Can a residential developer successfully enjoin a pre-existing cattle feedlot operation that has become a nuisance due to the developer's own actions in creating nearby housing?

Del E. Webb Development Co. (Del Webb) and Spur Industries, Inc. (Spur) were involved in a dispute in Maricopa County, Arizona, approximately 14-15 miles west of Phoenix. The area had been used for farming since 1911, with gravity flow water becoming available west of the Agua Fria River in 1929. In 1954, the Youngtown retirement community was established. Spur's predecessors developed feedlots in 1956, which expanded significantly over the following years.

In May 1959, Del Webb began planning the Sun City development, offering homes by January 1960. Concurrently, Spur's operations grew, increasing from 35 to 114 acres by 1962. The feedlot, housing 20,000-30,000 cattle and producing over a million pounds of wet manure daily, created significant nuisance issues for Sun City residents. Flies and odors from Spur's feedlot became a serious problem for Del Webb's development by 1963. By 1967, Del Webb's property had extended to Olive Avenue, bringing it within 500 feet of Spur's operations. This proximity resulted in an annoying and potentially unhealthy situation for Sun City residents and caused sales resistance for Del Webb.

Del Webb filed a complaint against Spur, alleging that over 1,300 lots were unfit for development due to Spur's feedlot operation. The case was initially tried before a court with an advisory jury, which was later discharged. The trial then continued before the court alone. Both parties requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were provided by the court. The case was vigorously contested, including special actions brought before the Supreme Court. During one such special action, Spur agreed to temporarily cease its operations without prejudice to a determination on appeal. Ultimately, the trial court permanently enjoined Spur's feedlot operation. Spur subsequently appealed this decision.

(Cameron, J.)

Yes. A residential developer can successfully enjoin a pre-existing cattle feedlot operation that has become a nuisance due to the developer's own actions in creating nearby housing. The operation of a feedlot, despite predating nearby residential development, constitutes an enjoinable public nuisance under state law when it significantly impacts a populous area. The 'coming to the nuisance' doctrine does not automatically bar relief in such cases, as the public interest and rights of residents must be considered. Urban expansion necessitates balancing the interests of lawful businesses against those of developing communities. However, equity demands that the developer who "brought people to the nuisance" by building housing near a pre-existing feedlot must indemnify the feedlot operator for reasonable costs associated with moving or shutting down operations. This indemnification requirement recognizes the feedlot's prior existence and lawful operation while still protecting the public from ongoing nuisance. The developer's standing to bring suit is established through special injury, such as lost sales resulting from the nuisance. This approach ensures that legitimate business interests are not unfairly prejudiced by urban growth while still allowing for necessary community development and public health protection. The decision to enjoin the nuisance while requiring indemnification strikes a balance between competing interests, acknowledging both the rights of businesses to operate and the need for urban areas to expand without being subject to pre-existing nuisances that significantly impact public health and well-being.

Concurrence (Hays, C.J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Struckmeyer, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Lockwood, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Udall, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.