Agricultural Law Weekly Review—November 22, 2016

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

The following information is an update of recent, local, state, national, and international legal developments relevant to agriculture:

Zoning: Court Says Horse Farm Excluded from Land Development Requirement

On November 21, 2016, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania filed an unreported opinion ruling that  a proposed Upper Saucon Township (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) equine operation qualifies as a farm under the Township’s ordinances and is therefore exempt from submitting a land development plan (Ebert v. Upper Saucon Township, 2016 WL 6833081).  According to the court, under the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) farms are excluded from the requirement of submitting a land development plan.  Additionally, both SALDO and the Township’s Zoning Ordinance contain language defining a farm to include the raising of livestock and that “[a] ‘farm’ shall be understood to include a dwelling unit as well as all structures necessary for the housing of animals, storage of feed and equipment, and other operations customarily incidental to farm use.” The Township argued that because the proposed equine operation only consisted of a barn, six permanent horse run-ins, and access roads, but did not include a dwelling, a land development plan must be submitted in order to obtain a zoning permit for the proposed barn construction.  The court disagreed and held that “[r]ead as a whole, it is clear the intent of the definition was to ensure that a property was not excluded from the definition of a farm merely because it contained a dwelling unit.”

Realty Transfer Tax: Governor Signs Law Exempting Preserved Farms

On November 21, 2016, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed into law legislation clarifying recent changes made to the Tax Reform Code regarding the taxation of Agricultural Conservation Easements (Act 175).  According to the House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda, previously, “the Department of Revenue [had] taken the position that agricultural conservation easements were not subject to the Realty Transfer Tax [RTT] since they were not “true easements.” Nevertheless, in 2014 a Tax Appeal decision found that a conservation easement was subject to RTT and “cast doubt on whether other agricultural conservation easements would also be subject to the RTT.” To provide clarity, “the tax code portion of this year’s budget added language to specifically exempt agricultural conservation easements from the RTT…[but] the new language did not include a retroactive effective date.” Under Act 175, the RTT exemption for agricultural conservation easements applies retroactively to January 1, 2013.

Dairy: PA Milk Marketing Board Reschedules Meeting

On November 19, 2016, the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board published notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that the December 7, 2016, meeting of the Milk Marketing Board has been rescheduled for December 8, 2016, at 12 p.m. in Room 202, Agriculture Building, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (46 Pa.B. 7422). 

Follow us on Twitter at PSU Ag & Shale Law (@AgShaleLaw) to receive AgLaw HotLinks

Recent AgLaw HotLinks include:

•          This year’s Thanksgiving turkey will cost 24 cents less than last year - Brownfield
•          Price-fixing allegations hit chicken industry - Feedstuffs
•          Court ruling issued on Hawaii GMO ban - Agri-Pulse
•          Arrest made in Miami for illegal sale of horse meat - Miami Herald

New updates on our website! The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act Library Guide is up-to-date and ready to be viewed!

Connect with us on Facebook.

Stay informed with our monthly Agricultural Law Brief.

Agricultural Law Weekly Review—June 23, 2016

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

The following information is an update of recent, local, state, national, and international legal developments relevant to agriculture:

Referendum: North Dakota Votes against Corporate Farms

On June 14, 2016, North Dakota voters voted against Referred Measure 1 which appeared on the ballot as a veto referendum.  As a result of the vote, Senate Bill 2351, state legislation “designed to allow domestic corporations and limited liability companies to own and operate dairy farms and swine production facilities on no more than 640 acres of land,” was repealed.

Drones: FAA Announces New Rule

On June 21, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a document announcing a Final Rule “amending its regulations to allow the operation of small unmanned aircraft systems in the National Airspace System.” According to FAA, “[t]hese changes address the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and certification of their remote pilots…[and] will also prohibit model aircraft from endangering the safety of the National Airspace System.” The document is currently being reviewed by the Office of the Federal Register; the Final Rule will become effective 60 days after the document is published in the Federal Register.

