Iowa House Bill HF2281

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/1/24
• Refer: 2/1/24

Caption

A bill for an act providing that an animal feeding operation constitutes a per se interference with the comfortable use and enjoyment of life or property of a person residing in proximity to the animal feeding operation.

Impact

Under HF2281, the ability to file a nuisance claim against an AFO is contingent upon satisfying several criteria. Notably, the resident must demonstrate that they live within one mile of the operation, that the AFO is likely the source of the odor, and that standardized odor measurements meet specified conditions. This bill changes the dynamics of how nuisance claims can be filed in Iowa, potentially increasing accountability for AFOs regarding odor emissions. While this aims to protect residents' quality of life, it could also lead to increased litigation against farmers, impacting the agricultural industry and prompting concerns about the potential for excessive regulatory burdens on farms.

Summary

House File 2281 is legislation designed to address the impact of animal feeding operations (AFOs) on nearby residents' comfort and enjoyment of their properties. Specifically, the bill establishes that an AFO can be considered a per se interference if specific conditions regarding odor can be proven. The bill aims to create a statutory framework that balances the interests of animal agriculture with the rights of individuals living in proximity to such operations. By classifying AFOs as potential nuisances based on odor, the bill attempts to provide residents with a means to seek redress for disturbances caused by these operations. This creates a scenario where residents are afforded a clearer avenue for complaint regarding the agricultural practices occurring nearby which may affect their living conditions.

Contention

The main points of contention regarding HF2281 revolve around the implications for agricultural operations and the standards set for proving nuisance claims. Advocates for the bill argue that it empowers residents to address legitimate grievances against AFOs, promoting better environmental stewardship and community engagement. Conversely, opponents raise concerns about the operational burdens placed on farmers, the subjective nature of odor complaints, and the fear that the bill may open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits, disrupting agricultural activities. The balance between protecting residents' rights and supporting the agricultural sector presents a complex challenge for lawmakers.