Crop Issues
Winter is a good time to review farm leases, for both economic and legal reasons. We'll provide you current information to help with the farmland leasing process in our Ohio Farmland Leasing Update webinar on February 9, 2022 from 7 to 9 p.m. Barry Ward, Leader of Production Business Management for OSU Extension, will address the economic issues and our legal team of Peggy Hall and Robert Moore will provide the legal information.
Our agenda will include:
- Current economic outlook for Ohio row crops
- Research on cash rent markets for the Eastern Corn Belt
- Rental market outlook fundamentals
- Negotiating conservation practices
- Using leases in farmland succession planning
- Ohio's proposed law on providing notice of termination
- Ensuring legal enforceability of a lease
There is no fee for the webinar, but registration is necessary. Register at https://go.osu.edu/farmlandleasingupdate.
We’ve quickly reached the end of January, and several of the legal issues I’ve talked about in OSU’s “Agricultural Outlook” meetings have surfaced this month. If the current pace keeps up, 2022 promises to be a busy year for agricultural law. Here’s a review of three legal issues I predict we’ll see that have already begun to emerge in 2022.
Water, water. From defining WOTUS to addressing Lake Erie water quality, water law will continue to be everywhere this year. The U.S. Supreme Court just announced on January 24 that it will hear the well-known case of Sackett v EPA to review whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used the proper test to determine whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The case is one example of the ongoing push-pull in the WOTUS definition, which establishes waters that are subject to the federal Clean Water Act. The Biden administration proposed a new WOTUS rule last December that would replace the Trump-era rule, and comments remain open on that definition until February 7. Ohio has wrangled with its own water issues, particularly with agricultural nutrient impacts on water quality. We’ll see this year if the state will continue to rely on H2Ohio and similar incentive-based programs and whether the Ohio EPA will face additional litigation over its development of a Total Maximum Daily Load for Lake Erie.
Pesticide challenges. The EPA announced a new policy on January 11 to more closely evaluate potential effects of pesticide active ingredients on endangered species and critical habitats. That was the same day the agency re-registered Enlist One and Enlist Duo pesticides, but with new label restrictions and prohibited use in hundreds of counties across the U.S., including a dozen Ohio counties. An EPA report documenting dicamba damage in 2021 could form the basis for yet another lawsuit this year demanding that EPA vacate dicamba’s registration. Meanwhile, we await a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it will review Hardeman v. Monsanto, one of dozens of cases awarding damages against Monsanto (now Bayer) for personal injury harms caused by glyphosate.
Opposition to livestock production practices. Ohio pork producers watching California’s Proposition 12 will be happy with a recent California court decision prohibiting enforcement of one part of the law that went into effect on January 1. The provision requires any pork and eggs sold in the state to be from breeding pigs and laying hens that are not raised in a “cruel manner,” meaning that the animals have a certain amount of usable pen space. The California court agreed with grocers and other retailers that the law could not be enforced on sales of pork meat because the state hasn’t yet finalized its regulations. The law could be subject to further scrutiny from a higher court. Several agricultural organizations have unsuccessfully challenged the law as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, but one of those cases currently awaits a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it will review the case. Other livestock production issues we’ll see this year include continued battles over Right to Farm laws that limit nuisance lawsuits against farms, and challenges to “ag gag” laws that aim to prevent or punish undercover investigations on farms.
There’s more to come. Watch for more of our predictions on what 2022 may bring to the agricultural law arena in upcoming posts. Or drop into one of our Agricultural Outlook and Policy meetings to hear my Ag Law Outlook. As quickly as the year is moving, we’ll soon know how many of those predictions are correct.
Tags: WOTUS, water quality, tmdl, pesticides, dicamba, glyphosate, California Proposition 12, animal welfare, commerce clause, Ag Gag, right to farm, nuisance
Comments: 0
Winter is a good time to review farm leases, and current information is critical to that process. That's why our Farm Office team is offering its Ohio Farmland Leasing Update, a webinar on February 9, 2022 from 7 to 9 p.m. I'll be joined for the webinar by co-speakers Barry Ward, Leader of Production Business Management for OSU Extension, and attorney Robert Moore.
