Critics claim ruling allows pay-offs for farm impacts
Critics claim an Oregon Court of Appeals ruling will undermine farmland protections by allowing developers to pay off farmers rather than avoid disrupting agricultural practices.
The State of Oregon is joined by the Oregon Farm Bureau and the 1,000 Friends of Oregon conservation group in asking the Oregon Supreme Court to overturn that decision.
The dispute emanates from a lawsuit over the planned expansion of the Riverbend Landfill onto farmland, which was permitted by Yamhill County over the protests of neighboring landowners.
Earlier this year, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided that Yamhill County didn’t violate land use law by requiring Waste Management, the landfill’s owner, to compensate farmers for impacts to their operations.
For example, Waste Management must either pay a farmer for cleaning up trash blown onto his property from the landfill, or hire a third party to perform the service.
The company must also pay another nearby farmer for orchard crops that are destroyed by waste from birds that are attracted to the landfill.
Critics argue this type of compensation isn’t allowed under Oregon’s land use law, which aims to preserve farmland and avoid disruption to agricultural practices.
“I don’t want to be paid off. I just want them not to affect my farm,” said Ramsey McPhillips, the landowner who would be compensated for trash clean-up.
Such compensation should not be a condition of county permits allowing non-farm uses, since farming operations could be rendered unfeasible even if the growers receive money, critics argue.
Such pay-offs would make it easier to site other “conditional use” developments on farmland, such as mines, golf courses, large transmission towers and power facilities, according to critics.
“Now, all they need is to force the farmer to be paid off for the loss, and they can have their development. Where does that end?” said McPhillips.
Under Oregon law, counties can issue such “conditional use” permits for non-farm uses as long as they don’t significantly change or drive up the cost of farm practices on surrounding land.
Conditions imposed on such permits should prevent such impacts, instead of allowing the disruption as long as farmers are compensated, said Tim Bernasek, attorney for the Oregon Farm Bureau, which weighed in on the case.
“That’s not how it’s supposed work,” Bernasek said of the payment requirement.
The landfill dispute is noteworthy because it’s poised to define what is a significant impact to farmland, which has been vague up until now, he said.
“This is really the first time the Supreme Court is taking a broad look at the farm impacts test,” Bernasek said.
Opponents of the Oregon Court of Appeals’ interpretation recently filed their opening briefs with the Oregon Supreme Court, to which Yamhill County and Waste Management must respond by the end of September. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for mid-November.
Tim Sadlo, general counsel for Yamhill County, said the planned landfill expansion has been greatly reduced in size but other requirements were imposed on Waste Management to prevent potential adverse effects.
“I don’t think we tried to buy anybody off,” Sadlo said. “We can fix it with conditions, and that’s what we tried to do.”
The county set the compensation requirement despite there being limited evidence of birds defecating on fruit and garbage drifting onto neighboring property, he said.
Sadlo said he’s surprised the Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to review the case and disappointed that Oregon’s state government wants the previous ruling reversed.
“I think it’s regrettable they’ve decided to pile on,” he said.