Farmland Protection
Making the Case Against Rural Sprawl

Was it betrayal? Was it hypocrisy? Was it just flat out deception?

Whatever the case, it was clear to 1000 Friends staff attorney Blair Batson that what had been touted by members of the 1993 Legislature as a grand compromise between supporters and opponents of Oregon’s farmland protections had turned out to be a complete boon to the anti-planning faction.

Now, she knew, the only option was to win in court.

The 1993 session had opened with lawmakers calling for a solution to the long-running "secondary lands" controversy. Throughout long, tense negotiations, Batson had heard even the harshest opponents of Oregon’s farmland protection laws say they supported protecting Oregon’s best farmland, with a focus on the Willamette Valley. But they wanted to allow more houses on other farm and rangelands, especially in Southern, Central and Eastern Oregon.

Contested Terrain: This battle had been brewing ever since the 1973 Legislature had decreed that "the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state’s economic resources and the preservation of such land in large blocks is necessary to maintaining the agricultural economy of the state."

In declaring this policy, the Legislature never referred to "prime" farmland, but rather all farmland. Much of Oregon’s highly productive farmland–land that produces grapes, pears, wheat or cattle–is not "prime."

In 1975, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted a statewide planning goal to carry out this direction. Goal 3 ("Agricultural Lands") required counties to zone farm and range lands for exclusive farm use. This zoning was intended to halt the conversion of farmland into two- five-, and ten-acre hobby farms.

The new goal wasn’t easily accepted, even when applied to some of the state’s best farmland. As Goal 3 was adopted, Multnomah County was in the process of zoning Sauvie Island, a fertile farming area ten miles northwest of Portland at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers, for rural homesites. 1000 Friends argued that the new goal required protecting Sauvie Island with farm zoning, and in the end county officials agreed.

Efforts like this had to be repeated across the state, from the pear orchards of the Bear Creek Valley in Southern Oregon, to the apple orchards of Hood River County, to the potato, mint, and carrot seed fields of Jefferson County. 1000 Friends of Oregon was the only organization with the persistence and technical skills to analyze proposed land use plans and regulations, read and critique zoning ordinances, and collect the information about farming needed to protect Oregon’s agricultural lands. Ultimately, 16 million acres of farm and range lands (about 25,000 square miles) were protected.

None of these successes came without resistance from the opponents of Oregon’s land use program. After failing to repeal the program at the ballot box, the enemies of farmland conservation worked to declare millions of acres of farm, range and forestlands "secondary," allowing them to be carved into large lot subdivisions. 1000 Friends repeatedly mobilized its friends in farming and ranching and other allies to stop these efforts.

But then, in 1992, LCDC gave way to pressure and adopted its own secondary lands proposal. This proposal was dragged into the 1993 Legislative session, the longest in Oregon history.

Compromise or Capitulation? House Majority Leader Ray Baum pushed to allow more houses on what he considered less productive farm, forest, and range lands, especially east of the Cascades. Meanwhile, other legislators complained that good farmland in the Willamette Valley was being developed. That became the basis for a compromise in principle: increase protection for the best lands, particularly in the Willamette Valley, but allow more land divisions and development elsewhere.

The resulting legislation, House Bill 3661, gradually became the vehicle for efforts to address a wide spectrum of issues. Debate dragged on until the waning hours of the session in early August. But 1000 Friends ultimately decided the bill gave up too much protection. Moreover, while the weakening provisions had been written into the new law, a lot of the strengthening provisions had been left for LCDC to carry out through administrative rules.

Nonetheless, the bill passed and became law. LCDC then began drafting rules to improve protections for the best farmland. One of those rules required applicants requesting permission to build a farmhouse to earn about $16,000 a year net ($80,000 in gross farm sales) from farming. LCDC thought everyone involved in drafting HB 3661 knew they would adopt this kind of rule.

But it turned out that the great "compromise" was really supposed to be a capitulation. Only fifteen months after he had hailed HB 3661 as a historic achievement, Rep. Baum told a meeting of the Association of Oregon Counties, "We’re coming after land use." To launch the attack, Baum and Lane County filed an appeal of LCDC’s rules giving better protection to high value farmland.

Defeat—and Redemption: "We definitely were concerned that House Bill 3661 had given up too much," said Batson. "There was no way we could accept losing even the modest improvements that had been part of the deal." 1000 Friends joined LCDC in defending its authority to adopt the rules.

The 1993 compromise looked like a swindle by 1996 when the Court of Appeals agreed with Lane County and struck down LCDC’s rules, declaring that they violated the Legislature’s intent in passing HB 3661. But Batson, working closely with LCDC’s staff and attorneys, crafted an argument that persuaded the Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

Land use lawyers told Batson that she couldn’t win, that the Supreme Court would reject her arguments. But on August 7, 1997–almost four years to the day after passage of HB 3661–the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals. Quoting Senate Bill 100, which created Oregon’s planning system in 1973, the Court held that the rules were a valid exercise of LCDC’s authority to adopt "any statewide land use policies that it considers necessary," and that this authority had not been affected by HB 3661.

1000 Friends’ victory, like LCDC’s rules, could have been overturned by the 1999 Legislature. Lawmakers considered scores of bills to weaken farmland protections—bills that were in debate until the last hours of the session. But Batson and her colleagues were there fighting, successfully, to keep the laws, the rules, and Oregon’s best farmlands intact.