They probably were surprised to find that it prevented a suit like theirs from proceeding. RTFs exist in some form in all fifty states. Along with property tax breaks, they are by far the most ubiquitous farmland protection program in this country. States have enacted RTFs with the stated purpose of preventing the slow destruction of farmland as a result of expansion of urban areas into traditionally rural land. All RTFs protect farmers from liability for common law nuisance to some extent, and many also prevent municipalities from passing ordinances that would make an agricultural operation a nuisance.
Several problems are inherent to most current RTFs.
First, by privileging agricultural land uses over neighboring land uses within a municipality, they may reduce the efficient allocation of land use entitlements. Second, such privileging may be an unnecessary and unjust intrusion into the rights of those whose land use conflicts with protected agricultural uses. Third, such privileging may work against the stated intent of RTF supporters by protecting operations that contribute to the degradation of rural landscapes. While RTFs are widespread and radically restructure common law property rights, RTF proponents have glossed over any potential issues of unfairness and have suggested changes in order to strengthen perceived weaknesses in protection afforded by the laws. Commentators have paid little attention to the effects RTFs have had on conflicts between landowners in traditionally agrarian communities.