Opinion ID: 2631229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the Idaho Right to Farm Act

Text: Mike and Lu argue that the Idaho Right to Farm Act (RFTA or the Act), I.C. §§ 22-4501 to 22-4504, protects their expanding agricultural operation from being declared a nuisance. This issue presents a question of law over which we exercise free review. See, e.g., Ausman v. State, 124 Idaho 839, 841, 864 P.2d 1126, 1128 (1993). The RFTA seeks to shield certain agricultural operations from being declared a nuisance. See Payne v. Skaar, 127 Idaho 341, 344, 900 P.2d 1352, 1355 (1995). The Act, in pertinent part, provides that: [n]o agricultural operation or an appurtenance to it shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the surrounding nonagricultural activities after the same has been in operation for more than one (1) year, when the operation was not a nuisance at the time the operation began; provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the improper or negligent operation of any agricultural operation or an appurtenance to it. I.C. § 22-4503. In Payne, this Court concluded that the RTFA did not protect all existing agricultural operations from being declared a nuisance. Id. at 344, 900 P.2d at 1355. Noting the Act's intent to address the encroachment of urbanizing areas, as well as changes in surrounding nonagricultural activities, the Court found that the expansion of the defendant's feedlot, without a showing of either circumstance, resulted in a private nuisance. Id. Mike and Lu argue that the decision in Payne is not applicable to the present case because of the addition of section 22-4502(2) to the Act in 1997. They assert that this amendment indicates the Idaho Legislature's intent that the Act apply to nonagricultural activity. Essentially, Mike and Lu contend that the Court's holding in Payne does not apply to their hog operation because their use of their property is residential, and residential use is embraced in the amended version of the statute. However, reading the amended statute in context with the other sections of the RTFA demonstrates that the amendment does not alter the existing statutory scheme. Section 22-4502(2) defines nonagricultural activities to include residential, commercial or industrial property development and use . . . . Id. Read in conjunction with Idaho Code section 22-4503, the amendment merely serves to clarify the types of activities that could result in the changed conditions necessary to exempt an agricultural operation from being deemed a nuisance. In other words, the nonagricultural activity producing the changed conditions in or around the existing agricultural operation could be found in the encroachment of residential, commercial, or industrial property or use. Accordingly, the decision in Payne remains in effect and is controlling in this case. Similar to the situation in Payne, there is no dispute that the area surrounding the hog operation has remained substantially unchanged since Mike and Lu bought the facility in 1992. Likewise, the pleadings in the present case disclose that the hog operation is alleged to be a nuisance, not because of changes in surrounding nonagricultural uses, but because of an expansion of the operation itself. See Payne, 127 Idaho at 344, 900 P.2d at 1355; Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., 105 Idaho 320, 332, 669 P.2d 643, 655 (Ct.App.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 108 Idaho 602, 701 P.2d 222 (1985). Thus, Mike and Lu are not protected under the RFTA. In addition, their argument also fails to take into account that their hog facility is more properly characterized as an agricultural operation as that term is defined in I.C. § 22-4502. [3] See Carpenter, 105 Idaho at 332, 669 P.2d at 655 (assuming, without deciding, that a cattle feedlot constitutes an agricultural operation). As such, any attempt to portray the hog farm as a nonagricultural operation strains the common meaning of the statute's language.