Title: New Jersey v. Quaker Valley Farms, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: August 14, 2018

New Jersey v. Quaker Valley Farms, LLC Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Quaker Valley Farms, LLC (Quaker Valley) owned approximately 120 acres of deed-restricted farmland in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. As part of New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Program, the State purchased an easement on the property that prohibited any activity on the property that was detrimental to soil conservation, but permitted the construction of new buildings for agricultural purposes. Quaker Valley excavated and leveled twenty acres of the farm previously used for the production of crops, to erect hoop houses (temporary greenhouses) in which it would grow flowers. In the process, Quaker Valley destroyed the land’s prime quality soil. At issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether Quaker Valley’s excavation activities violated its deed of easement and the Agriculture Retention and Development Act (ARDA). The Supreme Court determined Quaker Valley had the right to erect hoop houses, but did not have the authority to permanently damage a wide swath of premier quality soil in doing so. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division, which overturned the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State Agriculture Development Committee, was reversed. “Those who own deed-restricted farmland must have well delineated guidelines that will permit them to make informed decisions about the permissible limits of their activities.” Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . SYLLABUS(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.) State of New Jersey v. Quaker Valley Farms, LLC (A-43/44/45/46-16) (078517)Argued January 2, 2018 -- Decided August 14, 2018Albin, J., writing for the Court. Quaker Valley Farms, LLC (Quaker Valley) owns approximately 120 acres of deed- restricted farmland in Hunterdon County. As part of New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Program, the State purchased an easement on the property that prohibits any activity on the property that is detrimental to soil conservation, but permits the construction of new buildings for agricultural purposes. Quaker Valley excavated and leveled twenty acres of the farm -- previously used for the production of crops -- to erect hoop houses (temporary greenhouses) in which it would grow flowers. In the process, Quaker Valley destroyed the land’s prime quality soil. The Court considers whether Quaker Valley’s excavation activities violated its deed of easement and the Agriculture Retention and Development Act (ARDA),N.J.S.A. 4:1C-11 to -48. Quaker Valley operates a wholesale horticultural business. Since 2001, it has used a twenty-acre field of prime soil to grow chrysanthemums. In 2007, Quaker Valley suffered a million-dollar-plus crop loss. To protect against future losses, Quaker Valley planned to construct heated hoop houses to provide cover for its crops. Unlike a traditional greenhouse, a hoop house has no concrete footing, and the sloped field presented a topographical problem because hoop houses are commonly constructed on level ground. As a result, Quaker Valley altered the elevation of the land, excavated the earth on the field, and leveled the ground. The State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC), the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the ARDA, assembled a team of experts to investigate the effects of Quaker Valley’s project on the agricultural resource value of the farm. The team determined that Quaker Valley’s excavation violated its deed of easement and the ARDA. The SADC filed a complaint against Quaker Valley claiming that it permanently damaged prime soil on twenty acres of the farm, precluding use of the soil for a variety of agricultural uses, and that it violated both the deed of easement and the ARDA. The SADC sought a judgment halting Quaker Valley from further degrading the land and proposed the implementation of a remediation plan. Quaker Valley filed a counterclaim asserting that material terms of the deed of easement are vague and unenforceable and that the SADC exercised its police powers to coerce, intimidate, and interfere with Quaker Valley’s property rights in violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Quaker Valley also claimed that because the Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District approved its C.251 Plan to address the storm-water runoff from the construction of the hoop houses, it had complied with the deed of easement. 1 The trial court temporarily enjoined Quaker Valley from continuing construction of the hoop houses. Thereafter, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring earthmoving operations in violation of the deed of easement and the ARDA. The SADC moved for summary judgment. Quaker Valley cross-moved for summary judgment on its claims that the deed was unenforceable and that the SADC had violated the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. In August 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the SADC and dismissed Quaker Valley’s civil-rights claim. In June 2013, the court conducted a four-day trial on remediation. The court ordered Quaker Valley to fill the most disturbed areas with specific depths of subsoil and topsoil and to recreate the preexisting slopes. The court also allowed for the maintenance of some hoop houses in the area, provided their presence would be consistent with the remediation plan. Quaker Valley appealed. The Appellate Division initially affirmed, recognizing the tension between the deed of easement’s soil conservation mandate and its allowance of the construction of agricultural buildings, but discerning no basis to disturb the court’s decision on the remedy. Quaker Valley moved for reconsideration, which the Appellate Division granted, reversing its affirmance of summary judgment in favor of the SADC, affirming the dismissal of the civil- rights claim, and noting that any judgment on remedy must await a final determination on whether Quaker Valley is in violation of the deed of easement and ARDA. The appellate panel remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court granted the petitions for certification filed by the SADC, Hunterdon County, and Franklin Township, 229 N.J. 583 (2017); 229 N.J. 605 (2017); 229 N.J. 606 (2017), and a cross-petition filed by Quaker Valley, 229 N.J. 605 (2017).HELD: Quaker Valley had the right to erect hoop houses, but did not have the authority to permanently damage a wide swath of premier quality soil in doing so. Quaker Valley clearly violated the deed and the ARDA. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division, which overturned the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the SADC, is reversed. Those who own deed-restricted farmland must have well delineated guidelines that will permit them to make informed decisions about the permissible limits of their activities. It is only the extreme nature of this case that saves the present enforcement action.1. The Right to Farm Act established the SADC to promulgate rules and to administer and enforce the goals of farmland preservation. The SADC is the enforcement arm of the ARDA and authorizes the establishment of State and county organizations to coordinate the development of farmland preservation programs. The ARDA permits the purchase of development easements on farm property, restricting the use of the land solely for agricultural purposes. (p. 26)2. The criteria for evaluating an application for a development easement includes factors such as the size of the property, soil quality, the number of tillable acres, the commitment of a municipality and county to the long term viability of the agricultural industry, and the imminence that agricultural land will be converted to a nonagricultural use. Deed restrictions shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose and intent of the ARDA. The SADC instructs that the easement must be read, and interpreted, in its entirety, so that the 2 interpretation of each individual provision is consistent with the overall intent of the document and interpretation of all other provisions. The SADC regulation and the deed advance the dual goals of the ARDA: promotion of the agricultural industry and preservation of farmland. The deed’s terms must be read reasonably to achieve their aims, so that one is not sacrificed for another. This task is made difficult by the failure of the SADC to promulgate regulations to guide farmers on the kind and extent of agricultural activities that are permissible under the deed. Quaker Valley’s leveling activities in preparation for the hoop houses led to drastic and permanent alterations to the quality of the soil. While Quaker Valley had a right to construct hoop houses, it did not have the right to needlessly destroy so much prime soil. Quaker Valley’s activities plainly violated the ARDA’s goal of preserving the agricultural productivity of the farmland. The provision authorizing the construction of new structures does not override all others and cannot be divorced from the deed’s express prohibition against activities detrimental to soil conservation. (pp. 27-32)3. The Court finds no merit in Quaker Valley’s argument that their adherence to the C.251 Plan is evidence that their activities were not detrimental to soil conservation. The C.251 Plan did not authorize Quaker Valley to permanently alter the soil profile or to intermix layers of the topsoil and subsoil and did not authorize the despoiling of large quantities of prime soil. Although the record indicates that the SADC has considered parameters regarding soil disturbance on preserved properties, the agency has not exercised its statutory authority to promulgate any relevant standards regarding the nature and extent of soil disturbance that is allowable for construction projects. The ARDA and the existing SADC regulation have a dual purpose: to strengthen the agricultural industry and to preserve farmland. There is no indication in the history or language of the ARDA or the SADC regulation that one goal should inevitably supersede the other. Rather, the approach must be to balance farmland preservation and strengthen the agricultural industry. (pp. 32-35)4. The most relevant point of uncertainty here involves the construction of new structures for agricultural purposes -- an activity expressly permitted by the SADC regulation. Some degree of soil disturbance will be incidental to the construction of such structures. Farmers are entitled to sufficiently definite regulations and standards so that administrative decision- making is fair and predictable. The SADC is in the best position to promulgate such guidelines. If the SADC fails to undertake the necessary rulemaking to establish guidance on the extent of soil disturbance that is permissible on preserved farms, then it can expect administrative due process challenges to its enforcement actions. It is only the extreme nature of this case that saves the present enforcement action. (pp. 35-37)5. Quaker Valley’s civil-rights claim is without merit as the SADC’s efforts fell fully within its mandate, and the Court affirms the dismissal of that claim. (pp. 37-38) REVERSED except as to dismissal of the civil-rights claim, which is AFFIRMED.CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE ALBIN’S opinion. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A-43/44/45/ 46 September Term 2016 078517STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, COUNTY OF HUNTERDON and TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v.QUAKER VALLEY FARMS, LLC and DAVID DEN HOLLANDER, Defendants-Respondents and Cross-Appellants. Argued January 2, 2018 -- Decided August 14, 2018 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. John R. Renella, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant and cross- respondent State of New Jersey, State Agriculture Development Committee (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, Jason T. Stypinski and Timothy P. Malone, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs). Robert P. Merenich argued the cause for respondents and cross-appellants Quaker Valley Farms, LLC, and David den Hollander (Gemmel, Todd & Merenich, attorneys; Robert P. Merenich, on the briefs). Michael B. Lavery submitted a letter brief on behalf of appellant and cross-respondent 1 Township of Franklin (Lavery, Selvaggi, Abromitis & Cohen, attorneys). Shana L. Taylor, County Counsel submitted a letter brief on behalf of appellant and cross-respondent County of Hunterdon (County of Hunterdon Office of County Counsel, attorney). Lewis P. Goldshore submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Farm Bureau. JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. Quaker Valley Farms, LLC (Quaker Valley) owns approximately120 acres of deed-restricted farmland in Franklin Township,Hunterdon County. As part of New Jersey’s Farmland PreservationProgram, the State purchased an easement on the property thatlimits the use of the land to agricultural purposes. The deedof easement prohibits any activity on the property that is“detrimental to . . . soil conservation,” but permits theconstruction of “any new buildings for agricultural purposes.”The tension between those impermissible and permissibleactivities is at the heart of the controversy in this case. Quaker Valley excavated and leveled twenty acres of thefarm previously used for the production of crops to erect hoophouses (temporary greenhouses) in which flowers would be grown.In the process, Quaker Valley destroyed the land’s prime qualitysoil. The State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC)investigated Quaker Valley’s excavation activities and concluded 2 that Quaker Valley had violated its deed of easement and theAgriculture Retention and Development Act (ARDA), N.J.S.A. 4:1C-11 to -48 -- one of the statutes implementing the FarmlandPreservation Program. The SADC brought an action in the Superior Court to enforcethe restrictions placed on the use of Quaker Valley’s farmlandand to halt the further destruction of the property’s premierquality soil. The trial court granted summary judgment in favorof the SADC, halting Quaker Valley’s project and ordering theremediation of the despoiled land. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that theimperative of soil conservation had to be reconciled with thepermissible construction of buildings for agricultural purposesunder both the deed of easement and the ARDA. The panelconstrued the deed of easement to permit the construction ofhoop houses, “so long as the landowner conserves soil to theextent practicable.” The panel remanded to the trial court todetermine “whether [Quaker Valley] took the necessary steps, tothe extent practicable, to conserve the soil disrupted by theland-grading activities.” We now conclude that the Appellate Division erred inoverturning the grant of summary judgment in favor of the SADC.The incontrovertible evidence of record is that Quaker Valley 3 permanently damaged premier soil on twenty acres of farmlandprotected by the deed of easement and the ARDA. The preservation of high quality soil and open space forfuture generations is one of the chief aims of the FarmlandPreservation Program. Although Quaker Valley had the right toerect hoop houses, it did not have the authority to permanentlydamage a wide swath of premier quality soil in doing so. Quaker Valley crossed a threshold that clearly violated thedeed and the ARDA. Nevertheless, those who own deed-restrictedfarmland must have well delineated guidelines or rules that willpermit them to make informed decisions about the permissiblelimits of their activities. The State has yet to promulgatesuch guidelines or rules. The imperatives of due processrequire that the State give farmers reasonable notice of thepermissible agricultural uses of the land, particularly whenthere are seemingly conflicting provisions in a deed ofeasement. Farmers must know where the goalposts are set beforethe State burdens them with costly enforcement actions. In this case, however, we hold that even under the existinglaw and the present deed, any reasonable person should haveknown that despoiling so much prime quality soil was anunauthorized activity. We remand to the trial court to continuewith the remediation plan earlier ordered. I. 4 A. The State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) is astate agency responsible for the enforcement of the AgricultureRetention and Development Act (ARDA), N.J.S.A. 4:1C-11 to -48.The ARDA is a legislative scheme that authorizes the “State andcounty organizations to coordinate the development of farmlandpreservation programs within identified areas where agriculturewill be presumed the first priority use of the land.” N.J.S.A.4:1C-12(c). It is the county-level agriculture developmentboards, established under N.J.S.A. 4:1C-14, that are largelyresponsible for reviewing and approving applications to theFarmland Preservation Program. N.J.S.A. 4:1C-15; N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.5(a) to (e). The SADC is empowered to financially help acounty purchase an easement on farmland for the purpose ofpreserving its agricultural use in perpetuity. See N.J.S.A.4:1C-8; N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.5(f). Quaker Valley owns approximately 120 acres of deed-restricted farmland property subject to the ARDA. In February2008, the SADC filed in the General Equity Part of the SuperiorCourt a verified complaint against defendants Quaker Valley andDavid Den Hollander, an owner and operator of Quaker Valley(collectively Quaker Valley). Shortly after the filing of thecomplaint, the court allowed Hunterdon County and Franklin 5 Township to intervene as plaintiffs with the SADC (collectivelySADC). The complaint alleges that Quaker Valley permanentlydamaged prime soil on twenty acres of the farm while in theprocess of excavating and leveling the land for the constructionof seventy-two “greenhouse-type 'hoop’ houses.” The complaintalso alleges that Quaker Valley’s “destruction of the soilprecludes its use for a variety of agricultural uses” and thusdirectly violates not only the deed of easement’s command toconserve the soil, but also the ARDA. The SADC maintained thatimmediate action had to be taken to ensure that Quaker Valleydid not cause “any further destruction of the soil profile ofthe site.” As relief, the SADC sought a judgment halting QuakerValley from further degrading the land and from constructingmore hoop houses. The SADC also proposed the implementation ofa remediation plan that would restore the soil to its originalprofile “to the extent possible.” Quaker Valley filed a counterclaim asserting, in part, thatmaterial terms of the deed of easement are vague and thereforeunenforceable and that the SADC exercised its police powers tocoerce, intimidate, and interfere with Quaker Valley’s propertyrights in violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A.10:6-2(b) and (c). 6 The SADC and Quaker Valley both moved for summary judgment.We recite the relevant facts from the summary judgment record. B. The Mathews family owned the 120-acre farmland in FranklinTownship, Hunterdon County for over a hundred years, growing andharvesting corn, wheat, oats, soybeans, and hay. In 1989,Harold and Rosalie Mathews applied to the SADC to sell aneasement on their property that would restrict its use toagricultural purposes. At the time of the application,approximately 100 acres of the Mathews’ farmland were activelyused for crop production. Ultimately, the Hunterdon CountyAgricultural Development Board selected the Mathews’ propertyfor inclusion in New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Program.The Mathews’ property was chosen for the program, in part,because of the high quality of its soil -- described as “prime”soil -- which has the ingredients to produce a wide variety andhigh yield of crops. In 1993, in consideration for a deed of easement, whichrestricts the use of the farm for only agricultural purposes,Hunterdon County paid the Mathews $402,680.07. 1 In 1997, Quaker1 The SADC provided Hunterdon County with a grant of $241,608.04 to purchase the Mathews’ farm. The grant monies were made available through the Open Space Preservation Bond Act of 1989, L. 1989, c. 183. 7 Valley purchased the Mathews’ farm for $500,000, subject to thedeed of easement.2 C. The meaning of the relevant terms of the deed of easement,in relation to one another, is the focal point of the dispute inthis case. The terms of the deed of easement are lifteddirectly from a regulation promulgated by the SADC. N.J.A.C.2:76-6.15. The easement terms give context to the events atissue. Paragraph two of the deed requires that the land be“retained for agricultural use and production in compliance with[the ARDA] and all other rules promulgated by the [SADC].”Accord N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.15(a)(2). “Agricultural use” is definedthrough a non-exhaustive list of farm activities, which includethe “production, harvesting, storage, grading, packaging,processing and the wholesale and retail marketing of crops,plants, animals and other related commodities and the use and2 Quaker Valley acquired the farm for approximately $4200 per acre. Presumably, had there been no limitation on the development rights of the farm, Quaker Valley would have paid a higher price to purchase the property. See State Agric. Dev. Comm., Farmland Availability/Farmland Affordability, https:// nj.gov/agriculture/sadc/news/hottopics/farmavailabilityintro.pdf (“The Farmland Preservation Program helps make preserved farmland more affordable to farmers by removing the development value from the land.”). 8 application of techniques and methods of soil preparation andmanagement.” Ibid. Paragraph seven of the deed of easement mandates thatlandowners take no action that would be contrary to soilpreservation: “No activity shall be permitted on the Premiseswhich would be detrimental to . . . erosion control[] or soilconservation, nor shall any other activity be permitted whichwould be detrimental to the continued agricultural use of thePremises.” Accord N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.15(a)(7). Paragraph seven ofthe deed, however, must coexist with paragraph fourteen, whichstates that landowners “may construct any new buildings foragricultural purposes.” Accord N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.15(a)(14). D. Quaker Valley operates a wholesale horticultural business,which produces plants for large retail outlets, such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Kmart. Since at least 2001, Quaker Valleyused a twenty-acre field of prime soil to grow chrysanthemums inpots on top of woven fabric laid on the land. In September2007, Quaker Valley suffered a million-dollar-plus crop losswhen a hailstorm damaged the exposed crop of chrysanthemums. Toprotect against such future losses, Quaker Valley decided