On the legal side, we'll share legal information to help parties deal with addressing conservation practices in a leasing situation, using leases in farmland succession planning, Ohio's proposed new law about providing notice of termination, and ensuring legal enforceability of a lease. On the economic side, Barry Ward will provide a current economic outlook for Ohio row crops, research on cash rent markets for the Eastern Corn Belt, and rental market outlook fundamentals. We'll also overview farmland leasing resources.
There is no fee for the webinar, but registration is necessary. Register at https://go.osu.edu/farmlandleasingupdate.
The Ohio Farm Custom Rates Survey data collection has launched once again. The online survey for 2022 is available at: https://go.osu.edu/ohiofarmcustomratesurvey2022
A large number of Ohio farmers hire machinery operations and other farm related work to be completed by others. This is often due to lack of proper equipment, lack of time or lack of expertise for a particular operation. Many farm business owners do not own equipment for every possible job that they may encounter in the course of operating a farm and may, instead of purchasing the equipment needed, seek out someone with the proper tools necessary to complete the job. This farm work completed by others is often referred to as “custom farm work” or more simply “custom work”. A “custom rate” is the amount agreed upon by both parties to be paid by the custom work customer to the custom work provider.
Custom farming providers and customers often negotiate an agreeable custom farming machinery rate by utilizing Extension surveys results as a starting point. Ohio State University Extension collects surveys and publishes survey results from the Ohio Farm Custom Survey every other year. This year we are updating our published custom farm rates for Ohio.
We kindly request your assistance in securing up-to-date information about farm custom work rates, machinery and building rental rates and hired labor costs in Ohio.
This year we have an online survey set up that anyone can access. We would ask that you respond even if you know only a few rates. We want information on actual rates, either what you paid to hire custom work or what you charged if you perform custom work. Custom Rates should include all ownership costs of implement & tractor (if needed), operator labor, fuel and lube. If fuel is not included in your custom rate charge there is a place on the survey to indicate this.
You may access the survey at: https://go.osu.edu/ohiofarmcustomratesurvey2022
If you prefer a document that you can print out and fill out by hand to return, email Barry Ward at ward.8@osu.edu
The deadline to complete the survey is March 31, 2022.
Did you know that a male moose loses its antlers every year? Moose usually lose their antlers every winter and grow new ones in the spring. Additionally, because of the lack of antlers during the winter months, a moose’s first line of defense is its sharp hooves, which can mortally wound a wolf or bear. This edition of the Ag Law Harvest kicks around a few USDA announcements and FDA rule proposals and sheds some light on overtime compensation for California’s agricultural workers.
USDA announces new micro-farm insurance policy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) Risk Management Agency (“RMA”) announced that the USDA has developed a new micro farm insurance policy for agricultural producers with small-scale farms who sell locally. The new insurance policy seeks to simplify recordkeeping and introduces insurance coverage for post-production costs and value-added products. Farm operations that earn an average allowable revenue of $100,000 or less, or for carryover insureds, that earn an average allowable revenue of $125,000 or less are eligible for the policy. The new insurance policy will be available for the 2022 crop year. Crop insurance is sold and delivered sole through private crop insurance agents, a list of which can be found at the RMA Agent Locator.
USDA accepting applications to help rural communities get access to internet. The USDA announced that it has begun accepting applications for up to $1.15 billion in loans and grants to help rural communities gain access to high-speed internet. The announcement follows the recently enacted infrastructure bill, which provides another $2 billion in additional funding for USDA’s ReConnect Program. According to the USDA, the funding will be available for projects that serve rural areas where at least 90% of the households lack broadband service at speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) (download) and 20 Mbps (upload). The USDA will give funding priority to projects that will serve people in low-density rural areas and areas lacking internet service speeds of at least 25 Mbps (download) and 3 Mbps (upload). In making the funding decisions, the USDA will consider the economic needs of the community to be served and the extent to which a provider will offer affordable service options to the community.
