Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 317.16 (2026)

Failure to comply

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. In case of a substantial failure to comply by the date prescribed in any order of destruction of weeds made pursuant to this chapter, the weed commissioner may do any of the following:

a. Enter upon the land as provided in section 317.6 and provide for the destruction of the weeds as provided in section 317.6.

b. Impose a maximum penalty of a ten dollar fine for each day, up to ten days, that the owner or person in possession or control of the land fails to comply. If a penalty is imposed and the owner or person in possession or control of the land fails to comply, the weed commissioner shall cause the weeds to be destroyed.

2. If the weed commissioner enters the land and causes the weeds to be destroyed, the actual cost and expense of cutting, burning, or otherwise destroying the weeds, along with the cost of providing notice and special meetings or proceedings, if any, shall be paid by the county and, together with the additional assessment to apply toward costs of supervision and administration, be recovered by an assessment against the tract of real estate on which the weeds were growing, as provided in section 317.21. Any fine imposed under this section shall be recovered by a similar assessment. [S13, §1565-c, -d; C24, 27, 31, 35, §4823; C39, §4829.16; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §317.16] 83 Acts, ch 123, §121, 209; 85 Acts, ch 171, §4; 2005 Acts, ch 39, §2 Referred to in §317.21\n\n 317.17 Additional noxious weeds. Repealed by 2018 Acts, ch 1047, §9. \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Pettit v. Madison Cnty. (Iowa Ct. App. 2022).
Pettit v. Madison Cnty. (Iowa Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “In 1985, the Iowa legislature changed the language of section 317.16 such that, in the event of a landowner’s substantial failure to comply with any order for destruction of weeds, the weed commissioner or deputies “may” rather than “shall” enter upon the land to destroy noxious…”
Lingle v. Crawford Cnty., 315 N.W.2d 814 (Iowa 1982). “§ 317.16, The Code (emphasis added). The question is not whether the plaintiff made a commitment to destroy the thistles during his discussions with the defendants, or whether he failed to comply with the three notices to destroy; rather, it is whether he substantially complied…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.