Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization and Agriculture

Former CRP Land Held Eligible for Redesignation as Rural Self-Sufficient

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Yakima County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 192 P.3d 12, 146 Wash. App. 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, reversed the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's (Board) decision, which had reversed the decision of Yakima County regarding the redesignation of the certain land from agricultural resource to rural self-sufficient. After the county redesignated the land, the Wenas Citizens Association (WCA) successfully challenged the decision before the board. However, the instant court held that the board erred in concluding that the county's redesignation of the land was clearly erroneous because the property fulfilled the rural self-sufficient mapping standards and failed to meet the mapping standards for agricultural resource land.

Background

In 1997, Yakima County adopted Plan 2015 which designated the Catons' land as agricultural resource land of long-term commercial significance. Id. at 684. In 2001, the Catons filed an application with the county to amend Plan 2015 to change the designation of their land from agricultural resource to rural self-sufficient. Id. After a few minor adjustments to the Catons' application, the county approved the redesignation. Id. at 685. The WCA challenged county's decision before the board, arguing that the county's decision was clearly erroneous and out of compliance with the Growth Management Act (GWA). Id. The board agreed and reversed the county's decision. Id. The Catons and the county successfully appealed the board's decision to the Yakima County Superior Court, and thereafter, the WCA appealed. Id. After the instant court remanded the case to the board for proper allocation of the burden of proof, the standard of review, and the statutory definition of agricultural lands, the board reaffirmed its earlier holding and remanded the case to the county to take appropriate action in compliance with the GWA. Id. Again, the Catons and the county successfully appealed the board's decision to the superior court, and ultimately, the case was decided before the instant court. Id.

Arguments

The parties disagreed over the level of deference owed to the county's decision to redesignate the property at issue. Id. at 686. The Catons and the county argued that the board should have given deference to county's decision to redesignate because the case involved a factual dispute, rather than an interpretation of the GMA. Id. at 687.

The WCA argued that the county's position required that the board "grant unbridled deference to the actions of the county." Id. Additionally, the WCA argued that because the land had previously been enrolled in the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the land should retain its agricultural designation. Id. at 690.

Analysis and Holdings

To determine whether the county's decision to change the designation of the Catons' land from agricultural resource to rural self-sufficient was clearly erroneous, the court examined whether the property met the GMA's definition of "agricultural land." Id. at 688. Because the evidence suggested that the property was located outside an urban growth area, was not used for agricultural production, was not suitable for agricultural production, and had not been cropped for eighteen years prior to the time that the Catons applied for CRP payments, the court held that the WCA failed to show that the county was in error. Id. at 690-96. Also of note, the court held that CRP enrollment did not necessarily constitute an agricultural use. Id. at 691. In the case at bar, because the land was not suitable for agricultural production when the Catons sought resignation, its previous enrollment in conservation programs was not fatal to the redesignation process. Id.

The case was decided on September 11, 2008.