Brent Kendall reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for landowners to contest the federal government’s ability to regulate their property under the Clean Water Act.

“The court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, sided with North Dakota-based Hawkes Co., which wants to harvest peat from wetlands in an area of northern Minnesota. Those plans got off track when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined the property contained ‘waters of the U.S.,’ a finding that triggered application of the Clean Water Act.”

The Journal article explained that, “The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Hawkes could proceed immediately with a lawsuit that challenges the Army Corps’ claim to jurisdiction over the land, or whether it must go through a potentially lengthy and expensive permitting process before it could bring a case.

“The court, in a 10-page opinion, said Hawkes could bring the challenge now. Chief Justice Roberts said landowners shouldn’t have to wait until the end of the permitting process, which ‘can be arduous, expensive and long.’

“Six other justices joined the chief justice’s opinion, while a seventh, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined most of it.

“The court rejected arguments by the government that lawsuits shouldn’t be allowed until after the Army Corps brings an enforcement action.”

Today’s article added that, “Hawkes shouldn’t have to assume the risk of criminal and civil penalties while waiting for U.S. regulators ‘to drop the hammer in order to have their day in court,’ the chief justice wrote.”

DTN writer Todd Neeley indicated yesterday that, “With growing concern about potential legal liabilities for farmers when it comes to the Clean Water Act, the ability to question and challenge the Corps when waters of the United States are identified on private land is expected to become increasingly important.”

Mr. Neeley pointed out that, “Farmers and ranchers often face tens of thousands of dollars in fines, long delays in acquiring permits and often are forced to make costly changes to work done on their property without Clean Water Act permits.

“Until now landowners did not have the ability to challenge such jurisdictional determinations in court, or to conduct independent determinations that could in some cases disprove Corps determinations. A final agency action is reviewable through the Administrative Procedures Act only if there are no adequate alternatives to APA review in court.

“In concurring with the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed concern about the Clean Water Act. Kennedy noted the reach and consequences of Clean Water Act remains a concern. Kennedy cited earlier views from Justice Samuel Alito that the consequences of even inadvertent violations can be crushing to landowners.”

Recall that back in April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed stricter federal rules governing organic livestock and poultry farmers.

Late last week, the Republican and Democrat leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack calling on the Department to grant a 90-day extension of the public comment period for this proposed rule.

The Ag Committee leaders indicated that, “Due to the complex nature of this rule, we request a 90 day extension of the comment period, from 60 days to 150 days. Additional time is necessary for stakeholders to evaluate the changes made in the proposed rule and provide comprehensive feedback on the potential impacts if the rule is implemented.

“Our constituents have expressed significant concern regarding possible unintended consequences, including reduced access to organic products, substantially increased organic food costs for consumers, significant disruption to the organic feed and processed organic products industries, increased exposure to disease and mortality for organic poultry, increased risk of contamination or food-borne illness, and significant barriers for current organic producers to maintain organic certification.”

Jesse Newman reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Banks are tightening credit for U.S. farmers amid a rise in delinquencies, forcing some growers to turn to alternative sources of loans.

“When U.S. agriculture was booming this decade, banks doled out ample credit to strong performers and weaker growers alike, said Michael Swanson, an agricultural economist at Wells Fargo & Co. But with the farm slump moving into its third year, banks have become pickier, requiring some growers to cough up more collateral and denying financing outright to some customers who need it to pay for seeds, crop chemicals and rent. Farmers this year have been grappling with low commodity prices, mounting debt and weaker incomes.”

Ms. Newman explained that, “With traditional bank loans harder to come by, farmers are turning to sources like CHS Inc., a large farmer-owned cooperative in the U.S., which operates grain elevators and retail stores across the Midwest. CHS said its loans to farmers increased 48% in both number and volume in the 12 months to March and have more than doubled since 2014.

“It ‘suggests there are many farmers struggling to obtain financing,’ said Randy Nelson, president of the co-op’s financing subsidiary, CHS Capital.”

The Journal article added that, “A recent rally in some U.S. agricultural markets has brightened the picture considerably for growers of crops like soybeans, but many farmers still are facing losses this year thanks to a large buildup in global grain stockpiles that has pressured prices for other U.S. commodities like corn and wheat.

“The Chicago Fed earlier this year said the volume of the district’s farm-loan portfolio with major or severe repayment difficulties hit 5% in late 2015, which compares with 2.9% a year earlier and is the highest in more than a decade. Illinois banker Eric McRae said repayment problems are deemed serious when growers carry debt from year to year or are 90 days delinquent on loan payments.” [Note that more information on the farm economy from the Fed is available here].

Today’s article also noted that, “Nathan Kauffman, Omaha branch executive at the Kansas City Fed, said lenders in his district are working to restructure debt for borrowers but can’t do so indefinitely. Mr. Kauffman said, ‘2016 is going to be a critical year.'”

Meanwhile, a news release from the Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday indicated that, “U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, R-Kan., Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, today held a hearing on the U.S. livestock and poultry sectors.”

Tracy Brunner, the President of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, noted at yesterday’s hearing that, “2015 saw a record high for cattle prices, but those soon started back down due to several reasons. One factor was the increase in overall protein supplies. In 2015, U.S. per capita red meat and poultry supplies increased by nearly 10 pounds per person. In addition, the strong U.S. dollar impacted our ability to ship beef to our international customers. All of this additional supply puts downward pressure on the markets. This has been compounded by the break in the drought throughout most of the cattle producing areas of this country which has resulted in more abundant and cheaper feed, and the resulting decision by many producers to increase the size of their herds. Larger supplies always lead to lower prices, but we are used to the ups and downs of the cattle cycle. In order to manage this cycle, we need risk management tools that work.”

Christopher Doering reported in today’s Des Moines Register that, “The production of organic foods helps lower poverty and increase household incomes in rural America, according to a Penn State University study released Wednesday.

“The study by agricultural economist Ted Jaenicke found that organic hot spots — counties with high levels of organic agricultural activity whose neighboring counties also have high organic activity — increased median household incomes by an average of $2,000 and reduced poverty levels by an average of 1.3 percentage points.”

The Register article explained that, “Jaenicke tabulated the results by identifying the quantity of organic farms and economic activity in the area. He then removed other factors influencing the local economy to gauge organic’s impact. He did not receive funding from the industry for his research.

“While his study did not assess why organic benefited area economies, he speculated the reasons it does include the need for more labor and use of locally sourced inputs. Organic crops also typically command a significant premium compared to traditional crops, often paying the producer several times as much.”