Lawsuit

Deere & Co. Reaches $99 Million Settlement in Multiyear ‘Right-to-Repair’ Litigation

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:08:30 GMT

On April 6, Deere & Co. announced a settlement agreement resolving the “right-to-repair” litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The company will pay $99 million (plus interest accruing since Jan. 15) into a settlement fund for the benefit of the settlement class. In a press release , the company states the agreement brings the case to a close with “no finding of wrongdoing.”

The agreement marks a pivotal moment in the multi-year legal battle, aiming to compensate producers for repair restrictions while avoiding a formal admission of liability. While Deere marks the move as a step toward better customer support, the settlement fuels a debate with advocates who argue the payout fails to address control over farm machinery repairs.

Under the terms of the settlement, Deere will establish a fund to cover administrative and legal fees, with the remainder distributed to eligible class members. Deere says it remains committed to supporting customers with access to manuals, diagnostic software and specialized tools.

“As we continue to innovate industry-leading equipment and technology solutions supported by our world-class dealer network, we are equally committed to providing customers and other service providers with access to repair resources,” says Denver Caldwell, vice president, aftermarket & customer support. “We’re pleased that this resolution allows us to move forward and remain focused on what matters most – serving our customers.”

Industry Advocates Raise Questions Amid Settlement Announcement

Despite the settlement, some are still skeptical.

“I suspect there is a lot less to this deal than meets the eye,” says Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the Repair Association .

She has questions, including: In the settlement, Deere agreed to make available to farmers for 10 years “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis and repair” of large agricultural equipment, including tractors, combines and sugarcane harvesters. What does that mean for other John Deere equipment?

In response, John Deere says its latest digital self-repair tool, Operations Center PRO Service, launched in July 2025, is designed to enhance how John Deere equipment owners use, maintain, diagnose, repair and protect their equipment. The tool provides support capabilities across John Deere’s agriculture, turf, construction and forestry equipment portfolio.

Yet unknown, Gordon-Byrne says, are the outcomes of 16 right-to-repair bills that cover ag equipment filed this year in 16 states.

“Several are likely to pass with much stronger requirements,” she adds.

Meanwhile, Willie Cade, Repair Association board member and a consultant on the case since it was filed in 2022, says he believes Deere will continue to move the goalposts and keep farmers reliant on their “monopolistic” repair policy.

“It’s too little, too late, and it will not fundamentally change the monopolistic repair environment that Deere enjoys,” he says.

The settlement must still be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Lowballed by Eminent Domain, ND Farmers Appeal Landmark Case to Supreme Court

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:52:03 GMT

In a stunning assertion of power, the federal government is forcing landowners to pick between two poisons. Accept lowball eminent domain offers for private property or drown in legal costs. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Leonard Hoffmann was offered roughly half the market rate for gas pipeline access across his pastureland, backed by the threat of eminent domain. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in court to contest the offer, but despite winning, Hoffmann received a financial hammer blow: pay all legal costs.

In a staggering ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declared Hoffmann must foot the bill to challenge below-market land offers—even though he won on the issue related to the use of other pipeline easement transactions as comparable sales. He proved his case that he is entitled to recover fees, but according to the Eighth Circuit, if a landowner dares to challenge a government-backed gas giant, the landowner loses either at the get-go or the finish line.

Hoffmann, along with several other neighboring property owners, is taking his case directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, represented by the Institute for Justice.

“Where is basic fairness?” he asks. “Where in the hell did reason go?”

We Were in the Way
In 2018, in the process of pipeline construction, WBI Energy Transmission knocked at the farm gates of Leonard Hoffmann, Rocky Prestangen, Randy Stevenson, and Denae Hoffmann, all located in extreme western North Dakota’s McKenzie County. WBI asked for easement access and a 99-year lease from the landowners. The request was backed by demand: WBI operated with a federal permit, allowing the natural gas company to wield eminent domain. Sell or else.

