Colorado § 35-3.5-102 - Agricultural operation deemed not nuisance - state agricultural commission - attorney fees - exceptions.

§ 35-3.5-102. Agricultural operation deemed not nuisance - state agricultural commission - attorney fees - exceptions.

(1) (a) Except as provided in this section, an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production.

(b) An agricultural operation that employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance as a result of any of the following activities or conditions:

(I) Change in ownership;

(II) Nonpermanent cessation or interruption of farming;

(III) Participation in any government sponsored agricultural program;

(IV) Employment of new technology; or

(V) Change in the type of agricultural product produced.

(2) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if such agricultural operation:

(I) Was established prior to the commencement of the use of the area surrounding such agricultural operation for nonagricultural activities;

(II) Employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production; and

(III) Is not operating negligently.

(b) Employment of methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production shall create a rebuttable presumption that an agricultural operation is not operating negligently.

(3) The court may, pursuant to sections 13-16-122 and 13-17-102, C.R.S., award expert fees, reasonable court costs, and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action brought to assert that an agricultural operation is a private or public nuisance. Nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting, superseding, abrogating, or contravening in any way the provisions of sections 25-7-138 (5), C.R.S., and 25-8-501.1 (8), C.R.S.

(4) As used in this article, "agricultural operation" has the same meaning as "agriculture", as defined in section 35-1-102 (1).

(5) Any ordinance or resolution of any unit of local government that makes the operation of any agricultural operation a nuisance or provides for the abatement thereof as a nuisance under the circumstances set forth in this section is void; except that the provisions of this subsection (5) shall not apply when an agricultural operation is located within the corporate limits of any city or town on July 1, 1981, or is located on a property that the landowner voluntarily annexes to a municipality on or after July 1, 1981.

(6) This section shall not invalidate any contracts made prior to September 1, 2000, but shall be applicable only to contracts and agreements made on or after September 1, 2000.

(7) A local government may adopt an ordinance or pass a resolution that provides additional protection for agricultural operations; except that such an ordinance or resolution shall not prevent an owner from selling the owner's land or prevent or hinder the owner in seeking approval to put the land into alternative use.

Source: L. 81: Entire article added, p. 1694, § 1, effective July 1. L. 96: (5) added, p. 675, § 2, effective May 2. L. 99: (1) amended, p. 335, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2000: Entire section amended, p. 198, § 1, effective September 1. L. 2025: (7) amended, (HB 25-1084), ch. 24, p. 92, § 9, effective August 6.

ANNOTATION

The mere fact that an operator moves an agricultural sprinkler on a county road does not establish a public nuisance. Moreover, even if the use of the agricultural sprinkler constituted a public nuisance, the county is empowered only to abate the nuisance to the extent reasonably necessary and, because of state policy in support of the use of implements of husbandry, an absolute prohibition on the movement of agricultural sprinklers on a county road is unreasonable. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Logan County v. Vandemoer, 205 P.3d 423 (Colo. App. 2008).