toconstruct heated hoop houses to provide cover to its 9 chrysanthemum crops.3 Hoop houses are essentially temporarygreenhouses with a metal frame and plastic covering. Unlike atraditional greenhouse, a hoop house has no concrete footing. The sloped twenty-acre field presented a topographicalproblem for Quaker Valley because hoop houses, for reasons ofsafety and efficiency, are commonly constructed on level ground.As a result, Quaker Valley, which had previously constructedhoop houses on existing soil, for the first time altered theelevation of the land to accommodate new hoop houses. Inpreparation for the erection of the hoop houses, Quaker Valleyexcavated the earth on the twenty-acre field, including theprime quality soil, and then leveled the ground. In October 2007, a concerned neighbor reported theexcavation and leveling activities on the Quaker Valley propertyto the SADC. The SADC assembled a team of experts toinvestigate the effects of Quaker Valley’s project “on theagricultural resource value of the farm.”4 During a site visitto the twenty-acre field, the team found the displacement oflarge volumes of soil material. In some areas, Quaker Valley3 Since 1994, hoop houses have been present on the farmland.4 The team included representatives from the SADC, the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board, the National Resources Conservation Service (an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture), the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, and the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. 10 had cut or removed three to five feet and in other areas ten totwelve feet of soil. At some locations, the excavation of thesoil had exposed the sandstone bedrock. The team of expertsfound that top-grade topsoil had been mixed with the rockysubsoil and stockpiled in large mounds. The team determinedthat Quaker Valley’s excavation activities had destroyed a largeamount of prime soil for a variety of agricultural uses. Howard C. Smith, a State Resource Conservationist with theUnited States Department of Agriculture, Natural ResourcesConservation Service, visited the Quaker Valley farm in February2008. In a certification, he expressed his shock about what heobserved. He stated, “[i]n all my experiences I have never seenthe extent of destruction of soils to an ongoing farmingoperation as has occurred at the Quaker Valley Farm Site.” Heindicated that he was familiar with “other large-scale farmlandcut[-]and[-]fill grading activities” where “the soil wascarefully removed in layers and then stockpiled to the side” sothat the land could be restored to its natural state. At QuakerValley, Smith found “a cut-and-fill operation in which littlesoil was separated by layer, except some topsoil, and insteadthe layers of soil appeared to have mixed together.” Hedetermined that it would be “impossible for all practicalpurposes to ever separate the component soil layers, or 11 horizons, and reapply them to recreate the highly productivePrime soils which had previously existed.” In a report that he filed later, Smith noted that the soilon the farm was “formed over thousands of years and wasdestroyed in a matter of days.” He concluded that the twenty-acre field could not be classified any longer as “Prime farmlandsoils.” Dr. William E. Palkovics, an expert in soil science andagronomy, filed a report with the SADC that set forth hisfindings on the harm caused by Quaker Valley’s excavationactivities. For purposes of his study, Dr. Palkovics divided atwenty-five-acre field into three areas. In each, he describedthe extent of the soil disturbance and the prospect ofremediation. In area three, the soil removal was so completethat the underlying bedrock was exposed. In area two,“earthmoving ha[d] removed or altered the characteristics of theoriginal soil,” and Dr. Palkovics found topsoil “buried andintermixed with the fill and subsoil.” In both areas, heconcluded the soil was no longer suitable for crop production,and therefore he classified “the agricultural yield rating” as“zero.” In area one, a five-acre tract, Dr. Palkovics notedthat, although valuable topsoil had been stripped away, the 12 subsoil remained intact. This area suffered “the leastdisruption” to its natural conditions.5 Dr. Palkovics discovered some of the topsoil stockpiled intwo separate locations, but determined that “[m]uch of thenatural physical internal soil properties that slowly developover time [had] been destroyed.” According to Dr. Palkovics,“it is not possible to fully restore the original agriculturalproductivity of the disturbed area by man-made means due to themassive disruption of the original soil properties.” He stated,however, that “a new soil profile can be constructed to restoresome agricultural productivity.” Quaker Valley’s expert, Laurel F. Mueller, a professionalsoil scientist, expressed her opinions in certifications, expertreports, and deposition testimony. She did not “dispute thecollective opinion that soil profiles on the graded portions ofthis project’s landscape have been permanently altered.”Mueller maintained that the excavation and leveling activitieshad permitted the land “to support profitable, intensiveagricultural business operations, which can take advantage ofreal estate attributes other than the underlying soil5 The trial court subsequently determined that Quaker Valley had not carried out excavation activities in area one and that it was thus not in need of remediation. Because area one is comprised of approximately five acres, we accordingly refer to the area at issue as a twenty-acre field. 13 characteristics.” Mueller claimed that although “agriculturalproductivity would be lost for row crops if no remediation stepswere ever taken,” agricultural productivity still could beachieved through “many forms of intensive agriculture . . . suchas greenhouses and hoop houses, for which this graded site isnow suitable.” Nevertheless, according to Mueller, “most of thetopsoil was properly removed and stockpiled” and “not largelymixed during earthmoving operations.” Last, Mueller concludedthat the deed of easement was “inadequate to guarantee . . .protection for land in private agribusiness ownership” because anumber of agricultural uses were inconsistent with soilconservation. Quaker Valley claims that because the Hunterdon County SoilConservation District approved Quaker Valley’s plan -- known asa C.251 Plan -- to address the storm-water runoff from theconstruction of the hoop houses, it therefore had complied withparagraph seven of the deed of easement. (“No activity shall bepermitted on the Premises which would be detrimental to . . .erosion control, or soil conservation.”). The SADC disputesthat the approval of the C.251 storm-water runoff plan gaveQuaker Valley the authorization to destroy prime soil on thetwenty-acre field. It bears mentioning that Quaker Valley neverapproached the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board orthe SADC, the entities responsible for enforcing the terms of 14 the easement, to seek advice about or approval for leveling thetwenty-acre field of prime soil. II. A. In February 2008, the trial court temporarily enjoinedQuaker Valley from continuing construction of the hoop houses.Two months later, the court entered a preliminary injunctionbarring earthmoving operations in violation of the deed ofeasement and the ARDA and barring the use of any of theconstructed hoop houses.6 The SADC moved for summary judgment on its claims thatQuaker Valley had violated the deed of easement and ARDA; QuakerValley cross-moved for summary judgment on its claims that thedeed was unenforceable and that the SADC, through itsenforcement efforts, had violated the New Jersey Civil RightsAct. B. On August 8, 2012, the Honorable Peter A. Buchsbaum,J.S.C., granted summary judgment in favor of the SADC, findingthat Quaker Valley had violated the terms of the deed ofeasement and the ARDA. The court maintained that theconstruction of greenhouses and hoop houses, which is a6 Quaker Valley had already constructed sixteen hoop houses (twelve with plastic covers and four without). 