'Right to Farm' upheld by Missouri Supreme Court

Posted July 2, 2015

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state’s so-called Right To Farm amendment remains constitutional, according to a KBLA article available here. The Missouri Times also published an article available here and Columbia Daily Tribune here.

The Right to Farm amendment is intended to protect Missouri farmers from new laws that would change current farm practices. It was added to the state Constitution in August 2014 by a slim margin of votes.

Some critics, including many small farmers and animal rights groups, claim the ballot language was misleading to voters and opens the door for foreign corporations to exploit Missouri farmland. 

The court also ruled that residents could challenge ballot language after an election, which could lead to questionable summaries being disputed in later cases, according to the Columbia Tribune.

Agricultural groups applauded the court’s opinion, calling the case “desperate,” according to the Missouri Times.

“We are pleased the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding the election results for Amendment #1, the Missouri Farming Rights Amendment, approved last August,” said Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst. “This was a desperate attempt by the opponents to thwart the will of a majority of Missouri voters by retrospectively claiming the ballot language was inadequate. As Missourians we now have in our state constitution a much needed protection for the right of consumers to have adequate and affordable food choices and the right of farmers and ranchers to produce that food safely and humanely.”

Missouri was the second state to add the right to farm to its Constitution – North Dakota was first. Several Midwest states have been playing with similar amendments or laws, according to KBIA.

The Court’s decision is available here.

The briefs, summary of the briefs and oral argument audio file are available here.

For more information on Right to Farm laws and for a compilation of states’ Right to Farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Oregon Farmers Challenging GMO Ban Under Right to Farm Act

Posted November 25, 2014

Two farms in Southern Oregon are requesting the court end the County’s voter-approved ban on genetically modified (GMO) crops or pay the farms $4.2 million, according to a Capital Press article available here. Oregon Live also published an article available here and Mail Tribune here.

The farmers stated the $4.2 million compensation is the value of Roundup Ready alfalfa that would be destroyed if the ban stands.

The Jackson County Circuit Court lawsuit claims that the ordinance is prohibited under Oregon's Right to Farm Act, which protects farmers from laws that would punish them for the noise, smells, dust and other byproducts of agricultural activity that neighbors might find unpleasant. The farmers also requested for an injunction to stop enforcement of the ordinance until all legal arguments are considered, according to Oregon Live.

The ordinance allows research, health and educational facilities to continue using biotech crops, but limits other exceptions. Farmers with GMO crops in production are allowed to harvest this year but must remove the crops within 12 months.

If farmers do not comply, county officials are allowed to destroy the crops.

The farmers also claim that they would be forced to destroy 200 acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa resulting in a $2 million loss. Other crops would not be as profitable on their land and if were forced to wait four years to replant, customers would be lost, according to Mail Tribune.

For more information on food safety, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Missouri Right to Farm Act Upheld

Posted September 16, 2014

After all the votes have been recounted, the Missouri Amendment One, “Right to Farm,” stands, according to an Ozarks First article by Matt Lupoli available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and The Republic here.

According to Secretary of State Jason Kander, a total of 499,963 "yes" votes were cast against 497,588 "no" votes. The recount margin narrowed from 2,490 votes to 2,375.

The recount was requested after the ballot passed with a margin victory of less than one-half of a percentage point, according to The Republic.

The amendment protects farmer practices, including early weaning of dairy cattle, neutering and castration, and the planting of genetically modified crops, according to Feedstuffs.

“Although the recount was unnecessary and costly to Missouri taxpayers, we are pleased with the results upholding the passage of Amendment #1,” said Blake Hurst, president of Missouri Farm Bureau.

The secretary of state’s office estimated the recount could cost up to $100,000, according to The Republic.

Jim McCann, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association (MCA) president, said out-of-state organizations were “vehemently” opposed to the Amendment and attempted to mislead Missourians, according to Feedstuffs.

"The Farming Rights Amendment was created with family farms and ranches in mind," said McCann. "It is good to know Missourians welcome family farmers and ranchers and understand the importance of agriculture to the all-around wellbeing of our state."