FDA proposing changes to testing requirements of pre-harvest agricultural water. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published a proposed rule that would change some provisions of the FDA’s Produce Safety Rule. The proposed rule seeks to replace the microbial criteria and testing requirements for pre-harvest agricultural water for covered produce other than sprouts. Some of the proposed changes include:
- Replacing the microbial quality criteria and testing requirements with new provisions for conducting pre-harvest agricultural water assessments for hazard identification and risk management purposes;
- A new testing option for certain covered farms that elect to test their pre-harvest agricultural water for generic Escherichia coli (“E. coli”);
- Providing additional flexibility in responding to findings from pre-harvest agricultural water assessments;
- Expedited implementation of mitigation measures for known or reasonably foreseeable hazards related to certain adjacent and nearby land uses; and
- Required management review of pre-harvest agricultural water assessments.
The FDA is accepting comments on the proposed rule until April 5, 2022.
California’s overtime compensation for agricultural workers. In 2016, California passed Assembly Bill No. 1066 that slowly implemented overtime wages for California’s agricultural workers. Beginning in 2022, agricultural employees are entitled to one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday or over 40 hours in any workweek. However, the law only affects agricultural employers with 26 or more employees. Agricultural employers with 25 or fewer employees will be required to follow the same overtime compensation structure beginning in 2025. California will also begin to require that any work performed by an agricultural employee in excess of 12 hours in any workday be paid twice their regular rate of pay. Again, this provision only effects agricultural employers with 26 or more employees but will go into effect for all agricultural employers in 2025.
Tags: ag law harvest, small farms, Insurance, USDA, FDA, overtime, Rural Broadband
Comments: 0
Farmland prices have strengthened in recent months and there are a number of key fundamentals that will likely continue to support land values in the near term. High crop prices and margins along with last year’s COVID-19 related government payments and continued low interest rates have all contributed to stronger land markets. Higher production costs and recent minor decreases in crop prices may decrease profit margins this next year and take some strength out of the market but farmland will likely continue to see increases in value through the end of this year and into the next year. Similar factors have impacted cash rental markets in Ohio and will likely continue to pressure rental rates higher in the near term.
Recent data from the United States Department of Agriculture National Ag Statistics Service (NASS) August Land Values 2021 Summary shows Ohio Farm Real Estate increasing 3.9% from 2020 to an average of $6,600 per acre in 2021. Ohio Cropland (bare cropland) showed an increase of 5.3% from 2020 to 2021. Average Cropland value is $6,800 per acre in 2021 according to this survey. Pastureland value in Ohio increased 2.1% to $3,440 per acre in 2021. Average cash rents in Ohio increased 2.6% in 2021 to $160 per acre according to this survey. The National Ag Statistics Service (NASS) also summarizes average cash rental rates by county available through Ohio NASS: www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ohio/Publications/County_Estimates/2021/OH_2021_cashrent_CE.pdf
Each year, Ohio State University Extension (The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences) conducts an Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey. The Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents study was conducted from January through April in 2021. The opinion-based study surveyed professionals with a knowledge of Ohio’s cropland values and rental rates. Professionals surveyed were rural appraisers, agricultural lenders, professional farm managers, ag business professionals, OSU Extension educators, farmers, landowners, and Farm Service Agency personnel.
Ohio cropland varies significantly in its production capabilities and, consequently, cropland values and cash rents vary widely throughout the state. Generally, western Ohio cropland values and cash rents differ from much of southern and eastern Ohio cropland values and cash rents. The primary factors affecting these values and rents are land productivity and potential crop return, and the variability of those crop returns. Soils, fertility, and drainage/irrigation capabilities are primary factors that most influence land productivity, crop return and variability of those crop returns.
Other factors impacting land values and cash rents may include field size and shape, field accessibility, market access, local market prices, field perimeter characteristics and potential for wildlife damage, buildings and grain storage, previous tillage system and crops, tolerant/resistant weed populations, USDA Program Yields, population density, and competition for cropland in a region. Factors specific to cash rental rates may include services provided by the operator and specific conditions of the lease.