Animal Welfare: APHIS Updates Horse Disqualification and Civil Penalty List

On June 16, 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published the latest updates to USDA’s Horse Protection Act Disqualification and Civil Penalty List which “identifies individuals and/or companies that have been assessed a Federal Disqualification under the Horse Protection Act.” According to APHIS, “[w]hile under Federal Disqualification, a person is prohibited from showing, exhibiting or entering any horse, directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, or other device, and from judging, managing or otherwise participating in any horse show, horse exhibition or horse sale or auction.”

Legislation: PA Senate Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee Reports Two Bills

On June 23, 2016, the Pennsylvania Senate Agricultural and Rural Affairs committee voted to report Senate Bill 1110 (SB1110) and House Bill 967 (HB 967) to the Pennsylvania Senate for first consideration.  Accordingly, SB 1110 “would repeal the Noxious Weed Control Law (Act 74 of 1982) and replace it with the Controlled Plant and Noxious Weed Act to better control existing and potentially noxious weeds, maximizing the control resources of invasive species and protecting state lands,” while HB 967 would legalize, for research purposes, the growth and cultivation of industrial hemp.

Agricultural Law Weekly Review—June 9, 2016

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

The following information is an update of recent, local, state, national, and international legal developments relevant to agriculture:

Biosolids: Bellefonte Borough Agrees to Delay Spreading of Biosolids

On June 6, 2016, the Centre Daily Times reported that Pennsylvania Centre County Judge Jonathan Grine had approved an agreement between Bellefonte Borough and Benner Township residents regarding the spreading of biosolids in Benner Township.  According to the article, under the approved agreement, Bellefonte Borough will forego original plans to spread biosolids on the property known as Spicer Family Farms “until a resolution is reached” in the separate civil action Swancer v. Spicer Family Farms and Bellefonte Borough Authority.

Animal Liability: Owner of Bull Charged With Manslaughter after Fatal Crash

On June 6, 2016, the Associated Press reported that a Vermont farmer was charged with involuntary manslaughter after his bull wandered onto a road and caused a fatal car crash.  According to the article, the state's attorney stated “that police had responded to reports of [the] bull in the roadway three times and out of its pasture once in June and July 2015.” According to the article, if convicted, the bull’s owner faces the possibility of 15 years in prison.

Organic: USDA Extends Comment Period for Organic Livestock Rule

On June 7, 2016, he U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) issued a press release stating that the agency “is extending the comment period for the proposed rule to amend organic livestock and poultry practices until July 13, 2016, to allow stakeholders additional time to provide feedback on the proposed rule.” According to USDA AMS, the purpose of the proposed rule is “to amend the organic livestock and poultry production requirements by: adding new provisions for livestock handling and transport for slaughter and avian living conditions; and expanding and clarifying existing requirements covering livestock health care practices and mammalian living conditions” (FR 2016-08023)

PA Bulletin: PDA Establishes Fertilizer Nutrient Values

On June 4, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture published notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin of the establishment of commercial fertilizer nutrient values (Pa.B. Doc. No. 16-949).  The new fertilizer nutrient values become effective July 1, 2016.

Legislation: PA House Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee Schedules Voting Meeting

On June 15, 2016, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Agricultural and Rural Affairs committee has scheduled a voting meeting on HB 872 and SB 1123.  Accordingly, HB 872 is a “resolution encouraging the use of peer-reviewed, science-based data to assess the impacts and the regulation of agricultural technologies,” while SB 1123 is an amendment to “Title 3 (Agriculture) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in weights and measures, further providing for standards for automotive fuel.”

Understanding Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use and Water Act (RULWA) –Part II: Meeting the Requirements

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

Under the Pennsylvania Recreational Use and Water Act (RULWA) (68 P.S. §§ 477-1 to 477-8), in some situations, landowners are provided with an immunity defense against negligence.  In order to receive the benefits of RULWA, however, certain requirements must be met.

Who is entitled to RULWA protection?

RULWA applies to landowners that allow the public access to their (qualifying) land, free of charge, for recreational use.  Under RULWA, the owner of the land means anyone who is “the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises.” If the owner of an easement exercises sufficient control over the easement (such as a utility company actively maintaining service roads), the easement owner is entitled to invoke RULWA as an immunity defense. 

What types of land qualify under RULWA?

Under RULWA, the land that qualifies for protection includes, “land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.” When determining what land qualifies under this definition, courts look at the following factors: “nature of area in question; type of recreation offered in area; extent of areas development; and character of areas development.

