2019 was a time for important advancements and urbanaglaw firm changes in the world of agro rules. In description below, lawyers at the National Agricultural Law Center have identified and compiled the leading constitutional and plan advancements that affected agribusiness in 2019, including numerous that did persist to do so in years to come.

The issue of the year has been technological cannabis! The 2018 Farm Bill, which removed flax from the Controlled Substances Act and with less than 0.3 % THC, established a new legal framework for hemp's industrial creation. But, but there are also issues dealing with grain plan, licensing programs for the 2020 growing period, authorization of pesticides, creation contracts and others. The FDA's regulatory approach to cannabidiol ( "CBD" ) oil, which is made from some industrial hemp varieties, is likely to be the most controversial. But, it has also posed a lot of issues. To read more about the legal issues surrounding technological flax visit ok. The United States Department of Agriculture (" USDA" ) answered some of the questions regarding THC licensing and testing after the hemp regulations were released in October, but many of the questions remain unanswered and could have a significant impact on the new crop. Click here to learn more about your particular government's cannabis rules.

Best to Farm: A current set of cases from North Carolina on curse dispute against pigs farms has generated a great deal of attention in right to land statutes. Although important questions frequently arise regarding when they apply, what they do, and how they operate, all fifty states have a right to farm statute. Click here to learn more about the North Carolina litigation. The purpose behind state right to farm statutes is to provide a defense against nuisance lawsuits- based on odor, noise, dust or insects- brought by neighboring landowners. Click here to view your state's right to farm statute. The statutes ' level of legal protection vary significantly between states.

- A" conduit theory" case involving the Clean Water Act ( "CWA" ) titledHawai'i Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui before the US Supreme Court in November. To learn how lower courts have handled the CWA's role since the start of the case. of Maui was argued, click here. The Ninth Circuit's ruling in the case, which stated that entering pollutants into groundwater without a permit was against the CWA, was brought before the Supreme Court. Whatever conclusion the Supreme Court makes, it is likely to overturn precedent in a number of jurisdictions that disagree on whether a groundwater discharge should be permitted under the CWA. To read more about the litigation, click here. According to the County of Maui, discharges into groundwater are not subject to the CWA. The County of Maui was asked whether the County of Maui had violated the California Water Act by releasing treated sewage water into groundwater that eventually reached the Pacific Ocean.

Labeling New Proteins: In 2019, thirteen states have passed laws governing the words or phrases that can be used to identify new-to-the-market products such as new varieties of proteins ( plant-based, insect-based or cell-cultured ). This issue has received a lot of attention thanks to this recent state legislation. To date, challenges to the laws have been filed in three states, while similar legislation is pending in several more states and on the federal level. Two of those states have also include language limiting the types of products that may bear the word "rice" on the label. With the exception of Arkansas and Louisiana, which also include rice, the statutes are almost entirely focused on meat labeling. Click here for more details.

- Several pesticides have been the focus of ongoing lawsuits over the past year. Click here to read more about the sulfoxaflor litigation. Click here to read more about the litigation involving glyphosate. Juries returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs in three different cases filed against Monsanto for failing to warn consumers that glyphosate, used in Roundup, causes cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) faced challenges to its approval of the pesticide sulfoxaflor while Monsanto and others battled lawsuits over glyphosate. Environmental organizations and beekeepers ' associations filed lawsuits against the agency after it removed restrictions it had previously placed on uses of sulfoxaflor in June. All three cases were decided based on claims of design defect, failure to warn, and urbanaglaw firm negligence. While Monsanto appealed the verdicts in the three other cases, many speculated that the delay would give the parties a chance to settle outside of court. In October, a fourth case against Monsanto for failing to warn consumers about the glyphosate's effects was scheduled to be heard, but it was postponed due to the trial date. The plaintiffs allege that EPA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act when it removed the restrictions of sulfoxaflor despite evidence that the pesticide is harmful to bees.

