In Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders Limited Partnership (Wash. 1998) 134 Wn.2d 673, 952 P.2d 610, the Washington Supreme Court considered the language of the Washington act and rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the damages clause permitted them to recover damages under a nuisance theory as well as other tort theories, such as trespass. Buchanan (952 P.2d at p. 617.) Further, the court found such an interpretation would "fully gut" THE ENTIRE ACT: "If urban developers could invade an agricultural area and recover damages for nuisances arising from the normal operation of the farms, those farms would be forced out of operation nearly as quickly as if the farms were legally enjoined from conducting those activities." (Ibid., ) However, the court concluded, based on the Legislature's adoption of the damages clause, the statute did not govern activities that give rise to trespasses--those agricultural activities that interfere with a neighbor's actual possession of their property and cause it physical damage. ( Buchanan 952 P.2d at p. 618.)