While the statute does not make a distinction between improved and unimproved lands, the Pennsylvanian courts have consistently ruled that improved lands (those altered from their original state) do not qualify for RULWA protection. For example, a lacrosse field used for athletic competition and a playground were not entitled to RULWA protection because in all three instances, the land in question had been improved.  Conversely, the courts have determined that an undeveloped city field used for flag football and an earthen embankment near a public pavilion were largely unimproved and entitled to RULWA protection.

What is considered recreational use under RULWA?

According to RULWA, a recreational purpose “includes, but is not limited to:  hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, recreational noncommercial aircraft operations or recreational noncommercial ultralight operations on private airstrips, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, water sports, cave exploration and viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites.”

Because the list was not designed to be exhaustive, but serves as a guide, the courts are often called upon to determine whether certain activities not on the list qualify as recreational purpose.  Accordingly, courts have found that baseball, softball, bicycling, “four-wheeling,” and bingo are all recreational purposes within the intended meaning of RULWA.    

Understanding Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use and Water Act (RULWA) –Part I: The Duty of Care

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

In 1966, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA).  According to the statute (68 P.S. §§ 477-1 to 477-8), the purpose of RULWA “is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability.” 

What does RULWA do?

RULWA provides a landowner with a potential immunity defense against claims that an individual was injured on a property as a result of the landowner’s negligence.  Landowner negligence occurs when a landowner fails to exercise the same level of care that a reasonably prudent and careful person would exercise under similar circumstances.  Different circumstances require landowners to exercise different levels of care towards the people that enter their property.  RULWA allows landowners the possibility of reducing the level of care owed whenever their land is made available to the public, free of charge, for recreational purposes.

What are the levels of care landowners owe those that enter their land?

When someone enters land without the consent of the landowner, that person is considered a trespasser.  Landowners normally owe this uninvited individual the low duty of care not to engage in any willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that could cause harm to the trespasser.  Nonetheless, if a landowner discovers or tolerates trespassers, the landowner then has an elevated duty to either warn the trespassers of known, hidden, man-made dangers or to make the premises safe.  For example, if a landowner discovers a foot path or litter near a section of a property used as a rifle range, the landowner may need to erect a sign warning of the potentially dangerous condition. 

Child trespassers require landowners to exercise a level of care greater than that owed to standard trespassers.  Known as the “Attractive Nuisance Doctrine,” children are considered unable to resist (or comprehend the danger of) things such as swimming pools, heavy machinery, or construction sites.  As a result, landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect child trespassers against the dangers of an attractive nuisance.  Often, this duty is fulfilled through erecting a secured fence around the danger. 

Generally, landowners that open their property to the public have a heightened duty of care towards the individuals that enter the property.  If a landowner invites persons onto the land, and the landowner receives no economic benefit, the invited persons are known as licensees.  A landowner has a duty of care to warn licensees of all known dangers on the property.  If the landowner invites persons onto the land (expressly or implied) for the economic benefit of the landowner, those invited persons are known as invitees. A landowner owes invitees a duty of protection and must inspect the land for dangerous conditions and warn the invitees of all known dangers on the property, and in certain situations, remedy the dangerous conditions.

RULWA provides qualifying landowners with an exception to the general duty of care owed towards those that enter their land.  If a qualifying property is made available to the public, free of charge, for recreational purposes, under RULWA, the landowner does not owe a duty to keep the property safe for the recreational users or to warn the recreational users of dangerous conditions.  In essence, RULWA only requires that landowners treat recreational land users with the same low duty of care that is owed to a trespasser (to not engage in willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that could cause harm to the recreational user). 

WTO Arbitrator Rules against U.S. COOL Law

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

On December 7, 2015, the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) law suffered a significant blow as a World Trade Organization (WTO) arbitrator determined that COOL violated international trade obligations, and awarded Canada and Mexico the right to impose over $1.2 billion in retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports.

Under COOL, certain food retailers (such as supermarkets and grocery stores) are required to provide the name of the country of origin on the labels on specific food products including “muscle cut and ground meats: beef, veal, pork, lamb, goat, and chicken; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables; peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts; and ginseng.” 

