AGRICULTURE LAW
Liability Is Blowin’ in the Wind … or Is It?
A look at feedlots and their downwind neighbors.
By Mary H. Barkley and Chris Brown
Anyone who has spent more than a day in West Texas or the Panhandle is
familiar with the dust storm. Combine that with the fact that the Great
Plains are home to 80 percent of the nation’s feedlots, which house
approximately 8.2 million cattle.1 Is there a problem?
Complaints vary regarding Texas’ feedlots. A study by Andrew
McEachran, at the time a doctoral student in environmental technology at
North Carolina State University, and Texas Tech University faculty
adviser and co-author Philip Smith has found that the treatment of
cattle with antibiotics may result in the development of antibiotic
resistant bacteria downwind of the feedlots.2
Historically, legal claims related to feedlots have been nuisance and
negligence based. In one, a ranch owner sued the owners of an adjacent
feedlot housing 5,800 sheep on a 10-acre parcel in McCulloch County—the
case spanned five years, including two extended appeals.3
Texas courts have taken a broad view of what constitutes a nuisance.
In Aguilar v. Trujillo, the 8th Court of Appeals in El Paso
stated that nuisance is a condition that substantially interferes with
the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or
annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities attempting to use or
enjoy it.4 Among the potential remedies for a nuisance claim
are monetary damages, including diminution to market value and personal
injury damages if a person can show health decline as a result of the
nuisance, and injunctive relief.5 Exemplary damages are also
available under certain circumstances.6
A cause of action for “trespass by air contaminant” has been
recognized, at least in dicta, by the Supreme Court of Texas in Town
of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corporation.7 Section 75.002(h)
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code8 provides that
“an owner, lessee, or occupant of real property in this state is liable
for trespass as a result of migration or transport of any air
contaminant, as defined in Section 382.003(2), Health and Safety
Code,9 other than odor, only upon a showing of actual and
substantial damages by a plaintiff in a civil action.”10 “Air
contaminant” is defined as “particulate matter, radioactive material,
dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination
of those items, produced by processes other than natural.”11
Damages available for trespass include diminution in the value of the
trespassed land, intrinsic value in some circumstances, and exemplary
damages if the trespass is found to be “malicious” or
“willful.”12
Owners and operators of agricultural businesses, however, are not
without defenses to lawsuits that may be brought against them based in
nuisance or trespass. The Texas Legislature has specifically promulgated
two defenses applicable to such suits.
Right to Farm Act
The Texas Right to Farm Act,13 enacted by the Texas
Legislature in 1981, is a robust defense available to agricultural
operators and demonstrates the state’s commitment to the agricultural
industry.
As stated in the act, it is the policy of Texas to “conserve, protect,
and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land
for the production of food and other agricultural
products.”14 Specifically, the purpose of the act is to
“reduce the loss to the state of its agricultural resources by limiting
the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be regulated
or considered to be a nuisance.”15
The act applies to all agricultural operations, which include:
cultivating the soil; producing crops for human food, animal feed,
planting seed, or fiber; floriculture; viticulture; horticulture;
silviculture; wildlife management; raising or keeping livestock or
poultry; and planting cover crops or leaving land idle for participation
in government programs or as part of crop or livestock rotation
procedure.16
The act, as written, seeks to bar nuisance claims brought against
agricultural operations. The act provides that “no nuisance action may
be brought against an agricultural operation that has lawfully been in
operation for one year or more prior to the date on which the action is
brought, if the conditions or circumstances complained of as
constituting the basis for the nuisance action have existed
substantially unchanged since the established date of
operation.”17
Statute of
Limitations
The two-year statute of limitations also provides a relatively simple
defense to nuisance and trespass claims. In Town of Dish v. Atmos
Energy Corporation,18 a case dealing with claims of
trespass by air contaminant in addition to nuisance, town residents
asserted claims against owners of four natural gas compressor stations
and a metering station related to noise and odor emanating from these
facilities. The Texas Supreme Court held that the two-year statute of
limitations applied to these claims and reinstated the trial court’s
take-nothing judgment based on a limitations bar.19 When a
claim is based on trespass by air contaminant, such a claim accrues once
“known injury begins.” Claims for nuisance normally do not accrue when a
potential source is under construction, but once operations begin and
interference occurs, limitations run against a nuisance claim just as
any other.20 Accordingly, because the residents started
complaining about the noise as early as 2006 and the last compressor
station came online in 2008 and the town did not file suit until 2011,
the claims were barred by the two-year limitations
period.21
As agricultural production grows and urbanization continues,
landowners and agricultural businesses may face continuing challenges in
land use. Whatever the wind may bring, growth on both sides is wonderful
news for the Texas economy.TBJ
![]() |
MARY H. BARKLEY is a partner in Cantey Hanger in Fort Worth, where she focuses on litigation, appellate work, and eminent domain/property rights. She is a member of the Texas Bar Journal Board of Editors. |
![]() |
CHRIS BROWN is an associate with Cantey Hanger in Fort Worth, where he focuses on eminent domain/property rights, litigation, and construction law. |