According to the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey, cropland values in western Ohio are expected to increase in 2021 by 3.8 to 5.3 percent from 2020 to 2021 depending on the region and land class. Cash rents are expected to increase from 3.6 to 3.9 percent depending on the region and land class. For the complete survey research summary go to: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/farm-management-publications/cash-rents
This survey and the results are reflective of the thoughts of survey participants in early 2021. Recent farmland sales would lead us to believe that farmland value has likely increased more than the 3.8 to 5.3 percent that the summary indicates for 2021. Continued high crop prices along with relatively strong predicted yields throughout much of Ohio have lent more strength to farmland markets in Ohio.
Others survey results in the eastern Corn Belt may be useful in gauging the magnitude of Ohio farmland value change thus far in 2021. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (7th Fed District) surveys ag lenders in their districts each quarter. (The 7th Fed District includes parts of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and all of Iowa.) Their survey in July showed the value of good farmland in their district had increased by 14 percent from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021. The mid-year survey conducted by the Illinois Society of Professional Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers of their members revealed an increase of 20% in farmland values from the beginning of 2021. While Ohio is not Illinois nor does Ohio sit in the 7th Fed District, these surveys may give some guidance on the level of change in farmland values in Ohio in 2021.
Fall often brings us questions about what a landowner can do when someone harms their crops, fields, and trees. We’ve heard many stories of hunters, four-wheelers, snowmobilers, timber harvesters and others tearing up hayfields, causing corn and bean losses, harming trees, or taking timber. Unfortunately, those incidents are not new to Ohio. Back in 1953, the Ohio legislature enacted a law that addressed these types of problems. In 1974, legislators revised the law to strengthen its penalty provisions, part of an effort to reform Ohio’s criminal laws. That law still offers remedies that can help a landowner today.
The reckless destruction of vegetation law. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 901.51, the “reckless destruction of vegetation law,” is simple and straightforward. It states that:
“No person, without privilege to do so, shall recklessly cut down, destroy, girdle, or otherwise injure a vine, bush, shrub, sapling, tree or crop standing and growing on the land of another or upon public land.”
Note the word “recklessly,” as that’s important to the statute. Under Ohio law, a person behaves recklessly if he disregards the risk that his actions are likely to cause certain results, such as harm or injury. “Heedless indifference to the consequences” is another way to explain the term. A person who flies through a hayfield on a four-wheeler, taking no precautions to avoid harming the crop, would likely fit this definition of behaving recklessly. A timber harvester who ignores the marked property line and takes trees on the other side of it could also be behaving recklessly.
Criminal and civil options. The recklessness element of a person’s behavior is why the law incorporates criminal charges. A violation of ORC 901.51 is a fourth-degree criminal misdemeanor and could result in a fine of $250 and up to 30 days in jail. What is useful to landowners, however, is that when legislators amended the law in 1974, they added “treble damages” to allow a harmed party to collect three times the value of the property destroyed. If the value of hay lost to the four-wheeler was $500, for example, the treble damages provision allows the landowner to collect three times that amount, or $1,500. Many court cases involve tree situations, and three times the value of a tree can result in a hefty award for the harmed landowner.
Another benefit of the reckless destruction of vegetation law is that a landowner doesn’t have to rely on a criminal charge being brought by local law enforcement. While local law enforcement could bring a criminal charge against an offender and if successful, could request the treble damages for the landowner. But if law enforcement does not bring a criminal charge, Ohio courts have held that a harmed party may bring a civil action against the offender and utilize the law’s treble damages provision. Those treble damages can make it worthwhile to litigate the issue as a civil action.
The next time you’re frustrated by someone destroying your crops, trees and vegetation, the reckless destruction of vegetation law might be helpful. If you can prove that the person was reckless and indifferent to causing the harm, consider using this powerful little law to remedy the situation.
Tags: crop damages, timber theft, reckless destruction of vegetation
Comments: 0
Each year, preliminary crop enterprise budgets are unveiled at the Farm Science Review which reveals our best estimates for costs and returns for the main row crops in Ohio for the upcoming year. With continued high crop prices projected for 2022 there is some optimism, however, higher costs will likely decrease profit margins to levels lower than 2021 margins.
Production costs for Ohio field crops are forecast to be higher compared to last year with higher fertilizer, seed, chemical, fuel, machinery and repair costs leading the way.