According to Canada and Mexico, through the enactment of COOL, the U.S. violated Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers and Trade (TBT Agreement) requiring that all signatory members (which include the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) “shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations, products imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country.” Canada and Mexico contended that by requiring country of origin labeling, the two nations were “accorded less favourable treatment of imported livestock than to like domestic livestock,” and because of this treatment, the U.S. failed to carry-out its TBT Agreement obligations.

During the arbitration proceedings, Canada and Mexico’s asserted that because of COOL, they each experienced “export revenue losses” and “revenue loss as a result of domestic price suppression.” Canada claimed annual revenue losses totaling $1,054,729,000 and Mexico claimed annual revenue losses totaling $227,758,000.  Ultimately, the presiding arbitrator agreed with Canada and Mexico and awarded each nation the ability to impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. commensurate with their claimed annual revenue losses.  

Following the WTO arbitral ruling, U.S. House Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-TX) stated, “We have known for some time that the Country of Origin Labeling law violates our international trade obligations.” Significantly, on June 10, 2015, legislation sponsored by Chairman Conaway that would repeal COOL (H.R. 2393), passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 300-131.  Currently, H.R. 2393 awaits action by the U.S. Senate. 

Crop Insurance Update: Bill Restoring Crop Insurance to Previous Levels Moves to President

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

On December 3, 2015, both houses of Congress voted to pass surface transportation legislation titled Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (H.R. 22). Of importance to the agricultural industry, the legislation contained a provision that would repeal a $3 billion dollar cut to crop insurers included in the recently enacted Budget Act of 2015.

Under sec. 201 of the Budget Act of 2015, the overall rate of return for crop insurance providers was capped at 8.9% (a decrease from the previous overall rate of return capped at 14.5%).  Significantly, the 8.9% capped rate would have resulted in a cut to crop insures of $300 million annually and $3 billion over ten years.  Nevertheless, under sec. 32205 of FAST, sec. 201 of the Budget Act of 2015 is to be repealed and the overall rate of return for insurance providers capped rate is to be restored to the previous rate of 14.5%.

Prior to the December 3 votes, House Agricultural Committee Chairman Mike Conaway expressed his pleasure that through FAST, sec. 201 of the Budget Act of 2015 would be repealed. The Chairman stated that restoring the previous rates was necessary for “ensuring that crop insurance continues to be available, affordable, and accessible to America’s farmers and ranchers.”

Echoing Chairman Conaway, the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau (CIRB), American Association of Crop Insurers (AACI) and the National Crop Insurance Service (NCIS) issued a joint statement that declared:

The crop insurance industry fully supports efforts to return crop insurance to where it was before the budget bill was passed.  The budget bill contained a disastrous provision that would have devastated crop insurance as we know it today, harming U.S. farmers and taxpayers alike.

Crop insurance is a successful public-private partnership that has already sustained $12 billion in cuts since 2008. The likely result of additional cuts would be increased industry consolidation, reduced choice in insurance providers for all farmers, and a dramatic decline in the availability and service of policies.  Make no mistake - this cut would jeopardize effective private-sector delivery of crop insurance and take risk management for farmers in the wrong direction.

The final votes to approve FAST were 359-65 in the House of Representatives and 83-16 in the Senate.  As a result of the December 3 votes, FAST now moves to the President’s desk for final approval.

Industrial Hemp Update: Pennsylvania Advances Hemp Legislation

Written by M. Sean High - Staff Attorney

On October 27, 2015, the Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee voted unanimously (11 – 0) to advance legislation (S.B. 50) that would allow for the legalization of the commercial growth and processing of industrial hemp within the Commonwealth.

Accordingto co-sponsoring Senators Judith Schwank (D – Berks) and Mike Folmer (R – Dauphin/Lebanon/York), the proposed legislation would “provide for an industrial hemp industry in the Commonwealth through the establishment of an Industrial Hemp Licensing Board within the Department of Agriculture to license and regulate the cultivation, growth and sale of industrial hemp. Members of the board would be the president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Professional and Occupational Affairs, or their designees; two public members appointed by the governor; and two representatives of state-related universities and research institutions in the commonwealth appointed by the governor.”

