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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.310 (2026)

Agricultural activities and forest practices—Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purposes of RCW 7.48.305 only:
(1) "Agricultural activity" means a condition or activity which occurs on a farm in connection with the commercial production of farm products and includes, but is not limited to, marketed produce at roadside stands or farm markets; noise; odors; dust; fumes; operation of machinery and irrigation pumps; movement, including, but not limited to, use of current county road ditches, streams, rivers, canals, and drains, and use of water for agricultural activities; ground and aerial application of seed, fertilizers, conditioners, and plant protection products; keeping of bees for production of agricultural or apicultural products; employment and use of labor; roadway movement of equipment and livestock; protection from damage by wildlife; prevention of trespass; construction and maintenance of buildings, fences, roads, bridges, ponds, drains, waterways, and similar features and maintenance of stream banks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another, including a change in the type of plant-related farm product being produced. The term includes use of new practices and equipment consistent with technological development within the agricultural industry.
(2) "Farm" means the land, buildings, freshwater ponds, freshwater culturing and growing facilities, and machinery used in the commercial production of farm products.
(3) "Farmland" means land or freshwater ponds devoted primarily to the production, for commercial purposes, of livestock, freshwater aquacultural, or other farm products.
(4) "Farm product" means those plants and animals useful to humans and includes, but is not limited to, forages and sod crops, dairy and dairy products, poultry and poultry products, livestock, including breeding, grazing, and recreational equine use, fruits, vegetables, flowers, seeds, grasses, trees, freshwater fish and fish products, apiaries and apiary products, equine and other similar products, or any other product which incorporates the use of food, feed, fiber, or fur.
(5) "Forest practice" means any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forestland, as that term is defined in RCW 76.09.020, and relating to growing, harvesting, or processing timber. The term "forest practices" includes, but is not limited to, road and trail construction, final and intermediate harvesting, precommercial thinning, reforestation, fertilization, prevention and suppression of diseases and insects, salvage of trees, brush control, and owning land where trees may passively grow until one of the preceding activities is deemed timely by the owner.
[ 2009 c 200 s 3; 2007 c 331 s 3; 1992 c 52 s 4; 1991 c 317 s 2; 1979 c 122 s 3.]

Notes:

Intent—2009 c 200: See note following RCW 7.48.305.
Findings—Intent—2007 c 331: See note following RCW 7.48.305.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2004–2006 · leading case: Davis v. Taylor, 132 P.3d 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. Taylor, 132 P.3d 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “., if consistent with good agricultural..”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 98 P.3d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 123 Wash. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Alpental Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Seattle Gymnastics Soc'y, 111 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “At issue is whether ACC’s nuisance suit against SGS is barred under RCW 7.48.305, which grants immunity to defendants who were engaged in statutorily defined “forest practices” before the plaintiffs “came to the nuisance.”
Davis v. Taylor, 132 Wash. App. 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “practices and established prior to surrounding non-agricultural. . . activities, are presumed to be reasonable and shall not be found to constitute a nuisance unless the activity has a substantial adverse effect on the public health and safety.”
Davis v. Taylor, 139 Wash. App. 715 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “” RCW 7.48.310(1). “Noise” is listed as an “agricultural activity.”
Alpental Cmty. Club, Inc. v. SGS, 111 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “(ACC), a residential community developed in 1967. At issue is whether ACC's nuisance suit against SGS is barred under RCW 7.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.310(1): 5 cases
Davis v. Taylor, 132 P.3d 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “., if consistent with good agricultural..”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 98 P.3d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 123 Wash. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Davis v. Taylor, 132 Wash. App. 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “practices and established prior to surrounding non-agricultural. . . activities, are presumed to be reasonable and shall not be found to constitute a nuisance unless the activity has a substantial adverse effect on the public health and safety.”
Davis v. Taylor, 139 Wash. App. 715 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 7.48.310(1). “Noise” is listed as an “agricultural activity.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.310(2): 2 cases
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 98 P.3d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 123 Wash. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.310(3): 2 cases
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 98 P.3d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 123 Wash. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.310(4): 2 cases
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 98 P.3d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Vicwood Meridian P'ship v. Skagit Sand & Gravel, 123 Wash. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…features and maintenance of streambanks and watercourses; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another. RCW 7.48.310(1).”
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.310(5): 2 cases
Alpental Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Seattle Gymnastics Soc'y, 111 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2005). “At issue is whether ACC’s nuisance suit against SGS is barred under RCW 7.48.305, which grants immunity to defendants who were engaged in statutorily defined “forest practices” before the plaintiffs “came to the nuisance.”
Alpental Cmty. Club, Inc. v. SGS, 111 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2005). “(ACC), a residential community developed in 1967. At issue is whether ACC's nuisance suit against SGS is barred under RCW 7.”
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.