CAVEAT:  This post is intended to be informative, but it in no way represents legal opinions or legal advice.  If either of those is what you’re after, seek the counsel of a competent attorney.

The term, “nuisance,” has a long and distinguished history in common law.  Generally speaking, an activity creates a nuisance when it substantially and unreasonably interferes with the right of another party to enjoy his or her property.  Normally, a nuisance activity does not involve physically trespassing on another’s property, but attributes or results of the activity may cross the property line.  Examples of such attributes and results include some forms of air pollution (odor, smoke, dust), noise, and light, but those are not the only categories of nuisance available to a plaintiff.

Here’s an example of an ongoing nuisance scenario from Great Britain, involving early-morning noise from a church.

Here’s an example of a successful nuisance lawsuit against an agribusiness in Iowa, which alleged a substantial and unreasonable interference from air pollution (dust, insects) and noise.

Nuisance law is typically enforced on a case-by-case basis because the right to enjoy one’s property is held to be a fundamental property right that may be waived by easement or covenant between neighbors, unlike some (for example) air-quality standards that are enforceable by a party, such as a regulatory agency, that is not directly affected by the condition.  Even if a person is complying with every applicable law and regulation, that person may still be subject to a nuisance lawsuit.

In some legal theories, a nuisance claim is subject to an evaluation of “temporal priority.”  That is, if person A has been engaged in a certain activity on her property for many years, and person B just recently moved onto a neighboring property, person B may not prevail in his nuisance lawsuit because he essentially moved into pre-existing conditions created by the long-standing activity of person A.  In the case of agricultural property, all fifty states have codified that theory in the form of “right-to-farm” laws.

By contrast, some states have created formal procedures for evaluating nuisance claims.  Here’s a fairly typical example from the State of Washington.  In Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has guidelines specifically for alleged nuisance odors.

Agricultural producers should not take nuisance claims lightly.  As the Iowa example showed, a successful nuisance lawsuit can involve many thousands of dollars, including both compensation for harm and the cost of hiring attorneys and experts to defend against the suit.  In fact, expert testimony in agricultural nuisance cases has become somewhat of a cottage industry.

In fact, it’s best for agricultural producers to be pro-active by getting to know one’s neighbors, staying in touch with them regularly, notifying them in advance of certain operations (e. g., manure spreading) that could otherwise create a nuisance, and taking reasonable steps to reduce the duration and/or severity of conditions that would interfere with neighbors’ enjoyment of their property.  And remember this:  get familiar with the details of your state’s right-to-farm law; its provisions will serve as the basis for a legal defense if your operation is sued.  The scope and requirements of every state’s right-to-farm law are different!  Here is an excellent introduction to Texas’ right-to-farm statute written by Tiffany Dowell-Lashmet, Extension law specialist at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center in Amarillo.

As with most neighbor-relations questions, the best answer is usually found in the Golden Rule:  “As ye would have others do unto you, do ye also unto them.”