Iowa Citizens For Community Improvement, and Food & Water Watch v. State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources Bruce Trautman, In His Official Capacity as Acting Director of the Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission Mary Boote, Nancy Couser, Lisa Gochenour, Rebecca Guinn, Howard Hill
19-1644
| Iowa | Jun 18, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI) and Food & Water Watch (FWW) sued the State, DNR, Dept. of Agriculture, and various state officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the public trust doctrine to force a mandatory remedial plan reducing nitrogen and phosphorus in the Raccoon River watershed.
- Petition alleges agricultural fertilizer and manure runoff (exacerbated by climate change) increased nitrates and cyanobacteria/microcystins, impairing recreation and increasing drinking-water treatment costs for Des Moines area customers.
- Plaintiffs challenge the State’s reliance on the voluntary Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (codified in part by 2013 and 2018 legislation, including §20 of SF 512) and seek a court order requiring legislative-style mandatory controls and a moratorium on new CAFOs until water quality improves.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, nonjusticiability (political question), and failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the district court denied dismissal and the State sought interlocutory review.
- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the denial, holding plaintiffs lacked standing (speculative causation/redressability) and the requested regulatory/legislative remedy presented nonjusticiable political questions, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — injury, traceability, redressability | Plaintiffs say members suffer recreational, aesthetic, health, and higher water‑rate injuries traceable to state failure to require agricultural controls; court relief could prompt mandatory controls and redress harms | Defendants say causation is attenuated (many intervening links to third‑party farmers, climate, national factors) and judicial relief cannot ensure redress (requires legislation or broader policy) | Court: No standing — alleged injuries are speculative; chain from relief to improved river and lower rates is too attenuated to satisfy traceability/redressability |
| Political‑question / nonjusticiability | Plaintiffs contend constitutional/public‑trust claim is judicially manageable and courts can adjudicate trustee duties | Defendants argue public‑trust expansion would require policy balancing and ongoing supervision of legislature/executive choices, lacking judicially manageable standards | Court: Political question bars judicial imposition of the requested statewide/legislative remedies; doctrine lacks manageable standards and intrudes on coequal branches |
| Scope/extension of the public trust doctrine | Plaintiffs seek to expand the trust to impose affirmative statutory/regulatory duties on the State to prevent substantial impairment from pollution | Defendants accept limited public‑access scope and argue broader regulatory duties are for legislature/administrative agencies | Court: Assumes for purposes of decision that expansion might be plausible but holds standing/nonjusticiability preclude judicial resolution here; courts should be cautious about repurposing the doctrine into broad regulatory mandates |
| Remedies sought (mandatory plan; void §20 SF512; moratorium on CAFOs) | Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctions requiring a mandatory remedial plan (necessarily legislative in scope), voiding §20, and moratorium on new CAFOs | Defendants stress those remedies would require legislative action, extensive policy choices, funding, and ongoing judicial supervision | Court: Remedies are legislative/policy in nature; courts cannot design or supervise the complex, statewide regulatory regime plaintiffs request — dismissal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, traceability, redressability)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (standing principles and redressability discussion)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (factors for identifying political questions)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (speculative chains insufficient for standing)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (limits on judicial resolution where political standards are absent)
- Fencl v. City of Harpers Ferry, 620 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 2000) (public trust doctrine is narrow; stewardship concept)
- Bushby v. Washington Cnty. Conservation Bd., 654 N.W.2d 494 (Iowa 2002) (refusal to overextend public trust to displace lawful public‑body management)
- State v. Sorensen, 436 N.W.2d 358 (Iowa 1989) (public trust protects public access/use of navigable waters)
- State ex rel. Dickey v. Besler, 954 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 2021) (application of political‑question analysis in Iowa)
- White Bear Lake Rest. Ass’n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 946 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2020) (refusal to extend public trust doctrine to agency mismanagement claims)
- Chernaik v. Brown, 475 P.3d 68 (Or. 2020) (public trust/climate case yielded narrow/symbolic relief after protracted litigation)