For more information on Right to Farm laws and for a compilation of states’ Right to Farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Right to Farm Passes in Missourri, Possibility of Recount

Posted August 8, 2014

Opponents of Missouri's Right to Farm constitutional amendment were weighing a recount request, after the measure appeared to pass by the slimmest of margins, according to a Springfield News Leader article by the Associated Press. The New York Times also published an article available here.

The unofficial election tally revealed that almost 1 million votes were cast and Amendment 1 was carried by just over 2,500 votes with a margin of 0.2 percent. The measure was favored in most rural counties, with opposing areas in St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield and Columbia.

Missouri law allows for a recount if the victory margin is 0.5 percent or less, however, the losing side must request the recount. The request can not be made until the vote is certified, which could take up to three weeks, Missouri Secretary of State spokesman Kevin Flannery said.

Missouri Farmers Care, an umbrella organization of agricultural groups and corporations that supported the amendment, said that a recount was expected, according to The New York Times.

“We are confident that the winning vote will stand,” the group said in a Facebook post.

Executive Director Dan Kleinsorge blamed the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) for an onslaught of TV ads that made the vote close, according to Springfield News Leader.

"I think a big part of the HSUS strategy was to confuse voters and get a 'no' vote that way," Kleinsorge said. "The amendment is pretty straightforward and it's a very positive thing."

The secretary of state has until August 26 to certify the results, at which point a recount may be requested by anyone who opposed the measure, according to The New York Times.

For more information on Right to Farm laws and for a compilation of states’ Right to Farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Indiana Judge Ruled Right to Farm Act as Constitutional

-->

Posted July 21, 2014

An Indiana judge issued a summary judgment this week stating that the Indiana Right to Farm Act is constitutional and ruled in favor of farms in four different lawsuits, according to a National Hog Farmer article available here. A recent blog post on Right to Farm is available

--> here.

Judge Marianne Vorhees ruled in favor of farms in the cases of Armstrong and Dungan vs. Gary Foulke and Maxwell Farms of Indiana Inc.; Neudecker vs. Maxwell Farms of Indiana Inc.; Pegg vs. Maxwell Foods; and Williams vs. Maxwell Farms of Indiana Inc. These lawsuits were seeking damages from farms for “creating a nuisance with regards to odor, manure management practices, and location of farms.”

In each of the four cases, Judge Vorhees found that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence in the way the farms were operated and located. “Maxwell Farms is extremely pleased to have prevailed in the recent court actions brought against the company and some of its growers claiming swine production is a nuisance in our community,” stated Joe Baldwin, operations manager of Maxwell Farms of Indiana. 

 “This judgment is a positive victory consistent with other victories that have upheld Indiana farmer’s right to farm and reasonably grow their farms,” said Mark Thornburg, general counsel and director of legal affairs for Indiana Farm Bureau.

This Right to Farm Act protects farms using commonly accepted agricultural practices from being considered a “nuisance in agriculturally zoned areas.” This act is recognized by legislatures in all 50 states as the Unites States’ ability to protect its own food, fuel and fiber production.

For more information on Right to Farm laws and for a compilation of states’ Right to Farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

MI Agriculture Commission Approves Changes to Right to Farm Protection

Posted May 1, 2014

The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development voted, in a special session, to adopt changes that make all farm livestock operations, regardless of size, subject to the rules, according to an article by MLive available here.

The Right to Farm Act “was created in 1981 to protect commercial farms at a time when city people were moving into rural areas and then complaining about conditions typical to farming, according to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.”  The law protects farmers from nuisance lawsuits “as long as the operation is conforming to Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices” determined by the state. 

The new rule gives local governments more authority to ban or regulate raising farm animals in residential areas, according to an article by Michigan Radio available here.  Farmers with livestock in areas that are “primarily residential” may not claim protection under the Right to Farm Act.

“I believe we have over 100 communities in Michigan who have ordinances on the books against chickens and bees and other things, and they will be able to continue to move forward with those,” says Jamie Clover Adams, the director of the state Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Adams and commission members say they expect to adjust the regulation as time goes on.   They “say the city of Detroit is in the process of adopting a livestock ordinance that could serve as a model in some cases.”

