Right to Farm bill seeks to counter conflicts arising from urbanization in rural areas

The Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee heard testimony on H210, the Right to Farm bill on Tuesday, March 22. Roger Batt, representing several agricultural groups, opened with testimony on the importance of agriculture to the state. For every dollar that is generated by agriculture, $6 circulates through the community. Twenty percent of Idaho’s total workforce is related to agriculture.

Batt noted that farming operations need to expand if they are going to compete in global markets; however there has been dramatic growth in urbanization in the last few years. Canyon County has lost 25% of its ag land to urbanization between 2000 and 2007. The intent of this bill is to reduce the loss to the state of its agricultural resources.

H 210 is the result of thorough study of 50 right-to-farm statutes. Idaho’s current statute defines agriculture operations broadly and says that no city, county or taxing district can limit the right to farm. It does not, however, protect farming operations from nuisance lawsuits. This new law has been declared constitutional by the Idaho Attorney General’s office and does not deny local governments' ability to grant or deny a permit.

Expansions of farming operations are allowed if they follow applicable laws and the existing operation has been in place for one year. This legislation is not a CAFO or dairy bill and it does not protect a farmer from a lawsuit based on negligence.

Dan Steenson, the attorney who researched and helped draft the legislation went through each section of it and explained how it differed from current law and what it contained line by line.

Ben Otto, representing the Idaho Conservation League, raised concerns about the proposed legislation. ICL is concerned about expansion. Otto used the example of a retiree living on five acres the he has turned into a wildlife refuge. Then a cheese factory expands and becomes very loud. This bill would take away a right of action against an agricultural operation that expands and becomes a nuisance to the residents who were already living there.

Another person testified against the bill, citing a feedlot operation that she said had been out of compliance for 14 years and no one has done anything about the violations.

Individual farmers and representatives of agriculture groups testified in favor of the legislation.

After several questions from the committee members, the bill was sent to the Senate floor with a do-pass recommendation by a party line vote of six to two.