Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ag Land Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ag land study validates most existing agricultural designations; Ag Commission urges no‑net‑loss approach
Summary
County staff summarized an EcoNorthwest ag land study that found about 90% of current agricultural land meets designation criteria and identified additional parcels that could qualify; the Agricultural Advisory Commission recommended against de‑designating current ag land unless new ag land is designated, endorsing a no‑net‑loss posture to guide council decisions.
Clark County staff presented the results of a condensed ag land study procured from ECONorthwest and discussed next steps for council consideration at the planning commission’s Dec. 4 work session.
"The report was due November 4. They delivered the report," Jose, community planning staff, told the commission. The study evaluated lands outside urban growth boundaries zoned for agriculture (R‑5, R‑10, R‑20) against Washington Administrative Code (WAC) criteria and produced maps, data and site analyses for staff and council to consider.
Staff said ECONorthwest’s work focused on where parcel data and WAC criteria signal potential ag‑designation suitability; it did not itself recommend policy choices. As one participant summarized, "ECONorthwest, to be clear, made no recommendations. They just did their data. They did their maps," meaning the study provides evidence that the county and council can use in selecting alternatives.
Jose said staff found that roughly 90% of existing agricultural land continues to meet designation criteria and that the study also identified parcels not currently designated that could qualify under certain alternatives. The Agricultural Advisory Commission reviewed the report, engaged in multiple meetings and recommended a no‑net‑loss approach: do not de‑designate existing ag land unless equal or greater acreage is designated elsewhere.
Commissioners pressed for detail on validation, water rights and economic viability. Staff confirmed the study included water‑rights mapping (not a WAC requirement but helpful context), and noted that economic profitability was not an eligibility criterion under the WACs: designation depends primarily on soils and other technical factors, not current agricultural use or market viability.
Next steps: staff will share the study and public comments with council at the joint hearing on Jan. 8, 2026; the commission is forming a small subcommittee to synthesize advisory input and may return a packaged recommendation to council at the December 17 special meeting if the commission chooses to refine its advice.
