Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › PLANNING › Agricultural Lands Laws and Regulations
Updated 06/07

Agricultural Lands - Laws and Regulations

Contents

Selected Federal Laws

Selected Washington State Laws and Administrative Regulations

In 2007, the legislature passed Chapter 352, Laws of 2007, Substitute Senate Bill 5108, which creates new state office of farmland preservation.  In addition, Chapter 253, Laws of 2007, Substitute Senate Bill 5248, was adopted regarding preserving the viability of agricultural lands. This legislation deals with the application of the Growth Management Act to certain agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands and creates a two-year time out for the development and adoption of new critical area ordinances.  The legislature also established a regional transfer of development rights program in Chapter 482, Laws of 2007, Second Substitute House Bill 1636. 

 In 2006, the legislature passed Substitute House Bill 2917, Chapter 147, Laws of 2006, which amends RCW 36.70A.177 to provide that cities and counties have authority to allow or limit accessory activities on agricultural lands. This law provides policy guideposts, framing the extent of accessory uses allowed on agricultural lands, and limiting conversion of agricultural lands to one acre. It does not limit agricultural production on designated agricultural lands.

  • Farmland Information Library's Farmland Protections Statute Database for Washington State
  • Title 15 RCW - Agriculture and Marketing - Specific laws related to agricultural products, marketing, agricultural commodity boards and commissions
  • Growth Management Act
    • RCW 36.70A.030 - Definitions
    • RCW 36.70A.040 - Requires cities and counties planning under GMA to designate agricultural lands and adopt development regulations conserving designated agricultural lands
    • RCW 36.70A.050 - Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest and mineral lands and critical areas
    • RCW 36.70A.060 - Development regulations to assure conservation of agricultural and other natural resource lands
    • RCW 36.70A.170 - Requires designation of agricultural lands with long term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products
    • RCW 36.70A.177 - Agricultural lands - Innovative zoning techniques to conserve agricultural lands and encourage agricultural economy. Techniques include agricultural zoning, cluster zoning, large lot zone, quarter/quarter zoning, sliding-scale zoning.
  • RCW 7.48.300 - .310 - Nuisances - Agricultural activities and forest practices - Presumed reasonable and not a nuisance (Right to Farm)
  • RCW 64.04.130 - Conservation easement
  • Chapter 84.34 RCW - Open Space, Agricultural, Timber Lands - Current Use - Conservation Futures
  • Chapter 89.08 RCW - Soil Conservation Districts
  • Chapter 365-190 WAC - Minimum Guidelines to Classify Agriculture, Forest, Mineral Lands and Critical Areas
  • WAC 365-195-400 - Natural resource lands
  • WAC 365-195-825 - Regulations specifically required by the act. Addresses conservation of natural resource lands.
  • Chapter 458-30 WAC - Open Space Taxation Act Rules

Selected Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions related to Agricultural Lands

Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board

  • Digest of Decisions, 6th Edition (See listings by keyword under "Agricultural Lands")
  • Grubb v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB 00-3-0004 (FDO, 8-11-00). "De-designation" of agricultural lands . . . may only occur if the record shows demonstrable and conclusive evidence that the Act's definition and criteria for designation are no longer met. The paramount importance of the designation, conservation and protection of agricultural lands.
  • Green Valley, et al., v. King County, CPSGMHB 98-3-0008c (FDO, 7-29-98). [T]he GMA ... imposes an affirmative duty on local governments to designate and conserve agricultural lands to assure the maintenance and enhancement of the agricultural resource industry.
  • Benaroya et al. v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB 95-3-0072 (FDO,I, 3-25-96). A city is without authority to make any agricultural designations within a UGA prior to the enactment of a program authorizing a transfer or purchase of development rights pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(4). Unless and until it adopts such a program, it is obliged to designate such properties for non-agricultural urban uses.
  • Sky Valley et al. v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB 95-3-0068c (FDO, 3-13-96). RCW 36.70A.170(1)(a) requires counties and cities to designate all lands that meet the definition of agricultural lands, unless the lands fall within a UGA lacking a program for purchase or transfer of development rights; RCW 36.70A.060(1) requires that counties and cities adopt development regulations to assure the conservation of all designated agricultural lands.

Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

  • Digest of Decisions, 2nd Edition - (See listings by keyword under "Agricultural Lands")
  • Evergreen v. Skagit County, WWGMHB 00-2-0046c (FDO, 2-6-01). A development regulation which allows non-agricultural uses in an agricultural RL and does not require such use to be temporary and does not prohibit leaching of toxins, does not comply with the GMA and the county's own agricultural conservation policies.
  • PPF v. Clallam County, WWGMHB 00-2-0008 (FDO, 12-19-00). A complete exemption of ongoing agricultural activities does not comply with the Act. A local government must balance the goals and requirements of the Act for only those resource activities that occur within a designated resource land area.
  • Diehl v. Mason County, WWGMHB 95-2-0073 (FDO, 1-8-96). Agricultural lands that satisfy designation criteria may not be disqualified simply because the land is not currently in agricultural use. Where the record reflected evidence of existing farming, over 7,000 acres of prime soil and ongoing farming activities, the failure to designate any agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance did not comply with the GMA.
  • ICCGMC v. Island County, WWGMHB 98-2-0023 (FDO, 6-2-99). Under the GMA a local government must designate and conserve agricultural resource lands and then take action to discourage incompatible uses. A county must not put the emphasis upon protection of the rural area from resource land uses.
  • Abenroth v. Skagit County, WWGMHB 97-2-0060 (FDO, 1-23-98). The Legislature has recently clarified the allowance of cluster development in agricultural lands. As long as the long-term viability of agriculture lands is not threatened by conflicting uses, clustering is an allowable option.
  • Hudson v. Clallam County, WWGMHB 96-2-0031 (FDO, 4-15-97). The GMA requirement to conserve agricultural lands from conflicting uses requires a local government to find ways to protect such agricultural lands.
  • Achen v. Clark County, WWGMHB 95-2-0067 (CO, 10-1-96). A city cannot designate property as agricultural, within its municipal boundaries unless the city has enacted a program for transfer or purchase of development rights under RCW 36.70A.060(4).
  • Achen v. Clark County, WWGMHB 95-2-0067 (FDO, 9-20-95). Where a local government designated agricultural lands that included portions which were not in current agricultural uses, there was no violation of GMA.
  • OEC v. Jefferson County, WWGMHB 94-2-0017 (FDO, 2-16-95). A local government is required to designate and conserve agricultural lands while going through the process of analysis and balancing for a comprehensive plan and development regulations. Failure to designate such agricultural lands did not comply with the GMA. (Not available on web; request paper copy from Hearings Board)

Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

  • Digest of Decisions - (See listings by keyword under "Agricultural Lands")
  • City of Moses Lake v. Grant County; Order on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, EWGMHB 99-1-0016 (8-16-00) There is no requirement that the minimum lot size in agriculture resource lands be the average size of farms existing there. The establishing of a 40-acre lot size minimum is not unreasonable and is an appropriate lot size in the County's effort to protect the farmland from loss or damage.
  • Grant County Association of Realtors v. Grant County, EWGMHB 99-1-0018 (FDO, 5-23-00). That relatively poor soil properties of subject lands and their current fallow state should prevent their classification as "agricultural" resource lands is incorrect and short sighted. If Respondent took no action to protect lands that could be benefited by a continuation of the Columbia Basin Project, there may not be sufficient suitable land left to efficiently and economically irrigate when Congress determines it is ready to finish what it started. As technology improves, the soils that are marginal today may become more than sufficient to support the crops of tomorrow. Respondent should be commended for its conservationist approach to the most economically important resource lands in its jurisdiction.
  • City of Ellensburg, et al. v. Kittitas County, EWGMHB 95-1-0009 (FDO, 5-7-96). In order to maintain the industry, it is necessary to designate and conserve a "critical mass" of the agricultural resource land. The Board defines "critical mass" as that quantity of resource land necessary to assure survival of the agricultural support system, the suppliers, processors and marketing structures, required for survival of the agricultural industry in the county.
  • Save Our Butte Save Our Basin Society, et al. v. Chelan County, EWGMHB 94-1-0015 (CO, 1-30-95). All counties, whether planning or non-planning, must designate agricultural resource lands and critical areas. All counties must protect critical areas. These designations and protections provide the basis for further planning.
  • Save Our Butte Save Our Basin Society, et al. v. Chelan County, EWGMHB 94-1-0015 (FDO, 8-8-94). While there is opportunity for the exercise of local judgment, the conclusions reached must be the product of a valid process. The record must show that the County considered the factors for determination of agricultural lands of long-term significance given in WAC 365-190-050.
  • Merrill H. English and Project for Informed Citizens v. Board of County Commissioners of Columbia County, EWGMHB 93-1-0002 (FDO, 11-12-93). The Department of Community Development guidelines shall be minimum guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions in designating agricultural lands. While a county may incorporate additional criteria in its classification system, WAC 365-190-050(1) remains the standard by which the ordinance is measured.

Selected Court Decisions related to Agricultural Lands

  • City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 3 Wn.App. 3 (3-3-03). When reviewing a challenge to a zoning ordinance, a growth management hearings board must presume the comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid and the challenger has the burden of establishing otherwise. Because the land at issue in this case was never property designated for agricultural use; the city's established designation that the land is urban recreational is valid.
  • King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 142 Wn.2d 543 (12-14-00). 1997 amendments to King County's comprehensive plan and zoning code, which allow active recreational uses on properties located within a designated agricultural area, do not qualify for innovative zoning techniques under RCW 36.70A.177 and therefore violate the Growth Management Act.
  • City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 136 Wn.2d 38 (8-2-98). Unless a municipality has first enacted a transfer or purchase of development rights program, the municipality may not designate land within an urban growth area as agricultural.