Variable costs for corn in Ohio for 2022 are projected to range from $477 to $583 per acre depending on land productivity. Variable costs for 2022 Ohio soybeans are projected to range from $266 to $302 per acre. Wheat variable expenses for 2022 are projected to range from $213 to $262 per acre. These are increases over last year of 19%, 18%, and 25% for corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively.
If the current grain prices and costs endure through next year, profit margins will likely be positive although higher costs may create losses for some producers. Grain prices currently used as assumptions in the 2022 crop enterprise budgets are $4.80/bushel for corn, $12.20/bushel for soybeans and $6.90/bushel for wheat. Projected returns above variable costs (contribution margin) range from $226 to $472 per acre for corn and $288 to $529 per acre for soybeans. Projected returns above variable costs for wheat range from $191 to $344 per acre.
Return to Land is a measure calculated to assist in land rental and purchase decision making. The measure is calculated by starting with total receipts or revenue from the crop and subtracting all expenses except the land expense. Returns to Land for Ohio corn (Total receipts minus total costs except land cost) are projected to range from $54 to $283 per acre in 2022 depending on land production capabilities. Returns to land for Ohio soybeans are expected to range from $166 to $393 per acre depending on land production capabilities. Returns to land for wheat (not including straw or double-crop returns) are projected to range from $99 per acre to $242 per acre.
Total costs projected for trend line corn production in Ohio are estimated to be $919 per acre. This includes all variable costs as well as fixed costs (or overhead if you prefer) including machinery, labor, management and land costs. Fixed machinery costs of $78 per acre include depreciation and other overhead. A land charge of $207 per acre is based on data from the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey Summary. Labor and management costs combined are calculated at $82 per acre. Details of budget assumptions and numbers can be found in footnotes included in each budget.
Total costs projected for trend line soybean production in Ohio are estimated to be $619 per acre. (Fixed machinery costs: $62 per acre, land charge: $207 per acre, labor and management costs combined: $53 per acre.)
Total costs projected for trend line wheat production in Ohio are estimated to be $541 per acre. (Fixed machinery costs: $36 per acre, land charge: $207 per acre, labor and management costs combined: $48 per acre.)
Current budget analyses indicates favorable returns for soybeans compared to corn or wheat but crop price change, harvest yields and other factors through fall and into summer of next year may change this outcome. These projections are based on OSU Extension Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets. Newly updated Enterprise Budgets for 2022 have been completed and posted to the Farm Office website: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-mgt-tools/farm-budgets
In addition to projected row crop budgets for 2022, there are newly updated forage budgets posted to our Farm Office site. These include Alfalfa Hay, Alfalfa Haylage and Corn Silage. Also recently updated are two Market Beef Budgets which include Market Beef Budget (Self-Fed) and Market Beef Budget (Bunk-Fed).
Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Director, OSU Income Tax Schools
Ohio cropland varies significantly in its production capabilities and, consequently, cropland values and cash rents vary widely throughout the state. Generally, western Ohio cropland values and cash rents differ from much of southern and eastern Ohio cropland values and cash rents. The primary factors affecting these values and rents are land productivity and potential crop return, and the variability of those crop returns. Soils, fertility and drainage/irrigation capabilities are primary factors that most influence land productivity, crop return and variability of those crop returns.
Other factors impacting land values and cash rents may include field size and shape, field accessibility, market access, local market prices, field perimeter characteristics and potential for wildlife damage, buildings and grain storage, previous tillage system and crops, tolerant/resistant weed populations, USDA Program Yields, population density, and competition for the cropland in a region. Factors specific to cash rental rates may include services provided by the operator and specific conditions of the lease.
The Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents study was conducted from January through April in 2021. The opinion-based study surveyed professionals with a knowledge of Ohio’s cropland values and rental rates. Professionals surveyed were rural appraisers, agricultural lenders, professional farm managers, ag business professionals, OSU Extension educators, farmers, landowners, and Farm Service Agency personnel.
