Bill Description: House Bill 473 would require counties to create agricultural protection area commissions and accept applications from landowners to designate agricultural protection areas.
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 473 would create Chapter 97, Title 67, Idaho Code, which would, among other things, require counties to "create an agricultural protection area commission by resolution or ordinance such that the governing body will be ready to accept applications from landowners to designate agricultural protection areas no later than January 1, 2025."
These "agricultural protection areas shall be designated on future land use planning maps and comprehensive plans of counties and municipalities to serve as a voluntary and expeditious tool for working landowners while also informing planners, commissions, county officials, and citizens at large on how to proactively plan for agriculture."
An "agricultural protection area commission" shall include "at least three (3) and no more than five (5) members actively employed by or supporting production agriculture in the county." These members' terms "shall be no less than three (3) years and no greater than six (6) years."
Requiring each county to establish a commission, establish a process for accepting applications, and process such applications is an expansion of government.
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
While the process created by House Bill 473 is a bit convoluted, its intent appears to be to protect property rights. The legislative intent language for the Agricultural Protection Area Act says, in part, "Idaho deeply respects the property rights of individual landowners and seeks to minimize the government's involuntary control over a landowner's decisions regarding the use of his property."
Protecting property rights doesn't require new commissions or expanding government, though. This goal could be better served by simply prohibiting local governments from infringing on property rights through annexation, planning, zoning, and other regulatory efforts.
House Bill 473 does contain provisions that appear to protect property rights for landowners who use their land for agricultural purposes and wish to lock in this purpose for at least 20 years.
The bill says, "Twenty (20) years after its creation, if the landowner desires to continue with the agricultural protection area, no action on the part of the landowner is necessary and the governing body shall automatically renew the agricultural protection area for another twenty (20) years. If the landowner desires to terminate the agricultural protection area, written notice to the applicable governing body is required at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the agricultural protection area before the governing body terminates the designation."
It also says, "A landowner may add land to an existing agricultural protection area by filing a proposal with the applicable governing body."
One exception to the 20-year rule is that "an owner of land within an agricultural protection area may remove any or all of the land from the agricultural protection area by filing a petition for removal with the applicable governing body," but the removal date will be "ten (10) years from the date of petition for removal, or upon expiration of the designation, whichever is sooner."
The bill says, “A governing body that creates an agricultural protection area shall encourage the continuity, development, and viability of agricultural use within the specific boundaries designated in the agricultural protection area by not enacting a local law, ordinance, or regulation that would restrict a farm structure or farming practice, unless that farm structure or farming practice does not comply with generally recognized farming practices."
Not enacting "a local law, ordinance, or regulation" that infringes on property rights is a good thing. It's unfortunate these protections will be reserved to those whose land is in an agricultural protection area rather than extended to all property owners.