Environmental

President Biden announced a major goal this week--for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by half over the next decade as compared to 2005 levels.  Agriculture will play a key role in that reduction by “deploying cutting-edge tools to make the soil of our heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation,” according to President Biden.  Several bills introduced in Congress recently could help agriculture fulfill that key role.  The proposals offer incentives and assistance for farmers, ranchers, and forest owners to engage in carbon sequestration practices. 

Here’s a summary of the bills that are receiving the most attention.

Growing Climate Solutions Act, S. 1251.  The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee passed S. 1251 today.  The bipartisan proposal led by sponsors Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) already has the backing of over half of the Senate as co-sponsors, including Ohio’s Sen. Sherrod Brown.  The bill has come up in prior sessions of Congress without success, but the sponsors significantly reworked the bill and reintroduced it this week.  The new version includes these provisions:

• Requires the USDA to conduct an initial assessment of the domestic market for carbon credits, to include assessing market actors, market demand, estimated credits in process, supply and demand of offsets, barriers to entry, monitoring and measurement technologies, barriers for small, beginning and socially disadvantaged operators, among other factors.
• Creates a Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Certification Program to ensure that technical service assistance providers who work with farmers to establish and sell carbon credits have sufficient expertise, including agricultural and forestry knowledge.  Certified parties are to act in good faith to provide realistic estimates of costs and revenues and to help farmers, ranchers and forester receive “fair distribution of revenues” derived from carbon credit sales. 
• Establishes an online website providing information for farmers, ranchers and foresters interested in participating in carbon markets.
• Creates an advisory council that would oversee the certification program.  At least 16 of the committee’s 25 members must be farmers, ranchers, or private forest owners. 
• Charges the USDA with producing a report to Congress identfying barriers to market entry, challenges raised by farmers and forest owners, market performance, and suggesting additional ways to encourage voluntary participation in carbon sequestration practices.
• Authorizes up to $9.1 million in USDA funding for the program, including $4.1 million immediately and an additional $1 million per year for the next five years.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) and Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) will soon introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.   

Rural Forest Markets Act, S. 1107.  A second proposal in Congress aims to remove barriers for small-scale private forest landowners and help them benefit from carbon markets and other climate solution markets.  Senators Stabenow and Braun are also sponsors of this bill, along with Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).  The bill echoes previous similar legislative attempts and includes these provisions:

• Directs the USDA to create a Rural Forest Market Investment Program to guarantee up to $150 million to finance eligible projects for rural private forest landowners to participate in an “innovative market for forest carbon or other products.” 
• States that eligible projects will be those developed by private entities or nonprofits to aggregate sustainable practices by rural private forest landowners for sales in a carbon or environmental market, using approved methodologies. 
• Requires that eligible tree planting projects may take place only on historically forested lands using native species and be planted at ecologically appropriate densities without causing negative impacts to biodiversity or the environment.

The interest in carbon reduction practices and monetizing carbon sequestration at the federal level doesn’t end with these two proposals—there are several more that may gain interest.   While not addressing private landowners, another Senate proposal focuses on public land reforestation.  The “Repairing Existing Public Land by Adding Necessary Trees Act” (REPLANT Act), with Ohio’s Sen. Rob Portman as a sponsor, proposes increased funding in the Reforestation Trust Fund for replanting 1.2 billion trees over the next ten years on public land in need of reforestation.  The USDA is weighing in on the issue as well, and has recently announced plans to target carbon reduction through existing programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program.  And just after passing the Growing Climate Solutions Act today, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee held a hearing on “Farmers and Foresters:  Opportunities to Lead in Tackling Climate Change” featuring testimony from several farmers and groups.  Readers may get a sense of what more is to come by viewing the hearing on the committee’s website. 

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.