With the October 27, 2015 Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee approval, S.B. 50 now advances to the full Pennsylvania Senate where the bill will be placed on the legislative calendar and await debate on the Senate floor.   

Industrial Hemp Update: Pennsylvania Moves towards Legalizing Hemp

Written by M. Sean High - Staff Attorney

On October 6, 2015, the Pennsylvania House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee unanimously voted to approve legislation designed to legalize, for research purposes, the growth and cultivation of industrial hemp.

Industrial hemp, produced from the plant Cannabis Sativa, has historically been used as a source of fiber, food, and fuel.  Importantly, unlike marijuana, industrial hemp contains very low levels of delta 9 – tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).  As a result, industrial hemp is not considered a hallucinogenic.

Though currently produced in China, Canada, and EU member states, it has been illegal to produce industrial hemp in the United States, without a permit from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), since the passage of the Controlled Substance Act of 1970.  Notwithstanding this legislation, the 2014 federal Farm Bill provided a “pilot program” exception that allowed institutions of higher education and state Departments of Agriculture to produce industrial hemp for research purposes. 

Though private production of industrial hemp remains illegal without DEA approval, Pennsylvania representatives Russ Diamond (R – Lebanon) and Marty Flynn (D – Lackawanna) introduced the proposed legislation for the purpose of taking advantage of the 2014 federal Farm Bill pilot program exception.  With the October 6, 2015, the Pennsylvania House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee unanimous vote, the proposed legislation now moves to the House floor for a vote.

Relatedly, on October 13, 2015, the Agricultural and Food Law Consortium presented a webinar updating the current legal status of industrial hemp production in the United States.  Conducted by National Agricultural Law Center Director Harrison Pittman, a recording of the entire presentation can be accessed here.

House of Representatives Passes Pompeo GMO Bill

On July 23, 2015, the House of Representatives passed HR 1599 with a vote of 275 for and 150 against. The majority of support came from Republicans, but 45 Democrats supported the bill as well.

HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, will preempt any state laws that seek to create GMO labeling requirements, including the mandatory labeling law enacted in Vermont that is set to take effect in 2016. Supporters of the bill claim that the enactment of HR 1599 will prevent the creation of an unworkable system of different state laws with no consistency, making compliance for producers difficult. Opponents of the bill claim that HR 1599 harms transparency to the consumer.

In a vote following the passage of the bill, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) made a proposed amendment to the bill’s title, aiming to change the title to “A bill to enact the 'Deny Americans the Right to Know Act' or the 'DARK Act'." The amendment failed 87 to 337.

Although the bill has passed the House, the debate is far from over. The next area of contention will be in the Senate. Opponents of the bill believe it will falter in the Senate, but supporters claim that support is growing.

Written by Tyler R. Etter- Research Assistant
July 24, 2015

Senate Passes "Fast-track" Legislation

On June 24, 2015, the U.S. Senate passed the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act (S. 995) by a vote of 60-38.  The Act, which was lobbied for by the Obama administration, now awaits the President’s signature.

Known as “fast-track,” the Act, intended to make it easier for goods to reach international markets, provides the President greater authority in negotiating trade deals. According to the Act, Congress will not have the ability to amend proposed trade agreements, but will only be permitted to vote yes or no.  Additionally, the Senate will not be permitted to filibuster proposed trade agreements.

Following the Senate passage of the Act, Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a press release stating “[t]oday the Senate helped move America closer to securing responsible agreements that open markets for America’s farmers, ranchers and agribusiness and create jobs and improve wages across the country.”

On June 18, 2015, similar “fast-track” legislation (H.R. 1890) passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 218-208.   

To read the Congressional Research Service’s report regarding the proposed “fast-track” legislation, please click here.    

Written by M. Sean High - Staff Attorney

June 25, 2015

Finalized Waters of the U.S. Rule Announced

On May 27, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers announced the final version of their rule regarding the Waters of the United States (WOTUS).

Under the Clean Water Act, federal jurisdiction applies to “navigable waters.”  Unfortunately, this term often leads to confusions regarding the federal jurisdiction of many lakes, rivers, streams, and marshes.  According to EPA, the finalized WOTUS rule “ensures that waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more precisely defined and predictably determined.” The announced final rule is scheduled to go into effect sixty days after it is published in the Federal Register.

