Environmental

Ohio’s “petition ditch laws” are at last receiving a major revision.  The Ohio General Assembly has passed H.B. 340, updating the laws that address the installation and maintenance of drainage works of improvement through the petition process.  Some of Ohio’s oldest laws, the drainage laws play a critical role in maintaining surface water drainage on Ohio lands but were in serious need of updating.

An updating process began over seven years ago with the Ohio Drainage Law Task Force convened by the County Commissioners Association of Ohio (CCAO).   CCAO charged the Task Force with the goals of clarifying ambiguous provisions in the law and embracing new technology and processes that would result in greater efficiencies, fewer misunderstandings and reduced legal costs for taxpayers.  Task Force members included county commissioners, county engineers and staff, county auditors, Soil and Water Conservation District professionals, Ohio Farm Bureau staff, and Ohio State University's Agricultural & Resource Law Program and other OSU faculty.  Rep. Bob Cupp sponsored the resulting H.B. 340, which received unanimous approval from both the House of Representatives and Senate.

Here are a few highlights of the legislation:

• Mirroring the timeframes, deadlines, notices, and hearings and appeals procedures for petitions filed with the county engineer and with the county soil and water conservation district.
• The use of technology may substitute for a physical view of a proposed drainage improvement site.
• The minimum width of sod or seeded strips will be ten feet rather than four feet; maximum width remains at fifteen feet.
• The entire amount of sod or seeded strips will be removed from the taxable valuation of property, rather than the current provision removing only land in excess of four feet.
• Factors to consider for petition approval are the same for SWCD board of supervisors and county engineers, and include costs versus benefits of the improvement, whether improvement is necessary, conducive to public welfare, will improve water management and development and will aid lands in the area by promoting economic, industrial, environmental or social development.
• Clarification that the lead county in a multi-county petition is the county in which a majority of the initial length of the proposed improvement would exist, and assignment of responsibilities to officials in the lead county.
• The bond amount for county engineer petitions increases to $1,500 plus $5 for each parcel of land in excess of 200 parcels.
• Additional guidance for factors to be considered when determining estimated assessments.
• Current law allows county commissioners to repair an existing drainage improvement upon complaint of an assessed owner if the cost doesn’t exceed $4,000.  The new law increases that amount to $24,000 and allows payment of repair assessments in 10 semiannual installments rather than four.

We’re working with other Task Force members to prepare detailed explanations of the bill’s provisions and a guideline of the new procedures.  County engineers and SWCD offices will begin following the revised law on the bill’s effective date of March 18, 2021, just in time for Spring rains and drainage needs.

Go here to read H.B. 340. 

In case you didn’t notice, we are deep into election season.  Discussion of Supreme Court vacancies, presidential debates, and local races abound.  Even with all the focus on the election, the rest of the world hasn’t stopped. The same is true for ag law.  This edition of the Harvest includes discussion of ag-related bills moving through the Ohio General Assembly, federal lawsuits involving herbicides and checkoff programs, and some wiggle room for organic producers who have had a hard time getting certified with all the pandemic-related backups and shutdowns. 

Changes to Ohio Drainage Law considered in Senate—The Ohio Senate’s Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee continues to hold hearings on HB 340, a bill that would revise drainage laws.  The bill was passed in the house on June 9, 2020.  The 157 page bill would amend the current drainage law by making changes to the process for proposing, approving, and implementing new drainage improvements, whether the petition is filed with the board of the Soil and Water Conservation District, the board of county commissioners, or with multiple counties to construct a joint county drainage improvement.  The bill would further apply the single county maintenance procedures and procedures for calculating assessments for maintenance to multi-county ditches and soil and water conservation districts.  You can find the current language of the bill, along with a helpful analysis of the bill, here. 

Purple paint to warn trespassers? Elsewhere in the state Senate, SB 290 seems to be moving again after a lengthy stall, as it was recently on the agenda for a meeting of the Local Government, Public Safety & Veterans Affairs Committee.  If passed, SB 290 would allow landowners to use purple paint marks to warn intruders that they are trespassing.  The purple paint marks can be placed on trees or posts on the around the property.  Each paint mark would have to measure at least three feet, and be located between three and five feet from the base of the tree or post.  Furthermore, each paint mark must be “readily visible,” and the space between two marks cannot be more than 25 yards.  You can see the text, along with other information about the bill here. 