15 permitted use under the deed, had to be reconciled with theprovision banning activities detrimental to “soil conservation.”Looking to the definitions of “farmland” in the Open SpacePreservation Act, L. 1989, c. 183, and the Garden StatePreservation Trust Act, N.J.S.A. 13:8C-3, for guidance, thecourt asserted that “the content of the soil, the soil’s abilityto support agriculture, and the ability of the land to haveagriculture production as its first priority use are at the coreof farmland preservation.” The court also noted that “thecontent of the soil” on the Quaker Valley property was “acritical factor” in its “gaining preserved farmland status.”The court cast the issue as “whether the construction of the[hoop houses] would allow [Quaker Valley] to change thecomposition of the soil so drastically.” Ultimately, the court concluded that even if Quaker Valleyhad the right to “'grade’ the land, it did not have theauthority to permanently change the unique soil structurethrough a major earth-moving project.” The court determinedthat Quaker Valley’s construction activities “destroyed thequality of the soil,” rendering the field unfit “for normalagricultural use,” and thus violated the deed of easement andthe ARDA. The court rejected Quaker Valley’s argument that the C.251Plan, which was intended to control drainage and prevent soil 16 erosion from the construction project, authorized the kind ofexcavation and ground leveling that led to the destruction ofthe quality of the prime soil. The court dismissed Quaker Valley’s civil-rights claim. Itfound that the SADC was simply acting within the guidelines setforth in the ARDA and therefore rejected Quaker Valley’sassertion that the governmental authorities improperly infringedon its property rights or engaged in conduct that shocked thecourt’s conscience. In June 2013, the court conducted a four-day trial onremediation. In setting forth the criteria for a remediationplan, the court recognized that, because of the “unalterabl[e]”changes made to the land, Quaker Valley would not be able torestore the soil completely “to its prior character andchemistry” or “replicate precisely the prior slopes” on thefield. Nevertheless, the court ordered Quaker Valley to fillthe most disturbed areas with specific depths of subsoil andtopsoil and to recreate the preexisting slopes. The court settarget goals for the growth of “representative crops,” such as“corn, hay, alfalfa, and soy beans.” The court also allowed forthe maintenance of some hoop houses in the area, provided theirpresence would be consistent with the remediation plan. Thecourt ordered the Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District 17 or, if necessary, a court-appointed master to supervise theremediation plan. Quaker Valley appealed. C. The Appellate Division initially affirmed. The panelrecognized the tension between the deed of easement’s soilconservation mandate and its allowance of the construction ofagricultural buildings. The panel also acknowledged that thelack of clear standards concerning “the methods and extent ofpermissible soil displacement” during “greenhouse farmingactivities” creates “uncertainty and ambiguity.” The panel,however, concluded that the undisputed facts did not leave it ina “grey” interpretive area because “the provisions of the [deedof easement], reasonably read together, do not authorize suchpermanent and unnecessary disruption and degradation of highlyrated soils.” The panel “discern[ed] no basis to disturb thecourt’s decision on remedy.” D. The Appellate Division then granted Quaker Valley’s motionfor reconsideration and reversed its affirmance of summaryjudgment in favor of the SADC, but affirmed the dismissal ofQuaker Valley’s civil-rights claim. The panel also noted thatany judgment on remedy must await a final determination on 18 whether Quaker Valley is in violation of the deed of easementand ARDA. In light of the competing terms of the deed of easement,the panel framed the issue concisely. “[A] farmer may not, inthe process of building structures for agricultural purposes,disregard the project’s effects on the soil,” and “the duty toconserve soil must not be so great that it precludes a farmer’sability to engage in a permitted construction project.” Withinthat framework, the panel adopted a standard for theinterpretation of the deed of easement: “[T]he construction ofstructures for agricultural purposes (including hoophouses)” ispermissible “so long as the landowner conserves soil to theextent practicable in doing so.” Under that standard, the panelheld that the trial “court must determine whether a moreprotective measure would have been both economically andpractically feasible for the farm in question.” Although the panel maintained that the trial court relied“too heavily on soil conservation,” it nevertheless held that“[i]f defendants did engage in broad-scale indiscriminate mixingof topsoil and subsoil, then we have no doubt that defendantsviolated paragraph 7” of the deed of easement. The panel,however, determined that genuinely disputed issues of factremained concerning “whether such mixing occurred” and whether“prime soils were irremediably 'destroyed.’” The panel, 19 therefore, remanded to the trial court for further proceedingsunder its enunciated test. We granted the petitions for certification filed by theSADC, Hunterdon County, and Franklin Township, 229 N.J. 583(2017); 229 N.J. 605 (2017); 229 N.J. 606 (2017), and a cross-petition filed by Quaker Valley, 229 N.J. 605 (2017). We alsogranted the motion of the New Jersey Farm Bureau to participateas amicus curiae. III. A. The SADC asserts that the Appellate Division’s“practicability” standard “prioritizes the agricultural industryover farmland preservation” and, “if left uncorrected, willseverely undermine the Farmland Preservation Program bypotentially allowing large scale destruction of agriculturalsoil so long as doing so promotes agricultural industry.” TheSADC emphasizes that “[o]ne of the fundamental purposes of ARDAis to preserve farmland permanently for a variety ofagricultural uses by future generations of farmers” and that,“[b]y destroying the agricultural potential of the property’sprime soil,” Quaker Valley defeated that purpose. The SADCmaintains that the deed of easement, purchased throughtaxpayers’ monies, restricts the landowner from using the landsolely for its most financially beneficial purpose at the 20 expense of soil conservation. According to the SADC, under thepracticability standard, “a landowner could destroy a preservedfarm’s prime soil so long as some sort of agricultural useoccurred.” The SADC also contends that the Appellate Division failedto afford its interpretation of its own regulation -- aregulation incorporated into the deed of easement -- appropriatedeference. The SADC concludes that its “longstandinginterpretation of ARDA does not promote agricultural industryover soil conservation, as this approach would undercut the goalof permanent preservation of productive farmland.” Last, the SADC rejects Quaker Valley’s arguments that theHunterdon County Soil Conservation District’s approval of theC.251 Plan constituted compliance with the deed’s restrictionsand that the government actors’ enforcement efforts violated theNew Jersey Civil Rights Act. B. Quaker Valley counters that the