If you operate a farm in Wisconsin and a neighbor has complained about your livestock, manure odors, dust, or equipment noise, you may already be wondering whether the law is on your side. In many cases, it is. Wisconsin’s “right to farm” law does not explicitly create a “right” to farm — rather, it provides a measure of protection for farmers from lawsuits, or the threat of lawsuits, in which the normal consequences of an agricultural use of land, such as odors, noise, dust, or flies, are claimed to be a nuisance.
Understanding exactly how that protection works — and where it ends — can be the difference between keeping your operation running and facing costly litigation. This article walks you through Wisconsin’s right to farm statute, what it covers, how it applies to your situation, and what steps to take if a complaint comes your way.
Important Note: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are facing a nuisance complaint or lawsuit related to your farm, consult a licensed Wisconsin agricultural law attorney.
What Are Right to Farm Laws in Wisconsin
All 50 states have some version of a right to farm law. Like many states, Wisconsin’s law was passed in the early 1980s, as concerns were mounting over the loss of farmland to urban sprawl. Wisconsin’s right to farm law was put into place after a farmer was forced to close his egg farm in Kenosha County in 1981 due to nuisance complaints. The legislature enacted Wisconsin’s first right to farm statute only four months after the Quality Egg Farm case was decided, on March 13, 1982.
Wisconsin’s “right to farm” law is set forth in Wis. Stat. § 823.08. Despite its colloquial name, the law does not explicitly create a “right” to farm. Instead, it directs courts to favor agricultural uses in certain legal disputes — specifically, civil suits in which a plaintiff files a nuisance action arising from the defendant’s agricultural use or practice.
The legislature found that development in rural areas and changes in agricultural technology, practices, and scale of operation have increasingly tended to create conflicts between agricultural and other uses of land. The legislature believes that, to the extent possible consistent with good public policy, the law should not hamper agricultural production or the use of modern agricultural technology, and therefore deems it in the best interest of the state to establish limits on the remedies available in those conflicts which reach the judicial system.
Although there are many farms in Wisconsin, they are on the decline, and farms are now often located adjacent to or near residential communities and subdivisions — a proximity that can lead to a number of nuisance complaints from neighbors. The right to farm statute acts as a legal buffer between those complaints and your livelihood.
What Farming Operations Are Covered in Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s right to farm law protects income-producing or livelihood-based agricultural activities and uses from nuisance suits over matters that impact neighboring properties, like noise or pollution. Protected areas of agriculture are expansive, including aquaculture, floriculture, crop and forage production, beekeeping, raising livestock, fur farming, forest management, and land enrolled in federal or state agricultural conservation payment programs. Protected agriculture uses also include storing and processing agricultural products, and processing agricultural wastes.
In statutory terms, under Wis. Stat. § 91.01(2), “agricultural use” includes crop or forage production, keeping livestock, beekeeping, floriculture, aquaculture, fur farming, forest management, and nursery, sod, or Christmas tree production. That is a broad list that reaches well beyond what many people picture when they think of a traditional Wisconsin dairy farm.
According to the National Agricultural Law Center, the primary beneficiaries of Wisconsin’s law are likely to be livestock farms, simply by virtue of their large number in the state and a greater potential for conflict arising from their operations, mostly by way of manure odor and dust. That said, the statute’s plain language extends to virtually every income-generating agricultural use of land.
Pro Tip: If you keep backyard chickens, goats, or bees, your operation may qualify for right to farm protection — but local zoning rules still apply. Review your municipality’s ordinances alongside the state statute. You can also read about backyard chicken laws in Wisconsin, goat ownership laws in Wisconsin, and beekeeping laws in Wisconsin for more detail.
What Nuisances Are Protected Under Wisconsin’s Right to Farm Law
The statute does not protect against every type of complaint — it specifically shields qualifying agricultural operations from civil nuisance actions. The law provides protection for farmers from lawsuits, or the threat of lawsuits, in which the normal consequences of an agricultural use of land, such as odors, noise, dust, or flies, are claimed to be a nuisance.
