1. Nuisance restriction.
a. A farm or farm operation located in an agricultural area shall not be found to be a nuisance regardless of the established date of operation or expansion of the agricultural activities of the farm or farm operation. This paragraph shall apply to a farm operation conducted within an agricultural area for six years following the exclusion of land within an agricultural area other than by withdrawal as provided in section 352.9.
b. Paragraph “a” does not apply to a nuisance which is the result of a farm operation determined to be in violation of a federal statute or regulation or state statute or rule. Paragraph “a” does not apply if the nuisance results from the negligent operation of the farm or farm operation. Paragraph “a” does not apply to actions or proceedings arising from injury or damage to a person or property caused by the farm or a farm operation before the creation of the agricultural area. Paragraph “a” does not affect or defeat the right of a person to recover damages for an injury or damage sustained by the person because of the pollution or change in condition of the waters of a stream, the overflowing of the person’s land, or excessive soil erosion onto another person’s land, unless the injury or damage is caused by an act of God.
c. A person shall not bring an action or proceeding based on a claim of nuisance arising from a farm operation unless the person proceeds with mediation as provided in chapter 654B.
d. If a defendant is a prevailing party in an action or proceeding based on a claim of nuisance and arising from a farm operation conducted on farmland within an agricultural area, the plaintiff shall pay court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the defendant, if the court determines that the claim is frivolous.
2. Water priority. In the application for a permit to divert, store, or withdraw water and in the allocation of available water resources under a water permit system, the department of natural resources shall give priority to the use of water resources by a farm or farm operation, exclusive of irrigation, located in an agricultural area over all other uses except the competing uses of water for ordinary household purposes. [82 Acts, ch 1245, §12] C83, §93A.11 83 Acts, ch 101, §7; 83 Acts, ch 137, §27 C87, §176B.11 C93, §352.11 93 Acts, ch 146, §7 Referred to in §335.27, 455B.275 Nuisances in general, chapter 657 \n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case:
Weinhold v. Wolff, 555 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 1996).
Weinhold v. Wolff, 555 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 2× “" Iowa Code § 352.11 (1) (emphasis added). Iowa Code section 352.”
Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., 684 N.W.2d 168 (Iowa 2004).
“Iowa Code § 352.11 (l)(a) (1993). Neighbors of the applicants challenged the board’s action in district court without success.”
Bormann v. Kossuth Cnty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 584 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1998).
“Iowa Code § 352.11 (l)(b). Nor does the immunity apply to a nuisance resulting from the negligent operation of the farm or farm operation.”
Harms v. City of Sibley, 702 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2005).
“This was because the immunity allowed those seeking the agricultural area designation to do acts (generate offensive smells on their property that affected the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property) on their own land which, were it not for the easement, would…”
Petersen v. Harrison Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 580 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 352.11 . Additionally, land included in an agricultural area carries with it limitations on special assessments, see Iowa Code section 352.”
Petersen v. Harrison Cty. Bd. of Suprvs., 580 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 352.11 . Additionally, land included in an agricultural area carries with it limitations on special assessments, see Iowa Code section 352.”
Gordon Berg Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP & BWT Holdings LLP (Iowa 2022).
“2d 309, 316, 321 (Iowa 1998) (en banc) (striking down Iowa Code § 352.11 (1)(a) (1995)). In 2004, in Gacke, we clarified Bormann to limit the recovery under a takings theory to the diminution in value of the affected property: In conclusion, we hold that Bormann and state…”
Gordon Berg Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP & BWT Holdings LLP (Iowa 2022).
“2d 309, 316, 321 (Iowa 1998) (en banc) (striking down Iowa Code § 352.11 (1)(a) (1995)). In 2004, in Gacke, we clarified Bormann to limit the recovery under a takings theory to the diminution in value of the affected property: In conclusion, we hold that Bormann and state…”
Gordon Berg Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP & BWT Holdings LLP (Iowa 2022).
“2d 309, 316, 321 (Iowa 1998) (en banc) (striking down Iowa Code § 352.11 (1)(a) (1995)). In 2004, in Gacke, we clarified Bormann to limit the recovery under a takings theory to the diminution in value of the affected property: In conclusion, we hold that Bormann and state…”
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.