Goodell v. Humboldt County
575 N.W.2d 486, 1998 WL 92658, 1998 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 37 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Iowa's constitutional and statutory home rule framework, a county ordinance is preempted by state law if it is irreconcilable with the state's comprehensive regulatory scheme. An ordinance is irreconcilable if it prohibits an activity that state law permits, alters the state's established permitting and enforcement procedures, or frustrates the legislature's stated intent.
Facts:
- In October 1996, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors adopted four ordinances to regulate 'large livestock confinement feeding facilities'.
- Ordinance 22 required anyone wanting to construct or operate such a facility to first obtain a permit from the county.
- Ordinance 23 required facility operators to provide financial assurance, such as a surety bond or insurance, to cover potential cleanup and remediation costs.
- Ordinance 24 prohibited the land application of livestock manure in a way that could contaminate groundwater and required a separate permit for applying manure on land draining into wells or sinkholes.
- Ordinance 25 regulated toxic air emissions, specifically prohibiting off-site hydrogen sulfide concentrations above a certain level.
- Lloyd Goodell, Dennis Goodell, and Scott Goodell were residents of Humboldt County who planned to construct hog confinement facilities that would be subject to the new ordinances.
Procedural Posture:
- The Humboldt County Livestock Producers sued Humboldt County and its officials in state district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the four ordinances were invalid.
- Lloyd Goodell and others filed a similar, separate lawsuit against the county, which was consolidated with the first case.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the question of the county's authority to enact the ordinances.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that article one of ordinance 25 was invalid zoning, but upholding ordinances 22, 23, 24, and the remainder of ordinance 25 as valid exercises of home rule power.
- The plaintiffs (Humboldt County Livestock Producers and the Goodells) appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do county ordinances that impose permit requirements, financial assurance obligations, and environmental standards on large livestock facilities irreconcilably conflict with, and are therefore preempted by, state laws comprehensively regulating animal feeding operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ternus
Yes. While the ordinances are not invalid as zoning, they are irreconcilable with the comprehensive regulatory scheme established by the state legislature and are therefore preempted. A local law is preempted when it prohibits an act permitted by state statute or revises the state's regulatory system. Ordinance 22 (permits) is invalid because it usurps the decision-making authority of the state's Department of Natural Resources (DNR), creating a parallel county permitting system that conflicts with the state's enforcement scheme. Ordinance 23 (financial assurance) is likewise invalid because it makes operation conditional on requirements beyond those set by the state, thus prohibiting what state law would otherwise permit. Ordinance 24 (groundwater) directly conflicts with Iowa Code § 455B.172(5), which grants the DNR exclusive responsibility for regulating the disposal of livestock waste. Finally, Ordinance 25 (air emissions) is invalid because it creates a mechanism to enjoin an operation based on odor, which circumvents the specific, heightened requirements (including proof of negligence) that the state legislature established in Iowa Code § 657.11 for nuisance actions against animal feeding operations.
Concurring - Justice Carter
Yes. The ordinances are irreconcilable with state law. The county's authority to set 'higher or more stringent' standards under Iowa Code § 331.301(6) is limited by the overriding requirement that local action may not be 'inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly.' Inconsistency should be interpreted as 'disharmony in result,' meaning a local regulation is preempted if its application leads to a different outcome than applying the comprehensive state law. The ordinances here create such disharmony and are therefore an invalid exercise of home rule power.
Dissenting in part - Justice Harris
No. Except for Ordinance 24, the ordinances are not in conflict with state law and should be upheld as a valid exercise of home rule. The majority's holding embraces a rewired version of preemption under the guise of 'inconsistency,' undermining the constitutional guarantee of home rule. Home rule requires courts to interpret state law to be harmonious with local ordinances where possible. These ordinances merely set higher standards, as expressly permitted by Iowa Code § 331.301(6), and do not create the kind of direct conflict necessary to invalidate them. The legislature knows how to expressly preempt a field, as it did regarding groundwater, and it did not do so for permits, financial assurance, or air quality.
Dissenting - Justice Snell
No. The ordinances are a valid exercise of the county's home rule authority and should be upheld. The majority ignores precedent and drains the vitality from home rule by finding an irreconcilable conflict where the ordinances merely set 'higher and more stringent' standards, an action explicitly permitted by statute. Iowa's home rule framework establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for local regulation. Unless the legislature uses unambiguous language to expressly preempt a field, local governments should be free to address local problems with local solutions, and the court should not use a broad interpretation of 'inconsistency' to override that constitutional power.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the doctrine of implied conflict preemption within Iowa's home rule framework. The decision establishes that even when a state has not expressly forbidden local regulation, a comprehensive state statutory scheme can implicitly preempt local ordinances that create parallel, conflicting, or alternative regulatory procedures. The court's focus on whether the local law is 'irreconcilable' with the 'legislative scheme' sets a high bar for counties wishing to enact environmental or agricultural regulations that are stricter than the state's. This ruling reinforces the primacy of uniform state-level regulation in economically significant areas and limits the autonomy of local governments to address specific local concerns if their solutions disrupt the state's intended regulatory balance.
