HB2124

THE CONTEXT: Current law describes what constitutes a public nuisance, who may bring an action in superior court to abate, enjoin or prevent the activity, and classifies knowingly committing or failing to remove a public nuisance as a class 2 misdemeanor ( A. R.

WHAT THE BILL DID: The final vetoed version would require a court to award costs and attorney fees to an agricultural operation if a nuisance action is filed against an agricultural operation conducted on farmland and the court determines the action was filed to take or reduce the water used for its operation, modify the definition of agricultural operations to include water use by an owner, lessee, agent, independent contractor and supplier conducted on any facility for the production of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products or poultry products or for the purpose of agritourism, and remove the ability for the Attorney General to bring an action in superior court to abate, enjoin and prevent an activity described as a public nuisance.

WHY IT MATTERED: The practical reason for this bill was to turn the Legislature's standard for agricultural operations into an enforceable rule. It would require a court to award costs and attorney fees to an agricultural operation if a nuisance action is filed against an agricultural operation conducted on farmland and the court determines the action was filed to take or reduce the water used for its operation, and would also modify the definition of agricultural operations to include water use by an owner, lessee, agent, independent contractor and supplier conducted on any facility for the production of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products or poultry products or for the purpose of agritourism, rather than leave the current rule unchanged.