SADC’s failure to providestandards or guidelines, such as, “Thus far you may build (orgrade) and no further,” is fatal to its effort to enforce the“soil conservation” restriction. Quaker Valley contends thatthe SADC is bound to the deed of easement, which does not barsoil disturbance or restrict the construction of greenhouses.It maintains that the productivity of a farm into the future 21 depends on land devoted to agricultural production, whichincludes “land under structures” devoted to agricultural andhorticultural uses. Quaker Valley asserts that the deed ofeasement does not favor one particular form of agriculturalproduction over another and that its greenhouses promote a validagricultural purpose no different than the growing of row crops.In its view, the removal of soil as a precondition to thebuilding of hoop houses is not an activity inconsistent with thedeed. Quaker Valley particularly emphasizes that whether the soilon the twenty-acre field was in fact “prime soil” and whetherthe soil removed was mixed and irremediably degraded aredisputed facts and, for support, points to what it considers tobe competing opinions offered by the experts. According toQuaker Valley, the SADC overestimated the amount of topsoilremoved during the grading process in preparation for the hoophouses, and the trial court “found that the two topsoilstockpiles derived from the tract . . . were both available forreuse.” Quaker Valley, moreover, argues that it adhered to theC.251 Plan and therefore demonstrated that it complied with thesoil conservation requirements of the deed of easement. Last,Quaker Valley alleges that an enforcement action without 22 guidelines or standards constituted an arbitrary andunconstitutional regulatory taking. C. Amicus New Jersey Farm Bureau submits that because “theSADC has not adopted soil disturbance limitations in any form,”farmers, such as Quaker Valley, have not been provided withadequate notice of what agricultural activities will violate adeed of easement. The Farm Bureau stresses that “soildisruption requires objective limits or standards” and that theSADC cannot establish that the soil disturbance in this case wasa prohibited activity under the deed. According to the Bureau,the SADC’s case-by-case approach -- without clear pre-existingstandards -- violates substantive due process. IV. A. In reviewing the propriety of a grant of summary judgment,“we apply the same standard governing the trial court -- we viewthe evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movingparty.” Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581, 584(2012). Here, Quaker Valley must receive “the benefit of allfavorable evidence and inferences presented in the record” inassessing whether it violated the deed of easement and ARDA.See id. at 585. Even though this appeal does not come to usfrom a final agency determination, “an agency’s interpretation 23 and implementation of its rules enforcing the statutes for whichit is responsible” is still entitled to deference. In reFreshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, 180 N.J. 478, 488-89(2004). We review issues of law de novo. We therefore accordno deference to the interpretative analysis of either theAppellate Division or trial court, except as we are persuaded bythe reasoning of those courts. Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507, 512 (2009); see also Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm.of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) (“A trial court’sinterpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flowfrom established facts are not entitled to any specialdeference.”). B. Before addressing the primary issue before us -- whetherQuaker Valley’s grading and leveling of the twenty-acre fieldviolated the deed of easement and ARDA -- we begin with a briefoverview of the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program and thestatutes that implement that program. The Farmland Preservation Program was initiated in 1981pursuant to the Farmland Preservation Bond Act, which created afinancing scheme for acquiring “development” easements forfarmlands. L. 1981, c. 276. In selling a development easement,the landowner in essence surrenders the right to develop theland for any nonagricultural purposes. The easements are aimed 24 at preserving farmland in perpetuity. See Governor’s Statementupon Signing S. 3233 (Aug. 31, 1981) (“[T]he purchase ofdevelopment easements restricts the use of farmland toagricultural purposes, but allows the land to continue to beprivately owned, tax-paying open space. The landowner can sellthe property, as long as the buyer continues to use it forfarmland.”). The “principal purpose” of the FarmlandPreservation Bond Act is “the long-term preservation ofsignificant masses of reasonably contiguous agricultural land. . . and the maintenance and support of increased agriculturalproduction as the first priority use of that land.” N.J.S.A.4:1C-13(h). In line with this mission of protecting New Jersey’sdiminishing land from intensive nonagricultural development, theLegislature passed a series of bond acts, including the OpenSpace Preservation Bond Act of 1989, L. 1989, c. 183, and theFarmland and Historic Preservation and Blue Acres Bond Act of1995, L. 1995, c. 204. The purpose of the bond acts was to makemonies available for preserving farmland and open spaces. Mostnotably, in 1998, New Jersey’s citizens approved aconstitutional amendment directing that a portion of sales taxrevenue be dedicated to preserving “farmland for agricultural orhorticultural use and production.” N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 2,¶ 7. 25 The Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 to -10, another partof the Farmland Preservation Program, established the SADC topromulgate rules and to administer and enforce the goals offarmland preservation. N.J.S.A. 4:1C-4, -5, -10.4.7 The SADC isthe enforcement arm of the ARDA. N.J.S.A. 4:1C-5, -6. To repeat, the ARDA “authorize[s] the establishment ofState and county organizations to coordinate the development offarmland preservation programs . . . where agriculture will bepresumed the first priority use of the land.” N.J.S.A. 4:1C-12(c). The ARDA permits, through state, county, and municipalfunding formulas, the purchase of development easements on farmproperty, restricting the use of the land solely foragricultural purposes. N.J.S.A. 4:1C-31; see generally N.J.S.A.4:1C-11 to -48. The SADC and county-level agricultural development boards,established under N.J.S.A. 4:1C-14, act in partnership topreserve farmland. See N.J.S.A. 4:1C-12(c), -15. The county-level agricultural development boards are largely responsible7 The SADC consists of eleven members, including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of Community Affairs, the State Treasurer, and the Dean of Cook College of Rutgers University (currently known as the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences), or their designees, and other citizens, including farmers.N.J.S.A. 4:1C-4. 