However, the landowner foursome had long legs in North Dakota agriculture. Their acres, homesteaded by great-grandparents over a century in the past, were a mix of arid pastureland, along with wheat, oats, barley, and alfalfa, tucked a stone’s throw from Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and their locale had been in the bull’s-eye for oil and gas development for several decades.

“We didn’t even resist the eminent domain—all we wanted was for WBI to just be reasonable about our land value,” Hoffman says. “Instead, seven years of abuse trying to break us.”

(Photo by IJ)

In a nutshell, Hoffmann and the other third- and fourth-generation landowners had pipeline experience and already had multiple lines running beneath their fields. They understood rates and land prices.

WBI offered roughly half of market value for easement access. “People are appalled by the details of what has gone on,” Prestangen says. “WBI took our land, and on top of that, gave us half value because they knew they had eminent domain power from the government.”

“The average person is disgusted when they hear about this,” Hoffmann echoes. “WBI came at us with far less than the going rate; a 99-year lease which is three times what other companies ask; and a 100’ exclusive easement, instead of the 25’ sought by other companies, ensuring no other pipelines can cross without their permission. The numbers don’t lie: Landowners were getting less than 5% of the total project budget.”

“We were never about telling them, ‘No,’ because we knew they had eminent domain,” Hoffmann adds. “We just wanted them to pay the going rate and be fair. Didn’t matter. They just didn’t give a care because we were in the way.”

Catch-22
Hoffmann and Prestangen refused to roll. They went to court and paid attorney fees out of pocket, insisting on the right to rely on market rates to show the value of their farms and pasturelands. Three years later, a federal judge decided in their favor on the use of other easement transactions as evidence, and also ruled for 100% reimbursement of legal fees from WBI.

North Dakota producer Randy Stevenson is fighting a government- backed gas giant.

(Photo by IJ)

However, WBI appealed the reimbursement, and in 2024, the Eighth Circuit decided in favor of the pipeline company, forcing Hoffmann and Prestangen to pay all litigation costs. In essence, Hoffmann and Prestangen were forced into a vise sanctioned by the federal government: Either surrender money up front for your land or pay it later in court fees. Lose-lose.

On the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, Hoffmann and Prestangen were bled out. No more cards to play. “That’s exactly what these big corporations want,” Prestangen says. “At some point, they know you won’t have the financial means to fight. They wait for your personal savings to run low. We were in deep with nowhere to turn.”

(Citing pending litigation, WBI declined all Agweb.com questions regarding the Eighth Circuit decision and the Hoffmann case.)

However, the Eighth Circuit’s massive ruling caught the eye of liberty-leaning Institute for Justice, and the law firm took the case at no cost. IJ attorney Matt Liles says the Eighth Circuit’s decision was a “Catch-22” for private property owners.

“Every federal court that’s looked at this issue has decided landowners should be compensated, and state law almost always entitles landowners to attorney fees. We got involved because this could eventually affect landowners all over the country if other courts follow. This ruling puts landowners in a position where a gas company can take your land at a bad price and you can’t even get your legal fees paid if you prove in court what the gas company is doing. The ruling ensures that landowners can’t resist at any stage.”

North Dakota landowner Denae Hoffmann waits to find out if SCOTUS will hear her case.

(Photo by IJ)

“Look at the four landowners (Hoffmann, Prestangen, Stevenson and Denae Hoffmann) in this fight,” Liles continues. “They represent property that’s been in families for over 100 years that required tremendous struggle to hold onto. The land is a symbol of survival, but now they’re fighting a gas giant.”

IJ appealed the Eighth Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 7, 2025. The High Court will decide in October 2025 whether to officially hear the case.

In the meantime, Hoffmann waits. “It’s been nothing but extreme stress, depositions, testimony in court, meaningless negotiations, and strain on all our families since 2018,” he says. “We didn’t even resist the eminent domain—all we wanted was for WBI to just be reasonable about our land value. Instead, seven years of abuse trying to break us.”

