A citizen group's challenge to Sonoma County's "right to farm'' law has been rejected by a state appeals court in San Francisco. The Ad Hoc Committee for Clean Water, based in Occidental, claimed that a revised version of the Right to Farm Ordinance enacted by the county Board of Supervisors in 1999 should have been evaluated in an environmental impact report.
The state Court of Appeal on Monday upheld Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Laurence Sawyer's finding that a report wasn't needed because the revision of the law had no significant impact on the environment.
The Right to Farm Ordinance, first passed in 1988, exempts agricultural operations on farm land from being considered nuisances under county law, so long as the operations do not violate other laws and are not conducted negligently.
The law also provides that residents or users of nearby land must be notified by the county that they may be subject to inconvenience or discomfort from the agricultural activities and that such inconveniences will not qualify as nuisances.
The clean water committee challenged a portion of the 1999 revision of the law that expanded the required notice by including a list of examples of the possible inconveniences.
The new version of the notice specifically mentions "noise, odors, fumes, dust, smoke, insects, operation of machinery during any time of day or night, storage and disposal of manure, and ground or aerial application of fertilizers, soil amendments, seeds and pesticides.''
The notice says inconvenience or discomfort will not be considered a nuisance under county law and that "residents or users of nearby property should be prepared to accept such inconvenience or discomfort as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and an active agricultural sector.''
The committee contended the revised notice had an environmental impact because it identified more protected activities and might discourage people from filing legitimate lawsuits under other state and federal laws.
But a three-judge panel of the appeals court said unanimously that the list was only an illustration of possible annoyances.
Justice James Lambden wrote that the list "must be construed as illustrative only.''
Lambden said, "Whether listed activities are immunized in a given case will depend, as it always has, on whether they meet requirements of being conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted standards and not a result of negligent or improper management or operation. There is no broadened coverage, only a broadened list of farm-related activities that may be immunized.''
The court also said the law did not mislead farm neighbors about their rights under other state and federal laws covering water pollution, wildlife and agriculture.
Committee spokeswoman Ann Maurice said she was disappointed with the court's ruling but said the group has not yet decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Maurice said the law "is bringing Central Valley style agriculture to Sonoma County in rural residential areas.''
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |