Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization
Indoor Composting Facility a "Farm" Under
Right to Farm Act
Bose EmelleNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Vicwood Meridian Partnership v. Skagit Sand and Gravel, No. 29623-3-II, 2004 WL 2341342 (Wash.Ct. App. Div. 2, Oct. 19, 2004), the Washington Court of Appeals held that an indoor composting facility for a mushroom farm qualified as a "farm" under the Washington Right-to-Farm Act, Wash. Rev. Code, §§ 7.8.300-.310, 7.8.905. The Act provides, in part, that "[A]gricultural activities conducted on farmland and forest practices, if consistent with good agricultural and forest practices and established prior to surrounding nonagricultural and nonforestry activities, are presumed to be reasonable and shall not be found to constitute a nuisance unless the activity has a substantial adverse effect on the public health and safety." Id. at 1281 (citation omitted). Several homeowners who lived near the facility brought an action for nuisance and negligence against the facility operator and others, alleging that the hazardous substances and odors released from the landfill interfered with the use and enjoyment of their land. See id. at 1279. The trial court held that the operator could not be held liable because it engaged in an agricultural activity that was protected by the Act. See id. The matter was appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, where it was concluded that "[s]ince mushrooms are farm products, the . . . facility, which produces compost for the mushrooms to grow, is an 'agricultural activity' because it is an 'activity which occurs . . . in connection with the commercial production of farm products and includes . . . odors.'"
The case was decided on October 19, 2004; this summary was posted Posted Mar. 21, 2005.