Opinion ID: 1742046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Implied PreemptionAre the Ordinances Inconsistent With State Law?

Text: A. General principles. As noted above, a county's exercise of home rule power cannot be inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly. Iowa Const. art. III, § 39A; accord Iowa Code § 331.301. Thus, the constitutional grant of home rule power is carefully qualified so as to withhold the grant of power where it conflicts with [a] state statute. Gravert, 539 N.W.2d at 189. A local ordinance is not inconsistent with a state law unless it is irreconcilable with the state law. Iowa Code § 331.301(4) (emphasis added). A local law is irreconcilable with state law when the local law `prohibits an act permitted by statute, or permits an act prohibited by a statute.' Gruen, 457 N.W.2d at 342 (quoting Cain, 342 N.W.2d at 812). These principles of law are well established in our cases and the parties do not dispute their applicability here. In determining what the legislature has permitted and prohibited, we look to the legislative intent in enacting the state statutes and we require that any local ordinance remain faithful to this legislative intent, as well as to the legislative scheme established in the relevant state statutes. See Master Builders of Iowa, 498 N.W.2d at 704; City of Iowa City v. Westinghouse Learning Corp., 264 N.W.2d 771, 772-73 (Iowa 1978). In searching for legislative intent, we are obliged to interpret the state law in such a manner as to render it harmonious with the ordinance, subject of course to our usual rules of statutory interpretation. Gruen, 457 N.W.2d at 342. Statutory rules of construction provide that the court, in ascertaining legislative intent, may consider the object sought to be attained by the legislature in enacting the statute and the legislative history of the statute. See Iowa Code § 4.6(1), (3). There is some tension between these general principles and the statutory provision that a local government may set standards and requirements which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by state law. Iowa Code § 331.301(6). Any distinction between a local ordinance that is inconsistent with state law and one that merely sets a higher standard or requirement is at best subtle. Nevertheless, we strive to interpret a statute in such a way as to render it in harmony with the constitution, not in conflict with it, see Patterson v. Iowa Bonus Bd., 246 Iowa 1087, 1091-92, 71 N.W.2d 1, 4 (1955); see also In re Guardianship of Hedin, 528 N.W.2d 567 (Iowa 1995), because where a conflict exists, the constitution must prevail, see Patterson, 246 Iowa at 1091-92, 71 N.W.2d at 4. When a state law merely sets a standard, a local law setting a higher standard would not conflict with the state law and would be authorized under section 331.301(6). This concept is most easily illustrated by our cases dealing with civil service employees. This court has consistently held that the examinations for civil service employees established in Iowa Code chapter 400 are not the exclusive criteria for employment or promotion. See Sioux City Police Officers' Ass'n, 495 N.W.2d at 694; Bryan, 261 N.W.2d at 687. We have interpreted chapter 400 as providing that civil service commissions have sole authority to give entrance and promotional exams, but chapter 400 does not give such commissions exclusive authority to establish qualifications for employment or promotion. See Sioux City Police Officers' Ass'n, 495 N.W.2d at 694; Bryan, 261 N.W.2d at 687. Notably, chapter 400 contains no statement that successful completion of a civil service examination confirms that one is qualified for the job one seeks. In contrast to these civil service cases are two cases involving challenges to local ordinances implementing Iowa's discrimination statute, Iowa Code chapter 601A (now codified at Iowa Code chapter 216). See City of Iowa City, 264 N.W.2d at 773; Cedar Rapids Human Rights Comm'n v. Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist., 222 N.W.2d 391, 402 (Iowa 1974). In these cases, the court held that Iowa Code section 601A.12 (1973) allowed municipalities to create a commission to deal with local complaints of discriminatory conduct under chapter 601A. City of Iowa City, 264 N.W.2d at 772; Cedar Rapids Human Rights Comm'n, 222 N.W.2d at 398-99; see also Iowa Code § 601A.12 (1973) (now codified at Iowa Code § 216.19 (1997)). We noted, however, both section 601A.12 and the city home rule amendment required that any local law be consistent with state statutes. City of Iowa City, 264 N.W.2d at 773; Cedar Rapids Human Rights Comm'n, 222 N.W.2d at 398. We concluded the local ordinances were inconsistent with chapter 601A and invalid because they did not follow the statutory scheme established in that chapter. City of Iowa City, 264 N.W.2d at 773 (invalidating a local ordinance that did not provide for an administrative determination of the existence of a discriminatory practice); Cedar Rapids Human Rights Comm'n, 222 N.W.2d at 402-03 (holding local ordinance invalid because it did not provide for judicial review of administrative determination of discrimination). Another situation that could give rise to inconsistent local laws is one where the state has conditioned pursuit of an activity upon compliance with certain requirements. Any attempt by a local government to add to those requirements would conflict with the state law, because the local law would in effect prohibit what the state law permits. E.g., Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Hadder, 109 Md.App. 582, 675 A.2d 577, 581 (1996) (holding local restriction on irrigation spraying of wastewater from poultry processing facility conflicted with state permit allowing such spraying); Board of Supervisors v. ValAdCo, 504 N.W.2d 267, 272 (Minn.Ct.App.1993) (holding ordinance requiring a township permit for operation of a feedlot conflicted with state statutes providing for state-issued permit). Stated another way, the local ordinance would prohibit an activity absent compliance with the additional requirements of local law, even though under state law the activity would be permitted because it complied with the requirements of state law. In this situation, the local regulation would be inconsistent with state law and preempted. Although it is possible to reconcile the statute allowing counties to set higher standards with the prohibition against inconsistent local laws, any distinction between these two principles is not determinative here. As we show in the following discussion, the Humboldt County ordinances do far more than merely set more stringent standards to regulate confinement operations. These ordinances revise the state regulatory scheme and, by doing so, become irreconcilable with state law. We turn now to an analysis of the Humboldt County ordinances. B. Ordinance 22. Ordinance 22 requires a permit from the county before construction or operation of a large livestock confinement facility may commence. The county will not issue a permit unless the applicant has complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations. The plaintiffs claim this ordinance conflicts with Iowa Code section 455B.110 and the permit requirements of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1. Section 455B.110. This statute prevents the DNR from pursuing an enforcement action against an animal feeding operation [13] without prior approval from the Environmental Protection Commission, unless it seeks to enforce a civil penalty of three thousand dollars or less. See Iowa Code § 455B.110. Although chapter 455B allows persons other than the DNR to commence a civil action against any person claimed to be in violation of chapter 455B, this right is restricted. See id. § 455B.111. The person commencing the action must be adversely affected by the alleged violation. Id. § 455B.111(3). More importantly, the person seeking to commence suit must give sixty days written notice to the director of the DNR and the alleged violator, specifying the violation and that legal action is contemplated if the violation is not abated. See id. § 455B.111(2). No action may be commenced if the DNR or the state is actively prosecuting a civil action against the alleged violator or is actively negotiating an out-of-court settlement. See id. We agree with the plaintiffs that the ordinance is inconsistent with these statutory provisions. Ordinance 22 creates a right in the county to abate a violation of state law by making compliance with state law a condition of obtaining a permit for construction or operation of a confinement facility. If a facility is operated in violation of state law and consequently without the required county permit, the county can bring a civil action to enjoin operation. The ordinance does not require the county to obtain the commission's prior approval nor is the county required to give the DNR and the violator notice of its intent to file an action if the violation is not abated. Thus, the ordinance allows the county to do indirectly what the statute directly forbids. [14] The statute and ordinance are irreconcilable in this respect. Additionally, the ordinance is not faithful to the enforcement scheme established by chapter 455B. Therefore, we conclude the permit requirement of the county ordinance is invalid. 2. Section 455B.173(13). The legislature has specifically invested the Environmental Protection Commission with the authority to adopt rules relating to the construction or operation of animal feeding operations, including, but not limited to, minimum manure control requirements, requirements for obtaining permits, and department evaluations of animal feeding operations. Id. § 455B.173(13). The legislature exempted small animal feeding operations from the construction permit requirement. See id. Nevertheless, operations not subject to the permit requirement may obtain a permit upon filing an application meet[ing] standards established by the [DNR]. Id. Within these parameters, the DNR has provided by rule that certain animal feeding operations must obtain construction and operation permits. See Iowa Admin. Code rr. 567-65.3-.6 (1997). An applicant must submit a copy of the application to the county board of supervisors in the county where the facility is to be located. See Iowa Code § 455B.173(13); Iowa Admin. Code r. 567-65.9(1). The DNR is required to consider the county's comments concerning the applicant's compliance with state statutes and regulations prior to issuing a permit. See Iowa Code § 455B.173(13); Iowa Admin. Code r. 567-65.9(2). The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered preemption under similar circumstances in the ValAdCo case. In ValAdCo, a local township adopted an ordinance that required anyone who wanted to operate an animal feedlot or livestock sewage lagoon to obtain a permit from the township. 504 N.W.2d at 269. As a condition of issuing the permit, the applicant had to comply with the ordinance's waste disposal guidelines and setback distances, and had to file a surety bond or cash with the township. Id. at 270. The defendant, ValAdCo, obtained the necessary county and state permits for two hog confinement centers. Id. at 269. When ValAdCo began construction of the facilities, however, the township sought injunctive relief for ValAdCo's failure to comply with the township's ordinance. Id. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held the state had completely occupied the field of animal feedlots, thereby preempting local regulation. Id. at 270-71. