Tom Brakke and Rhonda Brakke D/B/A/ Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, and McBra, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Iowa Natural Resource Commission
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 70
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Tom and Rhonda Brakke operated Pine Ridge as a licensed whitetail deer-hunting preserve; samples from harvested deer tested positive for chronic wasting disease (CWD).
- DNR and Brakkes executed a short-term Agreement requiring depopulation, disinfection, and installation/maintenance of an electric fence; parties did not agree on a future operational plan.
- DNR issued an emergency order in June 2013 requiring restoration/closure of fences/gates, access to kill any deer on premises, and a five-year quarantine to prevent CWD spread onto the land and back into wild populations.
- The Brakkes administratively appealed, arguing the DNR lacked statutory authority to quarantine land (statute authorizes quarantine of “diseased preserve whitetail”), and that the order effected a compensable taking.
- The ALJ found DNR lacked jurisdiction; the NRC reversed, upholding the DNR rule imposing a five-year preserve quarantine; the district court reversed the NRC, held the DNR lacked statutory authority, and rejected the takings claim; the Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brakke) | Defendant's Argument (DNR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of DNR quarantine authority under Iowa Code §484C.12 | Statute authorizes quarantine only of "diseased preserve whitetail" (animals); DNR may not impose a land quarantine once diseased animals are removed or license ends | "Quarantine" reasonably includes restricting access to contaminated premises because prions persist in environment; rule harmonizes prevention duty and science | DNR lacked statutory authority to quarantine land beyond diseased animals; rule and emergency order invalid |
| Applicability of absurdity doctrine to expand statutory meaning | Not applicable; statute plain—quarantine modifies animals, not land | Statutory literal reading would frustrate CWD-control purpose and produce absurd or unworkable results; doctrine should permit broader reading | No absurdity found sufficient to override plain statutory text; court declines to expand statute to cover land quarantine |
| Whether DNR rule (Iowa Admin. Code r.571-115.10) was within agency power | Rule exceeded statutory grant because it quarantined preserves/land, not just diseased animals | Rule within delegated rulemaking and necessary to prevent disease spread; DNR expertise warrants deference | Agency rule invalid insofar as it expands quarantine to premises after diseased animals eradicated; agency exceeded authority |
| Takings claim under U.S. and Iowa Constitutions | Emergency order imposed physical invasions, compelled maintenance of fence, prevented preserve use, and caused major economic loss—constitutes per se or regulatory taking | No permanent physical occupation or total deprivation of economically beneficial use; harms are temporary and insufficient; apply Penn Central balancing | No compensable taking: per se theories rejected; Penn Central factors do not support a taking (modest diminution, regulated industry expectations, character of government action supports regulation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (landmark multi-factor takings balancing test)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (clarifies regulatory-takings framework; distinguishes per se and regulatory takings)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (per se taking when regulation deprives owner of all economically beneficial use)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (permanent physical occupation is a per se taking)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (temporary moratoria analyzed under Penn Central, not as per se takings)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (temporary regulatory takings can require compensation when they deprive all use)
- King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. _ (2015) (statutory interpretation can avoid results that destroy a statute’s functioning; discussed in absurdity context)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 789 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2010) (discusses limited application of absurdity doctrine in Iowa statutory construction)
- United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 482 (1868) (early articulation of avoiding absurd literal readings)