The Battering Ram
Looming in the background is a lesson from the recent past.

This was not Hoffmann and Prestangen’s first go-round with WBI and eminent domain. The gas company took another easement across their properties in 2014.

“They ran right through us and listened to nothing we said,” Prestangen recalls. “Other pipeline companies I’ve dealt with were receptive about the location of my farmland or hunting ground, but not WBI. They charged through in a matter of weeks and didn’t care about the land, leaving potholes and washouts in my fields.”

“This is about arrogance of power, eminent domain abuse, and a terrible failure in the justice system,” says Rocky Prestangen, left, pictured alongside Randy Stevenson.

(Photo by IJ)

Hoffmann concurs and claims WBI’s restoration of the disturbed pipeline corridor on his land was a nightmare in 2014. “We asked WBI to minimize their impact to our farming and ranching by taking specific routes. They refused. We asked the crew for 10 days to get hay off our land before they went through. Two days later, it was all gone. WBI came across with whatever was easiest, quickest and cheapest for them.”

“Once WBI finished the line, a third-party company came in for reclamation to repair our land,” Hoffmann adds. “We literally had to stay on this company by the week to get them to show up. Reseeding in an arid climate can mean several years before grass grows again, but they didn’t do anything we’d been promised. The only thing WBI ever cared about was doing studies to avoid archeological areas and eco-nature because they were worried about federal regulations. But disturbing our farmland and pastureland production? They couldn’t have cared less.”

In August 2025, WBI was awarded a $500 million grant by the North Dakota Industrial Commission to build another pipeline. WBI is part of Montana Dakota Utilities (MDU). “That’s how it works,” Hoffmann notes. “WBI was created as a spinoff of MDU. Why? In my opinion, they needed WBI to take advantage of federal regulation to be able to use eminent domain. They had to have eminent domain in their hip pocket to cross lands like ours.”

WBI President Rob Johnson, while discussing the new $500 million grant, referenced eminent domain. “There are times where sometimes it’s necessary, but the goal going in is to not have to use eminent domain,” Johnson said. “That’s always our stance.”

“Are you kidding?” Hoffmann says. “Eminent domain is always on the table and the landowners know it. Eminent domain is the battering ram behind everything they do. For him to pretend otherwise pretty much tells the whole story.”

If the Supreme Court accepts Hoffmann and Prestangen’s case, a decision is likely in 2026. Attorneys general from 12 states are urging SCOTUS to accept the case: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

“Here’s what’s at stake,” Hoffmann concludes. “It’s now OK to force private landowners to accept minimal payment for property and then take more money from them if they protest and prove their case in court. That is fundamentally wrong.”

“This is about arrogance of power, eminent domain abuse, and a terrible failure in the justice system,” Prestangen adds. “They make you feel like nothing is yours.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

City Gov to Seize 175-Year-Old Farm by Eminent Domain, Replace with Affordable Housing

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Sisters of Farm Fraud: How 4 Siblings Fleeced USDA for $10M

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:16:02 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

Supreme Court Decision On Glyphosate Case Expected Next Session

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 14:00:25 GMT

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court asked for the views of the Solicitor General in the Durnell case. This comes after a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by Bayer’s indirect subsidiary Monsanto in April 2025 arguing that Roundup litigation decisions have been split by federal circuit courts and a Supreme Court decision is needed.

This news of the court’s action has Bayer expecting a decision by the Court—first if it accepts the case, then on a ruling—in the 2025-2026 session. The company says it expects the decision by the Court on whether or not to hear the case in the fall 2025. And then if picked up by the court, its decision would be announced by June 2026.

“We see this request as an encouraging step and look forward to hearing the views of the government on FIFRA’s federal preemption provision, which relies on language common to several federal laws that cover a number of industries,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson in a news release. “The security and affordability of the food supply depend on companies’ and farmers’ ability to rely on decisions made by responsible federal regulatory authorities. When courts permit companies to be punished under state law for following federal law, it makes companies like ours a prime target of the litigation industry and threatens farmers and innovations that patients and consumers need for their nutrition and health.”

