Law Would Block Farm Nuisance Suits

An ordinance that would shield farmers from nuisance lawsuits filed by their residential neighbors will be considered by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

The theory behind the proposed “right to farm” ordinance is this: Farms frequently become the targets of complaints from people who purchase homes in rural areas but do not understand that the pretty farm next door can stink, blow dust and smoke, make noise, rely on crop dusters or use harmful pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

As a result, the ordinance says, farmers are forced to shut down or curtail their work, discouraging investment and threatening the economic viability of the county’s agricultural industry.

In addition to telling farm neighbors that they cannot bring nuisance claims against a host of farm operations, the ordinance would require home sellers to warn buyers about what living next to farms can mean before they move in.

A public hearing on the ordinance will be held at 10 a.m. at the Ventura County Government Center, 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura.

The ordinance already has drawn concern from several rural residents, organic farmers and others who fear that the language is vague, misleading or inconsistent with state law.

The Environmental Defense Center, for instance, supports the concept of the ordinance as more of the county’s productive farmland is paved and farmers and their new residential neighbors find themselves pitted against each other.

But defense center attorney John Buse worries that some of the ordinance’s language is inconsistent with state law, potentially leaving the county vulnerable to a legal challenge.

State civil code already bars nuisance complaints against farms in business for at least three years, he said.

As proposed, the county’s ordinance would conflict with the state law, proposing nuisance protection for farms in operation for just one year.

Furthermore, the language on the home seller’s so-called disclosure statement is misleading, Buse said, because it does not clearly spell out that improper use of pesticides is illegal and still subject to nuisance litigation.

Residents who see pesticide sprays drift into their neighborhood might think that is acceptable under the county ordinance, when in fact it violates state law.

“It’s misleading as to what residents can expect,” Buse said. “They’ll think they’re not protected.”

In recommending the ordinance on a 4-1 vote in June, county planning commissioners suggested the supervisors clarify that the ordinance would not reduce legal protection against the illegal application of pesticides, including pesticide drift.

It further called on the supervisors to request that all 10 cities in the county adopt ordinances that require disclosure statements for new home buyers.