Showing posts with label Waters of the U.S.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waters of the U.S.. Show all posts

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Agricultural Law Weekly Review—June 2, 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:

Water: SCOTUS Holds Landowners may Challenge WOTUS Determinations in Court
On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States held that landowners have the ability to bring legal action against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determinations regarding whether a particular piece of property contains waters of the United States (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc.).  According to the Court, a Corps issued waters of the United States “revised jurisdictional determination” is a “final agency action” that provides no other “adequate alternative to challenging it in court.”

Food Safety: FDA Publishes FSMA Final Rule for Food Facility Hazards
On May 27, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published notice in the Federal Register of a final rule entitled Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food against Intentional Adulteration (81 FR 34165).  According to FDA, the department “is issuing this final rule to require domestic and foreign food facilities that are required to register under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to address hazards that may be introduced with the intention to cause wide scale public health harm.” The final rule becomes effective July 26, 2016.

Labor: DOL Sues Pilgrim’s Pride for Alleged Hiring Discrimination
On May 25, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a press release announcing that the agency’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has filed a lawsuit with the Office of Administrative Law Judges “alleging that Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. has systematically discriminated against female, African American and white jobseekers at its Mount Pleasant processing facility.” According to the press release, Pilgrim’s Pride currently holds federal contracts in excess of $75 million and the company’s alleged actions violated Executive Order 11246 which “prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin, and requires contractors to ensure equal opportunity in employment.”

Food Safety: Group Files Suit Seeking FDA Regulation of Oysters
On May 25, 2016 the organization Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a complaint against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding CSPI’s 2012 citizen petition filed with FDA asking the agency to establish a performance standard that would ensure levels of the bacteria Vibrio vulnificus “are nondetectable in oysters and other molluscan shell fish sold for raw consumption.” According to the complaint, CSPI seeks court “declaration that [FDA] has acted unlawfully by withholding action on CSPI’s petition and an order requiring [FDA] to act.”

Animal Health: Report Examines Effect of HPAI on Local Economies
The May 2016 issue of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association’s Choices magazine contained a report assessing the economic effect of the 2014-2015 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreak in the United States.  According to the report, “[a]n initial assessment of the local consequences suggests the outcomes from the HPAI outbreak resulted in fewer jobs, lower output, lower value-added, and decreased local, state, and Federal tax receipts.” The report stated that “[a]pproximately $879 million was spent on the 2014-2015 HPAI outbreak and Fall planning activities…[a]pproximately $200 million of the total mitigation expenditures were indemnity payments…to farmers, growers, and companies, $610 million to response activities on premises…$34 million on Fall planning costs, and the remaining $35 million likely applied to overtime, travel, and supplies for Veterinary Services’ employees.”

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Chairman Conaway Pleased with WOTUS Injunction

Written by Tyler R. Etter

On August 28, 2015, Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-TX), Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, released a statement regarding the recent preliminary injunction granted against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the “Waters of the United States Rule” (WOTUS) in 13 states.

In his statement, Chairman Conaway called WOTUS a “disastrous rule”, and that he has expressed concern for the current administration’s “complete disregard for rural America.” He stated that WOTUS is a “gross overreach that punishes the very people it was intended to help.” He further stated that the House committee will continue to work to stop the implementation of the rule and to protect the rights of producers.

This is not the first time Chairman Conaway has commented on the rule. In May of 2015, he and Subcommittee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA) of the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee released a joint statement on the rule. They challenged the process of the creation of the rule claiming that it ignored American farmers and ranchers’ concerns. They also stated that the assurance of greater clarity was hollow comfort for those that would face steep fines for any violations.


The injunction was granted by North Dakota District Court Judge Ralph Erikson. The implementation of the rules is now halted in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Twelve Waters of the U.S. Lawsuits Consolidated

On July 29, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation approved the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers request that twelve different lawsuits filed in relations to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule be consolidated.  The panel randomly chose the Sixth Circuit Court to hear the consolidated cases.

Some of the lawsuits consolidated were filed against the EPA by environmental groups who want stricter pollution protection.  The rest of the lawsuits were filed by industry groups and states who believe the EPA has overstepped its bounds and argue for rules that will not so greatly burden businesses.


It is expected the consolidation of the lawsuits will help bring a faster resolution to the challenges.   

Written by Katharine Richter - Research Assistant

July 31, 2015

Thursday, May 21, 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