Mouw Yard
Up until the City violated our front yard with an unknown herbicide in September 2025, we have always kept a chemical free, pollinator friendly yard. Our wildflowers grow wild, our vegetables grow chaotically and, yes, our weeds sometimes grow a little too freely. Pollinators love our lawn. Hummingbirds, butterflies, bumblebees, and birds. For the naysayers we offer: between Canadian Thistle and Glyphosate, only one is proven to cause various cancers.
This fall, the City of Sioux Falls used unconstitutional ordinances to spray chemicals on our pollinator plants in our front yard due to a weed complaint that stemmed from the fenced-in back yard not visible from the street.
This chemical spraying occurred with zero notice to us as the land owners. The Sioux Falls Ordinance depends on notice by publication in March of each year and one general letter per growing season that gives the City of Sioux Falls unfettered, HOA-level access to private property in properties zoned to Sioux Falls municipal ordinances.
The Constitution doesn't care that we have weeds. The Constitution does care when a State Actor enters private property and destroys it without giving the landowner notice of the same.
Why This Case Matters
This is not a cosmetic dispute about lawn preferences. It’s about:
• Notice and due process – Residents should not wake up to find their yards sprayed with chemicals they never agreed to, with no new notice or chance to respond.
• Environmental and health impacts – Pollinator plants, home gardens, and chemical-free lawns matter—for children, pets, and the broader ecosystem.
• Abuse of discretionary power – When a City can ignore its own ordinances in a front yard, that same culture of “we know best” shows up in other systems: housing, code enforcement, schools, and courts.
• Precedent for other families – If this is allowed to stand, it becomes the quiet norm. If it’s challenged, it can become a line in the sand.
Case Timeline & Documents
– August 6, 2025 –
We received a City letter saying there were “noxious weeds” on our property. We fixed the issues: mowed, addressed the weeds in the backyard and side yard, and continued to maintain our front yard as a chemical-free pollinator space with Dutch white clover and very tall Lemon Queen sunflowers. This letter did not give the right to contest the finding a violation had occurred and stated any subsequent violations would be cured without notice.
– August 11, 2025 –
The City’s own re-inspection found our yard in compliance. The clover was under 8 inches; the sunflowers were lawful cultivated flowers.
– September 22, 2025 –
Surveillance video showed a city vehicle briefly slowing down in front of our home, not stopping, and continuing on. City Inspectors would later admit via sworn testimony they accessed the curtilage of our fenced-in backyard through the fenced-in back-yard of our East neighbor. Our backyard is not visible from the street and, we would later discover, was the source of the noxious weed complaint.
– September 23, 2025 –
Without warning, a City contractor sprayed pesticide in our front yard across our Dutch clover patch, sunflowers, Boston Ivy, Vegetable Garden, and natural alfalfa—plants that had previously been treated as lawful. We received no knock on the door, no notice, and no opportunity to correct anything before chemicals were applied.
After the spraying – Our pollinator plants died. Our vegetable garden was put at risk. We still don’t know what specific pesticide was used. Later that week, the City sent us a bill for the spraying. When Mr. Mouw called the Contractors to figure out what chemical was sprayed on the lawn our children run with bare feet, his voicemail was forwarded o the city. All the city would tell him was that he received notice in August and that was sufficient.
– October 1, 2025 –
Rebekkah attempts to meet to negotiate with the City attorney's office.
– October 2, 2025 –
Another unidentified City inspector takes photos for three minutes outside our residence.
– October 3, 2025 –
We receive an email from Assistant City Attorney rejecting settlement and send an email to our City Council Member notifying them of the issue and giving them a chance to act and accept settlement. Out settlement and Offer of Judgment-- that we will pay for the citation but refuse to pay for the spraying bill.
– October 6, 2025 –
We filed a Verified Appeal and Offer of Judgement, arguing that the City exceeded its own ordinance, ignored due-process requirements for notice, and damaged pollinator and garden plants without lawful authority.
Copy of Complaint & Offer of Judgment here
– October 11, 2025 –
Received Notice of Hearing for Thursday, November 6, 2025.
– November 6, 2025 –
Appeals hearing in front of neutral hearing officer. Testimony taken, evidence presented. The City objected to, and the Hearing Officer agreed, that the Abatement (act of spraying) was not the appealable issue, and the only issue was whether the citation was proper. We were told the proper place to appeal the abatement was the City Council when they were approving assessments against our property in August of 2026. The City Council is not a judicial body.
Since my complaint & offer of Judgment only raised constitutional issues and did not contest the fact that we did in fact have weeds in our backyard, we submitted a brief and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law available below along with extensive appendices.
– November 20, 2025 –
Submitted request for the City to cease collection requests due to pending appeal pursuant to 30.40(d) and request for hearing transcript pursuant to 30.043(g) of City of Sioux Falls Appeals Rules.
– November 21, 2025 –
City's Brief in Response to Appellant's brief was due.
– December 7, 2025 –
Appellants Responsive Brief due
– December 31, 2025, 5:00pm –
Final findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law due and still outstanding as of January 3, 2025. These were due via email to both parties as agreed at the hearing on November 6, 2025.
– December 31, 2025, 10:00-10:30pm –
After not receiving the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law pursuant to agreed time, we filed three FOIA requests with spoliation requests.
Relevant Law
Interested in the legal authorities relied on?
Vegetation starts at 302.4.1. They rely on notice published in the newspaper. If a homeowner does not comply within two days of the last publishing (which is once per year), then they get to utilize Title III Admin Code 40, which tells us they don't need to give the landowner notice.
The 2021 International Property Maintenance Code
This version has "Commentary" for the drafters.
(This is what we want instead of the Ordinances, our argument is that many of the amendments--as applied and on face-- are unconstitutional).
Title III, Administrative Code 40
I call this "anti-due process" section and it is referenced in our vegetation ordinances 302.4.1, but touches all forms of property maintenance after one purported violation. After that violation, Sioux Falls Code inspectors get unlimited access to your property where "failure to provide notice shall not affect these procedures." This was passed in 2002.
Controling SDCL:
SDCL 38-22-17
SDCL 34-16-19
SDCL 34-16-20
Still to Add:
I plan to add templates for other homeowners and photos from the abatement.