Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056 (2026)

Definition of “farm use.”

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      308A.056 Definition of “farm use.” (1) As used in ORS 308A.050 to 308A.128, “farm use” means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by:

      (a) Raising, harvesting and selling crops.

      (b) Feeding, breeding, managing or selling livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees or the produce thereof.

      (c) Dairying and selling dairy products.

      (d) Stabling or training equines, including but not limited to providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling shows.

      (e) Propagating, cultivating, maintaining or harvesting aquatic species and bird and animal species to the extent allowed by the rules adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission.

      (f) On-site constructing and maintaining equipment and facilities used for the activities described in this subsection.

      (g) Preparing, storing or disposing of, by marketing, donation to a local food bank or school or otherwise, the products or by-products raised for human or animal use on land described in this section.

      (h) Implementing a remediation plan previously presented to the assessor for the county in which the land that is the subject of the plan is located.

      (i) Using land described in this section for any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof.

      (2) “Farm use” does not include the use of land subject to timber and forestland taxation under ORS chapter 321, except land used exclusively for growing cultured Christmas trees or land described in ORS 321.267 (3) or 321.824 (3) (relating to land used to grow certain hardwood timber, including hybrid cottonwood).

      (3) For purposes of this section, land is currently employed for farm use if the land is:

      (a) Farmland, the operation or use of which is subject to any farm-related government program;

      (b) Land lying fallow for one year as a normal and regular requirement of good agricultural husbandry;

      (c) Land planted in orchards or other perennials, other than land specified in paragraph (d) of this subsection, prior to maturity;

      (d) Land not in an exclusive farm use zone that has not been eligible for assessment at special farm use value in the year prior to planting the current crop and has been planted in orchards, cultured Christmas trees or vineyards for at least three years;

      (e) Wasteland, in an exclusive farm use zone, dry or covered with water, neither economically tillable nor grazeable, lying in or adjacent to and in common ownership with farm use land and that is not currently being used for any economic farm use;

      (f) Except for land under a single family dwelling, land under buildings supporting accepted farming practices, including the processing facilities allowed by ORS 215.255 and the processing of farm crops into biofuel as commercial activities in conjunction with farm use under ORS 215.213 (2)(c) and 215.283 (2)(a);

      (g) Water impoundments lying in or adjacent to and in common ownership with farm use land;

      (h) Any land constituting a woodlot, not to exceed 20 acres, contiguous to and owned by the owner of land specially valued for farm use even if the land constituting the woodlot is not utilized in conjunction with farm use;

      (i) Land lying idle for no more than one year when the absence of farming activity is the result of the illness of the farmer or a member of the farmer’s immediate family, including injury or infirmity, regardless of whether the illness results in death;

      (j) Land described under ORS 321.267 (3) or 321.824 (3) (relating to land used to grow certain hardwood timber, including hybrid cottonwood);

      (k) Land subject to a remediation plan previously presented to the assessor for the county in which the land that is the subject of the plan is located; or

      (L) Land used for the processing of farm crops into biofuel, as defined in ORS 315.141, if:

      (A) Only the crops of the landowner are being processed;

      (B) The biofuel from all of the crops purchased for processing into biofuel is used on the farm of the landowner; or

      (C) The landowner is custom processing crops into biofuel from other landowners in the area for their use or sale.

      (4) As used in this section:

      (a) “Accepted farming practice” means a mode of operation that is common to farms of a similar nature, necessary for the operation of these similar farms to obtain a profit in money and customarily utilized in conjunction with farm use.

      (b) “Cultured Christmas trees” means trees:

      (A) Grown on lands used exclusively for that purpose, capable of preparation by intensive cultivation methods such as plowing or turning over the soil;

      (B) Of a marketable species;

      (C) Managed to produce trees meeting U.S. No. 2 or better standards for Christmas trees as specified by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture; and

      (D) Evidencing periodic maintenance practices of shearing for Douglas fir and pine species, weed and brush control and one or more of the following practices:

      (i) Basal pruning;

      (ii) Fertilizing;

      (iii) Insect and disease control;

      (iv) Stump culture;

