Clark County agricultural land study highlights strong soils but exposes water-rights data gap

Clark County—s agricultural land study, presented Oct. 29 to the county—s Agricultural Resources Advisory Commission, maps lands that meet state guidance for long-term commercial agricultural significance and flags gaps in water-rights and irrigation data that local farmers say are critical to practical farming decisions.

The draft study, prepared by Echo Northwest and Triangle Associates and summarized by project manager Barrett Lewis, combines the USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) high-suitability classes with a Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) crop-use layer to form an "agricultural land base," Lewis said. The consultants told commissioners the combined approach was chosen to address known limits in the NRCS LCC layer and to incorporate ground-verified WSDA data.

Why it matters: The study is intended to help Clark County—s council and planning staff decide which rural lands meet the state—s resource-land criteria for protection in the comprehensive-plan update. Its results will inform a draft environmental impact statement and the council—s policy choices over the coming months.

Consultants described three headline findings: high-quality soils are widespread across the mapped land base, current-use tax enrollment is more concentrated inside existing agricultural designations than outside them, and the agricultural land base is dominated by relatively small parcels. "High quality soil is widespread; it's found in 98% of the land base and 90% of the agricultural designation," Barrett Lewis said. The consultants said 75% of parcels in the land base are 20 acres or smaller and that 43% of land inside agricultural designations is at or below the 20-acre lot size.

Commissioners and farming stakeholders agreed the soil finding is important but repeatedly asked whether the study—s baseline sufficiently captures access to irrigation and existing water rights. "Is access to water on any of these indicators of long-term commercial significance?" Commissioner Kevin Dobbins asked. Consultants replied that water-rights data were not used as a primary WACC indicator because the state guidance does not require it and because meeting participants had mixed views about how to treat water as a criterion. County staff said the Department of Ecology maintains a map of existing water rights and that the county could request an overlay to show confirmed rights in areas the study highlights.

Members of the public and several commissioners urged stronger validation of the maps. "If someone didn't raise their hand and say, 'hey, that's actually a good piece of farmland,' was there any validation that happened, that you went and looked at that NRCS property to say what is actually happening with that land?" asked Matthew Cornwell of Clark County Food Bank. Echo Northwest staff replied that the study uses the WSDA layer partly because it incorporates field verification and survey data, and that a countywide, property-by-property site visit program would not be practical for a fair countywide analysis.

Process and timeline: Consultants and county staff told the commission the draft study would be submitted to the county on Nov. 4 and presented to the county council at a Nov. 12 work session. Commissioners were advised they could review the report and prepare a collective recommendation at the commission—s Nov. 19 meeting; the county noted a Nov. 30 comment close for the environmental-review period. Oliver Ojak, county project lead, urged the commission to consider clarifications and caveats to the report rather than expect new analyses in the four days before the Nov. 4 submittal.

Legal and policy context: County staff and legal advisers reviewed the history of Clark County agricultural designations, noting the county—s original comprehensive-plan zoning in 1979—1980, a 1994 plan and a task force report that set earlier agricultural designations, and multiple past legal challenges. Staff warned that any change in designation could prompt appeals; previous challenges to designation changes have often proceeded to the state growth-management hearings board or higher courts.

What commissioners want next: Commissioners suggested adding clarifying caveats to maps and the report text, requested that staff seek available Department of Ecology water-rights overlays, and discussed longer-term policy tools such as transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) or conservation easements. Several members emphasized food-security goals and local production as priorities for translating mapped suitability into public policy.

No policy votes were taken at the Oct. 29 meeting. The commission approved routine meeting business (agenda, minutes, and adjournment) by voice vote during the session.

Next steps: The county will post the draft study and related materials on Nov. 4; the council work session is scheduled for Nov. 12 and the commission plans to consider a formal recommendation on Nov. 19, ahead of the Nov. 30 public-comment deadline for the draft environmental review.

"If we don't have farmland, we don't have food," public commenter Judy Waite said during the meeting, urging the commission to consider smaller-scale farms and existing public farmland stewarded by nonprofits and food banks as part of the study's policy implications.