I guess I need to take back my earlier statement about Sen. Jackman’s bills being herniated and accomplishing little. This one is short and makes a substantive change. Engrossed Version, Senate Bill 0267 Agricultural nuisance actions.
This amends a section of the code apparently designed to protect agricultural areas from nuisance suits when suburbia moves into the agricultral area. Under current law, an agricultural or industrial operation is not a nuisance if: 1) it has been in continuous operation for at least a year; 2) there is no significant change in the hours of operation; 3) there is no significant change in the type of operation; and 4) the operation would not have been a nuisance at the time the operation began at the locality.
Senator Jackman’s amendment to the law repeals the requirement that the hours remain substantially the same and defines the “no significant change” requirement so that a change in the size, ownership, or to a different type of agricultural use does not constitute a “significant change”. So, presumably under the new law, converting from a small, locally owned, odor-free agricultural operation in business between 8 and 5 to a huge operation owned by an out of state corporation belching out noxious odors 24 hours per day would not consitute a “significant change”. Nice. Passed 55-40.
[…] This looks like a follow up to Sen Jackman’s bill a couple of years ago that immunized agricultural operations when they changed from smaller part-time affairs to bigger full-time affairs, defining that not to be a “significant change.” […]