Agricultural Law Weekly Review
The Agricultural Law Weekly Review provides an update of recent agricultural law developments from local, state, national, and international levels. Subscribe for updates.
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – October 10, 2019
On September 30, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced a one-year extension for farmers to replace livestock sold in response to severe drought conditions. According to Notice 2006-82, qualifying sales are limited to livestock owned for draft, dairy, or breeding purposes. The livestock must have been sold entirely on account of drought, and the farmer or rancher must have qualified for the four-year replacement period. Farmers in applicable regions may now delay replacing livestock until the end of the tax year following the “first drought-free year” and may also defer capital […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – October 3, 2019
On September 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court’s order, holding that local governments cannot impose stricter nutrient management requirements on small farms than those already imposed upon large agricultural operations under the state Nutrient Management Act (NMA) (Russell Berner, et al., v. Montour Township, et al., No. 39 MAP 2018). The question of whether and to what extent the NMA preempts local regulation of agricultural operations that are not “concentrated agricultural operations” (CAOs) became the central issue of this […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – September 26, 2019
On September 20, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced the publication of a final rule lifting a requirement that employers seeking H-2A worker certification advertise available job openings in print newspapers (20 CFR 655). In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), employers seeking to hire foreign workers on H-2A nonimmigrant provisions must demonstrate the lack of “able, willing, and qualified” candidates within the United States. This “labor market test” required employers to place at least two separate print advertisements in an area newspaper with one appearing on a Sunday […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – September 19, 2019
On September 12, 2019, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Act rule defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). According to EPA, the repeal of the 2015 rule is the first step in its two-step approach to redefine WOTUS and clearly distinguish between federally regulated and state-controlled waters. For the second step, EPA proposed a new WOTUS definition in December 2018 (84 FR 4154). The final rule will become active after 60 days once published in the Federal Register. For further […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – September 13, 2019
Water Quality: EPA Seeks Comment on Water Quality Trading Policy
On September 5, 2019, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced that the agency is seeking comment on guidance issued in the memorandum, Updating the EPA’s Water Quality Trading Policy to Promote Market-Based Mechanisms for Improving Water Quality. Specifically, EPA requests comment on one of the principles outlined in the memo which states that EPA “encourages simplicity and flexibility in implementing baseline concepts.” The memo asks stakeholders to consider the best way to apply the load allocation baseline in order to improve water quality. Under the Clean Water Act, […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – September 5, 2019
Antitrust: USDA Announces Investigation into Tyson Foods Following Plant Fire
On August 28, 2019, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Secretary Sonny Perdue announced an investigation into beef pricing margins following a recent fire at the Tyson Foods beef plant in Holcomb, Kansas. Tyson Foods stated in a press release that the company maintains several Kansas plants, which created a $2.4 billion impact on the state in 2018. The investigation will be conducted by the Packers and Stockyards Division (PSD) to determine whether standards for unfair practices were violated. PSD will look for “evidence of price manipulation, collusion, [and] restrictions of competition.” The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—August 29, 2019
Checkoff Programs: Court Dismisses Challenge Regarding Use of Pork Checkoff Funds
On August 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the government improperly used funds collected under the pork checkoff program (Humane Society of the United States v. Perdue, No. 18-5188). Under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, the government may collect “assessments” from producers for the purpose of “strengthen[ing] the position of the pork industry in the marketplace.” Known as “checkoffs,” these assessments are paid by producers to the National Pork Board (Board) who in turn uses the […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—August 22, 2019
Right to Farm Laws: Missouri CAFO Closes Following Nuisance Lawsuits
On August 19, 2019, Valley Oaks Steak Co. announced that the Missouri-based company was closing operations due to numerous lawsuits following a proposed expansion of a concentrated feeding operation (CAFO). Previously, on July 30, 2019, the law firm of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain (HFM) announced that 141 property owners had filed suit in the Jackson County Circuit Court regarding a proposed CAFO expansion located in Lone Jack, Missouri. According to HFM, the CAFO—which is owned by Valley Oaks Steak Co.—has been in operation since 2016. HMF stated that Valley Oaks Steak Co. was seeking […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—August 15, 2019
Pesticides: EPA Will Not Approve Labels Asserting that Glyphosate Causes Cancer
On August 8, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release stating that the agency “will no longer approve product labels claiming glyphosate is known to cause cancer.” According to EPA, such claims are false and as such do “not meet the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.” EPA’s statement is a direct reaction to California’s Proposition 65 which requires an established list of chemicals determined by the state to “cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” If a chemical is on the list, […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—August 8, 2019
Pesticides: California Couple Agrees to Reduced Roundup Damage Award
On July 26, 2019, Plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod agreed to reduce a jury award from over $2 billion to over $86 million for alleged harm caused by Monsanto Company’s glyphosate-based weed killer Roundup (Pilliod, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al. Case No RG17862702). The Pilliods alleged that exposure to Roundup caused them both to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. On May 13, 2019, a California jury found that Monsanto Company’s actions regarding its product Roundup entitled Mr. Pilliod to over $37 million for economic and noneconomic loss and $1 billion in punitive […]
