Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right To Farm And Trespass topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debate on S.45 centers on trespass language and farm definition thresholds
Summary
During a review of S.45 (a right‑to‑farm measure), committee members expressed strong disagreement over inserting trespass into the statute and questioned whether the bill's thresholds for defining a farm are too low.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed S.45 on March 12 and debated whether the bill's immunity provisions should include trespass and whether the statutory threshold for what constitutes a farm is set appropriately.
One committee member warned that including trespass converts the bill from nuisance protection into addressing “a physical incursion” and said they “do not want trespass in the bill.” That speaker noted they had asked legislative counsel and found only three other states include trespass in similar right‑to‑farm statutes, and one of the examples they cited (Oregon) applies a very narrow standard for liability.
Other members said trespass language would have to be fact‑specific and depend on whether a farmer acted outside the scope of generally accepted agricultural practices or violated rules set by the Agency of Agriculture. A member who identified themselves as representing Franklin County said the bill’s current threshold for defining a farm — $2,000 in agricultural product sales — is too low and may improperly broaden protections.
Committee members discussed mediation language and clarifying when an attempt at mediation is sufficient. One staff presenter said she had recommended clarifying changes on mediation wording and did not foresee additional changes before a final draft. Members agreed to wait for input from the sponsor and for additional drafting before taking a final vote; no formal vote occurred in the transcript provided.
Speakers repeatedly emphasized the practical burdens of litigation on small farmers, noting that defending against a nuisance or trespass claim can require substantial time and cost that jeopardizes farm operations. Several members said the bill, as worked out with the Agriculture Committee, attempts to strike a balance by focusing liability questions on whether practices are “generally accepted” in farming and by preserving a path for aggrieved parties to bring suits when regulations or standards were breached.
The committee paused consideration to wait for the primary sponsor, who was expected to appear later in the session.
