House advances bill limiting criminal liability for lawful agricultural operations

The Utah House on Feb. 27 advanced Senate Bill 94, a proposal its sponsor described as closing a gap that could subject lawfully operating agricultural enterprises to criminal prosecution for routine activities.

Proponents said the statute clarifies that agricultural operations following sound agricultural practices and not causing substantial adverse effects to public health and safety should not face criminal sanctions. Representative Urquhart and other supporters repeatedly emphasized the bill does not remove counties’ zoning powers: counties can still establish agricultural protection areas, impose conditional uses, regulate odors and enforce nuisance ordinances.

Representative Brad Johnson, who declared a conflict of interest because his feedlot business is involved in related litigation, described receiving suits from neighbors who moved in after operations were established and urged protections for farmers. "This is turns out to be something that's a real hassle for people that are trying to make a living in agriculture," he said, describing the complaint process as burdensome.

Opponents raised questions about confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), groundwater pollution and the role of county prosecutors. The sponsor argued the measure simply sets the threshold for criminal prosecution and that civil remedies and local zoning remain available for nuisance and environmental concerns.

Clerk announcements later showed the bill received a favorable tally on the floor and will be returned to the Senate for signature and further consideration.

Next steps: Returned to the Senate for the President’s signature.