2-3202.
Certain agricultural activities not a nuisance.
(a) Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, if consistent with good agricultural practices and established prior to surrounding agricultural or nonagricultural activities, are presumed to be reasonable and do not constitute a nuisance, public or private, unless the activity has a substantial adverse effect on the public health and safety.
(b) If such agricultural activity is undertaken in conformity with federal, state, and local laws and rules and regulations, it is presumed to be good agricultural practice and not adversely affecting the public health and safety.
(c) An owner of farmland who conducts agricultural activity protected pursuant to the provisions of this section:
(1) May reasonably expand the scope of such agricultural activity, including, but not limited to, increasing the acreage or number of animal units or changing agricultural activities, without losing such protection so long as such agricultural activity complies with all applicable local, state, and federal environmental codes, resolutions, laws and rules and regulations;
(2) may assign or transfer such protection to any successor in interest; and
(3) shall not be deemed to waive such protection by temporarily ceasing or decreasing the scope of such agricultural activity.
History:
L. 1982, ch. 3, § 2; L. 2013, ch. 93, § 2; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case:
Finlay v. Finlay, 856 P.2d 183 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
Finlay v. Finlay, 856 P.2d 183 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “” Although not prohibiting nuisance actions, K.S.A. 2-3202 establishes that agricultural activities are presumed not to be a nuisance if conducted in a manner consistent with good agricultural practice and established prior to surrounding nonagricultural activities, unless the…”
Ross v. Nelson, 554 P.3d 636 (Kan. 2024).
· cites it 30× “See K.S.A. 2-3202. But we agree with the lower courts that the spraying of effluent was not "undertaken in conformity with" state law because the pipelines trespassed on Ross' land.”
Trickett v. Ochs, 2003 VT 91 (Vt. 2003).
“§§ 3-111-112 (2002), Kansas, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 2-3202 (2001), Oklahoma, Okla.”
— K.S.A. § 2-3202(a) — 1 case
Ross v. Nelson, 554 P.3d 636 (Kan. 2024).
“See K.S.A. 2-3202. But we agree with the lower courts that the spraying of effluent was not "undertaken in conformity with" state law because the pipelines trespassed on Ross' land.”
— K.S.A. § 2-3202(b) — 1 case
Ross v. Nelson, 554 P.3d 636 (Kan. 2024).
“See K.S.A. 2-3202. But we agree with the lower courts that the spraying of effluent was not "undertaken in conformity with" state law because the pipelines trespassed on Ross' land.”
— K.S.A. § 2-3202(c) — 1 case
Ross v. Nelson, 554 P.3d 636 (Kan. 2024).
“See K.S.A. 2-3202. But we agree with the lower courts that the spraying of effluent was not "undertaken in conformity with" state law because the pipelines trespassed on Ross' land.”
— K.S.A. § 2-3202(c)(1) — 1 case
Ross v. Nelson, 554 P.3d 636 (Kan. 2024).
“See K.S.A. 2-3202. But we agree with the lower courts that the spraying of effluent was not "undertaken in conformity with" state law because the pipelines trespassed on Ross' land.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.