The study results are based on 94 surveys. Respondents were asked to group their estimates based on three land quality classes: average, top, and poor. Within each land-quality class, respondents were asked to estimate average corn and soybean yields for a five-year period based on typical farming practices. Survey respondents were also asked to estimate current bare cropland values and cash rents negotiated in the current or recent year for each land-quality class. Survey results are summarized for western Ohio with regional summaries (subsets of western Ohio) for northwest Ohio and southwest Ohio.
According to the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey, cropland values in western Ohio are expected to increase in 2021 by 3.8 to 5.3 percent depending on the region and land class. Cash rents are expected to increase from 3.6 to 3.9 percent depending on the region and land class.
For the complete survey research summary go to:
https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/farm-management-publications/cash-rents
Tags: cropland values, cash rent
Comments: 0
Did you know that the “wise old owl” saying is a myth? Generally speaking, owls are no wiser than other birds of prey. In fact, other bird species like crows and parrots have shown greater cognitive abilities than the owl. An owl’s anatomy also helps dispel the myth because most of the space on an owl’s head is occupied by their large eyes, leaving little room for a brain.
This week’s Ag Law Harvest brings you EPA bans, Ohio case law, USDA announcements, and federal case law which could make your head spin almost as far as an owl’s.
EPA banning use of chlorpyrifos on food crops. The EPA announced that it will stop the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos on all food to better protect producers and consumers. In its final rule released on Wednesday, the EPA is revoking all “tolerances” for chlorpyrifos. Additionally, the EPA will issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) to cancel all registered food uses of chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide used for a variety of agricultural uses, including soybeans, fruit and nut trees, broccoli, cauliflower, and other row crops, in addition to non-food uses. The EPA’s announcement comes in response to the Ninth Circuit’s order directing the EPA to issue a final rule in response to a petition filed by opponents to the use of chlorpyrifos. The petition requested that the EPA revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances because those tolerances were not safe, particularly because of the potential negative effects the insecticide has on children. For more information about chlorpyrifos and the EPA’s final rule, visit the EPA’s website.
Trusts aren’t to be used as shields. An Ohio appeals court recently reinforced the concept that under Ohio law, trusts are not be used as a way to shield a person’s assets from creditors. Recently, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a bank alleging breach of contract and conversion, among other things. Plaintiff, an attorney and real estate developer, claimed that the bank removed money from his personal account and a trust account in violation of Ohio law and the terms of the loan agreement between the parties. Prior to the lawsuit, plaintiff established a revocable trust for estate planning purposes and to acquire and develop real estate. This dispute arose from a $200,000 loan from the bank to the plaintiff to help establish a restaurant. A provision of the loan agreement, known as the “Right to Setoff” provision, allowed the bank to “setoff” or effectively garnish all accounts the plaintiff had with the bank. The setoff provision explicitly prohibited any setoff from any IRA or trust accounts “for which setoff would be prohibited by law.” Plaintiff made all monthly payments but failed to make the final balloon payment on the loan. Plaintiff argued that the bank broke the loan contract and violated Ohio law by taking funds from the trust account to pay off the remaining balance of the loan. The court disagreed. The court noted that under Ohio law, a settlor’s property in a revocable trust is subject to the claims of the settlor’s creditors. A settlor is a person who creates or contributes property to a trust. In this case, plaintiff was the creator, settlor, and sole beneficiary of the revocable trust. Because of that, the court concluded the bank did not violate Ohio law when using the trust account to setoff the balance of the loan. Additionally, the court found that the bank did not violate the terms of the loan agreement because a setoff from the trust account was not prohibited by law. The court noted that Ohio law did not intend to allow a settlor who is also a beneficiary of the trust to use a trust as a “shield” against creditors. Although trusts can be a useful estate planning tool, there are limits to what a trust can do, as evidenced by this case.
Renewable fuel supporters file appeal on E15 summer sales. Corn farmers have joined forces with the biofuel industry (“Petitioners”) to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for a new hearing on a ruling that struck down the EPA’s 2019 decision to allow year-round E15 sales. Earlier this year, the same D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that ruled the legislative text in the law supporting the biofuel mandate does not support the Trump administration’s regulatory waiver that allowed E15 to be sold during the summer months. In their petition, Petitioners argue that the D.C. Circuit Court made “significant legal errors.” Petitioners contend that the court should rehear the case because the intent behind the nation’s biofuel mandate is better served by the sale of E15 through the summer months because it is less volatile, has less evaporative emissions, and is overall better for the environment than other fuel sources. Petitioners also believe the court’s original decision deprives American drivers the choice of lower carbon emitting options at the gas pump.
