Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization

Farmer Held Not Liable for Irrigation Runoff

John D. Mead
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In an action brought against a farmer by a residential developer who suffered damages resulting from irrigation runoff from the farmer's operation, the California Court of Appeals has upheld a trial court's entry of summary judgment and its application of § 3482.5 of the California Civil Code, a statute which exempts farming activities from nuisance lawsuits when the requisite elements of the statute have been satisfied. Rancho Viejo, L.L.C. v. Tres Amigos Viejos, L.L.C., 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).

Rancho Viejo, LLC ("Rancho Viejo"), appellant, brought an action against Tres Amigos Viejos, LLC ("Tres Amigos"), respondent, for trespass and failure to contain irrigation water. See id. at 483. Tres Amigos responded that its activities were exempted under § 3482.5 of the California Civil Code. See id. at 481. Section 3482.5 exempts prescribed agricultural activities from nuisance liability. See id.

The parties' predecessor-in-interest owned 500 acres of real property formerly known as the Pope Ranch. See id. at 482. Around 1984, the Popes prepared a specific plan to divide the property in which approximately 115 acres, known as the upper property, would be devoted to continued agricultural use. See id.

On December 1, 1997, the Popes sold the portion of the Pope Ranch known as the lower property to Rancho Viejo. See id. The lower property contained approximately 500 orange trees, which Rancho Viejo removed in 1998. See id. at 483. Moreover, Rancho Viejo excavated cut slopes into the hills along the boundary line between the upper and lower properties. See id. During the course of the excavation, Rancho Viejo encountered water seepage from the upper property on the northeastern portion of the property and observed water streams and water in canyons on several lots. See id.

The upper property consisted of approximately 6,600 avocado trees that had been irrigated by pumping water from wells containing water from the adjacent San Luis Rey River. See id. at 482. The well water was saltier than metropolitan water, but the municipal water was unavailable for irrigation. See id. Because of the higher salt content of the well water, the avocado grove used a greater amount of water in order to dilute the water's salinity. See id. Also, rainwater and natural runoff had flowed for years from the upper property onto the lower property. See id. at 483.

In November, 1998, Tres Amigos purchased the upper property from the Popes and continued to farm the avocado grove, irrigating the property in the exact same manner as the grove had previously been irrigated. See id. In May, 1999, Rancho Viejo discovered water cascading from the upper property onto its lower property as a result of Tres Amigos' continued irrigation of the property. See id. After Tres Amigos refused to take steps to reduce the runoff from its irrigation practice, Rancho Viejo installed an additional subdrain system at its own expense and brought this action seeking damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. See id.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Tres Amigos on the ground that § 3482.5 barred Rancho Viejo's cause of action. See id. The trial court held that Rancho Viejo failed to establish triable issues as to whether Tres Amigos' activities were (1) agricultural; (2) conducted "consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality;" and (3) in operation for more than three years. Id. n 3. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. See id. at 494.

Rancho Viejo asserted that § 3482.5 was not intended to confer absolute immunity for agricultural activities claimed that the statutory language only afforded protection to agricultural activities that were traditional in scope, such as noise, odors, and dust caused by traditional farming activities. See id. The court stated that Rancho Viejo's argument was based on a misunderstanding of nuisance law and an overly narrow reading of the statute. See id. at 485.

The court determined that the protection afforded to farming under the statute is broadly defined to include "any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incident to or in conjunction with those farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or delivery to carriers for transportation to market." id. The court stated that Rancho Viejo could not reasonably argue that irrigation was not an agricultural activity or operation. See id.

The court further determined that the legislative intent was contrary to the narrow reading of the statute asserted by Rancho Viejo. See id. at 488. In a letter in support of the statute, Assemblyman John Thurman stated:

[Assembly Bill] AB 585 is an important step toward eliminating suits by individuals who have moved to a new housing development "in the country" and find the long-established farm bordering their back fence offends their senses. Suits against agricultural operations for dust, wind machine or tractor noise, livestock or poultry smells and other things commonly associated with the operation of an agricultural enterprise are becoming more prevalent as urban development reaches out to meet agricultural areas. AB 585 will stop this dangerous cycle by allowing agriculture to operate without undue pressure from urbanization. Keeping agricultural land in agricultural use is the goal.

Id. at 488. (Emphasis supplied.)

The court read the letter from Assemblyman Thurman to indicate that the legislature sought broad protection for traditional farming practices performed in conjunction with long-standing commercial operations when neighboring properties are developed into residential or urban use. See id. The court further opined that irrigation is an ongoing operation in commercial farming generally and was regularly conducted in the instant case according to the undisputed testimony of Tres Amigos' witness, and that such irrigation practices fell within the literal language of the statute. See id. at 489.

Rancho Viejo also argued that § 3482.5 was inapplicable in the instant case because it was enacted to protect farmers who were innocent victims of urbanization and to stem the removal of land from agricultural uses where residential development moved in next to a longstanding agricultural activity. See id. at 490. Rancho Viejo asserted that a farmer should not be immunized when the farmer profits from urban development on his land yet also seeks to protect his continued agricultural activity. See id.

The court disagreed and held that Rancho Viejo was aware that the upper property was agricultural in nature, yet still took steps to begin mass urban development of the lower property. See id. Moreover, Rancho Viejo removed the orange trees and initiated excavation on that property, ultimately changing the condition of the lower property. See id. The court stated that Rancho Viejo failed to contradict with any competent evidence that its nuisance cause of action did not accrue until it graded the slopes below Tres Amigos' avocado grove. See id.

Rancho Viejo failed to establish that Tres Amigos changed the watering practices of the upper property that had been in place since at least 1982. See id. The court determined that Tres Amigos' irrigation practices were customary and accepted because Tres Amigos met its burden of producing competent and admissible evidence establishing the customary character of its irrigation methods through its witness. See id. at 492. Rancho Viejo's expert witness failed to offer competent and admissible evidence to the contrary. See id. at 493. Therefore, the court determined that Tres Amigos' irrigation activities were not unreasonable. See id. at 494.

Finally, the court ruled that Tres Amigos fell within the exemption of the statute because the farm had been in operation for more than three years. See id. at 491. The court explained that the statute cannot be read to permit developers to enjoin a long-established farming operation as a nuisance simply because the farm was purchased and operated by a new owner. See id. The court held that § 3482.5 was predicated on the duration of the agricultural operation, not the duration of the farmland's ownership. See id.

The court concluded that Rancho Viejo failed to establish any genuine issues of material fact to indicate that § 3482.5 should not apply to the irrigation practices of Tres Amigos. See id. at 494. Therefore, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. See id.

The case was decided on July 25, 2002; this summary was posted in February, 2003.