitions.  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires: 
   a.  “Agricultural practice” means any activity associated with an agricultural use. 
   b.  “Agricultural use” means any of the following activities conducted for the purpose of producing an income or livelihood:
   (1)  Crop or forage production.
   (2)  Keeping livestock.
   (3)  Beekeeping.
   (4)  Nursery, sod, or Christmas tree production.
   (5)  Floriculture.
   (6)  Aquaculture.
   (7)  Fur farming.
   (8)  Forest management.
   (9)  Enrolling land in a federal agricultural commodity payment program or a federal or state agricultural land conservation payment program, including but not limited to the federal conservation reserve program.
   (10)  Any other use that the department of agriculture and land stewardship, by rule, identifies as an agricultural use.
   c.  “Litigation expenses” means the sum of the costs, disbursements, and expenses, including reasonable attorney, expert witness, and engineering fees necessary to prepare for or participate in an action in which an agricultural use or agricultural practice is alleged to be a nuisance.
   3.  Nuisance actions.
   a.
  (1)  An agricultural use or an agricultural practice shall not be found to be a nuisance if all of the following apply:
   (a)  The agricultural use or agricultural practice alleged to be a nuisance is conducted on, or on a public right-of-way adjacent to, land that was in agricultural use without substantial interruption before the plaintiff began the use of property that the plaintiff alleges was interfered with by the agricultural use or agricultural practice.
   (b)  The agricultural use or agricultural practice does not present a substantial threat to public health or safety.
   (2)  This paragraph“a” applies without regard to whether a change in agricultural use or agricultural practice is alleged to have contributed to the nuisance.
   b.  In an action in which an agricultural use or an agricultural practice is found to be a nuisance, the following conditions apply: 
   (1)  The relief granted shall not substantially restrict or regulate the agricultural use or agricultural practice, unless the agricultural use or agricultural practice is a substantial threat to public health or safety.
   (2)  If a court orders the defendant to take any action to mitigate the effects of the agricultural use or agricultural practice found to be a nuisance, the court shall do all of the following:
   (a)  Request public agencies having expertise in agricultural matters to furnish the court with suggestions for practices suitable to mitigate the effects of the agricultural use or agricultural practice found to be a nuisance.
   (b)  Provide the defendant with a reasonable time to take the action directed in the court’s order. The time allowed for the defendant to take the action shall not be less than one year after the date of the order unless the agricultural use or agricultural practice is a substantial threat to public health or safety.
   (3)  If a court orders the defendant to take any action to mitigate the effects of the agricultural use or agricultural practice found to be a nuisance, the court shall not order the defendant to take any action that substantially and adversely affects the economic viability of the agricultural use, unless the agricultural use or agricultural practice is a substantial threat to public health or safety.
   4.  Costs.  The court shall award litigation expenses to the defendant in any action in which an agricultural use or agricultural practice is alleged to be a nuisance if the agricultural use or agricultural practice is not found to be a nuisance. The litigation expenses shall be taxed as part of the costs of the action.
EXPLANATION
   This bill limits the right to bring a nuisance action involving an agricultural use or agricultural practice. The bill includes a provision declaring the importance of agricultural production and use of modern agricultural technology. The bill provides for agricultural uses and practices associated with those uses, which include a range of activities associated with crop and animal production. The bill provides that an agricultural use or practice is not a nuisance under two conditions: (1) the defendant’s use or practice predates the plaintiff’s use; and (2) the defendant’s use or practice does not present a substantial threat to public health or safety. The conditions apply without regard to whether there has been a change in the use or practice.
   The bill provides a number of restrictions upon a court which orders relief if a nuisance is found. The court cannot substantially restrict the use or practice unless the nuisance is a substantial threat to the public health or safety. It must consult with agencies having an expertise in agricultural matters. It must provide the defendant with a reasonable time to take the action, which cannot be less than a year. Finally, the court cannot order a defendant to take any action that substantially and adversely affects the economic viability of the agricultural use, unless there is a substantial threat to public health or safety. 
   The bill provides that if the defendant in such a nuisance action prevails, the court must award the defendant litigation expenses, including attorney fees and fees of expert witnesses.