## Facts

- ValAdCo, a cooperative of 38 farm families, proposed constructing two large hog confinement facilities on agriculturally zoned land in Crooks Township, Renville County, Minnesota.
- ValAdCo sought and obtained required approvals through the state and county regulatory process, including county permits and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) feedlot permits.
- As part of MPCA review, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared; public and agency comments raised concerns including groundwater availability/contamination and odors; MPCA determined no environmental impact statement was required and issued permits with conditions.
- The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources issued a water appropriation permit for the project.
- After ValAdCo filed its permit applications but before the state and county permits were issued, Crooks Township enacted Ordinance No. 1991-1 requiring a separate township permit to operate an animal feedlot or livestock sewage lagoon.
- The ordinance imposed stricter requirements than the MPCA regime, including larger setbacks and a surety-bond obligation; on the facts, ValAdCo would not meet township setbacks and would have needed to post an approximately $1.35 million bond.
- ValAdCo did not seek a township permit and began construction after receiving the county and MPCA permits.
- The township sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop construction and enforce the ordinance; the district court denied injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for ValAdCo on the ground that the ordinance was preempted and conflicted with Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 7.

## Issues

1. Whether Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 7 and MPCA feedlot regulation preempt a township ordinance that requires a separate local feedlot permit and imposes stricter pollution-control conditions.
2. Whether the township ordinance conflicts with the state scheme by effectively blocking or materially burdening feedlots already permitted through the MPCA process.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for ValAdCo.
- The court held Ordinance No. 1991-1 was invalid because it was preempted by, and in conflict with, Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 7.
- The court concluded the state scheme left no room for an independent township permitting system imposing different substantive standards on feedlots subject to MPCA regulation.

## Legal Principles

- State law preempts local regulation when the legislature has comprehensively regulated an area such that there is no room for independent local schemes (“occupying the field”), or when a local ordinance conflicts with the operation or purpose of state law.
- Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 7 vests primary authority over feedlot pollution regulation in the MPCA through a detailed permitting and monitoring program, including environmental review for larger operations.
- A local ordinance conflicts with state feedlot regulation when it imposes different or more stringent requirements (e.g., setbacks, bonding) that can prohibit or substantially impede a project approved under MPCA permits.
- Local participation contemplated by the state scheme (comments, county roles within delegated authority) does not authorize a township to create a parallel permit system that functions as a veto over state-permitted feedlots.

## Conclusion

The court upheld state primacy over feedlot pollution control by invalidating a township ordinance that required a separate local permit and stricter conditions, holding that the ordinance was both preempted by and in conflict with the MPCA-centered regulatory scheme established by Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 7.


Bd. of Supervisors of Crooks Twp. v. ValAdCo, 504 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)