Some, however, say the rule change will hurt small farms.  “They don’t want us little guys feeding ourselves.  They want us to go all to the big farms,” said Kim White.  “They want to do away with small farms and I believe that is what’s motivating it.”

For more information on Right to Farm laws and for a compilation of states’ Right to Farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

May 16 CLE: Mid-South Agricultural & Environmental Law Conference

Posted April 24, 2014

The Arkansas Bar Association, the National Agricultural Law Center, and the National Sea Grant Law Center will host the first annual Mid-South Agricultural & Environmental Law Conference on May 16, 2014.  The Delta Farm Press and Ag Fax reported on the story here and here.

“This is the first conference of its kind, and is in direct response to requests we’ve received to provide legal research and information specific to Mid-South agriculture,” said Harrison Pittman, director of the National Agricultural Law Center.  “Farming in the Mid-South has its own unique legal and policy aspects.  This conference is meant to address those, and we’ve got a top-flight lineup of experts to speak on the topics.”

The conference offers 6.0 hours of CLE credit, including 1.0 Ethics hour in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.  The complete schedule is available here.

Topics and speaker include:

“Litigating Federal Crop Insurance Disputes: Overview and Discussion of Important Practical Pointers and Pitfalls”

J. Grant Ballard, Banks Law Firm PLLC

“Agricultural Leases for Mid-South Farmers, Lenders, and Landlords”

William C. Bridgforth, Ramsey, Bridgforth, Robinson and Raley LLP

James Calman McCastlain, Dover Dixon & Horne PLLC

J. Travis Baxter, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

“The Gulf Dead Zone and Gulf Restoration v. EPA: What it Means for Agriculture in the Mississippi River Basin”

John Milner, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

“Hot Topics in Invasive Species Management: Lacey Act Reform, Biofuels, and More”

Stephanie Showalter Otts, Director, National Sea Grant Law Center

“Interacting Ethically with State Agencies”

Drew L. Kershen, Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law, The University of Oklahoma College of Law

“Nuisance Lawsuits and Right-to-Farm Laws for Mid-South Agriculture and Aquaculture”

Rusty Rumley, Senior Staff Attorney, National Agricultural Law Center

Location: Harrah’s Casino, 13615 Old Highway North, Tunica, MS.  For hotel reservations, please call 800-223-7277.

Member Cost: Online by 5/9 $270, Mailed/Faxed by 5/9 $290, Onsite after 5/9 $305

Non-Member Cost: $340

Student Cost: $35

Registration information is available here.  For non-attorneys and attorneys not licensed in Arkansas, use event code “CLE751” for online registration.  For any difficulties registering, please contact Kristen Scherm at KScherm@arkbar.com. 

May 16: Mid-South Agricultural & Environmental Law Conference

Posted April 2, 2014

The Arkansas Bar Association, the National Agricultural Law Center, and the National Sea Grant Law Center will host the first annual Mid-South Agricultural & Environmental Law Conference on May 16, 2014.

Come and learn from some of the top agricultural and environmental law experts in the country with a mix of solo speakers and panels. 

The conference offers 6.0 hours of CLE credit, including 1.0 Ethics hour.  The complete schedule is available here.

Location: Harrah’s Casino, 13615 Old Highway North, Tunica, MS.  For hotel reservations, please call 800-223-7277.

Member Cost: Online by 5/9 $270, Mailed/Faxed by 5/9 $290, Onsite after 5/9 $305

Non-Member Cost: $340
Student Cost: $35

Registration information is available here.

Topics and speaker include:

“Litigating Federal Crop Insurance Disputes: Overview and Discussion of Important Practical Pointers and Pitfalls”

J. Grant Ballard, Banks Law Firm PLLC

“Agricultural Leases for Mid-South Farmers, Lenders, and Landlords”

William C. Bridgforth, Ramsey, Bridgforth, Robinson and Raley LLP

James Calman McCastlain, Dover Dixon & Horne PLLC

J. Travis Baxter, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

“The Gulf Dead Zone and Gulf Restoration v. EPA: What it Means for Agriculture in the Mississippi River Basin”

John Milner, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

“Hot Topics in Invasive Species Management: Lacey Act Reform, Biofuels, and More”

Stephanie Showalter Otts, Director, National Sea Grant Law Center

“Food Security: Technology and Ethics”

Drew L. Kershen, Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law, The University of Oklahoma College of Law

“Nuisance Lawsuits and Right-to-Farm Laws for Mid-South Agriculture and Aquaculture”

Rusty Rumley, Senior Staff Attorney, National Agricultural Law Center

Michigan Ag Department Proposes Limits to Right to Farm Law

Posted February 7, 2014

Small and urban farmers could lose protection of Michigan’s Right to Farm Act with a recent proposal by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), according to an article by Michigan Radio available here.

