Taking Back Control: Using the Takings Clause to Hold Animal Agriculture Responsible for Its Waste Problem

Rowan Aragon | January 19, 2025

Between the mid-twentieth century and modern day, the animal-agriculture model has shifted from small farms to industrial operations. During that evolution, the negative externalities of animal-farming practices have intensified. One of those externalities—animal waste—has become particularly problematic. Because of the sheer number of animals raised in the United States for slaughter and dairy production, the magnitude of animal waste produced is overwhelming. To deal with this problem, animal farmers often liquefy the animal waste and then spray it onto open fields. In that spraying process, liquefied animal waste carries through the air and reaches nearby homes, coating those properties with manure and odor.

Historically, this spraying was unnecessary: farmers did not have such large operations creating such immense waste. However, as these operations grew, so did the need to find alternative solutions. Alongside those solutions came protections for the externalities they created: all fifty states largely prohibit nuisance suits against animal-agriculture operations. This has left communities without a method to legally protect themselves from the spraying nuisance. Further, the members of these communities are often unable or unwilling to leave their homes, many of which have been in their families for generations, long predating the spraying operations.

These communities deserve an alternative method by which they can obtain justice and compensation for bearing the negative externalities of American meat and dairy production. One such option is the Takings Clause. To engage in this manure spraying, many farmers must obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act. This Note argues that a permit granting farmers the right to spray manure should be considered a government authorization to occupy their neighbors’ properties and significantly lower the value of their homes. In receiving just compensation for these regulatory takings, affected communities will not only find some financial justice, but also hold the government and farms accountable for the negative externalities that they impose on marginalized people.