In the meantime, the company says it will continue it’s “multipronged” strategy around glyphosate litigation. [Read more about that strategy here .]

To-date Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer. Bill Anderson became CEO in 2023, and one of his commitments was to get the glyphosate litigation “under control” by 2026. In total, there have been about 180,000 lawsuits brought forward, with about 65,000 cases open now. The company says it has received favorable outcomes in 17 of the last 25 trials.

The federal courts with the split decisions resulted from the 3rd, 9th and 11th circuits.

FTC vs. John Deere: Two Experts Answer Key Questions

Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:30:00 GMT

On Jan. 15, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court accusing John Deere of creating and presiding over a monopolistic and anti-competitive repair and dealer service system that puts farmers and independent repair professionals at an unfair disadvantage.

The news of this legal action has sent shock-waves through the ag equipment world. Deere has since offered an official statement condemning the action as “meritless…baseless…brazen partisanship.”

Incoming FTC chair, commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who has been appointed to head up the agency under President Trump, issued a statement that simultaneously recognizes the importance of allowing farmers to diagnose and fix their machines while indicating he disagrees with the decision to file the lawsuit. Fergusons’ statement was cosigned by fellow FTC commissioner Melissa Holyoak.

What happens next?
According to a post at FTC.gov, once the agency files a lawsuit the respondent – in this case, John Deere – has the right to contest the charges. FTC may then issue a final order, which can be appealed to the courts. The agency may also seek civil (i.e. financial) damages or request an injunction against Deere.

Plaintiff’s counsel have requested an injunction against John Deere. The lawsuit expressly asks for “a permanent injunction and other equitable relief against Deere to prevent its unlawful conduct in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act” along with several state statutes in Illinois and Minnesota.

The Interviews
Now that we’ve set the stage, here is what two experts who have paid close attention to the case have to say about it:

James Kovacs is an antitrust attorney with Shinder Cantor Lerner (SLC), a national litigation firm that specializes in antitrust law.

Q: Is what FTC is accusing Deere of difficult to prove in a court of law?

A: “This is actually a very interesting topic that has been going on now for a number of decades, called right to repair. And right to repair within the antitrust space, which is where I practice, has to do with whether or not restrictions placed by the original equipment manufacturer, in this case John Deere, and what we call an aftermarket, which are the areas in which people compete for repair or service, whether those, you know, aftermarkets are being harmed. And so looking at whether people cannot either independently repair their own equipment or whether independent retailers or repair centers are also restricted as well. With these cases, really any monopolization case is challenging, but here I will say that the practices of John Deere, I think, are quite open and notorious.

“For a long time, people have been aware that farmers have been restricted from repairing their farm equipment. There are a variety of means, most of which are sort of technical issues in which the data and information necessary to perform the repair or the tool, which I believe is called the Service Advisor, has been restricted. And so, when the farmer or the independent repair center goes to fix the John Deere equipment, they are not able to access the necessary technical information to complete the job. And now the farmer can only do those types of repairs through a John Deere retailer, an authorized retailer.

“And so, this type of conduct within the right to repair market dates back to cases in the 1990s, in particular, with Kodak printers. And it can be found to be anti-competitive, wherein there’s an entity with basically complete control over the repair market who applies these types of restrictions. So, this is not something that is uncommon. And it’s something that’s seen quite an uptick in interest since the Biden Administration made it a priority. And when the FTC issued their initial report, called Nixing The Fix, that sort of got the ball rolling on the FTC’s interest in these types of cases.”

Q: In your opinion, does FTC have a strong case here?

A: “In my experience, the FTC does not bring complaints unless they feel like there are strong grounds to do so. Again, I also think there are a couple key factors at play here. One, I think the public is becoming quite aware of John Deere’s practices. I know that there are several reports and public sources out there who have spoken about these issues and their impact on farmers and their farming equipment.