In practice, the types of farm-generated conditions most commonly at issue include:
- Manure and livestock odors from dairy, hog, or poultry operations
- Dust from tillage, harvest equipment, or grain-handling facilities
- Noise from farm machinery, ventilation fans, or grain dryers
- Flies and other insects associated with livestock or manure storage
- Truck traffic on rural roads serving large grain or livestock operations
- Runoff or drainage activity associated with crop production
Although state right to farm laws differ in their specifics, they all seek to legislatively lift the threat of nuisance lawsuits by neighbors if the agricultural operation produces odor, noise, water pollution, or other nuisance-type conditions, as can be true with large livestock operations such as hog, dairy, and poultry confinements.
A 2024 Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, Buchholz v. Schmidt, confirmed that the statute’s reach extends to ancillary farming activities. In that case, the alleged nuisance at issue was the defendant’s farmland drainage activity. The plaintiff did not dispute that the farmland drainage activity was conducted to assist in the agricultural use of crop production on the defendant’s farmland, and the court held that the drainage activity was indisputably “associated” with crop production and met the definition of “agricultural practice.”
If your farm generates any of the conditions listed above and a neighbor files a civil nuisance claim, § 823.08 gives you a strong procedural and substantive defense — provided the other qualifying conditions are met.
The “Coming to the Nuisance” Rule in Wisconsin
One of the most powerful concepts embedded in Wisconsin’s right to farm statute is what lawyers call the “coming to the nuisance” rule. The idea is straightforward: if a neighbor moves next to an existing farm and then complains about its operations, the law generally does not side with that neighbor.
Under Wis. Stat. § 823.08(3)(a), an agricultural use or agricultural practice may not be found to be a nuisance if the agricultural use or agricultural practice alleged to be a nuisance is conducted on land that was in agricultural use without substantial interruption before the plaintiff began the use of property that the plaintiff alleges was interfered with, and the agricultural use or agricultural practice does not present a substantial threat to public health or safety.
To be considered a legitimate nuisance, the problem must not have existed at the time the complainant took possession of their own property. In other words, if the situation is the same now as when you purchased your property, you cannot now complain that the behavior is a nuisance.
What makes Wisconsin’s version of this rule especially broad is that it applies even when the farming operation has changed significantly. Paragraph (a) of the statute applies without regard to whether a change in agricultural use or agricultural practice is alleged to have contributed to the nuisance. Wisconsin’s law does not recognize a change in size or scope of activities for nuisance purposes. For instance, if agricultural operations were conducted without interruption at the time the complaining neighbor purchased the property, changes to the neighbor’s operation from a small, family dairy to a large corporate farm with multiple confinement facilities many years later would not constitute a nuisance.
This is a significant point. Wisconsin’s statute protects nearly all agricultural operations on farmland, even if they are brand new — and this protection stands even when, for instance, a crop field is converted into a several-thousand-head livestock facility.
Key Insight: The “coming to the nuisance” protection in Wisconsin is stronger than in many other states because the statute explicitly removes the “changed conditions” defense. A neighbor cannot argue that a farm’s expansion or conversion to a different type of operation creates a new nuisance claim.
Limits and Exceptions to Right to Farm Protection in Wisconsin
The statute’s protections are broad, but they are not absolute. Knowing where the law stops protecting you is just as important as knowing where it starts.
The Public Health and Safety Exception
There are circumstances in which a nuisance claim can stick in a Wisconsin court. First, whatever farming practice is causing the alleged nuisance must “present a substantial threat to public health or safety,” according to the statute. The right to farm statute does not apply to regulation by local governments that does not take the form of a nuisance action, and the right to farm law does not preempt local governments from enacting ordinances that regulate agricultural practices. A possible open question that remains is what type of conduct meets the statute’s standard of presenting a “substantial threat to public health or safety.”
