By Cindy Alia 11/21/2025
Media is quick to publish stories related to the phrase "food deserts" and blaming it for the most part on evil corporations that market foods. There are a lot of reasons for the so called food deserts, including corporate decision making on the vialbility of certain locations impacted by crime, theft, or other societal ills that make doing business at a given location that is unpoliced too much of a business challenge.
Currently the solution discussed is to create government managed grocery outlets for these self-inflicted food deserts. That seems like a solution bound to impact food freedom negatively with a method that depends on negative reinforcement. The solution does not increase food accessability or choice, but relies on a notion that food will be available if one behaves in a certain fashion, a dependence on government to eat even though that government has already proven it will not increase safety or reduce theft in order to mead out sustainance. Clearly not the best solution to a problem that has a solution if current laws were enforced and in past, promised to be accomplished.
There is no need for "food deserts" in a state that produces more than enough food to create food oases. What then, other than societal ills impact such an oasis from occuring? There are many farms and farmers who willingly and happily provide food for those among us needing extra help with procuring food, either through donation of produce and products or through giving portions of their land to be used for that purpose. This works well and provides incentive and satisfaction to individuals willing to participate in the generosity of farmers. While good and helpful, it does not completely relieve those seeking food freedom even while providing a superior product in terms of nutritional value.
What then is most impacting the success of farms and farmers willing and currently available in providing abundance to sustain their farming and others needing good food?
It is an imbalance in the regulatory environment in which farmers must operate that leads to the loss of productive farms, and abundance of fresh and healthy foods. Yes, there are corporate farms in Washington state - according to the USDA's 2022 Census of Agriculture, corporations own and operate 3,868 farms in the state, accounting for just 12% of the total 32,076 farms. This figure includes nonfamily corporations.
The remaining farms are partnerships (7.7%) or other entities like estates, trusts, or grazing associations (about 2%).Washington's agriculture is dominated by family farms, but corporate ownership exists, particularly in larger-scale operations for crops like apples, potatoes, and dairy which contribute to the state's $12.7 billion in annual agricultural sales.
Distinct from the corporate farms are the 78.3% of farms classified as family-owned (such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or family corporations). These are our important food producers in our state, providing good clean food from a variety of approaches to farming, making the sustainability of farmed food varied and innovative.
There has been constant pressure on the 78.3% of family farms in Washington state to give more land to enhance such things as fish life, stream flow and water availability. Farms are pushed to create larger buffers which take productive land out of use. Couple this with an administrative demand to prove historical water use and rights and the burden on family farms can be overwhelming leading to a loss of family farms that provide good food at a reasonable cost to consuming families in Washington State.
No precise statewide figure exists for family farms lost directly due to water rights regulations like adjudications, fines, or curtailments discussed (e.g., Yakima/Nooksack processes, DOE enforcement). These contribute to broader pressures, but causation is multifaceted (e.g., low commodity prices, labor costs, climate and climate policies). Key data:
Overall Farm Losses: Washington lost 3,717 farms (2017–2022, USDA Census of Agriculture), averaging ~14/week or ~2/day—many small/family operations (<10 acres down 20.7%). This equates to ~2,100 losses in 2020–2022 alone, with trends continuing (total farms fell 7% 2010–2019; 14% 2012–2022). This is an unacceptable down trend in production and Food Freedom making locally grown and produced food less available to more people.
The Washinton state Department of Ecology which oversees water rights along side other state agencies, including Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources, puts a subjective, rather than a common sense objective lens on water rights and the use of water for agricultural purposes. For an example, the Yakima Basin Adjudication of water rights decree validated ~2,300 surface water rights (down from ~3,000 claims after evidence review). Certificates specify quantity (e.g., cubic feet per second or acre-feet), priority date, purpose (e.g., irrigation, municipal). While touted as a solution to water right disputes and a way to move into the future with more certainty, the numbers do represent a loss of 700 claims to water rights, presumably with a corresponding loss in agricultural production.