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the court went on to consider whether the township's permit requirement conflicted with state statutes that also established a procedure for the issuance of a permit. Id. at 272. The Minnesota test for a conflict was nearly identical to that applied in Iowa: a local ordinance is invalid only if the express and implied terms of the ordinance and the state statute are irreconcilable. Id. The court held an irreconcilable conflict existed between the township's ordinance and the state permit requirement because the different requirements of the ordinance meant that construction of a facility that would be permissible under state law would be prohibited under the ordinance. Id. (dicta). It also pointed out that ValAdCo could be in compliance with the state requirements yet be prosecuted under the local ordinance. Id. (dicta). [15] A similar conclusion is warranted here. Because ordinance 22 conditions construction and operation of any large confinement operation upon filing an application and obtaining a permit, we think the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. For example, assume an operation meets state law requirements, but not the county's additional requirements. Under these circumstances, the state rules would allow construction and operation of the facility, but the county ordinance would prohibit it because the operation would not have met the additional requirements of the county's ordinances. The county ordinance would prohibit what the state law would allow. Therefore, ordinance 22 conflicts with the state permit requirement and standards and is invalid. We think the ordinance also conflicts with the limited role envisioned by the legislature for the county in the permitting process. The county's role is well-defined under chapter 455B; the county may comment on the proposed facility's compliance with state law. Although the DNR considers the county's comments, chapter 455B places the decision-making authority with the DNR. In contrast, ordinance 22 elevates the county's role by allowing the county to determine whether the applicant has complied with state law and making operation or construction of a facility contingent on the county's decision to issue a permit. These conflicts are irreconcilable and invalidate ordinance 22. See City of Iowa City, 264 N.W.2d at 773 (holding municipal ordinance conflicted with state law and was invalid because it was not faithful to the legislative scheme). In summary, ordinance 22 does not merely impose higher standards on livestock confinement operations by adding the county permit requirement to the list of prerequisites for building and operating such a facility. The ordinance actually changes the state regulatory system: (1) the county, not the DNR, becomes the decision maker; (2) commission approval is not required for an enforcement action; and (3) notice to the DNR and the violator is not required. We find no meaningful distinction between the effect of this ordinance and those struck down in City of Iowa City, 264 N.W.2d at 773, and Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission, 222 N.W.2d at 398. Ordinance 22 is irreconcilable with state law. C. Ordinance 23. This ordinance makes the operation of a regulated facility conditional on the posting of financial assurance in an amount sufficient to remedy on-site and off-site contamination resulting from operation of the facility. The plaintiffs allege this ordinance conflicts with chapter 455B and chapter 204. Chapter 204 sets up a manure storage indemnity fund for the purpose of indemnifying a county for expenses related to cleaning up the site of the confinement feeding operation. Iowa Code § 204.2(1), (3). In addition, as part of the permitting scheme outlined above, an applicant must pay an indemnity fee prior to the issuance of a construction permit. See id. § 455B.173(13). We conclude ordinance 23 suffers from the same infirmity as ordinance 22 because furnishing financial assurance is made a condition of lawful operation of a large livestock confinement center. Consequently, a facility that would be authorized to operate under state law would be prohibited by the county ordinance. Thus, ordinance 23 is irreconcilable with and preempted by state law. D. Ordinance 24. Ordinance 24 prohibits the application of livestock manure on land that drains into an agricultural drainage well or sinkhole in a manner that results in contamination of groundwater. The ordinance also requires anyone applying manure on such land to obtain a permit from the county. The plaintiffs claim these provisions conflict with Iowa Code section 455B.201 and section 455B.172(5). In response, the county asserts the ordinance is specifically authorized by Iowa Code section 455E.10. Because we conclude ordinance 24 conflicts with section 455B.172(5), we limit our discussion to that statute. Iowa Code section 455B.172(5) provides in relevant part: The department shall maintain jurisdiction over and regulate the direct discharge to a water of the state.... The department shall by rule adopt standards for the commercial cleaning of private sewage disposal facilities, including but not limited to septic tanks and pits used to collect waste in livestock confinement structures, and for the disposal of waste from the facilities.... A person shall not commercially clean such facilities or dispose of waste from such facilities unless the person has been issued a license by the department. The department shall be exclusively responsible for adopting the standards and issuing licenses. However, county boards of health shall enforce the standards and licensing requirements established by the department. (Emphasis added.) We have previously stated that this section confers jurisdiction on the DNR to adopt standards ... for