Mathis v. Palo Alto County Board of Supervisors
927 N.W.2d 191 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts afford significant deference to local legislative bodies in zoning and land-use decisions, upholding ordinances if their reasonableness is 'fairly debatable' and administrative project approvals if supported by 'substantial evidence,' even if private parties influenced the policy or some expert recommendations were not strictly followed.
Facts:
- In late July 2015, a renewable energy company inquired about Palo Alto County’s zoning ordinances related to wind energy turbines.
- Approximately four months later, Invenergy, L.L.C. (parent company of Palo Alto Wind Energy, L.L.C. (PAWE)), contacted the county with the same inquiry, expressing interest in developing a 340-megawatt, 170-turbine wind energy project to be owned and operated by MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican).
- During the first half of 2016, County Attorney Peter Hart drafted a new zoning ordinance for wind energy, modeling it on other Iowa counties' ordinances, with Invenergy personnel offering suggestions.
- On August 26, 2016, Invenergy and MidAmerican sent strongly worded written comments to the Board of Supervisors, urging changes to the proposed ordinance (e.g., a 1500-foot setback from residences instead of 2640 feet, and a modified shadow flicker provision), stating that without these changes, the project would not proceed.
- In September 2016, the Board approved a modified wind energy ordinance incorporating some, but not all, of Invenergy and MidAmerican’s demands, including a 1500-foot setback from residences and a mitigation obligation for thirty hours per year of shadow flicker.
- On August 31, 2017, Invenergy and PAWE submitted an application for site plan review and approval for the 340-megawatt wind energy project.
- After several public meetings in September and October 2017, during which the Board received correspondence from state agencies (Iowa DNR and state archaeologist) and a report from an acoustician raising concerns, the Board granted conditional approval to PAWE’s application by a 3–2 vote on October 24, 2017.
Procedural Posture:
- Bertha Mathis, Stephen Mathis, Tillford Egland, Thomas Stillman, Lois Stillman, Michael Reding, and Suzanne Reding (the plaintiffs) filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief and for a writ of certiorari against the Palo Alto County Board of Supervisors in the Iowa District Court for Palo Alto County.
- The amended petition sought a declaration that the wind energy ordinance was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, void, and unenforceable, and a writ determining that the approval of PAWE’s application should be set aside as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and void.
- Palo Alto Wind Energy, L.L.C. (PAWE) and MidAmerican Energy Company were granted leave to intervene as defendants.
- PAWE and MidAmerican filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, which the Board of Supervisors joined.
- On July 25, 2018, the district court entered an order sustaining the motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.
- The plaintiffs appealed the district court's order, and the Supreme Court of Iowa retained the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Palo Alto County Board of Supervisors act illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously by adopting a wind energy ordinance that incorporated suggestions from a private developer and by conditionally approving a specific wind energy project, despite challenges regarding applicant ownership, unheeded state agency recommendations, noise projections, and decommissioning cost estimates?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansfield, Justice
No, the Palo Alto County Board of Supervisors did not act illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously in adopting the wind energy ordinance or conditionally approving the wind energy project. The court begins with a strong presumption of the validity of ordinances, noting that if the reasonableness of an amendment is 'fairly debatable,' courts will not substitute their judgment for the Board's. The fact that a private party like Invenergy and MidAmerican lobbied for and influenced the ordinance's drafting does not make it unlawful, as lobbying is a constitutional right; the Board considered these suggestions and made its own decisions, accepting some and rejecting others, rather than simply 'rubberstamping' the requests, as established in precedent like Montgomery v. Bremer County Board of Supervisors. Regarding the project approval, the court applies a 'substantial evidence' standard. First, on the 'Owner/Developer' issue, the court found substantial compliance. The ordinance permits initial owners to transfer ownership with Board consent. PAWE, the current owner, filed the application with full disclosure of the anticipated transfer to MidAmerican, and MidAmerican participated in public hearings. This aligns with ordinance objectives, as the transferee would assume legal obligations. Second, the Board's decision to not strictly follow recommendations from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the state archaeologist was not arbitrary or capricious. The DNR acknowledged it does not regulate wind farms, and the Board reviewed these recommendations while also consulting its own conservation director, demonstrating consideration. Third, concerning the noise issue, the Board properly relied on PAWE and Invenergy's detailed noise analysis, which used conservative assumptions, and the ordinance's enforceability, which stipulates a fifty-decibel maximum under normal operating conditions and obligates the developer to mitigate any exceedances. Finally, regarding decommissioning costs, the Board properly relied on an estimate prepared by a licensed Iowa professional engineer and a binding agreement from PAWE to provide a bond and bear additional expenses, including annual updates to the plan and bond increases if costs rise. The alternative email from a non-engineer was insufficient to demonstrate the Board acted improperly, consistent with Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors of Madison Cty.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the principle of judicial deference to local legislative and administrative bodies, particularly in complex land-use and zoning matters like wind energy development. It sets a high bar for challengers, requiring them to demonstrate that local government actions are clearly illegal, arbitrary, or capricious, rather than merely debatable or not perfectly aligned with every expert recommendation. The ruling underscores that local elected officials have the discretion to weigh various interests and make policy decisions, even when private entities advocate for their interests during the drafting process, as long as the decision-making is independent and supported by evidence. This outcome signals that courts are generally reluctant to micromanage local government functions, reinforcing the notion that balancing community benefits against potential drawbacks is a task for elected representatives, not the judiciary.