      (v) Soil cultivation; or

      (vi) Irrigation. [1999 c.314 §3; 2001 c.613 §21; 2003 c.454 §120; 2003 c.621 §81a; 2007 c.739 §37; 2009 c.776 §2; 2009 c.850 §13; 2012 c.74 §5; 2013 c.319 §1; 2019 c.410 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Wehde v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 506 (Or. T.C. 2014).
Wehde v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 506 (Or. T.C. 2014). · cites it 15× “Taxpayers argued that the rule did not apply to lands in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone because beekeeping was already an “accepted farming practice” pur- suant to ORS 308A.056 and that OAR 150-308A.056 could not apply to land in an EFU zone because it exceeded the…”
Young v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 78 (Or. T.C. 2002). · cites it 8× “ORS 308A.056(1). The planting of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine seedlings does not qualify the property.”
Youngblood v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 23 (Or. T.C. 2002). · cites it 5× “During the hearing on this matter, taxpayers specifically argued that the pheasants and chukars that are hunted on the property constitute bird species, the propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvest of which constitutes farm use under ORS 308A.056(1)(e). Taxpayers argue…”
Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 2× “” See ORS 308A.056(4)(a). However, the text of ORS 307.”
Wetherell v. Douglas Cnty., 132 P.3d 41 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Currently ORS 308A.056 contains its own definition of “farm use” that differs somewhat from that contained in ORS 215.”
Fazio v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). · cites it 19× “) Based on those observations, she concluded a person could not “perform[] a farm use activity pursuant to ORS 308A.056 in those 22.97 acres.” (Id. at 3-4.”
Heard Farm Inc. v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). · cites it 13× “2 Specifically, Defendant asserts that the disqualified section of the farm is a wastewater treatment facility, processing organic waste into biosolids and reclaimed irrigation water, is commercial in nature, and is not an allowed farm use as defined in ORS 308A.056. Heard…”
Howard & Pat Winters Trust v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). · cites it 13× “The term woodlot is not defined in ORS 308A.056 or in any other statutes in the chapter.”
Youngblood v. Malheur Cnty. Assessor, 16 Or. Tax 423 (Or. T.C. 2001). · cites it 8× “Defendant agreed to review Plaintiffs’ property upon a change in use and, if consistent with farm use under ORS 308A.056, reinstate it to special assessment for the next tax year.”
Frost v. Lane Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2012). · cites it 7× “” With its Answer, Defendant included a one-page “Summary”; an excerpt from ORS 308A.056 defining “farm use”; and an excerpt from ORS 215.”
Holmes Fam. Trust v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2026). · cites it 4× “ORS 308A.056(1).3 The two possible farm activities here are: “(b) Feeding, breeding, managing or selling livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees or the produce thereof”; and “(d) Stabling or training equines, including but not limited to providing riding lessons,…”
Cecil V. Stutzman Est. v. Yamhill Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 6× “Removing blackberry vines does not otherwise meet any of the qualifying “farm uses” enumerated in ORS 308A.056. C. Future plans for a fruit orchard on the subject property Roberta testified and stated in written correspondence that Donald was considering planting an orchard on…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1) — 15 cases
Young v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 78 (Or. T.C. 2002). “ORS 308A.056(1). The planting of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine seedlings does not qualify the property.”
Wehde v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 506 (Or. T.C. 2014). “Taxpayers argued that the rule did not apply to lands in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone because beekeeping was already an “accepted farming practice” pur- suant to ORS 308A.056 and that OAR 150-308A.056 could not apply to land in an EFU zone because it exceeded the…”
Fazio v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “) Based on those observations, she concluded a person could not “perform[] a farm use activity pursuant to ORS 308A.056 in those 22.97 acres.” (Id. at 3-4.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1)(a) — 1 case
Fazio v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “) Based on those observations, she concluded a person could not “perform[] a farm use activity pursuant to ORS 308A.056 in those 22.97 acres.” (Id. at 3-4.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1)(b) — 6 cases
Wehde v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 506 (Or. T.C. 2014). “Taxpayers argued that the rule did not apply to lands in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone because beekeeping was already an “accepted farming practice” pur- suant to ORS 308A.056 and that OAR 150-308A.056 could not apply to land in an EFU zone because it exceeded the…”
Holmes Fam. Trust v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2026). “ORS 308A.056(1).3 The two possible farm activities here are: “(b) Feeding, breeding, managing or selling livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees or the produce thereof”; and “(d) Stabling or training equines, including but not limited to providing riding lessons,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1)(e) — 1 case
Youngblood v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 23 (Or. T.C. 2002). “During the hearing on this matter, taxpayers specifically argued that the pheasants and chukars that are hunted on the property constitute bird species, the propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvest of which constitutes farm use under ORS 308A.056(1)(e). Taxpayers argue…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1)(f) — 1 case
Heard Farm Inc. v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “2 Specifically, Defendant asserts that the disqualified section of the farm is a wastewater treatment facility, processing organic waste into biosolids and reclaimed irrigation water, is commercial in nature, and is not an allowed farm use as defined in ORS 308A.056. Heard…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1)(g) — 2 cases