“The second aspect to keep in mind is there is also a private litigation against John Deere alleging the same practices. That case has proceeded past a motion to dismiss. And so, what that means is the allegations have been proven to be sufficient to allow the parties to proceed into discovery. And I think that gives credence to the fact these claims are not necessarily merit-less at all. But in fact, people who have been looking at these issues believe there are merits to these claims. And I think the FTC does not typically act unless they believe strongly that an issue could be problematic.”

Q: FTC, through their legal team, has requested an injunction against Deere along with their co-plaintiffs, the state attorney generals in Illinois and Minnesota. Let’s say I’m a farmer in Illinois or Minnesota, and I’m using Deere equipment. I may be looking to have some repairs made before spring planting by a John Deere dealer. Could there be implications at play for those users?

A: “I think it’s important to note that the FTC’s jurisdiction is nationwide. And so, what the FTC is seeking through its injunctive relief, as I understand it, is access to what they call the ‘full function Service Advisor (program).’ As of right now, there is sort of an incomplete Service Advisor that the independent repair pros and the farmers have access to, but that doesn’t give them the full suite of options to repair all the needs of their farming equipment. And the allegation is that John Deere has withheld some of this technical information out of a desire to sort of capture the repair market under the injunctive relief.

“As I understand it, if the FTC were to be successful in any litigation and a jury ultimately found in their favor, then ultimately the farmers would be able to get access to this full Service Advisor tool and therefore be able to complete more repairs. Whether or not John Deere comes up with additional ways of restricting repairs is going to be open to interpretation, but at least this is a very specific injunctive relief. And there’s also sort of broader language to sort of prevent them from continuing this unlawful conduct. And so, I think it could be substantial relief.”

Willie Cade is a Washington, D.C., lobbyist and Right to Repair advocate. His grandfather was on the board at John Deere and worked for the company as a chief engineer. He can be reached by email at willie@graceful.solutions .

Q: What have you learned about this legal action that sticks out to you?

A: “A couple of things really stick out in my mind. No. 1, deep into the filing, around paragraph 111, they talk about how this monopolization of repair actually affects all repairs.

“Yes, it’s not monopolization of every repair, but it affects the price of every repair, which is remarkable. And they really call it a monopoly. They’re flat out about it. I love the way they took the time – we initially filed the complaint with the FTC and I worked on that with the attorneys that filed it three years ago. So they did their homework and they’ve done a really good job. And I really recommend to the farmers who really care about this issue, that they read the complaint because it reads really well. It reads like they know the industry, like they know what they’re talking about and that kind of thing.

“The other thing that was kind of interesting is, is they have lots (of evidence). They have a number of John Deere executives on record saying that, yeah, we knew we were doing this. So, I mean, they’ve really nailed it from that point of view. And when you look at the dissenting opinion from the two Republican commissioners, it’s a non-dissent dissent. There really was no objection to the substance of the suit, just the timing.”

Q: Are you aware of any other major farm machinery companies that might be engaged in similar conduct?

A: “They’re all doing it. They all use the same similar kind of technology — the CAN bus. Caterpillar is a little different because it’s not a CAN bus, it’s a hub. But those are just technical details. They’re still wanting to, I assert, illegally control the consumer after they sell the product. That’s a legal concept called tying. And tying has been illegal for almost a century now. And the electronics allow you to do it today where you weren’t able to do it before, other than physically. So we’re going to nail this. It’s going to take a year or two and then we’re going to move on. We’re going to move on to some even more important issues in agriculture. But I won’t tell you what that is yet.”

Q: Could you see this becoming sort of a win-win situation, where the farmers win out on this and even Deere comes out of this looking somewhat okay and maybe better for the long term?

A: “Well, here’s the interesting thing. Due to the lack of rights to repair their own farm equipment, farmers stand to lose $4.2 billion a year. About 20% of that is realized in higher prices for repair and services. The rest is in lost yield. So, could you imagine if farmers could get that rough number, that $3.8 billion back or even $3.7 billion back? And it’s all profit, by the way. By the time you get the yield, it’s all profit. If they could get that as profit, of course John Deere is going to do better with sales.”

