POLISCOPE
Back to bills

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
Passed

Iowa Senate File 2260 Allows Counties to Regulate and Approve Large Confinement Feeding Operations

Original title: A bill for an act providing for county control of the siting and management of confinement feeding operations.

Last action · February 12, 2026: Introduced, referred to Agriculture. H.J. 272 .Sponsors: Art Staed and 7 others

Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Would Do

Senate File 2260 permits county boards of supervisors to adopt local siting ordinances that require county approval before the construction or expansion of s with 1,000 or more animal units. The bill authorizes counties to impose local operating conditions, mandate manure application rules, and establish separation distances greater than state minimums.

Why it matters

Local governments gain veto power and regulatory authority over large agricultural facilities, shifting control from solely state-level oversight to include county-level siting decisions for operations housing 1,000 or more animal units.

Background
  • Confinement feeding operations in Iowa are primarily regulated by the Department of Natural Resources under the Animal Agriculture Compliance Act. context
  • Historically, county authority to regulate agricultural land use and animal feeding operations through local zoning has been heavily restricted by state preemption laws. context

Who It Would Affect

Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

County boards of supervisors

Boards gain the authority to adopt siting ordinances, establish local separation distances, and approve or disapprove large confinement feeding operation structures.

Directly affected

Owners and operators of confinement feeding operations

Operators of facilities with 1,000 or more animal units must obtain local board approval and comply with any local conditions or expanded separation distances.

Directly affected

Department of Natural Resources

The department continues to issue construction permits, which now serve as a prerequisite before an operator seeks county board approval.

Key Facts

  • A county may adopt a confinement feeding operations siting ordinance allowing its board of supervisors to approve or disapprove the construction or expansion of a confinement feeding operation structure with 1,000 or more animal units.
  • Construction or expansion of a qualifying confinement feeding operation structure cannot proceed until the county board of supervisors has approved the location under its ordinance rules.
  • County boards of supervisors may condition their approval on requirements concerning the construction, operation, or manure application of the confinement feeding operation.
  • Counties may establish separation distances between confinement feeding operation structures and objects or locations that exceed those required under state code section 459.202.
Show all 6 facts
  • Operators must still obtain a construction or expansion permit from the Department of Natural Resources prior to obtaining county board approval.
  • Counties are authorized to adopt any local legislation necessary to effectuate the purposes of the new siting ordinance section.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which confinement feeding operations are subject to county siting ordinances under this bill?
Operations that have an animal unit capacity of 1,000 or more animal units are subject to county siting ordinances.
Does a county approval replace the state permit required for building a confinement feeding operation?
No. An operator must still be issued a construction or expansion permit by the Department of Natural Resources before obtaining approval from the county board of supervisors.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Where This Stands

Currently passed chamber. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Law.

Procedural history

3 actions
  1. Feb 12, 2026HouseIntroduced
    Introduced, referred to Agriculture. H.J. 272 .
  2. Feb 11, 2026Senate
    Subcommittee: Driscoll, Bousselot, and Quirmbach. S.J. 257 .
  3. Feb 10, 2026SenateIntroduced
    Introduced, referred to Local Government. S.J. 239 .

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift95% confidence

Shift from State Preemption to County Siting Control

The legislation creates a notable exception to traditional state preemption by allowing counties to adopt local siting ordinances and impose stricter conditions on large confinement feeding operations.

Connected Entities

Department of Natural Resources, Liz Bennett, Tony Bisignano and 6 more
OrganizationDepartment of Natural Resources“State agency issuing permits for confinement feeding operations”Map →
PersonLiz Bennett“Cosponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →
PersonTony Bisignano“Cosponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →
PersonHerman Quirmbach“Cosponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →
PersonArt Staed“Primary sponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →
PersonBill Dotzler“Cosponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →
PersonJanet Petersen“Cosponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →
PersonMatt Blake“Cosponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →
PersonCindy Winckler“Cosponsor of Senate File 2260”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.legis.iowa.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance75
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy85
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz40
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record