The final WOTUS rule faces opposition from those that believe the action exceeds the intended scope of the Clean Water Act.  On May 27, 2015 House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a press release denouncing the rule as a “tyrannical power grab.” Relatedly, on May 12, 2015 the House of Representative voted to require the withdrawal of the final WOTUS rule and require the development of a new rule; similar legislation is pending in the Senate.
 
Written by M. Sean High - Staff Attorney
May 28, 2015

House Passes Legislation to Prevent Waters of the U.S. Rule

On May 12, 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 1732) by a vote of 261 to 155.  Introduced by Pennsylvania Congressman Bill Shuster, the proposed legislation would prevent the implementation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently proposed rule regarding the Waters of the United States, and require that USACE develop a new rule. 

A central issue for many of the supporters of the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act is a concern that USACE’s currently proposed rule would dramatically expand the Clean Water Act to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the power to regulate vast numbers of agricultural fields and ditches. 

The House of Representatives passed similar legislation on September 9, 2014 (H.R. 5078), however, the bill stalled in the Senate.  Significantly, the Obama administration has threatened to veto the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act if it were to reach the President’s desk.   

Written by M. Sean High - Staff Attorney

May 21, 2015

Pennsylvania Livery Providers Lien Bill Passes Senate, Referred to House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

On November 19, the Pennsylvania Senate approved SB 995 in an unanimous vote of 49-0.  The bill was then moved on to the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

SB 995, the “Pennsylvania Livery Providers Fair Lien Act” establishes the requirements for livery provider liens which allows for an owner of a boarding stable to attach a lien to a horse which is left for the stable owner to perform labor upon, board, furnish services, supplies or provide materials for, at the request or consent of the owner of the horse.  The lien gives the stable owner the right to detain the horse to secure payment.  The lien attaches to a horse the day it is placed in the stable owner’s care for boarding or other labor in a statement of the amount due to the stable owner for the care of the horse and a description of the horse to which the lien is attached.  Liens arising under the Pennsylvania Livery Providers Fair Lien Act would be deemed an agricultural lien subject to 13 P.A.C.S. Div. 9.

The text of the bill, accompanying memo, and status can be found on the Pennsylvania legislature’s website.

Written by Alyssa Looney – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

November 20, 2013

New Hampshire GMO Labeling Bill Rejected by House Committee but Will Still be Voted on by House

On November 6, the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee in a 12-8 vote recommended that the full House reject HB 0660 which would require the labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms.  The bill was primarily opposed by Republican committee members.  The bill will go to the full House in January for a floor vote.

Under HB 0660, products produced with genetic engineering will be deemed misbranded if not labeled as such.  The bill would also require the attorney general to publish on the AG website a list of raw agricultural commodities known to be genetically engineered.  HB 0660 would require the commissioner of agriculture, markets and foods to adopt rules establishing best practices for farmers who raise GM crops.

Media sources report that passing the bill is instrumental in the enactment of Maine’s GMO labeling law which requires five other contiguous state pass similar labeling laws before it can go into effect.

For more information on the bill, visit the New Hampshire House of Representatives website for the full text of the bill, status, and docket.

Written by Alyssa Looney – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

November 18, 2013

PA House Passes Agri-Tourism Protection Bill

On November 12, 2013, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed HB 397, a bill providing limited immunity for persons that sponsor farm-related tourism activities. The final passage of the bill stipulates that, where no fee is charged for the farm-related tourism activity, the operator has protection from liability in a negligence action for personal injury or death of a participant, as long as the participant knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently and unreasonably partakes in the activity and the personal injury or death results from the inherent risks of the agri-tourism activity.

The bill has been amended twice, with the latest amendment adding the language precluding the application of limited immunity to agri-tourism activities for which there is a fee.

The bill will now be sent to the Senate for consideration.

For the full text and history of the bill, please see the PA General Assembly’s website.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

November 14, 2013

Kauai Limits Use of Pesticides on Genetically Modified Crops

Legislators on the Hawaiian island of Kauai approved have approved a bill that would restrict the use of pesticides by companies developing genetically modified crops on the island.  The Kauai County Council voted 6-to-1 to pass the bill on October 16^th after a hearing that lasted a day and a half.

