This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Utah lawmakers rewarded building contractors lawsuit protections while failing to approve similar litigation protections for farmers.
An agricultural bill died in the Senate late Wednesday that would have made it difficult for neighbors objecting to the sights and smells of a farming operation to sue for damages.
The Utah Farm Bureau pushed for HB229, pointing to a lawsuit brought by a Highland City couple, who didn't like manure specks and alfalfa seeds from a neighboring farm blowing into their pool.
The farmer, Kevin Birrell, won the lawsuit last July but ended up paying $70,000 in legal costs.
"I'm past the lawsuit that was brought against me - the bill was for all the other farmers out here," Birrell said Thursday. "Farmers would have been protected if they could show they are following sound agricultural practices. There aren't any protections like that now."
Rep. Mike Morley, R-Spanish Fork, who sponsored the nuisance lawsuit measure, said there was little opposition to the bill. "It just didn't get prioritized and we just ran out of time."
Still, the measure's failure to pass the Senate - after only three no votes in the House - is an indication that agriculture needs can go unnoticed, said Morley, who is a building contractor.
"It was frustrating," said Morley. "But I'll sponsor a bill again next year."
In the meantime, said Utah Farm Bureau CEO Randy Parker, "it will be the ultimate slap in our face" if a farmer or rancher faces a lawsuit similar to the legal action brought against Birrell.
"No farmer or rancher should be forced into a legal fight," said Parker, who testified in a 4th District Court trial last year that Birrell had been following standard agricultural practices. "We want to protect the folks who want to stay on their land."
David Clark, R-Santa Clara, who voted against the bill, had said the legislation was unnecessary and afforded farmers protections other industries don't enjoy.