The Act protects farmers against nuisance suits if they follow the state’s Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPS).

The proposed change by MDARD would exclude farms with fewer than 50 animals from protection under the Right to Farm law, if those farms are in areas zoned as exclusively residential.  Details on the current law and the proposed change are available here.

“We’re simply saying to the locals that you need to work through your local unit of government to determine what is acceptable within that community,” said Jim Johnson of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.  Johnson said the proposal would not ban farm animals from residential areas, but would leave the decision to local zoning boards.

Wendy Lockwood Banka, president of the Michigan Small Farm Council, opposes the change.  Banka said the proposed changes would threaten small farms and backyard farmers, and “impede the local food movement and the wish of many to raise backyard chickens and grow their own food.”

The Michigan Right to Farm Act was “originally designed to protect commercial agricultural operations from being pushed out by changes in local zoning or land uses that conflict with common agricultural practices,” according to a M Live article available here.

For more information on right to farm laws, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Virginia Groups Compromise for New Agritourism Bill

Posted January 20, 2014

A new bill addressing the rights of Virginia farmers to conduct agritourism activities was introduced after HB 1430, The Right to Farm Act, failed to pass the state’s Senate Agriculture Committee last year according to an article by Global News Wire available here.

The new bill, HB 268, was introduced on January 8, 2014 by Delegate Bobby Orrock.  A companion bill, SB51 was filed by Senator Richard Stuart.  The compromise bill is the work of a state-appointed task force which brought farming groups and opposing views together. 

The new bill and the failed bill introduced last year are a reaction to a 2012 incident.  Martha Boneta faced fines after she hosted a child’s birthday party and held other activities at her farm such as pumpkin carving, according to an article by the Canada Free Press available here.  Fauquier County deemed the party illegal because it lacked a permit. 

In 2011, the County issued Boneta a special license to run a “farm retail shop” to sell handspun yarn, fresh vegetables, herbs, honey, and craft items such as birdhouses.  In 2011, the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors changed the “farm sales classification” to require a special permit for activities “not previously included in the permit.”

Boneta faced fines of $5,000 per violation for hosting the birthday party without a “site plan,” advertising one wine tasting, selling postcards of rescued farm animals, among others.

HB 268 summarizes agricultural operations and local regulation of certain activities, “protecting customary agritourism activities from local bans in the absence of substantial impacts on the public welfare and requires certain localities to take certain factors into account when regulating agritourism activities.”  A basis in health, safety, or public welfare is required for a local ordinance to restrict activities such as “agritourism, sale of agricultural or silvicultural products, related items, preparation or sale of foods that already comply with state laws, and other customary activities.”  Local boards are also “prohibited from subjecting these activities to a special-use permit requirement.”

For more information on agritourism, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Oregon Appeals Court Dismisses Challenge to “Right to Farm” Law

Posted November 18, 2013

In Hale v. State of Oregon, Or. Ct. App., A150572 (Nov. 14, 2013), the Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the state’s “right to farm” law.  Capital Press reported the story in an article here.  The opinion is available here.

 “Right to Farm” laws generally provide a defense for property owners who are sued for nuisance or trespass resulting from agricultural or forestry practices.  Information on “Right to Farm” statutes for all fifty states is available on the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Background

Plaintiffs are property owners who use only organic farming and forestry practices.  Id. at *1. Defendants are neighbors who farm using pesticides that do not qualify as organic.  Id.  In an earlier case, plaintiffs filed an action against a neighbor alleging that the chemical intrusion was a trespass.  Id., citing Hale v. Klemp, 184 P.3d 1185 (2008).  The neighbor raised an affirmative defense based on Or. Rev. Stat. §§30.930-30.947 (“Right to Farm and Right to Forest Act”).  Id. at *1.  Plaintiffs, then, voluntarily dismissed the action.  Id. 