Watch this video for additional coverage from the Jan. 18, 2025, episode of U.S. Farm Report.

Your Next Read: How a Con Man Pulled the Evilest Agriculture Fraud in History

American Farm Bureau Terminates Illinois Farm Bureau's Membership, Illinois is Taking Filing a Lawsuit

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:23:50 GMT

The Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB) is no longer a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The American Farm Bureau Federation has decided to terminate the Illinois Farm Bureau’s membership, effective Dec. 20, 2024. AFBF President Zippy Duvall announced the termination, which is expected to have a significant impact on farmers in Illinois.

The IFB has filed a lawsuit against the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The lawsuit was filed in McLean County, Illinois. It claims this termination violates a 1990 settlement agreement between the two organizations, which allegedly allowed IFB to continue using the name “Illinois Farm Bureau.”

Duvall stated that the decision to vote out the Illinois Farm Bureau is related to maintaining “farmer control” of organizational decisions. The IFB argues that AFBF’s action threatens to deprive them of important membership rights and benefits, including a voice in national farm policy issues.

IFB President Brian Duncan expressed that they have “no desire to leave AFBF” and believes that AFBF is choosing to abandon more than 70,000 Illinois-based farmer members. The lawsuit seeks to halt AFBF’s decision to expel the Illinois Farm Bureau.

A letter from AFBF President Zippy Duvall to state farm bureau presidents said the action comes after a failed mediation session on Monday. The move is in retaliation for a decision by the Illinois Farm Bureau’s affiliate, Country Financial, to drop a Farm Bureau membership eligibility requirement for non-farm insurance policy holders in Illinois.

“The membership decision is expected to cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of farm bureau members, to the detriment of Illinois Farmers, Illinois County Farm Bureau organizations, IFB [Illinois Farm Bureau] and the entire Farm Bureau organization,” wrote Duvall, a third-generation dairy farmer from Georgia who has headed the AFBF since 2016.

Country Financial told customers in September it would no longer require Farm Bureau membership for nonfarm policies. Membership costs about $20 per year. AFBF receives $5 of those dues. Country Financial operates in 19 states. It is the largest farm insurer in Illinois.

The expulsion of the Illinois Farm Bureau from the national federation marks a significant change in the relationship between these agricultural organizations. The IFB has about 400,000 members. More than 70,000 are farmers, farmland owners, and agriculture industry professionals, according to the IFB website. Its farm membership comprises about 75% of all Illinois farmers.

The IFB has been operating for over 100 years. It will no longer be part of the larger national network. This separation could potentially affect various aspects of support and representation for Illinois farmers, including:

Legislative advocacy at the federal level
Access to national resources and programs
Participation in national policymaking for agriculture

Of note:

While the Illinois Farm Bureau will no longer be part of the American Farm Bureau Federation, it will continue to operate as a state-level organization.

ADM Sued for Alleged Misconduct, Lack of Safety Inspections

Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:58:25 GMT

By P.J. Huffstutter

Archer-Daniels-Midland Co intentionally failed to test and maintain safety systems on its grain equipment for years, which contributed to an explosion that immolated a worker and put him in a coma last year, according to a lawsuit filed against the company.

The explosion was part of a string of safety incidents at ADM facilities in Decatur, Illinois, site of the global grain trader’s North American headquarters.

ADM on Thursday declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The company’s shares have been under pressure this year from a global glut of grain supplies, and it is also facing U.S. government investigations related to accounting irregularities.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Macon County Circuit Court in Illinois, alleges that worker Antonio McElrath was in a Decatur facility known as the West Plant in April 2023 when a supervisor told him to shut down a grain “leg” tube that started smoking.

An explosion occurred when the tube was opened, and McElrath was standing in its direct path, according to the lawsuit.