26 for reviewing and approving applications to the FarmlandPreservation Program. N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.5(a) to (e). The criteria for evaluating an application for adevelopment easement include a number of factors, such as thesize of the property, its soil quality, the number of tillableacres, the commitment of a municipality and county to the “longterm viability of the agricultural industry,” and the“imminence” that agricultural land will be converted to anonagricultural use. N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.16. Under the soilcriterion, priority is “given to soils which exhibit superiorquality, require minimal maintenance and have a greaterpotential for long term viability for a variety of agriculturalpurposes.” N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.16(c)(1). Applying those factors,the county agricultural development boards determine how to bestexpend the limited funds available for farm preservation. C. The provisions of the deed of easement that now govern the120-acre Quaker Valley farm are drawn from a regulationpromulgated by the SADC. See N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.15. Under thatregulation, “deed restrictions . . . shall be liberallyconstrued to effectuate the purpose and intent of the FarmlandPreservation Bond Act and the [ARDA].” N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.15(c)(citation omitted). The SADC also instructs that “the easementmust be read, and interpreted, in its entirety, so that the 27 interpretation of each individual provision is consistent withthe overall intent of the document and interpretation of allother provisions.” SADC, Interpreting the Provisions of theDeed of Easement, Report No. 1, General Guidance 4 (rev. May 26,2011), http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/sadc/farmpreserve/postpres/reportgeneralguidance.pdf. We now turn to the relevant terms of the deed of easementin this case. Those terms provide: [Paragraph Two]. The premises shall be retained for agricultural use and production in compliance with N.J.S.A. 4:1C-11 [to -48], L. 1983, c. 32 [the ARDA], and all other rules promulgated by the [SADC]. See N.J.A.C. 2:76- 6:15(a)(2). [Paragraph Five]. No sand, gravel, loam, rock, or other minerals shall be deposited on or removed from the Premises excepting only those materials required for the agricultural purpose for which the land is being used. See N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(5). [Paragraph Seven]. No activity shall be permitted on the Premises which would be detrimental to . . . soil conservation, nor shall any other activity be permitted which would be detrimental to the continued agricultural use of the Premises. See N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(7). [Paragraph Twelve]. . . . [The landowner] shall be permitted to construct, improve or reconstruct any roadway necessary to service crops, bogs, agricultural buildings or reservoirs as may be necessary. See N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(12). [Paragraph Fourteen]. [The landowner] may construct any new buildings for agricultural 28 purposes. See N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(14). Clearly, earth-moving activities, which will result in thedisturbance of soil, are envisioned under the deed of easementand the SADC regulation. The SADC regulation and the deedadvance the dual goals of the ARDA: promotion of theagricultural industry and preservation of farmland. N.J.S.A.4:1C-12. The regulation and easement terms encourage theagricultural use of preserved farmland, N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(2), which includes the construction of roads andbuildings for agricultural purposes, N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(12),(14). They also unambiguously prohibit activities that are“detrimental” to soil preservation. N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(7).The deed’s terms must be read reasonably to achieve their aims,so that one is not sacrificed for another. That requires thatthe terms be reconciled in a manner that a reasonable personwould have understood at the time the parties agreed to the deedof easement. We understand that our task is made difficult by thefailure of the SADC to promulgate regulations to guide farmerson the kind and extent of agricultural activities that arepermissible under the deed. Farmers must know before they act -- not afterwards -- whether a construction project consistentwith agricultural use and production is at odds with soilconservation. Any regulated industry has a right to know the 29 permissible limits of its activities through clearly delineatedguidelines or through a process of seeking authorization fromthe regulator. However, the absence of regulations or a permitting processdoes not mean that anything goes -- that one easement term canbe read out of the deed to advance a preferred term. If thiswere a closer case, we might conclude that the lack of clearlyenunciated guidelines bars an enforcement action. But theactivities here were so extreme that, in the end, we arepersuaded on this record that no landowner could have reasonablybelieved that the leveling of a twenty-acre field anddestruction of so much prime soil was permissible under the deedof easement. V. A. The undisputed evidence before us is that Quaker Valley’sleveling activities in preparation for the hoop houses led todrastic and permanent alterations to the quality of the soil.While the use of preserved farmland for nursery production isplainly a permitted use under the deed, Quaker Valley is obligedto manage the property in a manner that does not violate otherterms of the deed of easement, namely soil conservation. WhileQuaker Valley had a right to construct hoop houses, it did nothave the right to needlessly destroy so much prime soil. 30 Based on the record before us, we agree with the trialcourt that Quaker Valley’s activities “did damage to both soilconservation and future agricultural use” and therebyconstituted a gross violation of the ARDA and the deed to whichthe farmland was subject. While Quaker Valley’s construction ofhoop houses to protect their horticultural crops was anappropriate agricultural use for the preserved farmland, it wasrequired to be carried out in balance with soil conservation andthe ARDA’s overarching focus on preserving the agricultural useof farmland in perpetuity. All the experts agreed that QuakerValley caused significant damage to the quality of the soil.There is no genuine dispute about that material fact. Accordingto Quaker Valley’s own expert, the massive leveling activities“drastically altered” the quality of the prime soil such that,without remediation, it will no longer be possible to use thesoil for row crops. In other words, Quaker Valley’s activitiesdid not fall within a grey zone -– but rather plainly violatedthe ARDA’s goal of preserving the agricultural productivity ofthe farmland. Although the leveling of farmland in preparation for hoophouses may be a common agricultural practice, such activitiescannot trump other express provisions of the deed and ARDA. Oneof the fundamental purposes of the ARDA is to preserve farmlandpermanently for a variety of agricultural uses by future 31 generations of farmers. See N.J.S.A. 4:1C-13(b) (providing non-exhaustive list of agricultural activities that are contemplatedby ARDA). While the alterations to the soil may have made theland more suitable for nursery operations, Quaker Valleypermanently destroyed the use of the soil for other agriculturaluses, specifically the growing of row crops -- the veryagricultural use which was a significant reason the property wasoriginally selected to be preserved. As for the deed of easement, the SADC has emphasized thatits provisions must be read in their entirety. Accordingly, theprovision authorizing the construction of new structures,N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a), does not override all others and cannotbe divorced from the deed’s express prohibition againstactivities detrimental to soil conservation. Quaker Valley’sleveling activities, which indisputably nullified a large swathof soil for the growing of row crops in the future, clearlyviolated the deed of easement. Nor do we find merit in Quaker Valley’s argument that theiradherence to the C.251 Plan is evidence that their