A  news release earlier this week from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) indicated that, “Last year’s hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts, devastated parts of the South, Midwest, Northern Plains, and California, and were a stark reminder that agriculture is an inherently risky business. Federal crop insurance indemnities for these disasters totaled more than $1 billion in 2017.

“‘The prosperity of the rural economy depends on our farmers and ranchers and their ability to bounce back from adverse conditions,’ said Farm Production and Conservation Acting Deputy Under Secretary Robert Johansson. ‘Crop insurance is central to a strong farm safety net, and producers should talk with their agents to purchase their coverage before the sales closing date.’

A news release yesterday from Sen. Deb Fischer (R., Neb.) indicated that, “Today, U.S. Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act. The bill, which has a number of other bipartisan cosponsors, would protect farmers, ranchers, and livestock markets from burdensome EPA reporting requirements for animal waste emissions. These requirements were not intended to affect animal agriculture and instead were meant to address dangerous industrial pollution, chemical plant explosions, and the release of hazardous materials into the environment.”

Yesterday’s release added that, “The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) are laws on the books that require entities to notify authorities when they release large quantities of hazardous materials. In 2008, the EPA published a final rule exempting most livestock operations from the laws’ reporting requirements.

“In April 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled EPA did not have the authority to create this exemption for agriculture, creating confusion and uncertainty for America’s ag producers.  

“The FARM Act would:

• Maintain the exemption for certain federally registered pesticides from reporting requirements within CERCLA.
• Exempt air emissions from animal waste on a farm from reporting requirements under CERCLA.
• Provide agriculture producers with greater certainty by reinstating the status quo producers have been operating under since EPA’s 2008 final rule.”

Stephen Gruber-Miller reported yesterday at The Des Moines Register Online that, “Should the Iowa Supreme Court declare unconstitutional a law that shields large animal feeding operations from lawsuits?

“That’s the question the justices heard Monday night during oral arguments in Honomichl v. Valley View Swine. Its answer is likely to have an impact on the number and type of nuisance lawsuits brought by rural residents against the operators of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

“A pair of hog confinements built in Wapello County in 2013 prompted this lawsuit. But the broader question is who can sue, and why.”

The Register article stated that, “Iowa Code 657.11 shields CAFO operators from lawsuits for nuisance resulting in a loss of enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ property unless one of two conditions applies: The operators are either violating state or federal law, or they are ‘unreasonably and for substantial periods of time (interfering) with the person’s comfortable use and enjoyment’ of their property and failing to comply with accepted industry best practices.

“Landowners can still sue for damages if they can prove they suffered a loss in property value, and the court’s ruling won’t change that, regardless.

“None of the plaintiffs in this case are alleging that the confinements violate the law or have caused their property value to diminish. Their argument is under Article 1, Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution, which lays out Iowans’ inalienable rights, including acquiring, possessing and protecting their property.”

Yesterday’s Register article also noted that, “The Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a summary judgment by Wapello County District Court Judge Annette Scieszinski, who ruled the law unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case.

“The plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to go further and declare the law unconstitutional in all circumstances, but lawyers for the defendants, Valley View Swine and JBS Live Pork, say the court should affirm the law as constitutional and a reasonable exercise of the Legislature’s power to create regulations. They say the confinements were built more than twice as far away from the plaintiffs as required by state regulations and that confinements shouldn’t be held liable if they’re following the law.”

Financial Times writer Emiko Terazono reported yesterday that, “A sharp slowdown in US craft beer sales growth has sent the speciality hop market from boom to bust with its effects starting to be felt by growers beyond its shores.

“The fall comes as growers both in the US, the world’s leading hop producer and exporter, and abroad have increased their planting areas as the number of craft brewers increased rapidly, causing demand to surge for popular aroma varieties.

“‘People [in the hop industry] are very concerned; this is a problem that’s affecting everybody,’ said Douglas MacKinnon, chief executive of trader 47hops in Yakima Valley in Washington, a leading producing area. The hop merchant was forced to file for Chapter 11 creditor protection last year as buyers reneged on their contracts and cash flow dried up.”

