What’s at Stake
Whether the Iowa Department of Natural Resources may work in concert with polluters to thwart an interested parties’ right to intervene in a settlement by quickly filing and settling the case in a manner that precludes public participation.
Summary
Since 2020, Agri Star Meat & Poultry, LLC has repeatedly violated its Clean Water Act permit limits for chloride and copper, discharging excessive levels of these pollutants into Hecker Creek and the Yellow River in Iowa. From 2020 to 2025, the state regulatory agency, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”), took no enforcement action to curb Agri Star’s unlawful discharges. Thus, in February 2025, Driftless Water Defenders (“DWD”) filed suit against Agri Star for its rampant violations of its Clean Water Act permit.
In July 2025, months after DWD filed suit, IDNR secretly negotiated a deal with Agri Star to settle its CWA violations-the same types of violations at issue in DWD’s suit. IDNR filed its Petition in Equity and proposed Consent Decree in Allamakee County District Court on July 18, 2025, with no notice to DWD or the public. IDNR then worked to ensure a hasty approval and entry of the Consent Decree only two business days later, in what appears to be a deliberate plan to prevent press attention or public knowledge about the settlement, precluding DWD’s timely intervention. The Consent Decree acts as a mere slap on the wrist and fails to adequately protect DWD’s and the public interest by imposing a minor penalty and allowing Agri Star to continue to pollute Hecker Creek and the Yellow River for over a year.
Once DWD became aware of the IDNR case, DWD filed a motion to intervene on August 12, 2025. DWD sought intervention as of right, or, alternatively, permissive intervention. Under the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, intervention as of right is allowed where a party has an unconditional statutory right to intervene or an interest that is not adequately represented by the existing parties in the case. Permissive intervention is allowed where there is a common question of law or fact, and where intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties.
On October 6, 2025, the Allamakee County District Court denied DWD’s motion to intervene, finding that DWD did not meet the requirements of intervention as of right or permissive intervention. DWD promptly appealed. The case has now been fully briefed before the Iowa Supreme Court and is awaiting oral argument scheduling.
Core Legal Questions
The CWA is clear: states with authority to administer the CWA must provide interested parties with public participation rights, including intervention rights. Iowa Code § 455B.111 fulfills this requirement by granting interested parties a right to intervene where the state has commenced and is actively prosecuting a civil action. The core legal question for DWD’s intervention as of right claim is whether DWD may invoke Iowa Code § 455B.111 after the Consent Decree judgment has been entered.
The core legal question for DWD’s permissive intervention claim is whether intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the rights of the existing parties.