activitieswere not detrimental to soil conservation. The C.251 Plan -- inaccordance with the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act,N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 to -55 -- was limited to concerns about soilerosion, sedimentation, and related storm water managementcontrols. It did not authorize Quaker Valley to permanently 32 alter the soil profile or to intermix layers of the topsoil andsubsoil. The purpose of a C.251 Plan is, in part, to protectthe land from storm water runoff and conserve the soil fromerosion. N.J.S.A. 4:24-40. The C.251 Plan did not authorizethe despoiling of large quantities of prime soil. Finally, while there was no dispute about whether QuakerValley had permanently altered the soil profile, there was, infact, disagreement among the experts concerning the degree ofremediation necessary to address the violation of the easement.Those disagreements were aired at a four-day trial on the issueof remedy. After hearing from the SADC’s and Quaker Valley’sexperts, Judge Buchsbaum made factfindings in which he acceptedpart of Quaker Valley’s expert’s conclusions, including theamount of topsoil that would need to be restored. As for thediffering opinions about the condition of the topsoil that hadbeen stockpiled, Judge Buchsbaum stated that the “degree oftreatment” to be used on the existing soil stockpiles “will beaddressed during the actual remediation process.” Duringremediation, Quaker Valley will thus have the opportunity todemonstrate how much of the topsoil was properly removed andstockpiled during the leveling operations. B. Under the Appellate Division’s standard, a court wouldconsider “whether a more protective measure would have been both 33 economically and practically feasible” when a farmer erects astructure for an agricultural purpose. (emphasis added). Theflaw in that standard is that it subordinates soil conservationto agricultural use. That standard does not give due deferenceto the plain language of the ARDA and the SADC’s owninterpretation of the statute, as reflected in the regulationwhich governs deeds for development easements. The deed ofeasement and the SADC regulation plainly state that “[n]oactivity shall be permitted on the Premises which would bedetrimental to . . . soil conservation.” N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.15(a)(7). Accordingly, the economics of a particularagricultural use cannot be the end of the analysis. Thegovernment’s purchase of the easement protects noneconomicinterests as well, specifically the preservation of farmland andits soil. Taken to the extreme, that standard might allowlandowners to permanently destroy large quantities of qualitysoil as long as it is more “economically and practicallyfeasible” to do so. An economically lucrative hoop house canpresumably be built or taken down in a matter of days, but oncequality soil is permanently destroyed, it may take countlessyears to be restored. C. Although the record indicates that the SADC has consideredparameters regarding soil disturbance on preserved properties, 34 the agency has not, to date, exercised its statutory authorityto promulgate any relevant standards regarding the nature andextent of soil disturbance that is allowable for the purposes ofgreenhouse construction and other construction projects.8 Asdiscussed above, the ARDA and the existing SADC regulation havea dual purpose: to strengthen the agricultural industry and topreserve farmland. Both are important goals; neither issubordinate to the other. To the extent that there may betension or conflict between those dual goals, there is noindication in the history or language of the ARDA or the SADCregulation that one goal should inevitably supersede the other.Rather, the approach must be to balance farmland preservationand strengthen the agricultural industry. The most relevant point of uncertainty for our discussionhere involves the construction of new structures foragricultural purposes -- an activity that is expressly permittedby the SADC regulation, N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(14). Structuresare certainly a crucial component of agricultural operations,such as livestock, dairy, equine, or greenhouse operations.Some degree of soil disturbance will be incidental to theconstruction of such structures. Thus, while the SADC8 During oral argument, counsel for the SADC relayed that the agency had “undertaken internal review processes” but had “held off doing anything pending resolution of this case.” 35 regulation categorically prohibits activities that “would bedetrimental” to soil conservation, N.J.A.C. 2:76-6:15(a)(7), theregulation also authorizes owners of preserved farms toundertake activities that, in effect, may alter the soil. TheSADC has not provided any guidance on the degree or magnitude ofsoil displacement that is actually permissible -- that is, thescope of soil displacement that would rise to the level of being“detrimental to the continued agricultural use” of the preservedfarmland. Ibid. In sum, while owners of preserved farmlands are on noticeof the requirement to conserve the soil, they are left withoutadequate direction on the tangible constraints on theiragricultural use of the land. “Persons subject to regulationare entitled to something more than a general declaration ofstatutory purpose to guide their conduct . . . .” BollerBeverages, Inc. v. Davis, 38 N.J. 138, 152 (1962). Farmers areentitled to “sufficiently definite regulations and standards” sothat administrative decision-making is fair and predictable.Ibid. Nor is it the Judiciary’s domain to create guidelinesregarding the scope and nature of excavation and constructionactivities permitted on preserved farmland property. As theagency responsible for the administration and enforcement of theARDA, and given its agricultural expertise, the SADC is in the 36 best position to promulgate such guidelines. See Bergen PinesCty. Hosp. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 N.J. 456, 474 (1984)(stating that agencies are delegated authority to promulgaterules and implement policy because they have “the staff,resources, and expertise to understand and solve thosespecialized problems”). If the SADC fails to undertake thenecessary rulemaking to establish guidance on the extent of soildisturbance that is permissible on preserved farms, then it canexpect administrative due process challenges to its enforcementactions. It is only the extreme nature of this case that savesthe present enforcement action. D. Finally, we find no merit in Quaker Valley’s civil-rightsclaim. Under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1to -2, the party alleging a claim must show a violation of asubstantive right or that someone “acting under color of law”interfered with or attempted to interfere with a substantiveright. N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c). As the trial court found, theSADC’s efforts fell fully within its statutory mandate. TheSADC simply sought an enforcement action because it determinedthat Quaker Valley had violated the terms of the deed. Nothingin the record suggests that the enforcement action was a productof nefarious State action or that the agency engaged in illicit“threats, intimidation or coercion” against Quaker Valley. See37 N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c). As such, we affirm the Appellate Division’sdismissal of the civil-rights claim. VI. For the reasons expressed, we reverse the judgment of theAppellate Division, which overturned the trial court’s grant ofsummary judgment in favor of the SADC. We affirm the dismissalof Quaker Valley’s civil-rights claim. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE ALBIN’S opinion. 38