Senator Lakey presents update to Idaho Right to Farm Act; committee votes to print RS 32-027

BOISE, Idaho ' Senator Todd Lakey, a Republican from District 23, told the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee on Oct. 25 that RS 32-027 would add practical protections to Idaho's Right to Farm Act, allowing lawfully operating agricultural producers to recover attorney fees if they prevail in nuisance lawsuits and creating sanctions for repeated meritless agency complaints.

Lakey told the committee the Right to Farm law "was first put in place back in the 1980s" and that the proposed changes are meant "to protect good Idaho agricultural operators that are operating lawfully from legal and local action against those lawful operations. It's not a shield for bad operators, it's a protection for good operators." He said lawful operations can still generate noise, dust and odors and that recent growth in parts of the state has increased interactions between producers and new neighbors.

The draft measure has two central provisions, Lakey said: if a farmer is sued for a nuisance and prevails because the operation is compliant with Right to Farm protections, the farmer could recover attorney fees from the nonprevailing party; and state and local agency complaint filers could face escalating penalties if they repeatedly submit complaints deemed meritless. Under the proposal, the second meritless complaint within a rolling two-year window would be an infraction punishable by a $150 fine, a third would be a $300 infraction, and a fourth or subsequent meritless complaint within two years could be a misdemeanor, Lakey explained.

When asked who decides whether a complaint is "meritless," Lakey said the investigating agency initially makes that determination and, if an infraction is prosecuted, the court would decide. "If they determine that they are in compliance, that there is no merit to the complaint, they're in compliance with Right to Farm, then that's when that complaint is deemed meritless," he said.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions, including whether the change responds to an increase in lawsuits. Lakey replied he had not tracked an increase in cases but had heard concerns as development grows. Senator Blaylock asked for examples of complaints; Lakey listed a range including manure on roads, pesticide odors, perceived animal mistreatment and other disputes that he said often reflect a lack of understanding about lawful agricultural practices.

No members of the public signed up to testify on the draft during the committee meeting. After discussion the committee considered a motion to "print" RS 32-027 (a procedural step allowing the bill draft to be prepared for introduction). The motion to print RS 32-027 was moved and seconded; the committee voice-voted in favor and the measure will be printed.

If printed and introduced, the bill would return to the legislative process for committee hearings and eventual floor consideration. Lakey asked for committee support to print RS 32-027 and answered members' questions during the presentation.

Details to note from the draft and committee exchange: the complaint-penalty tier applies only to complaints found to be meritless; the two-year counting window is rolling; recovery of attorney fees applies only when the agricultural defendant prevails under the Right to Farm standard; and enforcement of the complaint penalties would run through the standard infraction and misdemeanor court processes.