Right-to-farm vote draws outcry

Although residents voted in favor of a “right to farm” ordinance Tuesday night, some did not understand the need for one.

The ordinance’s charge is to reflect local support for Columbia farmers, but critics said it reflects identical language in existing state statutes.

The state’s “right-to-farm” law deems farming-related odors, noise, dust, chemicals and water pollution to non-public water supplies as not being a nuisance to area residents.

“We were looking for various ways in which the town could support the agricultural community,” said Selectman Carmen Vance.

Vance said she knew the ordinance was redundant, but it was “good for the community.”

Resident Victor Harriman said he was against the ordinance because state statutes already protect farmers against certain types of common nuisance complaints.

“I’m against the ordinance, as we don’t need it,” he said. “We don’t need another ordinance on the books.”

According to Harriman, creating an ordinance that reflected existing law was “adding another layer of bureaucracy” in town.

Local farmers came out to support the ordinance, saying it would let residents know town officials and other residents support them.

Resident and farm owner Keith Herzig said the ordinance would be the town’s way of reaffirming appreciation for farming.

He said the ordinance would let current and future residents know they should accept local farmers.

Joan Nichols, government relations specialist with the Connecticut Farm Bureau, told residents they should support the ordinance because it would keep farming alive in Columbia.

“Agriculture is unique,” said Nichols. “A lot of state laws are then reaffirmed through local towns.”

Nichols said state statutes can reflect issues of local interest, but they can be forgotten by local municipalities as well.

“Agriculture often times falls through the cracks,” she said.