Search Our Online Library
Discover, read, and monitor a wealth of information on your topic from several different sources.
A recent Fifth Circuit opinion established that a federal court has jurisdiction to review the EPA’s denial of a rulemaking petition. It did, however, go on to establish a “highly deferential” standard of review, placing upon the agency only a “slight” burden to justify its decision to decline a necessity determination.
In a blogpost yesterday, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy announced that their offices had sent a draft final version of what's been called the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule to the Office of Management and Budget on April 3.
On April 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit admonished the USDA for denying farm program benefits to a farmer and forcing him to “navigate a bureaucratic labyrinth,” all the while “demonstrat[ing] a disregard for its own regulations.”
On March 16, 2015, the Des Moines Board of Water Works Trustees (DMWW) followed through on its January threat and filed a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) lawsuit against the supervisors and drainage districts of three Iowa counties. The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, alleges that the supervisors, in their capacity as trustees for the drainage districts, are operating the drainage districts in an “unlawful and antisocial” manner that is contrary to the “public health and welfare.”
The Des Moines Board of Water Works Trustees has filed its complaint against the Supervisors of Calhoun, Sac, and Buena Vista Counties in their capacities as trustees of Iowa drainage districts.
Two farm-related organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers' Council, sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Administrative Procedures Act to bar EPA's release of member information involving physical addresses and details concerning the members' operation of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
On January 20, 2015, Dakota Access, LLC, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, filed a petition with the Iowa Board of Utilities seeking a permit to build a crude oil pipeline across the State of Iowa.
On January 8, 2015, the Des Moines Board of Water Works Trustees (DMWW) voted unanimously to send a notice of intent to file a Clean Water Act citizen lawsuit against the county supervisors of Sac, Buena Vista, and Calhoun Counties in Iowa.
2015 brings a new year and a look back at the most significant agricultural law and taxation developments of 2014. It’s difficult to narrow the developments down to the “Top 10” with so many to choose from.
In a split opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld water quality (“antidegredation”) regulations developed by the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), even though the EPC, at the time the rules were developed, was not constituted in accordance with state law.
In a move of incredible importance to agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken the blatantly unconstitutional position that it has the power to garnish wages when it fines an individual or other party for what EPA claims is some violated environmental provision over which it has regulatory authority.
The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that neither the federal Clean Air Act(CAA), nor its Iowa counterpart, Iowa Code chapter 455B, preempts state common law claims alleging negligence, nuisance, or trespass. In so holding, the Court denied summary judgment to a grain processing company and allowed a lawsuit demanding injunctive and monetary relief filed by eight Muscatine residents to continue.
On January 31, the U.S. House passed H.R. 2642, the “Agricultural Act of 2014” on a 251-166 vote.
A federal district court for the Eastern District of Washington has kept alive a lawsuit filed by seven environmental groups alleging that the BNSF Railway Company has violated the Clean Water Act (CWA).
We begin 2014 with our annual look at the most significant agricultural law developments of the previous year. Legal issues continue to be at the forefront of developments that are shaping the present and future of American agriculture, and it is very likely that the involvement of the legal system in agriculture will continue to grow. The following is my list of what I view as the top ten agricultural law developments of 2013 based on their impact (or potential impact) on U.S. agricultural producers and the sector as a whole.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has ruled that manure spread by a farmer as fertilizer onto his fields was not a “pollutant” subject to exclusion from coverage under his farm owners’ insurance policy.
Well, 2013 expired without tax legislation that would extend expiring provisions and without a Farm Bill.
In Clawson v. State, No. 108-426, 2013 Kan. App. LEXIS 105(Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2013), the Kansas Court of Appeals determined that Kansas law does not allow the Chief Engineer of the Kansas Department of Agriculture's Division of Water Resources to reconsider an approval once a water appropriation permit has been issued.
Throughout a five-year period, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued a salvage yard operator five notices of violations of Iowa Code chapter 455B relating to water quality, solid waste, and hazardous conditions.
A major U.S. energy company has entered into a settlement with the federal government for criminal violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for killing protected species of birds at its wind power station near Casper, Wyoming.
With the number of days that the Congress will be in session the remainder of the year dwindling away, it is looking more likely that there won’t be a new Farm Bill. The Senate passed its bill last June (S. 954) and the House passed their bill in September (H.R. 2642).
A recent federal court opinion has upheld the exemption for agricultural stormwater discharges from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirement. The case involved a West Virginia confinement poultry operation where the EPA was claiming a federal permit was necessary for discharges of chicken dander when mixed with rainwater.
House and Senate conferees continue attempts to hammer out a Farm Bill. The present Farm Bill was extended by the ATRA provisions to September 30, 2013, and has since expired.
Two people have been indicted by the federal prosecutors in Indiana for allegedly defrauding people by supposedly providing "government certified top-quality biodiesel."
In mid-September the IRS issued Final Regulations designed to give guidance on how to draw the line tax-wise between currently deductible repairs and maintenance expenses that have to be capitalized.
At the upcoming Agricultural Law seminar on September 12, 2013 one of the topics to be discussed will involve self-defense issues and liability issues with respect to firearms. That has become a big issue recently.
As times continue to grow tougher in the ethanol industry - proposed projects fail to raise the necessary capital and bankruptcy rate of existing plants rises – the possibility of crooked conduct increases. That was the case recently in North Carolina, an area that had planned on being at the center of the bio-fuels craze on the East Coast, but where those plans have been dashed by failing plants.
Earlier this spring, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation amending the state’s Wildlife Code by adding a provision to §5/2.30 allowing Illinois residents without back child support obligations to take or possess “fur-bearing mammals” found dead or “unintentionally killed” by a vehicle along a public roadway. The amendment does restrict the carcass retrieval to open hunting season for that particular fur-bearing mammal and the person collecting the animal must possess the appropriate licenses, stamps, and permits to hunt the species of animal at issue.
The Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. The Center's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.