Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Nuisance Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate conferees propose narrowing nuisance protections for agricultural activities
Summary
Legislative counsel described a Senate amendment to a pending bill that would limit when statutory nuisance protections shield agricultural activities, adding requirements that plaintiffs produce objective medical or scientific evidence showing the ag activity was the sole cause of harm or interference.
Legislative counsel Mike O'Grady told conferees during a briefing that the Senate plans to accept a House amendment to bill "S 50 five" while offering a further amendment to how nuisance protections apply to agricultural activities under Section 57.53.
The proposed change would keep an existing exception for nuisance claims based on negligent operation of an agricultural activity but would add stricter standards for other claims. Under the Senate’s draft, a plaintiff would overcome nuisance protection only by showing either that the ag activity "has a substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare based upon objective documented medical or scientific evidence that the ag activity was the sole cause of the alleged effect," or that the activity "has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property based upon objective documented medical or scientific evidence that the ag activity was the sole cause of the alleged interference."
O'Grady indicated the Senate would "accede to the House proposal of amendment with one further proposal of amendment" focused on the subsection described above. The briefing record shows the negligent-operation exception would remain unchanged; the other two grounds would require plaintiffs to produce objective, documented medical or scientific evidence and to attribute sole causation to the agricultural activity.
The transcript contains no recorded vote or formal action on the amendment during the briefing; the exchange concluded with staff moving to another room to continue the meeting. There was no indication in the recorded excerpt of a final conferee decision, a floor vote, or a final enrollment of the amendment to the bill.
Next steps were not specified in the excerpt provided. The proposal, if adopted by conferees and enacted, would change the standard plaintiffs must meet to overcome statutorily granted nuisance protection for agricultural activities under the cited section.
