Facts
- Riverbend Landfill Co. sought county approvals to expand a solid-waste landfill onto land zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) in Yamhill County.
- The expansion required site design review and a floodplain development permit, triggering the “farm impacts test” in ORS 215.296.
- ORS 215.296(1) bars approval of a nonfarm use if it would (a) force a significant change in accepted farm practices, or (b) significantly increase the cost of those practices on surrounding agricultural lands.
- ORS 215.296(2) allows approval with conditions intended to ensure the impacts prohibited by subsection (1) do not occur.
- The county approved the expansion with conditions addressing impacts such as nuisance birds and windblown litter, including increased bird-control efforts, installation of a litter fence, payment for litter patrols/cleanup on a neighboring farm, and purchase of an adjacent farm’s entire berry and cherry crop at market price.
- Neighboring farms asserted they had already been forced to change operations and incur added costs, including cessation of “U-pick” operations and major changes to hay growing/harvesting/baling due to litter burdens.
- LUBA upheld the county’s approval; the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Petitioners sought Oregon Supreme Court review, challenging both the interpretation of ORS 215.296 and the legality of certain conditions.
Issues
- Under ORS 215.296, what must a local government evaluate when determining whether a nonfarm use on EFU land will “force a significant change” in accepted farm practices or “significantly increase the cost” of those practices on surrounding lands?
- May a county satisfy ORS 215.296(2) through conditions that compensate affected farms (or require negotiations for compensation), rather than avoiding or materially reducing the underlying impacts on farm practices and costs?
Decision
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals, and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded LUBA’s final order.
- The court held that ORS 215.296 is not satisfied by conditions that require or depend on compensating farmers for impacts to their operations.
- The court concluded that conditions requiring Riverbend to purchase a neighboring farm’s entire fruit crop and to pay for litter patrols/cleanup could not be relied on to establish compliance with ORS 215.296.
- The court remanded for reconsideration of whether the remaining non-compensatory mitigation measures (such as fencing and bird-control programs), without reliance on invalid payment-based conditions, adequately ensured the expansion would not cause prohibited significant changes or cost increases.
Legal Principles
- ORS 215.296(1) imposes a substantive limit: a nonfarm use on EFU land may not be approved if it would force significant changes in accepted farm practices or significantly increase the cost of those practices on surrounding agricultural lands.
- ORS 215.296(2) permits conditions of approval only insofar as the conditions function to prevent or materially reduce the significant changes or cost increases identified in subsection (1).
- Conditions that merely compensate for adverse impacts—especially those that effectively force farmers to negotiate for payment—do not demonstrate compliance with ORS 215.296 because they do not address whether farm-practice changes or cost increases remain “significant.”
- When a local government relies on both valid mitigation measures and invalid compensatory conditions to find compliance with ORS 215.296, remand is required to reassess compliance under the correct legal standard.
Conclusion
The court clarified that EFU “farm impacts” review focuses on whether a proposed nonfarm use, as conditioned, will avoid significant adverse effects on neighboring farm practices and their costs; monetary compensation cannot substitute for the statutory requirement to prevent or materially reduce those impacts.