Local Government Ordinances
Courts have determined that “the right to farm law protects agricultural uses and agricultural practices from actions for damages or abatement and nothing more.” This means local governments can still issue citations, enforce zoning ordinances, and regulate agricultural practices through non-nuisance channels — the statute does not provide blanket immunity from all government regulation.
Wisconsin’s right to farm law encourages local governments to use zoning to prevent nuisance conflicts, but in practice, state statutes limit their authority to do so. For example, the Wisconsin Livestock Facility Siting Law prevents political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing zoning ordinances that prohibit livestock facilities in agricultural districts, with an exception if reasonable scientific findings demonstrate that the ordinance protects public health or safety.
Limited Remedies Even When a Nuisance Is Found
Even if an agricultural operation is sued and found to be a nuisance, the right to farm law substantially limits what Wisconsin courts can award or what activities they can restrict, unless public health or safety is threatened. Courts must consult public agencies with expertise in agricultural matters to ensure the suitability of actions required to address the nuisance.
The time allowed for the defendant to take any court-ordered mitigation action may not be less than one year after the date of the order, unless the agricultural use or agricultural practice is a substantial threat to public health or safety. This gives farm operators meaningful time to adapt rather than face immediate shutdown orders.
The following table summarizes the key protections and their limits under § 823.08:
| Scenario | Right to Farm Protection |
|---|---|
| Neighbor moves near existing farm and complains about odor, dust, or noise | Strong protection — nuisance claim generally barred |
| Farm converts from crops to large livestock operation after neighbor arrived | Still protected — changed conditions are not recognized |
| Farm activity presents a substantial threat to public health or safety | No protection — nuisance claim may proceed |
| Local government issues a zoning citation (not a nuisance lawsuit) | No protection — statute only covers civil nuisance actions |
| Farm found to be a nuisance by a court | Remedies are limited; at least one year to comply with mitigation orders |
How to Qualify for Right to Farm Protection in Wisconsin
Qualifying for protection under Wis. Stat. § 823.08 requires meeting two core conditions simultaneously. If either condition fails, the protection does not apply.
In general, when a plaintiff alleges that an agricultural use of land interferes with the plaintiff’s use of land, the law provides that a court may not find that the agricultural use of land constitutes a nuisance, provided the following are true: (1) the agricultural use of land predated the use of land by the plaintiff; and (2) the agricultural use does not present a substantial threat to public health or safety.
Here is what each condition means for your operation in practical terms:
- Pre-existing agricultural use: Your land must have been in agricultural use — without substantial interruption — before the complaining neighbor began using their property. Wisconsin’s right to farm law interprets uninterrupted agricultural uses and activities broadly. The law does not consider a change in the agricultural use or practice to be significant, and consequently protects almost any agricultural use or activity, so long as it does not substantially threaten public health or safety.
- No substantial threat to public health or safety: Your operation must not pose a serious risk to the surrounding community. Routine farm byproducts — odor, dust, noise — do not meet this threshold under ordinary circumstances.
- Income-producing or livelihood-based purpose: Wisconsin’s right to farm law provides farmers with protections from frivolous nuisance lawsuits, allowing them to practice agriculture without fear of legal action as long as they follow good production practices. The statute is designed for working agricultural operations, not hobby or recreational land use.
Good documentation strengthens your position. Keep records of when your agricultural use began, what activities you conduct, and any best management practices you follow. If you also sell meat or other products directly from your farm, understanding Wisconsin’s rules on selling meat from your farm can help you demonstrate the commercial nature of your operation.
What to Do If You’re Facing a Nuisance Complaint in Wisconsin
Receiving a complaint — whether it is a strongly worded letter from a neighbor or a formal legal filing — can feel alarming. Knowing how to respond systematically protects both your farm and your legal position.