McElrath, now 44, was in an induced coma for two to three weeks following the accident, his attorney Timothy Shay said. “He has suffered significant injuries and is still in recovery.”

Investigators with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that ADM failed to inspect or test critical safety systems in the explosion that injured McElrath and two other workers.

ADM had fire and explosion suppression systems in place to prevent problems and keep workers safe, but the systems were not working, the lawsuit alleges.

ADM’s sprawling grain and oilseed processing complex in Decatur also suffered dust explosions in 2018 and 2019, fires in 2019, and a smoldering event this summer at the West Plant, according to the lawsuit.

Separately, workers were injured from an explosion at the site’s East Plant in September 2023. And on Monday, an industrial fire broke out at ADM’s sorbitol production department of its East Plant, according to the Decatur Fire Department.

ADM has focused on safety efforts companywide, ADM spokeswoman Jackie Anderson said in an email statement late on Thursday.

At its Decatur complex over the past year, the company has hired process safety engineers and taken other steps to improve safety in its processes, among other steps, Anderson said. “We are fully committed to learning and improving when an operational event occurs so that it does not happen again.”

(Reporting by P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago; Editing by Aurora Ellis and Leslie Adler)

Unbowed: Farmer Fights County’s $120,000 Fine For Housing Worker On-Site

Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:14:55 GMT

In the annals of clashes between government control versus private property rights, Michael Ballard’s story is standalone. Ballard faces $120,000-plus in fines for allowing his farm manager to live on his California farm.

When Ballard let Marcelino Martinez, a 23-year career employee, live on-site in a trailer, Santa Clara County officials reacted with a blitz of code violations. Yet, those same officials permit thousands of homeless to reside in tents, shanties, and RVs across the county without penalty.

Bottom line, according to the county: If Martinez lives homeless on the streets and commutes to work on the farm, no problem. However, if he resides on the farm in a trailer—even out of site from public roads and neighboring properties—the action is illegal and deserves draconian fines.

Ballard is unbowed, represented by Institute for Justice: “Our city roads and cul-de-sacs have rows and rows of homeless camped on public property and that’s just fine with the county—no repercussions for anyone. However, I’m being prosecuted because my vineyard manager and his family live on my private property.”

“I’m fighting the county and I’ll never listen to power-crazy bureaucrats that tell me I have to kick a family off our place,” Ballard adds. “Never. I want the public to know the shocking details and see extreme injustice by our own government.”

Soapbox Love

In 1996, Michael and Kellie Ballard bought Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards in east-central California outside Saratoga—60 acres of exquisite beauty overlooking redwoods and rolling hills.

The surrounding Saratoga community, tucked beside Silicon Valley, consistently ranks at the top of per capita income and home value in the United States. Big-name tech entrepreneurs reside in Saratoga and want their homes cleaned, lawns mowed, and tables waited—creating a massive housing crisis.

“Michael Ballard used his own land to solve a problem for a friend and farmworker in a county with arguably the most severe housing crisis in the country, and the government cracked down,” says IJ attorney Paul Avelar adds. “That is madness.”

(Photo by IJ)

“The labor-based population cannot afford a place to stay,” Ballard explains. “It’s not a secret. Most people cannot find a house or apartment to rent.”

Additionally, beneath the affluence of the region, a Santa Clara County-wide homeless debacle has developed. “People want to pretend this problem is something other than what it is,” Ballard explains. “You’re not even supposed to say ‘homeless’ anymore, because it’s supposedly disrespectful to the homeless. Everyone loves the soapbox, but when visitors from out-of-state see the homeless on our streets, they can’t comprehend what’s happened.”

Since 2013, Marcelino Martinez, Ballard’s vineyard manager and long-time employee, has lived at Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards in a 42’ trailer with water, electricity, and septic hookups, alongside his wife and three children.

“The Martinez family is also our family. They could not find housing and we wanted to help,” says Ballard. “The trailer sits by itself in a redwood grove down a hill from our winery and can’t even be seen from most spots on our property. Literally, it bothers no one.”

