Opponents of Oregon’s “right to farm” law can revive lawsuit
Opponents of Oregon’s “right to farm” law can file a new complaint against the statute by Jan. 23 after a previous constitutional challenge was recently dismissed.
The dispute relates to a 2013 pesticide incident in Curry County in which several rural residents claimed they suffered from medical problems after an aerial applicator sprayed 2,4-D and triclopyr on their properties.
The Oregon Department of Agriculture issued a $10,000 civil penalty against the company, Pacific Air Research, but 17 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the applicator and related firms last year.
The plaintiffs asked Circuit Court Judge Jesse Margolis to declare that Oregon’s “right to farm” law, which prohibits nuisance and trespass lawsuits over common farming practices, is unconstitutional because it prevents people from seeking a legal remedy for an injury.
Such a ruling would have widespread consequences for Oregon’s farm and forest industries, which have faced previous legal attacks against the law that ultimately proved unsuccessful.
Margolis dismissed the Curry County lawsuit last month but will allow the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint by Jan. 23.
The judge threw out their original complaint without prejudice — potentially keeping the fundamental legal question alive for the future — because the constitutional challenge is currently premature.
The plaintiffs want the “right to farm” law declared unconstitutional but they have not yet filed a lawsuit actually seeking damages for nuisance or trespass against Pacific Air Research or the other companies, Margolis said.
At this point, it’s merely hypothetical that the defendants would use the “right to farm” statute as a defense in such a case, the judge said.
Without a “justifiable controversy” underlying the constitutional challenge, the complaint must be dismissed, he said.
The plaintiffs are still deciding whether to file an amended complaint seeking to resolve these jurisdictional issues, said Chris Winter, their attorney.
Bradley Piscadlo, attorney for the defendants, said he could not comment on the case without permission from his clients.
In court documents, the plaintiffs argued that pursuing a nuisance or trespass claim against Pacific Air Research would be financially dangerous unless the court first declared Oregon’s “right to farm” law unconstitutional.
If the plaintiffs lost their nuisance or trespass lawsuit, the “right to farm” statute would require them to pay for the defendants’ attorney fees.
For this reason, the rural residents wanted the law declared unconstitutional so they would not face the “threat of incurring massive liability,” plaintiffs said in a court brief.