Clark County residents filled the Battle Ground Event Center on Tuesday, Oct. 28, to weigh in on a long-awaited study that could shape the future of local farmland and development boundaries for years to come.
The workshop was part of the county’s Agricultural Lands Study, a countywide review led by consulting firm ECOnorthwest. The study aims to assess whether currently protected agricultural parcels should remain designated as such, or whether some could be reclassified for potential development under the state’s Growth Management Act.
The Clark County Council approved the $155,003 contract for the study in July, with results expected by June 2025, months ahead of the state’s December 31 deadline for the county’s comprehensive plan update.
City leaders from Ridgefield and La Center were among those who pushed for the study’s inclusion in the comprehensive plan. Both cities argued that without a current, countywide analysis, they could not request the reclassification of nearby agricultural lands that might qualify for removal from their protected status. If certain parcels are found eligible for de-designation, those lands could then be brought into city urban growth areas — allowing for future residential or commercial development depending on each city’s growth needs.
Kelsey Johnson, technical manager with ECOnorthwest, said the analysis will include both designated agricultural lands and rural areas outside the county’s existing urban growth boundaries.
“Our study area for this analysis includes the current agricultural land designations as well as other lands outside of the urban growth areas in Clark County that are in the rural designations,” Johnson said.
Johnson said the process involves several key data sources and criteria set under state rules.
“The main data sources that we've been using to kind of describe the agricultural landscape in the county are soils data from the National Resources Conservation Service,” Johnson said. “We're using land capability classifications and the farmland designations of prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance.”
She added that parcel size, crop data and enrollment in the state’s agricultural tax program are among the indicators being used to determine “long-term commercial significance.”
“The first one is that, you know, lands considered for designation are not currently characterized by urban growth,” Johnson said. “Lands are either currently used for agricultural production or they're capable of being used for agricultural production.”
Attendees closely examined detailed maps that identified prime and crucial statewide farmland, as well as parcel sizes and properties participating in farm tax programs. Some maps revealed that even smaller parcels outside official ag zones are actively farmed, raising questions about how those lands might be considered in future county planning.
Johnson said one takeaway from the study so far is the county’s strong soil base.
“I think one big takeaway is that Clark County has a lot of really high-quality soils,” she said. “Most of the study area is colored in green, so those lands are currently being farmed or capable of being farmed.”
She noted that feedback from residents has already prompted refinements to the study’s data sources, including adjustments to state crop maps that some farmers said missed actively cultivated areas.
“One of the bigger pieces of feedback was just on the reliability of the data that we were using,” Johnson said. “We got a lot of feedback that it was missing currently producing farmlands, so that really helped inform this agricultural land base.”
Among those attending was Dennis Zimmerly, a fourth-generation Ridgefield resident whose family once operated one of the largest potato farms in the county. Zimmerly now works in development but said he came to offer his perspective on what agricultural land designations mean for landowners.
Zimmerly noted that the study's main map, which shows tax lots with agricultural capacity, should account for wetlands, streams, and other unfarmable areas within those parcels to provide an accurate representation of farmable land.
“This study, if you read it and it says that it’s 30,000 acres but usable [acerage] is on 20,000, that’s a big difference in what you think you’re getting or not getting,” Zimmerly said.
He said the county must distinguish between gross acreage and land that’s truly usable.
“They need to go one more layer deeper and go into the GIS mapping and take out the creeks, wetlands, habitat areas, all of that to have a true net number,” he said.
Zimmerly added that much of Ridgefield’s current growth is occurring on land that has not been farmed for decades. He said the study’s impact on areas cities are considering for inclusion into their Urban Growth Boundaries was not a concern.
“I don't think that it would impact any because the study and anything that's being proposed to annex in, none of those are working farms,” he said. “As far as the farming community, none of that would be impacted.”
Still, Zimmerly said the study could help bring attention back to local production.
“If anything is not being farmed, maybe this would direct people to start utilizing that,” he said.
He reflected on how Ridgefield’s farming identity has changed over generations.
“The county 30 years ago had a lot of dairy farms, and now we're down to 3,” Zimmerly said. “Same thing with potato farming — Ridgefield that was once known for dairy farms and potatoes now has neither, but yet we're still consuming potato products and milk products, but it's all grown elsewhere.”
Clark County Council Chair Sue Marshall, who attended the event, said she expects the study to generate valuable but complex information before any decisions are made.
“It seems as though some of it may be contradictory,” Marshall said. “You need to really understand what criteria is being considered with each of the maps.”
The question of whether a lack of water rights disqualifies land from being considered viable was a recurring topic among workshop attendees, with several of them submitting written feedback expressing their concerns. Marshall, who owns a 29-acre farm, noted from experience that a lack of irrigation rights doesn’t necessarily disqualify land from agricultural use, noting multiple factors will play into its designation.
“We’re dry land farmers,” she said. “We’ve been dry land farming for 65 years, and this year was our second commercial harvest of hazelnuts. We got 52,000 pounds of hazelnuts, 18,000 last year.”
She said the viability of farmland depends not just on water access but on soil type and management.
“Our soil hangs on to moisture,” she said. “Whether or not it's being currently used for agriculture doesn't necessarily mean it's not good agricultural land.”
Marshall said she plans to weigh both public input and technical data before making decisions next year.
“I think the whole point of doing this study is to have the data to make informed decisions,” she said. “I will rely on the study for that very purpose.”
Still, she acknowledged the study’s tight timeline could have ripple effects on the county’s broader planning schedule.
“I don't know what being 6 months late means in terms of compliance with the state,” Marshall said. “I just don't know. So that unknown in my mind equals risk.”
The council is expected to review findings in early 2025, with a preferred alternative to be selected in January before the final comprehensive plan vote next June, the most likely date according to Marshall.
