Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.48
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.300 (2026)

Agricultural activities and forest practices—Legislative finding and purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that agricultural activities conducted on farmland and forest practices in urbanizing areas are often subjected to nuisance lawsuits, and that such suits encourage and even force the premature removal of the lands from agricultural uses and timber production. It is therefore the purpose of RCW 7.48.300 through 7.48.310 and 7.48.905 to provide that agricultural activities conducted on farmland and forest practices be protected from nuisance lawsuits.
[ 1992 c 52 s 2; 1979 c 122 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1988–2019 · leading case: Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders LP, 952 P.2d 610 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders LP, 952 P.2d 610 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 13× “If those agricultural activities and forest practices are undertaken in conformity with all applicable laws and rules, the activities are presumed to be good agricultural and forest practices not adversely affecting the public health and safety for purposes of this section and…”
Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders Ltd. P'ship, 134 Wash. 2d 673 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 11× “RCW 7.48.300 (emphasis added). The language of the statute, however, does not explicitly make this connection between the nuisance suit and the urbanization.”
Trickett v. Ochs, 2003 VT 91 (Vt. 2003). “1 (2002), and Washington, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 7.48.300 -.310 (supp.”
Gill v. LDI, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (W.D. Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “In addition, LDI argues that it is protected from nuisance actions by the Washington “Right to Farm” law, RCW 7.48.300. Its arguments are unavailing on all issues except the conditional use permit issue.”
City of Benton City v. Adrian, 748 P.2d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “First, the orchard owners contend RCW 7.48.300 prevents an injunction in this case.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “§§ 7.48.300, .305. This zoo is no "farm." Washington also limits the individuals who may file a public nuisance action.”
Alpental Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Seattle Gymnastics Soc'y, 111 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 4× “” RCW 7.48.300. Right-to-farm statutes were enacted during the 1970s and 1980s “to address a growing concern that too much farmland was being overtaken by urban sprawl.”
Davis v. Taylor, 132 P.3d 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “3d 257 (quoting RCW 7.48.300); Vicwood Meridian P'ship v.”
Alpental Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Seattle Gymnastics Soc'y, 86 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “forest practices not adversely affecting the public health and safety for purposes of this section and RCW 7.48.300.[ 5 ] Richard Poelker, a member of SGS, testified that SGS had owned the property, which totals approximately 80 acres, since about 1918.”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 98 P.3d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Thurston County asserts that the trial court erred by broadly applying the RTFA to Ostrom's activities and that the RTFA must be construed narrowly.”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 123 Wash. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Thurston County asserts that the trial court erred by broadly applying the RTFA to Ostrom’s activities and that the RTFA must be construed narrowly.”
Davis v. Taylor, 132 Wash. App. 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “2d at 317 (quoting RCW 7.48.300); Vicwood Meridian P’ship v.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.