Showing posts with label Nutrient Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nutrient Management. Show all posts

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Agricultural Law Weekly Review—January 18, 2018

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:

Nutrient Management: Pennsylvania Court Finds Local Ordinance Not Preempted by State's Nutrient Management Act
On January 4, 2018, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania determined that the Montour Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) erred in granting an application for a proposed swine facility because the township’s ordinance was not preempted by the Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act (NMA) (Berner v. Montour Twp., Pa. Commw. Ct. No. 448 C.D. 2017).  According to the court, the NMA regulation cited by the ZHB as preempting the township ordinance “applies only to new manure storage facilities that are constructed as part of a plan developed for an NMP [Nutrient Management Plan] operation.” The court stated that because the proposed swine facility did not require an NMP, the cited NMA regulation did not apply.  As a result, the court held that the Applicant should not have been excused from “the zoning ordinance’s requirement that Applicant[s] submit facility designs and legally binding assurances with performance guarantees that demonstrate that all facilities necessary for manure management will be conducted without adverse impact on adjacent properties.”

Food Safety: USDA-FSIS Announces Proposed Changes to Egg Products Inspection Regulations
On January 9, 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced that the agency is planning to amend the egg products inspection regulations regarding official plants that process egg products.  Under the proposed changes, official plants that process egg products will be required to develop Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures that are consistent with the meat and poultry regulations. According to USDA-FSIS, the purpose of the new regulations is to produce egg products that are free of detectable pathogens.  Following future publication of the proposed changes in the Federal Register, USDA-FSIS stated that it will accept public comments for 120 days.

Marketing Programs: California Milk Producers Vote in Favor of Quota Implementation Plan
On January 5, 2018, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) published the results of the state’s Market Milk Producer Referendum regarding whether a proposed Quota Implementation Plan (QIP) would become effective if a Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) is promulgated in California.  Of those producers voting in the referendum, 90.65% voted in favor of the proposed QIP.  As a result of the vote, if a FMMO is promulgated in California, the QIP will be enacted.

Industrial Hemp: Kentucky Approves 225 Applications for Industrial Hemp Research in 2018
On January 10, 2018, the North Kentucky Tribune reported that the Kentucky Department of Agriculture (KDA) has approved 225 applications to grow a total of 12,018 acres of industrial hemp for research purposes in 2018.  According to the report, the approved acreage amount is in addition to the 681,000 square feet of greenhouse space approved by KDA for indoor cultivation in 2018.  Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles asserted that because of the state’s industrial hemp research efforts, he is “more optimistic than ever that we can put industrial hemp on a path to widespread commercialization once Congress removes it from the federal list of controlled substances.”

Pennsylvania Legislation:
Environmental Resources and Energy (H)
  • HB 2004 Legislation providing for erosion & sedimentation agreements between DEP and County Conservation Districts (Referred to committee January 9, 2018)


Pennsylvania Actions and Notices:
Executive Orders


Department of Conservation and Natural Resources


AgLaw HotLinks:

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

Connect with us on Facebook to view our weekly CASL Ledger detailing Center publications and activities.

Listen to our weekly Agricultural Law Podcast.

Stay informed with our monthly Agricultural Law Brief newsletter.  


Visit The Ag & Food Law Blog for a comprehensive summary of daily judicial, legislative, and regulatory developments in agriculture and food.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Court Rules on Preliminary Objections in Luzerne County CAFO Case

Written by M. Sean High

On October 29, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Pennsylvania, a ruling was rendered regarding Country View Family Farms, LLC’s preliminary objections in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) case involving a Salem Township pig farm.

The legal action in question originated from an April 27, 2015 complaint filed by multiple Salem Township residents seeking relief from the operation of a neighboring CAFO.  In their complaint, 90 individual plaintiffs collectively stated that “foul-smelling odors particulate matter, harmful chemical compounds, pathogens, other hazardous substances, and in some cases flies, generated at Defendants’ CAFO and the spreading of swine manure and urine, have intermittently and frequently escaped and continue to escape form Defendants’ CAFO  and the spreading fields and invade Plaintiffs’ properties, and thus have and continue to substantially impaired Plaintiffs’ use and quiet enjoyment of their properties, and caused substantial annoyance, inconvenience and discomfort and property devaluation.”

Defendant Country View Family Farms, LLC countered Plaintiffs’ allegations by filing seven preliminary objections to the complaint.  According to Defendant’s brief in support of the preliminary objections: 1) Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim (both public and private) was legally and factually insufficient; 2) allegations concerning harm to nearby schools, a hospital, a retirement village and Thompson’s Run Creek should be stricken; 3) allegations concerning potential violation of a Salem Township zoning ordinance should be stricken; 4) Plaintiffs’ trespass claim was legally and factually insufficient; 5) Plaintiffs’ potential claim for negligence was improperly pleaded and legally insufficient; 6) demand for punitive damages should be stricken; and 7) the demand for diminution in value damages should be stricken.

With only one partial exception, the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County agreed with Country View Family Farms, LLC and ruled in favor of all seven of Defendant’s preliminary objections.  The lone exception concerned Country View Family Farms, LLC’s preliminary objection to Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim. Specifically, though the Court agreed with Country View Family Farms, LLC that Plaintiffs “public nuisance” claim should be stricken, the Court also ruled that Plaintiffs’ claim of “private nuisance” could proceed with the added requirement that within 45 days of the Order, Plaintiffs must submit an amended complaint “delineat[ing] with the requisite specificity the alleged injury” suffered by each one of the 90 individual plaintiffs.