Print
Senate Study Bill 1144 - IntroducedA Bill ForAn Act 1providing for certain court actions involving an
2allegation of a public or private nuisance or the
3interference with a person’s comfortable use and enjoyment
4of life or property caused by an animal feeding operation,
5providing for the award of damages, costs, and expenses, and
6including effective date provisions.
7BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
1 Section 1. NEW SECTION. 657.11A Animal agriculture —
2promotion of responsible animal feeding operations.
31. a. Findings. The general assembly finds that important
4public interests are advanced by preserving and encouraging the
5expansion of responsible animal agricultural production in this
6state which provides employment opportunities in and economic
7growth for rural Iowa, contributes tax revenues to the state
8and to local communities, and protects our valuable natural
9resources.
10b. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to encourage
11persons involved in animal agriculture to adopt existing
12prudent and generally utilized management practices for their
13animal feeding operations, thereby enhancing the fundamental
14role of animal agriculture in this state by providing a
15reasonable level of protection to persons engaged in animal
16agricultural production from certain types of nuisance actions.
17c. Declaration. The general assembly has balanced all
18competing interests and declares its intent to preserve
19and enhance responsible animal agricultural production,
20specifically animal agricultural producers in this state
21who use existing prudent and generally utilized management
22practices reasonable for their animal feeding operations.
232. Except as otherwise provided by this section, an animal
24feeding operation, as defined in section 459.102, found to
25be a public or private nuisance under this chapter or under
26principles of common law, or found to interfere with another
27person’s comfortable use and enjoyment of the person’s life or
28property under any other cause of action, shall be conclusively
29presumed to be a permanent nuisance and not a temporary
30or continuing nuisance under principles of common law, and
31shall be subject to compensatory damages only as provided in
32subsection 3.
333. Compensatory damages awarded to a person bringing
34an action alleging that an animal feeding operation is a
35public or private nuisance, or an interference with another
-1-1person’s comfortable use and enjoyment of the person’s life or
2property under any other cause of action, shall not exceed the
3following:
4a. The person’s share of compensatory property damages due
5to any diminution in the fair market value of the person’s real
6property proximately caused by the animal feeding operation.
7The fair market value of the real property is deemed to equal
8the price that a buyer who is willing but not compelled to
9buy and a seller who is willing but not compelled to sell
10would accept for the real property. The person’s share of any
11compensatory property damages must be based on the person’s
12share of the ownership interest in the real property. For
13purposes of this section, ownership interest means holding
14legal or equitable title to real property in fee simple, as a
15life estate, or as a leasehold interest.
16b. The person’s compensatory damages due to the person’s
17past, present, and future adverse health condition. This
18determination shall be made utilizing only objective and
19documented medical evidence that the nuisance or interference
20with the comfortable use and enjoyment of the person’s life or
21property was the proximate cause of the person’s adverse health
22condition.
23c. The person’s compensatory special damages proximately
24caused by the animal feeding operation, including without
25limitation, annoyance and the loss of comfortable use and
26enjoyment of real property. However, the total damages
27awarded to a person who holds an ownership interest in the real
28property for which damages are awarded under this paragraph “c”
29shall not exceed one and one-half times the sum of any damages
30awarded to the person for the person’s share of the total
31compensatory property damages awarded under paragraph “a” plus
32any compensatory damages awarded to the person under paragraph
33“b”.
344. A person who alleges and fails to prove that an animal
35feeding operation is a public or private nuisance under this
-2-1chapter or under principles of common law, or an interference
2with another person’s comfortable use and enjoyment of the
3person’s life or property under any other cause of action,
4shall be liable to the person against whom the cause of action
5was brought for all costs and expenses, including reasonable
6attorney fees incurred in the defense of the animal feeding
7operation as determined by the court. The costs and expenses
8attributable to reasonable attorney fees shall be taxed as
9court costs.
105. This section shall apply to an animal feeding operation
11in the same manner as section 657.11, subsection 4.
126. This section shall not apply if the person bringing
13the action proves that the public or private nuisance or
14interference with another person’s comfortable use and
15enjoyment of the person’s life or property under any other
16cause of action is proximately caused by any of the following:
17a. The failure to comply with a federal statute or
18regulation or a state statute or rule which applies to the
19animal feeding operation.
20b. The failure to use existing prudent generally utilized
21management practices reasonable for the animal feeding
22operation.
237. This section does not apply to a person during the
24time in which the person is classified as a habitual violator
25pursuant to section 459.604.
268. This section does not apply to a cause of action that
27accrued prior to the effective date of this Act.
28 Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act, being deemed of immediate
29importance, takes effect upon enactment.
30EXPLANATION
31The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
32the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
33GENERAL. This bill allows for an affirmative defense to be
34raised in certain cause of actions in which an animal feeding
35operation is alleged to be a public or private nuisance or
-3-1to otherwise interfere with a person’s comfortable use and
2enjoyment of life or property. The cause of action may be
3brought under Code chapter 657, which addresses private and
4public nuisances, or under common law principles.
5FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The bill includes general assembly
6findings that the public’s interests are advanced by preserving
7and encouraging responsible animal agricultural production,
8and states the bill’s purpose is to encourage persons involved
9in animal agriculture to adopt existing prudent and generally
10utilized management practices for their animal feeding
11operations.
12PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE. An affirmative defense may be
13raised if the allegation involves either a private or public
14nuisance. A private nuisance occurs when a person (defendant)
15uses the person’s land in a manner that unreasonably or
16substantially interferes with the enjoyment of another person
17(plaintiff). A public nuisance unreasonably and substantially
18interferes with the public’s use and enjoyment of legal rights
19common to the public.
20PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY OR CONTINUING NUISANCES. If the
21affirmative defense prevails, the animal feeding operation is
22conclusively deemed to be a permanent rather than a temporary
23or continuing nuisance. A temporary or continuing nuisance
24refers to an injury that occurs intermittently and which may
25be the basis for a number of actions for damages claimed by
26the same party. A permanent nuisance is expected to continue
27indefinitely and the award is for an amount equaling the total
28resulting damages, including future damages that may result
29from the nuisance as it then exists.
30LIMITATION ON DAMAGES. The affirmative defense limits
31compensatory damages as opposed to punitive damages proximately
32caused by the animal feeding operation and specifies three
33categories of awards, including (1) damages for any diminution
34in the fair market value of a person’s real property; (2)
35damages due to a person’s past, present, and future adverse
-4-1health condition based on medical evidence; and (3) special
2damages for intangible injuries such as annoyance or the loss
3of comfortable use and enjoyment of real property. In the case
4of special damages, the total awarded cannot exceed one and
5one-half times the combined amounts for property damages and
6damages resulting from an adverse health condition.
7COSTS. A party who alleges and fails to prove that an
8animal feeding operation is a public or private nuisance is
9liable to pay the other party all costs and expenses, including
10reasonable attorney fees incurred in the defense.
11DATE OF OPERATION. The affirmative defense may be raised
12regardless of the established date of operation or expansion of
13the animal feeding operation.
14EXCLUSIONS. The affirmative defense is not available
15in certain circumstances: (1) an animal feeding operation
16failed to comply with an applicable federal or state statute
17or regulation, (2) the animal feeding operation failed to
18use existing prudent generally utilized management practices
19reasonable for the animal feeding operation, (3) the animal
20feeding operation is controlled by a person classified as a
21habitual violator who has committed three or more environmental
22violations, and (4) the cause of action arose before the bill’s
23effective date.
24EFFECTIVE DATE. The bill takes effect upon enactment.
-5-da/rj
2allegation of a public or private nuisance or the
3interference with a person’s comfortable use and enjoyment
4of life or property caused by an animal feeding operation,
5providing for the award of damages, costs, and expenses, and
6including effective date provisions.
7BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
1 Section 1. NEW SECTION. 657.11A Animal agriculture —
2promotion of responsible animal feeding operations.
31. a. Findings. The general assembly finds that important
4public interests are advanced by preserving and encouraging the
5expansion of responsible animal agricultural production in this
6state which provides employment opportunities in and economic
7growth for rural Iowa, contributes tax revenues to the state
8and to local communities, and protects our valuable natural
9resources.
10b. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to encourage
11persons involved in animal agriculture to adopt existing
12prudent and generally utilized management practices for their
13animal feeding operations, thereby enhancing the fundamental
14role of animal agriculture in this state by providing a
15reasonable level of protection to persons engaged in animal
16agricultural production from certain types of nuisance actions.
17c. Declaration. The general assembly has balanced all
18competing interests and declares its intent to preserve
19and enhance responsible animal agricultural production,
20specifically animal agricultural producers in this state
21who use existing prudent and generally utilized management
22practices reasonable for their animal feeding operations.
232. Except as otherwise provided by this section, an animal
24feeding operation, as defined in section 459.102, found to
25be a public or private nuisance under this chapter or under
26principles of common law, or found to interfere with another
27person’s comfortable use and enjoyment of the person’s life or
28property under any other cause of action, shall be conclusively
29presumed to be a permanent nuisance and not a temporary
30or continuing nuisance under principles of common law, and
31shall be subject to compensatory damages only as provided in
32subsection 3.
333. Compensatory damages awarded to a person bringing
34an action alleging that an animal feeding operation is a
35public or private nuisance, or an interference with another
-1-1person’s comfortable use and enjoyment of the person’s life or
2property under any other cause of action, shall not exceed the
3following:
4a. The person’s share of compensatory property damages due
5to any diminution in the fair market value of the person’s real
6property proximately caused by the animal feeding operation.
7The fair market value of the real property is deemed to equal
8the price that a buyer who is willing but not compelled to
9buy and a seller who is willing but not compelled to sell
10would accept for the real property. The person’s share of any
11compensatory property damages must be based on the person’s
12share of the ownership interest in the real property. For
13purposes of this section, ownership interest means holding
14legal or equitable title to real property in fee simple, as a
15life estate, or as a leasehold interest.