Environmental groups look to “Enlist” more judges to reevaluate decision.  In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided it would not overturn the EPA registration for the herbicide Enlist Duo, which is meant to kill weeds in corn, soybean, and cotton fields, and is made up of 2,4-D choline salt and glyphosate.  Although the court upheld registration of the herbicide, it remanded the case so that EPA could consider how Enlist affects monarch butterflies.  The court found that EPA failed to do this even though it was required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  On September 15, 2020, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other groups involved in the lawsuit filed a petition to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning that the case would be heard by a group of nine judges instead of just three.  If accepted, the rehearing would involve claims that the EPA did not follow the Endangered Species Act when it made the decision to register Enlist Duo. 

R-CALF USA has a “beef” with federal checkoff program.  Earlier this month, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) sued the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  R-CALF USA has filed a number of lawsuits involving the Beef Checkoff program over the years, including several that are on-going.  Their argument, at its most basic, is that the Beef Checkoff violates the Constitution because ranchers and farmers have to “subsidize the private speech of private state beef councils through the national beef checkoff program.” In this new complaint, R-CALF USA alleges that when USDA entered into MOUs (memorandums of understanding) with private state checkoff programs in order to run the federal program, its actions did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  R-CALF USA argues that entering into the MOUs was rulemaking under the APA.  Rulemaking requires agencies to give notice to the public and allow the public to comment on the rule or amendment to the rule.  Since USDA did not follow the notice and commenting procedures when entering into the MOUs, R-CALF USA contends that the MOUs violate the APA.  R-CALF USA further argues that did not consider all the facts before it decided to enter into the MOUs, and therefore, the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.  You can read R-CALF USA’s press release here, and the complaint here. 

Flexibility for organics during COVID-19. Back in May, due to COVID uncertainty and state shutdowns, the Risk Management Service (RMS) stated that approved insurance providers “may allow organic producers to report acreage as certified organic, or transitioning to organic, for the 2020 crop year if they can show they have requested a written certification from a certifying agent by their policy’s acreage reporting date.” RMS’s original news release can be found here. In August, RMS extended that language. The extension will provide certification flexibility for insurance providers, producers, and the government in the 2021 and 2022 crop years.  Other program flexibilities may apply to both organic and conventional producers.  Information on those can be found here.

This edition of the Ag Law Harvest is heavily focused on recent environmental case law at the federal level.  Read on to find out how habitats, migratory birds, environmental and administrative laws, and Trump’s new Waters of the United States rule have fared in recent decisions. 

What does “habitat” mean to you? Think about it carefully, because now is your chance to provide your input to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  Readers of the blog may remember we reported on a Supreme Court case dealing with critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) a few years ago.  The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals was charged with interpreting the word “habitat.” The Court of appeals then punted the interpretation to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where the parties settled the case.  Even with a settlement, the question of what “habitat” means remains.  To remedy this omission, the FWS and NMFS published a proposed rule on August 5^th to define “habitat” under the ESA.  In this proposal, FWS and NMFS put forward two possible definitions of “habitat”:

• The physical places that individuals of a species depend upon to carry out one or more life processes. Habitat includes areas with existing attributes that have the capacity to support individuals of the species; or
• The physical places that individuals of a species use to carry out one or more life processes. Habitat includes areas where individuals of the species do not presently exist but have the capacity to support such individuals, only where the necessary attributes to support the species presently exist.

The agencies are asking for public comment on the two definitions, and “on whether either definition is too broad or too narrow or is otherwise proper or improper, and on whether other formulations of a definition of ‘habitat’ would be preferable to either of the two definitions, including formulations that incorporate various aspects of these two definitions.” The comment period is open until September 4, 2020. 

Will a lawsuit stop planned changes to NEPA? At the end of July, a number of environmental groups banded together and filed a 180-page complaint against the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).  The complaint challenges the Council’s update to rules under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).  The groups’ basic argument is that the CEQ, under the direction of the Trump administration, published a new administrative rule under NEPA, but did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs agency actions, when doing so.  The lawsuit alleges: “[r]ather than make this drastic change deliberately and with the careful process the APA requires, CEQ cut every corner. The agency disregarded clear evidence from over 40 years of past implementation; ignored the reliance interests of the citizens, businesses, and industries that depend on full and complete NEPA analyses; and turned the mandatory public engagement process into a paper exercise, rather than the meaningful inquiry the law requires.” Basically, the groups argue that the administration ignored the APA all together.  Why is this important? The environmental groups argue that the new rule essentially makes it possible for the federal government to push through projects that might have impacts on citizens and the environment, such as pipelines and roadways, much more quickly, and without much input from the public.  You can read the final NEPA rule here.  We will have to wait and see whether the court agrees that the APA was violated in the creation of this rule. 

