Opinion ID: 835432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: agricultural land and goal 3

Text: We begin by emphasizing the specific issue before this court. We are not asked to determine whether the county's decision regarding petitioners' properties was correct or the weight to be given testimony that a particular property is profitable or not or whether it can generate gross farm income or not. Rather, the issue presented instead involves the kind of information that the county properly may consider in making a land use decision involving agricultural land under Goal 3. We turn to a brief overview of Oregon's agricultural land use policy. The legislature's policy regarding agricultural land was set out almost 35 years ago and seeks to preserve a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land in the state. ORS 215.243. That statute provides: The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: (1) Open land used for agricultural use is an efficient means of conserving natural resources that constitute an important physical, social, aesthetic and economic asset to all of the people of this state, whether living in rural, urban or metropolitan areas of the state. (2) The preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic resources and the preservation of such land in large blocks is necessary in maintaining the agricultural economy of the state and for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for the people of this state and nation. (3) Expansion of urban development into rural areas is a matter of public concern because of the unnecessary increases in costs of community services, conflicts between farm and urban activities and the loss of open space and natural beauty around urban centers occurring as the result of such expansion. (4) Exclusive farm use zoning as provided by law, substantially limits alternatives to the use of rural land and, with the importance of rural lands to the public, justifies incentives and privileges offered to encourage owners of rural lands to hold such lands in exclusive farm use zones. ORS 215.243 (emphasis added). The legislature has directed LCDC to implement Oregon statutes by adopting land use planning goals that set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon. Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting, 339 Or. 353, 361, 121 P.3d 1141 (2005); see also ORS 197.225 (LCDC shall adopt goals and guidelines for government agencies to use in preparing comprehensive land use plans). The legislature also authorized LCDC to adopt rules to implement the land use planning statutes and goals, ORS 197.040(1)(b), and all parties agree that LCDC's rules are valid only if they are consistent with both the applicable statutes and goals. See City of West Linn v. LCDC, 200 Or.App. 269, 275-76, 113 P.3d 935, rev. den., 339 Or. 610 (2005) (so stating, noting that goals occupy a preferred position over rules). Pursuant to the legislature's mandate, LCDC has created and implemented 19 goals for comprehensive planning in Oregon. [8] At issue in this case is Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), which is meant to facilitate the preservation of agricultural land, as directed by ORS 215.243. Goal 3 provides, in part: [9] Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. [10] In the definition section of Goal 3, agricultural land is defined, as noted previously, to include land that consists predominantly of certain soil types and other lands which are suitable for farm use  taking into consideration various factors. The dispute at issue here relates to the suitable for farm use aspect of Goal 3. Farm use in Goal 3 is defined simply as set forth in ORS 215.203, a statute that we quoted previously. 342 Or. at 672 n. 4, 160 P.3d at 617 n. 4. With that background, we return to the issue that this case presents. Under Goal 3, land must be preserved as agricultural land if it is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), which means, in part, the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money  through specific farming-related endeavors. OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(5), however, expressly prohibits consideration of profitability or gross farm income as factors in Goal 3 land determinations. If application of the statutory phrase profit in money permits or requires a local government to consider profitability or gross farm income, then the rule directly conflicts with the statute (and with Goal 3, which refers to the statute) and the rule is invalid. The question then is whether such a conflict exists.