16b. The person’s compensatory damages due to the person’s
17past, present, and future adverse health condition. This
18determination shall be made utilizing only objective and
19documented medical evidence that the nuisance or interference
20with the comfortable use and enjoyment of the person’s life or
21property was the proximate cause of the person’s adverse health
22condition.
23c. The person’s compensatory special damages proximately
24caused by the animal feeding operation, including without
25limitation, annoyance and the loss of comfortable use and
26enjoyment of real property. However, the total damages
27awarded to a person who holds an ownership interest in the real
28property for which damages are awarded under this paragraph “c”
29shall not exceed one and one-half times the sum of any damages
30awarded to the person for the person’s share of the total
31compensatory property damages awarded under paragraph “a” plus
32any compensatory damages awarded to the person under paragraph
33“b”.
344. A person who alleges and fails to prove that an animal
35feeding operation is a public or private nuisance under this
-2-1chapter or under principles of common law, or an interference
2with another person’s comfortable use and enjoyment of the
3person’s life or property under any other cause of action,
4shall be liable to the person against whom the cause of action
5was brought for all costs and expenses, including reasonable
6attorney fees incurred in the defense of the animal feeding
7operation as determined by the court. The costs and expenses
8attributable to reasonable attorney fees shall be taxed as
9court costs.
105. This section shall apply to an animal feeding operation
11in the same manner as section 657.11, subsection 4.
126. This section shall not apply if the person bringing
13the action proves that the public or private nuisance or
14interference with another person’s comfortable use and
15enjoyment of the person’s life or property under any other
16cause of action is proximately caused by any of the following:
17a. The failure to comply with a federal statute or
18regulation or a state statute or rule which applies to the
19animal feeding operation.
20b. The failure to use existing prudent generally utilized
21management practices reasonable for the animal feeding
22operation.
237. This section does not apply to a person during the
24time in which the person is classified as a habitual violator
25pursuant to section 459.604.
268. This section does not apply to a cause of action that
27accrued prior to the effective date of this Act.
28 Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act, being deemed of immediate
29importance, takes effect upon enactment.
30EXPLANATION
31The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
32the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
33GENERAL. This bill allows for an affirmative defense to be
34raised in certain cause of actions in which an animal feeding
35operation is alleged to be a public or private nuisance or
-3-1to otherwise interfere with a person’s comfortable use and
2enjoyment of life or property. The cause of action may be
3brought under Code chapter 657, which addresses private and
4public nuisances, or under common law principles.
5FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The bill includes general assembly
6findings that the public’s interests are advanced by preserving
7and encouraging responsible animal agricultural production,
8and states the bill’s purpose is to encourage persons involved
9in animal agriculture to adopt existing prudent and generally
10utilized management practices for their animal feeding
11operations.
12PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE. An affirmative defense may be
13raised if the allegation involves either a private or public
14nuisance. A private nuisance occurs when a person (defendant)
15uses the person’s land in a manner that unreasonably or
16substantially interferes with the enjoyment of another person
17(plaintiff). A public nuisance unreasonably and substantially
18interferes with the public’s use and enjoyment of legal rights
19common to the public.
20PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY OR CONTINUING NUISANCES. If the
21affirmative defense prevails, the animal feeding operation is
22conclusively deemed to be a permanent rather than a temporary
23or continuing nuisance. A temporary or continuing nuisance
24refers to an injury that occurs intermittently and which may
25be the basis for a number of actions for damages claimed by
26the same party. A permanent nuisance is expected to continue
27indefinitely and the award is for an amount equaling the total
28resulting damages, including future damages that may result
29from the nuisance as it then exists.
30LIMITATION ON DAMAGES. The affirmative defense limits
31compensatory damages as opposed to punitive damages proximately
32caused by the animal feeding operation and specifies three
33categories of awards, including (1) damages for any diminution
34in the fair market value of a person’s real property; (2)
35damages due to a person’s past, present, and future adverse
-4-1health condition based on medical evidence; and (3) special
2damages for intangible injuries such as annoyance or the loss
3of comfortable use and enjoyment of real property. In the case
4of special damages, the total awarded cannot exceed one and
5one-half times the combined amounts for property damages and
6damages resulting from an adverse health condition.
7COSTS. A party who alleges and fails to prove that an
8animal feeding operation is a public or private nuisance is
9liable to pay the other party all costs and expenses, including
10reasonable attorney fees incurred in the defense.
11DATE OF OPERATION. The affirmative defense may be raised
12regardless of the established date of operation or expansion of
13the animal feeding operation.
14EXCLUSIONS. The affirmative defense is not available
15in certain circumstances: (1) an animal feeding operation
16failed to comply with an applicable federal or state statute
17or regulation, (2) the animal feeding operation failed to
18use existing prudent generally utilized management practices
19reasonable for the animal feeding operation, (3) the animal
20feeding operation is controlled by a person classified as a
21habitual violator who has committed three or more environmental
22violations, and (4) the cause of action arose before the bill’s
23effective date.
24EFFECTIVE DATE. The bill takes effect upon enactment.
-5-da/rj