{"id":5987,"date":"2018-06-10T01:37:26","date_gmt":"2018-06-10T06:37:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=5987"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:23:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:23:12","slug":"recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US"},"content":{"rendered":"

There have been several court decisions lately across the country related to states’ Right to Farm statutes.\u00a0 These cases provide good examples of the types of claims that can arise against a farm operation and also illustrate the differences between each state’s Right to Farm Act.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Pennsylvania<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The Pennsylvania Right-to-Farm Act was at issue in\u00a0Burlingame v. Dagostin<\/em>, 2018 WL 1530690<\/a>. Since 1955, the Dagostin family has operated a farm in Luzerne County.\u00a0 Up until 1990, it was a dairy, but then was switched to a beef farm.\u00a0 In 2011, the family decided to convert to a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) for pigs.\u00a0 The farm developed a required nutrient management plan prior to beginning the CAFO operations. The facilities were built and the first shipment of pigs arrived in January 2013.\u00a0 At some point after that, the Dagostin family began spreading liquid swine manure (LSM) on their surrounding farm fields.<\/p>\n

In May 2014 and April 2015, neighbors of the farm filed a nuisance suit against the Dagostin’s spreading of the LSM.\u00a0 The Dagostin family moved for summary judgment arguing their operation was protected by the PA Right to Farm Act.\u00a0 The trial court agreed that the Act prohibited the plaintiffs’ claims and entered judgment in favor of the Dagostins.\u00a0 The plaintiffs appealed.<\/p>\n

The court found the following under the PA Right to Farm Act:<\/p>\n

(1) The farm lawfully operated since 1955, which was more than one year prior to the filing of the nuisance complaints.<\/span>\u00a0 The plaintiffs argued it was the date the CAFO began or the LSM was initially spread that should be considered, but the court reasoned that the “agricultural operation” was the entire farm, which began decades ago.\u00a0 Thus, this prong of the test was satisfied.<\/p>\n

(2) The spreading of LSM in the fields is a normal agricultural operation.<\/span>\u00a0 The parties did not dispute this fact.<\/p>\n

(3) Either the conditions or circumstances that are the basis for the complaint existed unchanged since the established date of operation or if there have been expansions or changes, the facilities have (a) operated for at least 1 year prior to the filing of the complaint or (b) been addressed in a nutrient management plan approved prior to the commencement of such expansion, which as been followed.<\/span>\u00a0 The court easily found that\u00a0the construction of a 40,000 square-foot barn and 1.8 million-gallon storage pit was a substantial expansion.\u00a0 Thus, the question became whether the facility operated for at least 1 year prior to the complaint being filed or adopted a nutrient management plan prior to expansion.\u00a0 Here, the nutrient management plan was adopted and approved prior to beginning operation of the CAFO.\u00a0 Further, the court found that the farm had followed the approved plan.<\/p>\n

Thus, the plaintiffs claims were dismissed because the Right to Farm Act applied.\u00a0 As the Court noted, “We do not doubt that Plaintiffs are legitimately aggrieved by the odors associated with the farm’s expanded\/altered operation.\u00a0 However, our legislature has determined that such effects are outweighed by the benefit of established farms investing in the expansion of agricultural operations in Pennsylvania, in regulatory compliance with approved nutrient management plans.”<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs have sought review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.\u00a0 [View article here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Alaska<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In\u00a0Riddle v. Lanser<\/em>, 2018 WL 1661600<\/a>, the Alaska Supreme Court determined that storage of septage in farm lagoons that was not related to farming, but instead to the defendant’s septic pumping and storage business, was a nuisance and that the Alaska Right to Farm Act did not apply.<\/p>\n

Mr. Riddle purchased farmland near Fairbanks in 2005.\u00a0 He began fencing and clearing the land, acquired farm equipment, and raised livestock and various crops on the property.\u00a0 Mr. Riddle also owned Fairbanks Pumping and Thawing, a company that pumps septic tanks.\u00a0 When he purchased the farmland, he also built five septage lagoons on the property and began dumping septage he collected in his business into the lagoons.\u00a0 In 2010, Riddle began allowing other septic businesses to dispose of their septage in his lagoons for a fee.\u00a0 Riddle began spreading spetage on his farmland in June 2010.<\/p>\n

In 2007, Mr. Lanser purchased land next to Mr. Riddle and began building homes on the property.\u00a0 Lanser reported odors from Riddle’s farm in May 2010.\u00a0 In 2010 and 2011, other neighboring landowners began complaining about the smell.\u00a0 Lanser field suit against Riddle in December 2011 claiming nuisance and seeking an injunction.<\/p>\n

The trial court found that Riddle’s septage storage and application was a nuisance and that the Alaska Right to Farm Act did not apply.\u00a0 First, the court reasoned that Riddle’s farm was not an “agricultural facility” that was “used or intended for use in the commercial production of crops, livestock, or livestock products” as required by the statute.\u00a0 The court noted that Riddle had not sold any crops or other farm products and had reported no income from farming.\u00a0 Although the court noted Riddle may, at some point in the future, use the farm for commercial production, based upon the fact he appears to be growing sod for sale, that was not not enough under the statute.\u00a0 The court viewed Riddle’s operation or more a “hobby farm” than a “commercial farm” that was protected under the Act.\u00a0\u00a0Second, the court held that the septic lagoons were not an “agricultural operation” as defined in the Act because he was not operating the lagoons in conjunction with agricultural activities.\u00a0 Although Riddle said he intended to eventually use the lagoons to support farm activities, he was not yet doing so.<\/p>\n