Fazio v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “) Based on those observations, she concluded a person could not “perform[] a farm use activity pursuant to ORS 308A.056 in those 22.97 acres.” (Id. at 3-4.”
Frost v. Lane Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2012). “” With its Answer, Defendant included a one-page “Summary”; an excerpt from ORS 308A.056 defining “farm use”; and an excerpt from ORS 215.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1)(h) — 3 cases
Fazio v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “) Based on those observations, she concluded a person could not “perform[] a farm use activity pursuant to ORS 308A.056 in those 22.97 acres.” (Id. at 3-4.”
Frost v. Lane Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2012). “” With its Answer, Defendant included a one-page “Summary”; an excerpt from ORS 308A.056 defining “farm use”; and an excerpt from ORS 215.”
Cecil V. Stutzman Est. v. Yamhill Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013). “Removing blackberry vines does not otherwise meet any of the qualifying “farm uses” enumerated in ORS 308A.056. C. Future plans for a fruit orchard on the subject property Roberta testified and stated in written correspondence that Donald was considering planting an orchard on…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(1)(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(2) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(3) — 1 case
Howard & Pat Winters Trust v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “The term woodlot is not defined in ORS 308A.056 or in any other statutes in the chapter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(3)(L) — 1 case
Heard Farm Inc. v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “2 Specifically, Defendant asserts that the disqualified section of the farm is a wastewater treatment facility, processing organic waste into biosolids and reclaimed irrigation water, is commercial in nature, and is not an allowed farm use as defined in ORS 308A.056. Heard…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(3)(b) — 5 cases
Young v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 78 (Or. T.C. 2002). “ORS 308A.056(1). The planting of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine seedlings does not qualify the property.”
Youngblood v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 23 (Or. T.C. 2002). “During the hearing on this matter, taxpayers specifically argued that the pheasants and chukars that are hunted on the property constitute bird species, the propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvest of which constitutes farm use under ORS 308A.056(1)(e). Taxpayers argue…”
Youngblood v. Malheur Cnty. Assessor, 16 Or. Tax 423 (Or. T.C. 2001). “Defendant agreed to review Plaintiffs’ property upon a change in use and, if consistent with farm use under ORS 308A.056, reinstate it to special assessment for the next tax year.”
Fazio v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “) Based on those observations, she concluded a person could not “perform[] a farm use activity pursuant to ORS 308A.056 in those 22.97 acres.” (Id. at 3-4.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(3)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(3)(f) — 1 case
Heard Farm Inc. v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “2 Specifically, Defendant asserts that the disqualified section of the farm is a wastewater treatment facility, processing organic waste into biosolids and reclaimed irrigation water, is commercial in nature, and is not an allowed farm use as defined in ORS 308A.056. Heard…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(3)(g) — 1 case
Heard Farm Inc. v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “2 Specifically, Defendant asserts that the disqualified section of the farm is a wastewater treatment facility, processing organic waste into biosolids and reclaimed irrigation water, is commercial in nature, and is not an allowed farm use as defined in ORS 308A.056. Heard…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(3)(h) — 1 case
Howard & Pat Winters Trust v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “The term woodlot is not defined in ORS 308A.056 or in any other statutes in the chapter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(4)(a) — 5 cases
Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013). “” See ORS 308A.056(4)(a). However, the text of ORS 307.”
Young v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 78 (Or. T.C. 2002). “ORS 308A.056(1). The planting of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine seedlings does not qualify the property.”
Heard Farm Inc. v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “2 Specifically, Defendant asserts that the disqualified section of the farm is a wastewater treatment facility, processing organic waste into biosolids and reclaimed irrigation water, is commercial in nature, and is not an allowed farm use as defined in ORS 308A.056. Heard…”
Cecil V. Stutzman Est. v. Yamhill Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013). “Removing blackberry vines does not otherwise meet any of the qualifying “farm uses” enumerated in ORS 308A.056. C. Future plans for a fruit orchard on the subject property Roberta testified and stated in written correspondence that Donald was considering planting an orchard on…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(4)(b)(A) — 1 case
Young v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 78 (Or. T.C. 2002). “ORS 308A.056(1). The planting of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine seedlings does not qualify the property.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(l)(b) — 1 case
Young v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 78 (Or. T.C. 2002). “ORS 308A.056(1). The planting of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine seedlings does not qualify the property.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308A.056(l)(e) — 1 case
Youngblood v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 23 (Or. T.C. 2002). “During the hearing on this matter, taxpayers specifically argued that the pheasants and chukars that are hunted on the property constitute bird species, the propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvest of which constitutes farm use under ORS 308A.056(1)(e). Taxpayers argue…”
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.