Companies ask judge to dismiss ‘right to farm’ challenge
Several companies are asking an Oregon judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the state’s “right to farm” law.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 21 in a case in which 17 residents of Curry County claim their properties were sprayed with chemicals intended for nearby logging sites last year.
The hearing will take place at 9:30 a.m. in Curry County Circuit Court in Gold Beach, Ore., but a judge has yet to be assigned to the case.
The plaintiffs claim that they’ve suffered physical ailments from the 2,4-D and triclopyr used by Pacific Air Research and several companies involved in logging.
Their complaint seeks a declaration from a state judge that Oregon’s right to farm law, which prohibits nuisance and trespass lawsuits against common farming practices, violates their constitutional right to seek a remedy for an injury.
At this stage of litigation, the defendants want the case dismissed largely on jurisdictional grounds.
The defendants argue that Oregon case law does not allow plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of a statute based on a hypothetical future nuisance or trespass lawsuit they might file.
Furthermore, the Oregon right to farm law only shields common agricultural and forestry practices that are conducted in a “reasonable and prudent manner,” the defendants say. In this case, the plaintiffs do not claim that the spraying was done prudently and reasonably, so the statute would not bear on their claims of being harmed by the chemicals.
The question of the right to farm law’s constitutionality was already affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 1993, the defendants claim.
The Curry County residents claim that this ruling is “worthless” because it has since been superseded by a 2001 opinion from the Oregon Supreme Court that interprets the constitution’s remedies clause.
Also, the 1993 ruling simply upheld the right to farm statute’s constitutionality “without discussion” and thus doesn’t provide the legal reasoning for the court’s decision, the plaintiffs claim.
The plaintiffs also argue that they must be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the right to farm law before filing a nuisance or trespass case — otherwise, they would leave themselves vulnerable to paying the defendants’ attorney fees.
According to their interpretation of key legal precedents, a lawsuit challenging the statute’s constitutionality is allowable under these circumstances.
The plaintiffs are John Burns, Barbara Burns, Donald Hausmann, Janice Hausmann, Herman Liem, Partchara Liem, Charles Ott, Thomas Pitchford, Melissa Pitchford, Eric Rickard, Kathryn Rickard, Dan Sawyer, Janet Sinclair, Clinton Smith, Sandra Smith, James Sweeney, Barbara Welsh.
The defendants are Pacific Air Research, Crook Timberlands LLC, Barnes & Associates Inc., Josef Kaufman and Pro Forestry Consulting LLC.