On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.\u00a0 Even if Riddle’s farm was a “commercial agricultural facility” and even if the lagoons were an “agricultural operation,” he did not use (or intend to use) the lagoons in a farming capacity until after the lagoons had already become a nuisance.\u00a0 The Right to Farm Act provides that if an agricultural facility was not a nuisance when it began, changes in the facility’s surrounding cannot turn the facility into a nuisance.\u00a0 But this was not the situation here: Riddle did not intend to use the lagoons for farming when he built them and didn’t use them for any farming-related purpose until they had already become a nuisance.\u00a0 Thus, because the lagoons were already a nuisance by the time Riddle started spreading septage on his fields, the Right to Farm Act did not apply.<\/p>\n

Georgia<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs in\u00a0Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Ratner<\/em>, 812 S.E.2d 120,<\/a> filed suit against a recycled paper mill plant near their homes claiming nuisance.\u00a0 The Georgia Court of Appeals considered whether the Georgia Right to Farm Act prohibited the plaintiffs’ nuisance claims.<\/p>\n

The paper mill was built in 1986.\u00a0 Approximately 130 ares of the Mill’s property has been used as a sludge disposal site.\u00a0 As required by law, the Mill adds bacteria to the sludge to reduce the amount of oxygen and sulfates.\u00a0 This process results in hydrogen sulfide being released from the disposal site, which smells like rotten eggs.\u00a0 The Mill is in compliance with all state and federal laws related to the sludge disposal and the emission of the hydrogen sulfide.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs built their homes in the area in 2000.\u00a0 In 2006-2007, plaintiffs began noticing issues with corrosion of metal components in their HVAC units and fixtures on their homes and odor from the hydrogen sulfide.\u00a0 Plaintiffs experts opined that the damages to their property were caused by the emissions from the plant.\u00a0 In response to complaints, the Mill engaged in remediation efforts, including replacing HVAC units and, eventually, having the sludge removed from the Mill.\u00a0 Nevertheless, a lawsuit was filed.\u00a0 The Mill argued that the Right to Farm Act prohibited the plaintiffs’ claims.<\/p>\n

The Georgia Right to Farm Act protects “agricultural support facilities,” which are defined as “any food processing plant or forest products processing plant together with all related or ancillary activities.”\u00a0 Further, a “forest products processing plant” is a “commercial operation that manufactures, packages, labels, distributes, or stores any forest product.”\u00a0 The term “forest product” is not defined by statute.\u00a0 The court held that the Mill was an “agricultural support facility.”\u00a0 “This is because encouraging recycling conserves forest land and enables continued development of additional markets for distributing products made from wood fiber.”\u00a0 Thus, the Right to Farm Act applies and the lawsuit was dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There have been several court decisions lately across the country related to states’ Right to Farm statutes.\u00a0 These cases provide good examples of the types of claims that can arise against a farm operation and also illustrate the differences between each state’s Right to Farm Act. Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Right-to-Farm Act was at issue in\u00a0Burlingame v. Dagostin, 2018 WL 1530690. Since 1955, the Dagostin family has operated a farm in Luzerne County.\u00a0 Up until 1990, it was a dairy, but then was switched to a beef farm.\u00a0 In… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2443,"featured_media":6221,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-right-to-farm-laws"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nRecent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"There have been several court decisions lately across the country related to states’ Right to Farm statutes.\u00a0 These cases provide good examples of the types of claims that can arise against a farm operation and also illustrate the differences between each state’s Right to Farm Act. Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Right-to-Farm Act was at issue in\u00a0Burlingame v. Dagostin, 2018 WL 1530690. Since 1955, the Dagostin family has operated a farm in Luzerne County.\u00a0 Up until 1990, it was a dairy, but then was switched to a beef farm.\u00a0 In... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-06-10T06:37:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:23:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2018\/06\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"391\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\"},\"headline\":\"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-10T06:37:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:23:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1374,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Right to Farm laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/\",\"name\":\"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-10T06:37:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:23:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":391},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/10\\\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"There have been several court decisions lately across the country related to states’ Right to Farm statutes.\u00a0 These cases provide good examples of the types of claims that can arise against a farm operation and also illustrate the differences between each state’s Right to Farm Act. Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Right-to-Farm Act was at issue in\u00a0Burlingame v. Dagostin, 2018 WL 1530690. Since 1955, the Dagostin family has operated a farm in Luzerne County.\u00a0 Up until 1990, it was a dairy, but then was switched to a beef farm.\u00a0 In... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2018-06-10T06:37:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:23:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":391,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2018\/06\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626"},"headline":"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US","datePublished":"2018-06-10T06:37:26+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:23:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/"},"wordCount":1374,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2018\/06\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg","articleSection":["Right to Farm laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/","name":"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2018\/06\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg","datePublished":"2018-06-10T06:37:26+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:23:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2018\/06\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2018\/06\/14051124822_fb37e16b4a_z.jpg","width":640,"height":391},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2018\/06\/10\/recent-right-to-farm-decisions-around-the-us\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Recent Right to Farm Decisions Around the US"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626","name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5987","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2443"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5987"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5987\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15356,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5987\/revisions\/15356"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}