Ruling on Migratory Bird Act clips the administration’s wings. Another lawsuit against the federal government was decided on August 11, 2020.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sided with a number states as well as environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation. The Court found that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and FWS (at the direction of the administration) could not overturn 50 years of DOI interpretations of what “killings” and “takings” of birds meant under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 with a single memo. Traditionally, the killing or taking any migratory bird, even accidentally or incidentally, has been interpreted as a violation of the Act.  DOI’s memo sought to change this, only making the Act only apply to intentional hunting, killing, or taking.  Essentially, if a business or person had a pond full of wastewater, and migratory birds swam in it, eventually killing the birds, it would only be “incidental” taking and not intentional under DOI’s logic in the memo.  Ultimately, Judge Valerie Caproni channeled Atticus Finch by stating “It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is also a crime,” meaning that one memorandum could not overturn the fact that incidental and accidental takings of birds are still takings punishable by the Act. 

  Another WOTUS lawsuit bites the dust.  There’s always something going on with the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.  In April, the Trump administration published its final rule on WOTUS, which replaced the Obama administration’s beleaguered rule from 2015.  Almost immediately, the rule was challenged in court by those who thought it went too far in protecting waters, as well as those who felt it didn’t go far enough.  The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, which falls into the latter camp, filed suit against the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the 2015 rule, later amending their complaint to address the 2020 rule.  The Association claimed that both the old and new rules went too far, and that EPA did not have the authority to carry them out under the Clean Water Act.  The judge dismissed the Association’s case without prejudice for lack of standing, meaning that the issue may be litigated again, but the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association could not show that its members are being negatively affected by the 2020 rule at this time. 

In a decision that turns largely on scientific methodology and reliable data, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday allowed continued registration of the Enlist Duo herbicide developed by Dow AgroScience (Corteva).  Unlike last month’s decision that vacated registrations of three dicamba herbicides, the two-judge majority on the court held that substantial evidence supported the EPA’s decision to register the herbicide.  Even so, the court sent one petition back to the EPA to further consider the impact of Enlist Duo on monarch butterflies in application areas. One dissenting judge would have held that the science used to support the Enlist Duo registration violates the Endangered Species Act.

The case began in 2014, when the same organizations that challenged the dicamba registrations (National Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action Network North America) and the Natural Resources Defense Council each filed petitions challenging the EPA’s registration of Enlist Duo.  The EPA later amended the registration in 2015 and 2017, eventually allowing use of the herbicide on corn, soybeans and cotton in 34 states.  The petitioners challenged the 2015 and 2017 registrations as well, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated the challenges into the case at hand.

The court’s opinion begins with an explanation of why it agreed with the parties who brought the challenges that they had the legal right to do so, or had “associational standing.”   Likely of higher interest to our readers is how the court answered the questions of whether the EPA adequately examined the potential impacts of Enlist Duo under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Here’s what the court had to say about the petitioners’ claims under each law:

The FIFRA claims.  The monarch butterfly issue was the only successful FIFRA claim advanced by the petitioners.  The court agreed that the EPA didn’t properly assess adverse harm to monarch butterflies that would result from increased 2,4-D use on milkweed in application fields, despite evidence suggesting that the butterflies might be adversely affected.  The EPA stated that it didn’t do so because the approval of Enlist Duo would not change the amount of milkweed being controlled by herbicides—those milkweeds would still be controlled with or without Enlist Duo.  The court disagreed, stating that FIFRA required the agency to determine whether any effect was “adverse” before then determining whether the effect on the environment was unreasonable, which EPA didn’t do in regard to the monarch butterfly.

The court rejected all of the petitioners’ other arguments under FIFRA:

Applicable standards.  Several claims that the EPA applied the wrong FIFRA registration standards failed.  The agency correctly used the broader and more stringent standard, which was to determine whether the registration would cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.   

Increased glyphosate use.  Petitioners also argued that the EPA erred in determining that approval of Enlist Duo would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on environment because glyphosate was already being used.  The registration would only impact which glyphosate was being used but not how much glyphosate was in use.  The court agreed with EPA’s assertion that due to the “nearly ubiquitous use” of glyphosate across the country before the approval of Enlist Duo registration, there would not be an increase in overall glyphosate use and no increased risks.   Interestingly, the court distinguished increased use from new data about glyphosate use, stating that “this does not mean, of course, that new data about glyphosate will go unconsidered….”