the disposal of waste from [livestock confinement] facilities. DeCoster v. Franklin County, 497 N.W.2d 849, 853 (Iowa 1993) (dicta). As we noted in DeCoster, the responsibility of the DNR to adopt standards and issue licenses for the disposal of waste from confinement facilities is exclusive. Id. (dicta). The statute upon which the county relies to support its authority to regulate manure disposal is found in chapter 455E, which addresses groundwater protection in general. That chapter authorizes state groundwater protection programs to prevent further contamination of groundwater from any source to the maximum extent possible. Iowa Code § 455E.5; see id. § 455E.7. Section 455E.6 specifically provides that [a]n activity that does not violate chapter 455B does not violate this chapter. More important to the case before us, local governments are authorized and encouraged to implement groundwater protection policies within their respective jurisdictions, provided that implementation is at least as stringent but consistent with the rules of the department. Id. § 455E.10(2). We hold there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between ordinance 24 and section 455B.172(5). The legislature has expressly made the DNR exclusively responsible for regulating the disposal of livestock waste from confinement facilities. Because the legislature did not define the word exclusive as used in the statute, we give it its ordinary meaning. See State v. Crone, 545 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1996) (referring to dictionary for ordinary meaning of word used in criminal statute). The word exclusive means limiting ... control, or excluding ... others... from participation. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 793 (unabr. ed.1993). The conclusion is inescapable that the legislature intended that no entity other than the DNR regulate waste disposal from animal confinement facilities. [16] Furthermore, the general allowance of local groundwater protection policies contained in section 455E.10 does not override the legislature's more specific grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the DNR to regulate livestock waste disposal. See Iowa Code § 4.7 (stating where an irreconcilable conflict exists between a general statute and a special statute, the special statute prevails). Consequently, any home rule authority of the county to control the land application of manure from confinement operations has been preempted by the state. Therefore, the county did not have the power to adopt ordinance 24. E. Ordinance 25. Ordinance 25 restricts off-site emissions of hydrogen sulfide from regulated facilities. This ordinance sets a permissible level of emission and requires that any violator of these standards redesign the facility to comply with the ordinance, add abatement equipment, or close the facility. If the violator fails to remedy the violation in one of these ways, the county may seek an order of abatement through a civil action in district court. See id. § 331.307(9)(c). The plaintiffs claim this ordinance conflicts with state laws regulating air quality, animal feeding operations, and anaerobic lagoons. See id. §§ 455B.134(3), .161-.165. They also contend it conflicts with Iowa Code section 657.11, which places limitations on nuisance suits against animal feeding operations. We will consider the latter contention first. 1. Conflict with limitations on nuisance suits. Chapter 657 is Iowa's nuisance statute. It defines a nuisance, in part, as anything unreasonably offensive to the senses... so as essentially to ... unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. Id. § 657.1; see Weinhold v. Wolff, 555 N.W.2d 454, 461-64 (Iowa 1996) (finding commercial hog feeding and confinement operation a nuisance because it created noxious and offensive odors). Chapter 657 further provides for a civil action to enjoin and abate the nuisance and to recover damages caused by the nuisance. See Iowa Code § 657.1. Section 657.11 places limitations on such actions when filed against animal feeding operations: 2. If a person has received all permits required pursuant to chapter 455B for an animal feeding operation, as defined in section 455B.161, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that an animal feeding operation is not a public or private nuisance under this chapter or under principles of common law, and that the animal feeding operation does not unreasonably and continuously interfere with another person's comfortable use and enjoyment of the person's life or property under any other cause of action. The rebuttable presumption also applies to persons who are not required to obtain a permit pursuant to chapter 455B for an animal feeding operation as defined in section 455B.161.... 3. The rebuttable presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of both of the following: a. The animal feeding operation unreasonably and continuously interferes with another person's comfortable use and enjoyment of the person's life or property. b. The injury or damage is proximately caused by the negligent operation of the animal feeding operation. Id. § 657.11(2)-(3). This presumption is a defense for any action arising out of the care and feeding of animals; the handling or transportation of animals; the treatment or disposal of manure resulting from animals; the transportation and application of animal manure; and the creation of noise, odor, dust, or fumes arising from an animal feeding operation. Id. § 657.11(5). The intent of the legislature in placing limitations on nuisance suits against animal feeding operations is clearly set forth in the statute: The purpose of this section is to protect animal agricultural producers who manage their operations according to state and federal requirements