In this case, plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the Right to Farm and Forest Act deprives them of a remedy in violation of the remedy clause of the Oregon Constitution.  Id. at *2.  The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs had not stated a “justiciable controversy.”  Id.  

Analysis and Holding

The appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the court did not have jurisdiction because injury to the plaintiff was only speculative.  Id. at *10.  The court noted that declaratory judgment is “preventive justice, designed to relieve parties of uncertainty by adjudicating their rights and duties before wrongs have actually been committed.”  Id. at *4.  To be justiciable, the dispute must involve “present facts, and it must be a dispute in which a prevailing plaintiff can receive meaningful relief from a losing defendant.”  Id. at *5.  Since plaintiff’s neighbors are not parties to the case, they are not bound by the outcome, thus the claim is not justiciable.  Id. at *5-6.  

NALC Resource: State Law Clearinghouse

Posted October 22, 2013

The State Law Clearinghouse, available here, is a free resource provided by the National Agricultural Law Center.  

The Clearinghouse is an ongoing project to compile all state statutes that exist in specific topics of agricultural law.  State laws may vary widely from one state to the next, even when the area of law is the same.  This resource allows a researcher to obtain targeted, state-specific information on the issue by providing a complete statutory text along with the date of possible expiration.

Statute compilations posted to date include: Agricultural liens, agritourism, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), animal cruelty, animal identification, biofuels, climate change, farm animal confinement, fence law, recreational use, and right-to-farm.

To use, simply click on a state and a drop down menu will appear with the names of the topics of the statutes that have been assembled for that state.  From there, click on the appropriate state, and a document will open with the applicable information.  If a topic is missing from a state’s drop down menu, laws on that topic have not yet been passed in that state.

North Carolina Developing New Approach to Award of Attorney Fees in Right to Farm Law

Posted:  July 19, 2013

The topic of nuisance and right to farm statutes has been red hot over the past couple of years, including a very recent legislative development in North Carolina.  In addition, several states, such as Missouri, have updated their right to farm statutes to strengthen the protection that they provide to agricultural operators.

For media requests or other inquiries on states' right to farm laws, contact Center Staff Attorney Rusty Rumley at rrumley@uark.edu.  For more information on right to farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center 50-state compilation of states' right to farm laws here as well as the Center's Urban Encroachment Reading Room here. 

Every state has enacted a right to farm law, the provisions of which can vary widely from one state to another.  These laws are designed to provide an affirmative defense to qualified agricultural operations from certain nuisance lawsuits that may be brought against them.  One clause commonly found in many states' right to farm statutes deals with the recovery of attorney fees and other associated court costs.  

States that currently include provisions for the recovery of attorney fees address the issue differently.  In the past, there have been three basic categories that states could fall under.  The first group includes those states that do not specifically address the issue of attorney fees in nuisance suits against agricultural operations.  The second group includes those states that provide discretion for a court to award attorney fees to the farmer in certain circumstances, such as a finding that a nuisance suit was frivolous.  The final group includes states, such as Texas, that include an automatic award of attorney fees if the farmer successfully asserts the right to farm statute as an affirmative defense to a nuisance action.

Recently, the North Carolina legislature enacted a bill that, once signed by the Governor, will add a brand new wrinkle to attorney fee provisions appearing in a right to farm statute.  In North Carolina, this new bill contains the following language: 

In a nuisance action against an agricultural or forestry operation, the court shall award costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to:

 

(1) The agricultural or forestry operation when the court finds the operation was not a nuisance and the nuisance action was frivolous or malicious; or

(2) The plaintiff when the court finds the agricultural or forestry operation was a nuisance and the operation asserted an affirmative defense in the nuisance action that was frivolous and malicious.

This new approach concerning the awarding of attorney fees may prove particularly interesting since it has been reported that nearly 600 “farm nuisance disputes” were filed in North Carolina less than two weeks ago according to this news article.