The FT article explained that, “The main issue has been the sudden slowing of growth in the craft beer market, which until a few years ago had been rising annually by double digits. However, market saturation, as well as competition from other alcoholic beverages, have affected growth, which peaked in 2014 at 18 per cent, slowing to about 5 per cent last year.

“The oversupply situation has been made worse by the jump in hop production and acreage which almost doubled in the past five years. Brewers fearing a shortage rushed to sign three- to five-year contracts with farmers, who increased plantings on the back of those contracts and high prices.”

DTN writer Todd Neeley reported last week that, “Three years after President Barack Obama’s administration finalized the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule in 2015, agriculture groups and states find themselves in a familiar position — back in court to block the rule.

“In the latest move, the American Farm Bureau Federation and other agriculture groups petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Galveston for a preliminary injunction on the rule on Wednesday. The groups told the court they fear the rule could become law if a handful of states have their way.

“The agricultural groups made their counter-punch after attorneys general of 10 states and the District of Columbia sued the EPA on Tuesday demanding the agency put the 2015 rule into effect. The states allege the agency’s work to suspend the 2015 WOTUS rule is unlawful. The states included are New York, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.”

The DTN article stated that, “The agricultural groups make the case that the risk over various lawsuits and rules under the Clean Water Act rule causes harm to property owners, businesses and the individual interest of states. Private land owners could face heavy civil and criminal penalties because of the continued jurisdictional issues over the rule. To avoid that, the courts need to grant an injunction to keep the 2015 rule from going into effect.”

Cole Epley reported on Friday at the Omaha World-Herald Online that, “[Nebraska] State Sen. Tom Brewer said Thursday that his latest proposal in front of a legislative committee isn’t about slowing down Nebraska wind energy development.

DTN writer Pam Smith reported yesterday that, “The clock is ticking for dicamba herbicides registered for use in Xtend soybean and cotton. The success or failure of the coming spray season will determine if ‘over the top’ use of dicamba in those crops remains a tool for farmers beyond 2018.

“In late 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency set the registrations for Engenia, XtendiMax and FeXapan to automatically expire in two years. D-day for a decision on dicamba will be this coming fall if the chemistry doesn’t behave itself this spring and summer.

“Off-target movement and injury complaints have already led the agency to tighten labels further for the coming spray season. Grant Rowland with EPA’s Registration Division told those attending the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) annual meeting last week that the agency identified physical drift, tank contamination, temperature inversions, volatility and misuse as the reasons for the dicamba injury symptoms experienced in 2017.”

The DTN article noted that, “All three herbicides are now restricted-use products and have special recordkeeping provisions. Dicamba-specific training is required. The label specifies wind speed, spray hours and tank cleanout requirements and requires susceptible crop identification.

“However, many weed scientists have complained that these label changes do nothing to address volatility of dicamba. They have repeatedly warned that some of the label language is intentionally vague in order to transfer liability to the applicators. For example, EPA now gives a ‘do not spray if sensitive crops are downwind’ order, but there is no distance or guidance on how far away a sensitive crop can be located.”

Ms. Smith added that, “Monsanto has predicted Xtend soybean acres will double to more than 40 million acres in 2018. More tolerant crops in the field could lead to fewer complaints on soybean and cotton but put other sensitive crops that have no built-in tolerance at additional risk if the product gets legs. Some weed scientists have also worried that applicators might get sloppy if they assume most crops planted are now tolerant.”

Associated Press writer Verena Dobnik reported on Tuesday that, “Eleven Democratic state attorneys general on Tuesday sued President Donald Trump’s administration over its decision to delay implementation of an Obama-era rule that would have expanded the number of wetlands and small waterways protected by the Clean Water Act.

“New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said last week’s decision by the Republican administration to postpone implementation of the 2015 Clean Water Rule for two years is an assault on public health.

“‘We will fight back against this reckless rollback and the Trump administration’s continued assault on our nation’s core public health and environmental protections,’ Schneiderman said in a statement.”

The AP article stated that, “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has called the rule an overreach that could hurt farmers and ranchers. Mining and industry groups also opposed it.

“The lawsuit was filed in New York by Schneiderman and his counterparts in California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. It seeks to stop the government from blocking implementation of the rule while considering alternatives.

“The regulation was put on hold for the past two years by various court challenges that kept it from taking effect.”