Image of a cargo ship in Port of New Orleans by the United Soybean Board
My apologies for not posting anything in the last 2 months. It has been a busy summer with me travel to a number of professional meetings, working on a few proposals, and finally attempting to work on a few papers. Now I’m back and should be posting on this site more often. Continue reading
Combine unloading wheat into a semi truck in a harvested field. Photo by Shannon Dizmag via flickr.com
The article is not a substitute for legal advice.
Many of us are paying attention to the debate over the new Farm Bill and looking at how changes to existing programs and potential new programs. One issue that may come up after passing a new Farm Bill is how quickly USDA must implement the program changes or new programs. In Ausmus v. Perdue, a group of Colorado wheat farmers recently won after selecting to utilize a new crop insurance product before USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) had implemented the product for wheat. The court ruled that although it might conflict with other duties had under federal law, RMA had to allow producers the ability to use the program after the effective date of the 2014 Farm Bill and not when RMA had implemented the regulations. Continue reading
Farmland in Alaska by Michael Hayes via flickr.com
The article is not a substitute for legal advice.
Today, I want to highlight a recent right-to-farm law decision out of Alaska. The Supreme Court of Alaska, in Riddle v. Lanser, held that the state’s right-to-farm law did not protect a landowner who was storing septage on agricultural property. Many readers might be thinking that this is a bad time for right-to-farm laws, especially after the jury verdict involving a North Carolina hog farm, but this case highlights that right-to-farm laws do not protect those not really involved in agriculture before becoming a nuisance. Continue reading
Hogs in hog barn. Image by Kevin Chang via flickr.com
The article is not a substitute for legal advice.
News broke recently of a $50 million jury verdict* for damages caused to neighbors of a large hog farm in North Carolina. The jury found that the hog farm was a nuisance to neighboring landowners. When many of us this saw this verdict, you may have had a similar thought to me: shouldn’t a state’s right-to-farm law should provide the hog farm a defense in this case. Before the jury’s verdict, the federal district judge hearing the case ruled that North Carolina’s right-to-farm law would not apply in this case. The judge ruled that there had not been a change in the condition in the area that would have allowed the right-to-farm law to act as a defense to the nuisance claims. Continue reading
Corn harvest with combine dumping onto grain cart. Image by United Soybean Board.
This post is not legal advice.
On April 10, 2018, a federal district court judge granted preliminary approval to the $1.51 billion MIR162 Syngenta settlement. This settlement, reached in September 2017 and officially announced in March 2018, would settle claims by U.S. farmers for Syngenta bringing Viptera and Duracade corn varieties to market before approval in China. This approval means corn growers region will begin to see formal notices hitting their mailboxes in May, and the claims process will begin. Corn growers and eligible landlords will be able to file claims electronically beginning May 11, 2018, at www.cornseedsettlement.com, or by calling 1-833-567-CORN(2676) to request a paper form. Corn growers and eligible landlords will need to file a claim by October 12, 2018. Continue reading
Student farm at Penn State. Image is by Penn State University
During the growing season, producers may allow various nonprofits to come on the farm and collect unharvested crops after harvesting. In many cases, it may be not economically profitable to harvest this unharvested portion, or the producer may have had to leave crops unharvested after meeting supply needs for a week. These crops might be left in the field to rot if not for the ability of nonprofits to glean these crops as donations to feed hungry Marylanders. I’ve previously written on liability when allowing gleaners on the farm, to read that post, click here. For those producers who have crop insurance coverage on these crops, is gleaning allowed on insured acres? The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) has requirements that an insured producer should meet before allowing gleaning to take place on their farms. Continue reading
Tilling field with tractor. Image is by United Soybean Board
As many of you who have purchased crop insurance since the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill already know, conservation compliance has been relinked with the crop insurance subsidy. This relinking means that many producers who traditionally have not participated in farm bill programs (such as Price Loss Coverage or Agriculture Risk Coverage) were not required to certify conservation compliance. Continue reading
Image of round bales in a field. The image is by Tana Griffith
I recently contributed a column to Progressive Forage magazine for the April 2018 edition. The column covers issues associated with pesticide drift and forage production. The column covers previous court decisions involving pesticide drift liability to give an applicator a sense of what courts are looking at in determining liability. Finally, the column covers what you should do if you suspect drift damage. Continue reading
Food trucks in San Francisco. Image by Todd Lappin
The article is not a substitute for legal advice.
Many of you may not live in areas with access to food trucks, but in areas where there are food trucks there can be disputes between traditional brick and mortar restaurants and the food trucks. Recently, Baltimore City imposed restrictions on food trucks that limited food trucks from operating within 300 feet of any retail business establishment that is primarily engaged in selling the same type of food product, other merchandise, or services as that offered by the food truck operator (Art. 15 § 17-33). Food truck operators challenged this law in circuit court and the law recently found to be void for vagueness and rejected arguments that the law violated Maryland Declaration of Rights protections of Due Process and Equal Protection. Continue reading
Corn being harvest in a field by a combine. Image is by the United Soybean Board.
The article is not a substitute for legal advice.
In September 2017, Syngenta agreed to settle claims brought by U.S. farmers for bringing Viptera and Duracade corn varieties to market before approval in China. On March 12, 2018, Syngenta formally announced that it would be settling all U.S. corn growers, grain handlers, and ethanol plant claims. This settlement, from media reports, will include all U.S. corn farmers including those who opted out of the original class action suit and those who grew Agrisure Duracade Corn and/or Agrisure Viptera corn varieties. The settlement will be for a period starting after September 15, 2013, and continue through the 2018 crop year. You are not required to retain an attorney to assist you in collecting on this settlement. Continue reading