Maryland Supreme Court Reverses in Foster Farms Case: Lessons for County Right-to-Farm Boards

Tractor pulling disc and tilling farmland in Red River Basin by USDA

This is not a substitute for legal advice.  See here for the site’s reposting policy.

The Supreme Court of Maryland recently handed down a decision in the appeal of Talbot County’s decision involving the application and stockpiling of biosolids and soil conditioners on a farm and the county and state’s right-to-farm laws.  The Supreme Court found that the Appellate Court’s decision involving the state’s right-to-farm law was improper since the Talbot County Agricultural Reconilliation Board’s decision only involved Talbot County’s county right-to-farm ordinance.  Concerning the board’s decision, the Supreme Court found that the board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and reversed the appellate court’s decision.  The decision is In re Foster Farms, No. 25, SEPT. TERM, 2024 (Md. July 30, 2025). 

Background

I have previously written on the Circuit Court’s decision here and the Appellate Court’s decision here.  The farmland, bought in March 2020, drew odor complaints by September 2021 due to soil conditioners. Though deemed accepted practice by a county board, the Circuit Court reversed, ruling the state’s right-to-farm law didn’t apply due to the one-year provision, as it did not apply under state law.  The Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision.  This appeal followed.

Court’s Decision

In the appeal, the court deals with the fact that the Talbot County Agricultural Reconciliation Board’s decision did not touch upon the one-year provision in the state’s right-to-farm law.  The court decides that this issue could not properly be before the Circuit Court or the Appellate Court.  For these reasons, the court reverses the Appellate Court’s decision since it relied on the state law provisions and not Talbot County’s right-to-farm ordinance, the only thing the board decided in their decision.

The court next turns to the board’s decision involving whether the applying and stockpiling of biosolids and soil conditioners is a “generally accepted agricultural practice.”  In reviewing the record, the court determines that the board did not present substantial evidence to support the decision that applying and stockpiling was generally accepted.

In reviewing the record, the court determines that the board never determined if the quantities applied and stockpiling for use at other locations were a generally accepted agricultural practice.  At the same time, the record, according to the court, did not support that the different lands intended for applying the biosolids met the definition of “agricultural lands.”  Talbot County Code defines “agricultural lands” as those on the State’s tax rolls as agricultural land or those lands used for agricultural operations continuously for at least one year.  The board, according to the court, was basing its decision on the one-year requirement.  To the court, the board did not have any explicit findings in the records that land used for stockpiling met the definition of “agricultural land” and the other lands, utilized by the agricultural operation, were unidentified and unclear if those lands met the definition.

The court also questions the board’s decision that applying and stockpiling biosolids and soil conditioners did not violate public health, safety, and welfare.  In determining if an agricultural practice is a “generally accepted agricultural practice, the board has to determine if the practice violates public health, safety, and welfare, according to Talbot County’s ordinance.  To the court, the board’s decision acknowledged that the health, safety, and welfare of neighbors could be impacted. Still, the board never made a decision related to the public health, safety, and welfare with the “generally accepted agricultural practice” determination.

In the end, the court reversed the decision of the state’s Appellate Court.  Instead of remanding back to the county agricultural reconciliation board, the court did not do that here. It determined that the agricultural operation is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the practices are generally accepted.  This decision will open the operation up to lawsuits for nuisance.  

Two justices dissented, pointing out that the Talbot County Agricultural Reconciliation Board did develop a record to show that the practices were “generally acceptable agricultural practices.”  To the dissenting justices, the majority is relying on its judgment rather than the expertise provided by the county board in this decision.  

What Happens Now

On a good note, this decision did not attempt to touch the state’s right-to-farm law and only looked at the Talbot County Agricultural Reconciliation Board’s decision.  The agricultural operation can request a rehearing within 25 days of the decision, which the state’s Supreme Court may or may not allow.  The decision raises several concerns as to the type of record that a county board should develop in a future right-to-farm complaint.  Many of the county right-to-farm ordinances in the state allow for the board to request an attorney to aid in their work, but at the same time, counties may not have the funds available to cover attorneys’ fees in these matters.  The use of an attorney may aid the boards in fully developing a record that would stand appeal, but as here, it may be that a reviewing court may still review and find the decision lacking.

References

In re Foster Farm, No. 25, SEPT. TERM, 2024, 2025 WL 2158565 (Md. July 30, 2025).