Extension Communications
3614 Administrative Services Building
Ames, Iowa 50011-3614
(515) 294-9915
PLAIN ECONOMIC SENSE
For release after Oct. 12, 1998
Column 350
THE IOWA SUPREME COURT DECISION ON RIGHTS TO FARM
By Mark A. Edelman
Extension Public Policy Economist
Iowa State University Extension to Communities
On Sept. 23, the Iowa Supreme Court handed down a decision declaring one of Iowa's three "right to farm" laws as unconstitutional. Iowa's law had allowed farmers to voluntarily petition county supervisors to establish "agricultural areas." Nearly 700 such areas have been established since the law was enacted in 1982. There is at least one agricultural area in each of Iowa's 99 counties. The incentive to establish these areas was the nuisance suit protection provided to all farms within the designated area.
During Iowa's hog confinement debate of 1994, I predicted the potential for an adverse court decision in this column series. Why? Because the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." In a nutshell, Iowa's Supreme Court held that private property rights of the neighbors were taken away by state and county government actions and there was no just compensation. That's unconstitutional.
The court said the creation of an agricultural area with nuisance suit protection created an easement for those who potentially create objectionable smells. The easement for objectionable smells represents a "taking" because it interferes with the neighbors' ability to use and enjoy their property. And, finally, there was no compensation.
What are the implications? It is important to recognize that not all of Iowa's right to farm laws have been declared unconstitutional with this decision. Animal confinements are still covered by the nuisance suit protections under House File 519 passed in 1995. Many legal analysts suggest the supreme court's decision increases the odds that a similar suit can be won against HF519. While we may see additional lawsuits to test Iowa's other "right to farm" laws, the other statutes still remain the law of the land until such time that the Legislature revises them or the supreme court rules on them.
There is some chance the supreme court would find the other statutes to be constitutional. A critical element in the court's recent decision was the court's belief that a county action represented a "taking" of private property rights as defined by the state. The court may view state legislation to be different from a county action. However, after reading the last page of the recent decision, I wouldn't bet on it. Iowa's justices seemed fairly adamant about their unanimous decision by stating:
"We reach this holding with a full recognition of the deference we owe to the General Assembly. That branch of government -- with some participation by the executive branch -- holds the responsibility to sort through the practical realities and, through the political process, reach consensus in highly controversial public decisions. Those decisions demand our sincere respect. The rule is therefore that [a] challenger must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates the constitution and must negate every reasonable basis that might support the statute.... The rule finding constitutionality in close cases cannot control the present one, however, because, with all respect, this is not a close case. When all the varnish is removed, the challenged statutory scheme amounts to a commandeering of valuable property rights without compensating the owners, and sacrificing those rights for the economic advantage of a few . . . .
"The same public that constituted the other branches of state government to make political decisions with an eye on economic consequences expects the court to resolve constitutional challenges on a purely legal basis. We recognize that political and economic fallout from our holding will be substantial. But we are convinced our responsibility is clear because the challenged scheme is plainly -- we think flagrantly -- unconstitutional."
In the final analysis, the Iowa Supreme Court decision may not just affect Iowa's right to farm laws. All states have right to farm laws. Many are similar to Iowa's law that was struck down. Iowa's Supreme Court used both the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions as a basis for declaring the nuisance suit protection unconstitutional. In addition, the Justices used case law from several states and the federal courts in arriving at their decision. While this decision could be appealed and overturned in federal courts or ignored by other states, the case has been watched closely by agricultural attorneys in states across the nation that possess similar agricultural districts. So, the decision may well have implications nationally.
Edelman is a professor of economics and an extension public policy specialist at Iowa State University.
Extension programs are available to all without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.