The island has become a popular place for growing new varieties of corn and other genetically modified crops for the production of seeds due to its warm weather allowing for three corn harvests a year.  DuPont Pioneer, Sygenta, Dow, and BASF all grow corn on the island.

The bill would establish no-spray zones around schools, medical facilities, homes, public roads, and waterways.  It would also require seed companies to disclose which pesticides they use.  The original bill would have also limited genetically modified crop planting, but those provisions were eventually removed from the bill after seed companies argued that the original bill would have forced them off the island.  Seed companies also threatened to challenge the original bill in court.

The text of the original bill can be found here.  The New York Times article reporting the bill approval can be found here.

Written by Alyssa Looney – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

October 25, 2013

Raw Milk Update: Maine Governor Vetoes Bill that Would Have Exempted Small Farmers’ Raw Milk From Licensing and Inspection

On July 8, 2013, Maine Governor Paul LePage vetoed LD  1282, entitled “An Act To Help Small Farmers in Selling Raw Milk Products.”  Upon return to the Maine Senate on July 9, the Senate voted not to overturn the Governor’s veto of the bill.

Currently, dairy producers in Maine must apply to the state for licensing and both their facilities and products must undergo inspections.  This regulation applies to both pasteurized and raw dairy products.  LD 1282 would have exempted small dairy producers, those who produce less than 20 gallons of raw milk daily, from the licensing and inspection regulations.  The Maine Legislature passed this bill in June, after the measure was amended to require raw milk producers to test their product regularly, under guidelines set by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.

In his statement concerning the veto, Gov. LePage expressed his support for the majority of the content in the bill, but stated that his concern was the inclusion of provisions which would allow raw milk producers to sell their product at farmers’ markets.  LePage stated that he would support a modified version of the bill which permitted “on Farm only” sales of raw milk.

For more information, please see the Maine Legislature’s website on LD 1282 and the Current Issues section of the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center’s website.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 17, 2013

Kansas Legislature Amends State Right-to-Farm Laws to Limit Compensatory Damages for Nuisance Claims

On July 1, 2013, the Kansas legislature enacted SB 168 which amends the state’s right-to-farm laws. Kansas right-to-farm laws have traditionally protected agricultural operations from burdensome nuisance claims. The new law reinforces the protections offered by the right-to-farm laws by differentiating between permanent and temporary nuisance claims, further protecting the expansion of agricultural activities, and ensuring that property assigned, sold or inherited remains under the protection of right-to-farm laws.

Permanent and temporary nuisances will be considered separately, allowing for a fair market value allocation of compensatory damages for permanent nuisances, and for temporary nuisances, the lesser of:

      ·         the diminution in fair rental value of the claimant’s property,

·         the value of the loss of enjoyment of the claimant’s property,

·         or the reasonable cost to repair or mitigate any injury to the claimant can be awarded to the claimant.

In addition, farmland owners can now reasonably expand the scope of their agricultural activities without forfeiting protections under the right-to-farm laws. The law also stated that an agricultural operation that is consistent with good agricultural practices and that was established prior to surrounding agricultural or non-agricultural activities is presumed reasonable and would not constitute a nuisance. Furthermore, the law amends the definition of “agricultural activity” to include the handling, storage, and transportation of agricultural commodities.

For the more information, please see the Kansas Legislature’s website on SB 168.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
July 16, 2013

House Passes Farm Bill without the Nutrition Title

On July 11, 2013, the United States House of Representatives passed a scaled-back version of the farm bill, removing the Nutrition title, which includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provisions.  This bill passed in the House by a slim margin of 216-208, with twelve Republicans and all House Democrats voting against the measure.  The House bill would also remove the current law, under which most farm programs revert to 1940’s levels if a farm bill is not in place.

The House failed to pass a five-year, $500 billion farm bill last month, which would have implemented cuts to SNAP.  The Senate passed their version of the farm bill in June.  The House and Senate must now hash out a compromise farm bill before the end of September 30, 2013, or the reversion to permanent law will go into effect.

For more information, please see the text of the House Bill and the Senate Bill.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 12, 2013