Which of the following best describes "statutory authority" as a defense in nuisance claims?

The description that best encapsulates "statutory authority" as a defense in nuisance claims is that the defendant’s actions are permitted under specific legislation. This defense operates under the premise that if a law or statute explicitly allows a particular action that might otherwise be considered a nuisance, then the defendant cannot be held liable for that nuisance.

For instance, if a city operates a waste management facility under a law that permits such operations, and a nearby resident claims nuisance due to odors or noise, the city could invoke statutory authority as a defense. Since the city's actions are authorized by law, liability for nuisance may not apply.

The other concepts presented do not accurately define statutory authority in the context of nuisance claims. The idea that all actions by the defendant are above the law fails to recognize the specific legal framework governing the defendant's actions. The notion that a defendant's lack of intent to cause distress constitutes a valid defense is more aligned with claims of negligence rather than statutory authority. Lastly, the point concerning pre-existing nuisances does not address the legal permission aspect inherent to statutory authority, which focuses on compliance with legislation rather than the history of the nuisance itself.