Monsanto asks Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit’s Roundup Decision. In its petition to the Supreme Court of the United States Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) asked the Supreme Court to review the $25 million decision rendered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) did not preempt, or otherwise prevent, the plaintiff from raising California failure-to-warn claims on Roundup products and allowed plaintiff to introduce expert testimony that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. In trial, the plaintiff argued that Monsanto violated California’s labeling requirements by not including a warning on the Roundup label that glyphosate, which is found in Roundup, causes cancer. Monsanto argues that FIFRA expressly preempts any state law that imposes a different labeling or packaging requirement. Under FIFRA, Monsanto argues that the EPA did not require Monsanto to include a cancer warning on its Roundup label. Therefore, Monsanto maintains, that because California law differed from FIFRA, Monsanto was not required to follow California law when it came to labeling its Roundup product. Secondly, the Ninth Circuit allowed plaintiff to present expert evidence that glyphosate could cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the general public and that glyphosate caused the plaintiff’s lymphoma. Monsanto contends that the lower courts have distorted established precedent by allowing the expert testimony because the testimony is not based on generally accepted scientific principles and the scientific community has consistently found that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans.
USDA working to protect nation’s dairy industry. The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (“AMS”) has struck a deal with the European Union (“EU”) to satisfy the EU’s new import requirements on U.S. dairy. The EU will require new health certificates for U.S. dairy products exported to the EU to verify that the U.S. milk used for products exported to the EU is sourced from establishments regulated under the Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance or the USDA AMS Milk for Manufacturing Purposes. Officials representing the U.S. Dairy Export Council and International Dairy Foods Association claim that the deal will allow U.S. producers to comply with the EU’s mandates while also satisfying the concerns within the American dairy industry. The deal pushes back the EU’s deadline for new health certificates to January 15, 2022, to allow U.S. producers and exporters enough time to bring their products into compliance. The USDA also announcedthat it is providing around $350 million to compensate dairy producers who lost revenue because of market disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a change to the federal pricing formula under the 2018 farm bill. Additional details are available at the AMS Dairy Program website.
Tale as old as time. An Ohio appeals court recently decided a dispute between neighbors about a driveway easement. The driveway in dispute is shared by both neighbors to access their detached garages. Defendants used the driveway to access their garage and then the driveway extends past the Defendants’ garage onto Plaintiff’s property and ends at Plaintiff’s garage. The dispute arose after Defendants built a parking pad behind their garage and used parts of the driveway they never used before to access the parking pad. The original easement to the driveway was granted by very broad and general language in a 1918 deed, when the property was divided into two separate parcels. In 1997, a Perpetual Easement and Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) was entered into by the two previous property owners. The Agreement was much more specific than the 1918 deed and specifically showed how far the easement ran and what portions of the driveway could be used by both parties. The 1997 Agreement did not allow for Defendants to use the portion of the driveway necessary to access their parking pad. Plaintiffs argue that the 1997 Agreement controls the extent of the easement, whereas Defendants argue that the broad general language in the 1918 deed grants them authority to use the whole length of the driveway. The Court found the more specific 1997 Agreement to be controlling and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Court reasoned that the 1918 deed creates an ambiguity as to the extent of the easement and there is no way of knowing what the original driveway looked like or how it was used. The Court concluded that the 1997 Agreement does not contradict or invalidate the 1918 deed, rather the 1997 Agreement puts specific parameters on the existing easement and does not violate any Ohio law. The Defendants were found liable for trespass onto the Plaintiffs’ property and is expected to pay $27,500 in damages. The lesson to be learned from all of this? Make sure your easements are as specific and detailed as possible to ensure that all parties are in compliance with the law.
Tags: USDA, EPA, chlorpyrifos, trusts, Estate Planning, Renewable Fuel, roundup, glyphosate, dairy, Easements
Comments: 0
Pages