Step 1: Determine Whether the Complaint Is a Civil Nuisance Action
The right to farm statute applies only to civil nuisance lawsuits filed against your agricultural use or practice. The law directs courts to favor agricultural uses in certain legal disputes — specifically, civil suits in which a plaintiff files a nuisance action arising from the defendant’s agricultural use or practice, and the right to farm law provides certain protections for agricultural land uses and practices in such actions. If the complaint comes from a local government in the form of a zoning citation or regulatory enforcement action, the statute does not apply in the same way.
Step 2: Document Your Pre-Existing Agricultural Use
Your strongest defense under § 823.08 is proof that your land was in agricultural use before the complaining neighbor arrived. Gather deeds, tax records showing agricultural classification, aerial photographs, crop insurance records, USDA Farm Service Agency documentation, and any other evidence that establishes the timeline of your operation. The statute requires that, for § 823.08 to apply to an alleged nuisance-creating activity, the agricultural use of the land on which the activity is conducted must precede the plaintiff’s use of the allegedly affected property.
Step 3: Understand the Fee-Shifting Risk for the Plaintiff
One of the most powerful deterrents built into Wisconsin’s right to farm law is its attorney fee provision. Perhaps the most powerful element of the right to farm law is that the statute requires that a plaintiff pay the defendant’s litigation expenses if the court finds that the agricultural use or practice did not constitute a nuisance. “Litigation expenses” are defined broadly to include the sum of the costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, expert witness, and engineering fees necessary to prepare for or participate in the nuisance action.
Under Wisconsin’s right to farm law, only plaintiffs are required to pay the costs of litigation if they lose, but not defendants. This shifts the litigation risks away from agricultural operations and onto plaintiffs by requiring them to pay attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other costs related to preparing for and participating in lawsuits. This fee-shifting rule was confirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Zink v. Khwaja (2000), which held that the plain language of § 823.08(4) unequivocally mandates the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees by a defendant who prevails in any action in which an agricultural use or agricultural practice is alleged to be a nuisance.
Step 4: Consult an Agricultural Law Attorney Early
Understanding how state laws and local ordinances work together and the limitations on local government authority is crucial for farmers facing issues such as nuisance claims or zoning challenges. An attorney with agricultural law experience can assess whether your operation qualifies for protection under § 823.08, identify any gaps in your documentation, and advise you on whether mitigation steps would strengthen your position before litigation begins.
If a nuisance is ultimately found, courts may extend to the agricultural producer enough time to complete the mitigation. On the other hand, if the defendant agricultural producer proves that the farming practice is not a nuisance, they may be awarded attorneys’ fees and legal costs.
Step 5: Review Your Compliance with State and Local Rules
Farm operations using good management practices are protected from nuisance and liability lawsuits under Wisconsin’s right to farm law (Wis. Stat. § 823.08). Staying current with nutrient management plans, manure storage standards, and any applicable DATCP regulations reinforces your argument that your operation does not present a substantial threat to public health or safety. Under the Livestock Facility Siting Law, local governments may require permits for new or expanded livestock facilities only if they adopt a compliant ordinance based on DATCP’s model standards, and those standards cannot be more restrictive than the state standards unless justified by public health or safety concerns. Farmers may challenge local permit denials or conditions through an administrative appeal process.
Pro Tip: Proactive communication with neighbors before a formal complaint is filed often prevents escalation. Explaining your farming practices, timelines, and any steps you take to minimize impacts can resolve disputes without involving attorneys or courts.
Wisconsin’s agricultural landscape intersects with many other state laws that affect what you can do on your property. If you raise animals, understanding related rules — such as rooster laws in Wisconsin, rooster crowing laws in Wisconsin, and dog chaining laws in Wisconsin — can help you stay compliant on multiple fronts. Farmers who also deal with wildlife near their property may find coyote hunting laws in Wisconsin and roadkill laws in Wisconsin relevant to their operations as well.
Wisconsin’s right to farm statute is one of the broader protections available to agricultural operators in the country — but it works best when you understand both its reach and its limits. Keeping good records, following best management practices, and consulting legal counsel when disputes arise are the most reliable ways to make the law work for your operation.