The current Nooksack water rights adjudication is more complex than what occurred in the Yakima Basin Adjudication and possibly can result in a more negative impact on agriculture if the process remains rigidly and objectively enforced rather than by initiating an administrative construct which would be a more common sense subjective solution allowing for a reasonable and productive agricultural water use without over burdomsome costs or production cuts. Future certainty in water rights should not be interpreted to mean a future with certain loss of farming and farms.
Nooksack Adjudication Claims Process Issues (as of Nov 2025)
- Severe underfunding for Whatcom County court system (new judge, staff, and facilities needed, but state funding falls far short).
- Claim forms are extremely complex; many farmers and homeowners lack historical records to prove pre-1950s use.
- ~30,000 parties must file by May 2026 or risk losing rights; support from Ecology is limited.
- Ongoing tension between agricultural users and tribes and federal claims creates uncertainty and slows cooperation.
- Process already delayed multiple times and is expected to drag on 10–20 years, mirroring the 42-year Yakima ordeal.
In short: the claims phase is burdensome, under-resourced, and highly contentious, with real risk of valid rights being lost due to paperwork failures.
Broader Trends from Nooksack Adjudication (Ongoing, 2024–)
- No individual farm closures documented yet (claims phase ends May 2026), but Whatcom Family Farmers reports widespread anxiety: e.g., Fred Likkel (exec director) highlights undocumented rights risking shutoffs for dairy/hay operations, potentially converting farmland to residential. Projections: 10–20-year process could mirror Yakima's disruptions, affecting $100M+ local ag without collaborative storage solutions.
These cases underscore tensions between fish protections (ESA/Boldt) and ag viability, with calls for exemptions and infrastructure.
To include one man's struggle with the regulatory environment that exists in Washington State, we look at the as yet unresolved case of Robert Grieff as he tries to negotiate an unseeing state agency, Ecology.
1. Robert Greiff Farm (Little Spokane Watershed, 2023–2025) https://capitalpress.com/2025/11/03/washington-ecology-fines-weigh-heavily-on-octogenarian-farmer/
- Background: An 85-year-old multigenerational family farm (69 acres of hay, alfalfa, grain) and North Spokane Farm Museum, using a spring from Dragoon Creek (closed to new rights since 1976) for irrigation.
- Regulatory Action: DOE issued a 2023 cease-and-desist, followed by escalating fines ($6,000 in 2024; $15,000 + $100,000 in 2025) for unpermitted use, totaling $121,000. A lien was placed on the property, blocking sale or refinance.
- Impact: Halted irrigation mid-season, threatening legacy inheritance and museum viability. Greiff claims generational use predates closures; DOE cites fish habitat harm.
To summarize this discussion. For the sake of Food Freedom, as in choice of food and food availability, all people of the state rely on a free, and fairly regulated agricultural industry where they can choose between production methods and outcomes which suit their needs.
An overly burdensome and one size fits all objective based state regulatory environment rather than one which uses a lens that includes subjective goals and better collaboration with agricultural family producers of food for the regulatory edict is what is ending family farming which depends on the ability to plan for today and into the future for survival of farming. The people of Washington depend on the worthy work of family farms.
State agencies must stop the practice of treating water use and costs as a static and rigid commodity which can be marketed at the same price to all users. The costs of doing business and planning for the future are different for different purposes. Family and residential use, agricultural use, and development or housing uses are all differently costed in the final product. To expect all to bear the costs of water at the same level, including such things as water marketing or mitigation costs is unfair and damaging to our economy and to our future viability.
We all need those who can produce our food, be that production a family garden, a small farm, large farm, or specialty producer. This is what creates the conditions for Food Oases and Food Freedom. It is way past time for our state agencies, especially Ecology to stop treating all as apples, and realize there is not an across the board comparison of apples and oranges. We expect Ecology to consider all uses and prioritize production over regulation before it is too late for more of our food producing farmers.
For more information on farming and the regulatory burden of farming see these websites:
November 21, 2025