Volatility risk.  The court also rejected volatility risk arguments, one of the science-heavy parts of the opinion (begin at page 37 for a good read).  The EPA had concluded the type of 2,4-D in Enlist Duo exhibits lower volatility and off-site vapor drift than other forms of 2,4-D.  EPA reached this conclusion based several studies and data points:  a laboratory study that examined degree of visual damage, six publicly available studies assessing plant growth and survival damage, data from a vapor flux study used to perform computer modeling to determine dose level and air concentration in order to predict adverse damages to plants off-field, a second type of modeling that assesses drift of wet and dry depositions, and atmospheric monitoring data.  Petitioners claimed limitations to the studies and methodology used, contradictions between EPA scientists, failure to follow regulatory guidelines and to consider large enough field sizes in its modeling.  The court commented that the evaluation of volatility “probably could have been better,” but found no evidence showing that EPA’s conclusion was wrong or that volatility fears had materialized since approval of the herbicide.  The court explained that the agency may apply its expertise to draw conclusions from probative preliminary data and “it is not our role to second-guess EPA’s conclusion.” 

Mixing risks.  Petitioners also argued that Dow intended to mix Enlist Duo with glufosinate and EPA failed to account for the synergistic effect of such mixing.  With no evidence other than an abandoned patent application for a mixed product by Dow, the court held that FIFRA doesn’t require an analysis of theoretical tank mixing but only that which is contemplated on the label. 

Nearly all of the EPA’s FIFRA decisions were supported by substantial evidence, the court concluded, with the exception of the monarch butterfly analysis. 

The ESA claims.   Science is a recurring theme in the court’s analysis of the petitioners’ ESA arguments, and also the source of sharp disagreement on the court.  ESA’s section 7 requires a determination of the biological impacts of a proposed action.  ESA consultation among the agencies is required if determined that an agency’s action “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat in an “action area.”   The petitioners claimed that EPA failed in its determination on several grounds, requiring the court to review whether the EPA’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.  Here are the arguments, and the court’s responses:

“No effect” finding.  The petitioners argued that the EPA erred in determining that Enlist Duo approval would have “no effect” on plant and animal species and the court responded with another lengthy science-heavy discussion of “risk quotient” methodology and legal requirements  to use the “best scientific and commercial data available.”  The EPA employed a risk quotient methodology to conclude that there would be exposure to the herbicide but that such exposure would not lead to an effect on plants and animals.  The two judges in the majority were willing to defer to the agency on this conclusion and its dependence on the risk quotient methodology, but Judge Watford strongly disagreed.  Pointing out that the National Academy of Sciences had advised the EPA that the risk quotient method was “scientifically unsound,” the dissent concluded that the data derived from the methodology did not qualify as “scientific data” and therefore violated the ESA.   The majority stated that the risk quotient methodology doesn’t violate the duty to use the best scientific and commercial data available, which means that the EPA must not disregard available scientific evidence that is better and does not require the agency to conduct new tests or make decisions on data that doesn’t exist.   Deference to the agency was warranted, said the majority, and restraint against second guessing or using the court’s judgment.

Action area.   For its ESA determination, the EPA limited the “action area” to treated fields, while petitioners argued that the herbicide would drift beyond treated fields.  Again turning to the EPA’s science, the court held that the agency had science-based reasons for limiting the target area.  The EPA had appropriately accounted for drift through empirical data, mitigation measures, and label restrictions and no evidence in the record supported that the agency had made an error.

Critical habitat.  The final argument advanced by petitioners was that EPA did not meet its duty to insure that there would be no “adverse modification” of critical habitat from the registration.  Although there were 154 species with critical habitats in the states where Enlist Duo would be approved, EPA concluded that 176 of the species would not be in corn, cotton or soybean fields.  Of the eight species remaining, the agency determined that there would be no modification to their critical habitats as a result of Enlist Duo registration because none of the species’ essential features or “primary constituent elements” were related to agriculture.  Petitioners challenged the methodology EPA employed to reach this conclusion, but the court once again disagreed and deferred to the agency.

What remedy?

With only the monarch butterfly impact analysis in need of further study, the Ninth Circuit declined the petitioners’ request to vacate the Enlist Duo registration.   The court chose instead to remand the petition without vacating the registration, stating that the EPA’s failure to consider harm to monarch butterflies was technical and not a “serious” error.  Pointing also to the “disruptive” consequences of removing a pesticide that has been in use for over five years, the court stated that vacatur was not warranted when the EPA had substantially complied with FIFRA and fully complied with the ESA.

What’s next?

Enlist Duo registration will continue.  The EPA must address evidence that its destruction of milkweed in fields harms monarch butterflies, however.  The court advised the agency to “move promptly” in doing so.

Further action by the petitioners is likely.  According to correspondence with DTN, the petitioners are disappointed and will fight the decision.  They will likely also follow the EPA’s science quite closely as it reexamines the monarch butterfly issue.

Read the Ninth Circuit's decision National Family Farm Coalition et al v. U.S. EPA and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Wheeler, here.