from the costs of defending nuisance suits, which negatively impact upon Iowa's competitive economic position and discourage persons from entering into animal agricultural production. This section is intended to promote the expansion of animal agriculture in this state by protecting persons engaged in the care and feeding of animals. The general assembly has balanced all competing interests and declares its intent to protect and preserve animal agricultural production operations. Id. § 657.11(1) (emphasis added). We turn now to the ordinance. Ordinance 25 does not purport to be a nuisance ordinance, although the county's home rule authority clearly includes the power to regulate activities offensive to the senses. See id. § 331.384(1)(a) (allowing a county to [r]equire the abatement of a nuisance, public or private, in any reasonable manner). The county's failure to expressly classify a violating facility as a nuisance does not end our inquiry, however. We look to the substance of the ordinance, not its label, to determine whether it conflicts with a state statute or regulation. Cf. Van Baale v. City of Des Moines, 550 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Iowa 1996) (looking at substance of claim rather than its form or label to determine whether it was preempted by state remedy). An examination of the substance of ordinance 25 and its effect on animal production operations reveals that the ordinance accomplishes the same result as would an ordinance expressly [r]equir[ing] the abatement of a nuisance. See Iowa Code § 331.384(1)(a). Ordinance 25 regulates odors emanating from confinement operations by setting a limit on off-site toxic air emissions. It makes an uncorrected violation of the ordinance a county infraction, thereby allowing the county to obtain injunctive relief in a civil action. Consequently, by virtue of ordinance 25, the county can enjoin and abate an animal feeding operation, within the meaning of chapter 657, upon a mere showing the operator has failed to comply with the county's standards. In the absence of ordinance 25, a county seeking to close a facility that emitted toxic odors would have to show a violation of state law or overcome the rebuttable presumption of section 657.11 by clear and convincing proof that the facility unreasonably and continuously interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property and that any injury is proximately caused by the negligent operation of the facility. Id. § 657.11(3) (emphasis added). To state the situation another way: section 657.11 prevents an injunction against an animal feeding operation based on odors produced by the operation unless certain conditions are met. Ordinance 25 allows the same relief without requiring the county to meet these conditions. Thus, ordinance 25 permits what the state statute, section 657.11, prohibits. We hold there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the ordinance and section 657.11. As noted earlier, any local ordinance must remain faithful to the legislative intent underlying a state statute. See Master Builders of Iowa, 498 N.W.2d at 704; City of Iowa City, 264 N.W.2d at 772-73. As one authority states, the fact that a local ordinance does not expressly conflict with the statute will not save it when the legislative purpose in enacting the statute is frustrated by the ordinance. 5 McQuillin Municipal Corporations § 15.20, at 107. If a local government could avoid the state's limitations on injunctive relief against an animal feeding operation emitting offensive odors simply by passing an ordinance providing for such relief without such limitations, the purpose of the legislature in enacting section 657.11 would be seriously undermined. Thus, ordinance 25 does not remain faithful to the legislature's intent in enacting section 657.11, but rather circumvents the legislature's restrictions on enjoining the operation of livestock confinement facilities that emit offensive odors. By eliminating the negligence component of section 657.11(3), the county allows nuisance relief without the showing mandated by state law. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to credibly characterize ordinance 25 as merely setting a more stringent standard. It constitutes a frontal assault on section 657.11 and, as such, is not a valid exercise of the county's home rule authority. [17] 2. Effect of chapter 455B. Although our decision that ordinance 25 conflicts with section 657.11 makes it unnecessary to consider the plaintiffs' contention that the ordinance also conflicts with chapter 455B, it is appropriate to address a potential conflict between section 657.11 and the provisions of chapter 455B. The county points out that chapter 455B specifically authorizes local air pollution control programs. See Iowa Code § 455B.144(1) (Any political subdivision may conduct an air pollution control program within the boundaries of its jurisdiction....). The term air pollution is defined to include the presence of contaminants in the air that unreasonably interfere[] with the enjoyment of life and property, id. § 455B.131(3), a definition strikingly similar to the definition of nuisance, which also includes the element of unreasonabl[e] interfer[ence] with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, id. § 657.1. To the extent the general authorization of air pollution programs conflicts with the express and special protection of animal feeding operations afforded by section 657.11, the latter statute must prevail. See id. § 4.7 (stating where an irreconcilable conflict exists between a general statute and a special statute, the special statute prevails). Consequently, the county's general power to regulate air quality cannot be used to defeat the state's unique treatment of animal production facilities.