Redefining WOTUS: The EPA changed a key component of the CWA by changing the definition of the term "waters of the United States" ( "WOTUS" ). The most recent rule is intended to reinstate WOTUS from prior to 2015, but it is ultimately just the first step in EPA's two-part effort to change that definition. Sometime in 2020, the agency is expected to implement a new rule to replace both the 2015 and pre-2015 definitions of WOTUS. The current WOTUS definition, which was established in a 2015 rule, was repealed in a final rule released by EPA in October of this year. Courts were etabling opinions in ongoing disputes over the validity of the 2015 rule as of August 2019. Under the CWA, any person who discharges a pollutant into a WOTUS without a valid permit is in violation of the Act. 22 states and the District of Columbia applied the 2015 rule before the repeal was made, while the remaining 28 states followed the pre-2015 rule. Click here to read more about the most recent changes to WOTUS. Currently, there is patchwork of regulation that resulted out of litigation over the 2015 rule. CWA compliance, in essence, depends on knowing what qualifies as and does not qualify as a WOTUS.

- Agriculture trade was one of the most popular, if not the most popular, issues in 2019. The details of the Phase I deal remain unknown, but the expectation is that it will be signed in early 2020. There were several significant developments toward the end of 2019 that have the potential to provide certainty and a measure of progress to the overall agricultural trade picture, according to President Trump and his administration. and China made it known that the two countries had reached a" Phase I" trade agreement. agricultural products. and China. The new trade pact is expected to pass overwhelmingly in the Senate in early 2020. Also in late 2019, the U. S. The two most significant developments involved the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) and an announced" Phase I" agreement between the U. S. House overwhelmingly passed ( 385-41 ) USMCA.

- In the last ten years, what are frequently called "ag-gag" or "farm security" laws, depending on who you're speaking with, have become frequent subjects of conversation, legislation, and lawsuits. Many of the laws have been successfully challenged and found to be unconstitutional limitations on free speech since its passage. These laws, which commonly limit photography or recordings on agricultural operations without the consent of the owner, became popular in response to numerous releases of undercover videos taken, and later published, by animal activists. Click here for more details about these types of laws as well as their current status. In Iowa, North Carolina, and Arkansas, lawsuits are challenging these laws in 2019 and are influencing debates across the nation.

- In August, the Department of Interior announced host of new rules that made a series of changes to the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ). Changes included changing the "blanket 4 ( d )" rule, changing how limited the area can be designated as critical habitat only to areas that are currently occupied by a species, and changing what factors will be taken into account when identifying a species as threatened. Soon after the changes were made, a lawsuit was brought against the Secretary of Interior. The new rules affect what species receive ESA protections, the designation of critical habitats, and the amount of protection afforded to threatened species. Click here to learn more about the ESA's changes.

The Bouchers, an Indiana farming family, and the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) had a dispute that had been ongoing for nearly 20 years. Importantly, the court also concluded that the removal of trees from waterlogged soil was not enough for USDA to designate an area as a converted wetland. When nine trees were removed from the property in the 1990s, the Bouchers ' case centered on whether they had converted several acres of wetlands into cropland. USDA determined that the Bouchers had violated the" swampbuster" provisions, which stipulated that farmers who converted any wetlands for agricultural purposes will be denied certain USDA benefits, about ten years after the Bouchers had removed the trees. USDA maintained its original decision despite the Bouchers ' facts that no ponds had been converted. Click here to learn more about the dispute. The Seventh Circuit precisely faulted USDA for failing to employ evidence to support its conclusions, and found in favor of Boucher.

It was very challenging to divide up a week's experiences into ten subjects! Among the honorable mention topics are 1 ) the 2018 Farm Bill implementation ), 2 ) continued market facilitation payments, and 3 ) challenges to the beef checkoff program. Attend the nationalaglawcenter for more information on these and many other agrarian regulation matters. com.