In September 2017, Santa Clara County got an anonymous call about sewage dumped in a creek on the Ballard’s operation. County inspectors visited Ballard’s land and found the charges were fabricated.

However, while on the vineyard property, inspectors spotted Martinez’s trailer.

“They saw the trailer and said, ‘What is that? No one’s allowed to live in an RV trailer in the county.’”

A bureaucratic nightmare began.

Bullfrogs and Shotguns

Ten days later, a notice from the county arrived in Ballard’s mailbox, demanding removal of Martinez’s trailer within two weeks, and declaring the structure a “public nuisance.”

The irony was stark: If Martinez and family slept on county streets—no fines and no foul. However, if Martinez dared to sleep in a trailer at the farm of his employment—instant county rebuke.

“Ludicrous,” Ballard says. “We’re on 60 acres of private property, bothering nobody, and the trailer is not even visible to the public. The man who lives inside works in our vines and is integral to all the physical parts of our operation. Yet, the county was ordering me to throw him and his family off our property. Homeless is just fine with the county; a trailer in Saratoga is not.”

(Santa Clara County declined Farm Journal interview requests regarding Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards.)

Marcelino Martinez, farm manager and 23-year veteran at Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards.

(Photo by IJ)

In 2019, county officials levied $1,000-per-day fines on Ballard: Remove the trailer or fork over $365,000 every year. “Hell no,” he says. “I wasn’t going to make a family homeless.”

Ballard sought a solution via a prefab dwelling for the Martinez family. Best laid plans. Building any structure—even an 850 sq. ft. home—was a bureaucratic maze filled with exorbitant expense.

“We looked into developing a parcel, knowing the county might approve and might not; knowing it would take a couple years; and knowing it would total maybe $100,000-plus just for the pre-permit application process.”

Convoluted, complicated, and costly, and toe-tagged with a laundry list of checkoffs, Ballard notes. “It took us one year to complete the geological studies and road composition, have a septic system designed, retest an existing well, and get electricity and a fire hydrant approved.”

“Meanwhile, as we’re spending all this money, county officials said we were taking too long,” Ballard says. “After that, we assembled enough of the preliminary engineering work to put in our first application. Several months later, the county countered with another laundry list of things to do.”

And then COVID hit. By law, Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards was shuttered for two years.

Following COVID in 2023, Ballard’s property was hit by a catastrophic landslide that closed the winery for a full four months. “And next it was flooding in 2023-24 that closed us for five months,” Ballard adds. “One thing after another, and the whole time, the government is telling us we’re taking too long to follow their endless list of building requirements—all to house a family on our private land.”

The fines, although reduced to $250, and later $100 per day, kept stacking, tightening the pressure on Ballard and Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards .

The county was hunting a bullfrog with a shotgun, Ballard contends: “Look at the power of the bureaucracy over our lives at the local and national levels. Rules are necessary, but these agencies and institutions keep regulating to justify their expansion and existence. They always grow and never shrink. The end result is a loss of reason by the government and a loss of liberty for the citizen.”

Individual Liberty

In 2024, attorney Paul Avelar and Institute for Justice stepped into the fray and took over Ballard’s appeal for relief.

“This injustice is absolutely bewildering to the public,” Avelar describes. “The county tells Michael Ballard, a landowner and business owner, to kick a family—bothering no one and working hard—to the street or get fined $100 or even $1,000 per day. Then Michael is required to endure a permitting process that drags for years and costs at least tens of thousands of dollars before building even begins. It’s hard for people to believe.”

The fines imposed by the county, since dropped to $100 per day, but totaling over $120,000, are a massively outsized penalty for a minor violation, and a breach of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, Avelar insists. “A daily accruing fine means that every day is a new harm to the Ballards. The Institute for Justice has taken over the Ballard’s appeal to assert the Eighth Amendment, as well as due process, and we believe no fine is appropriate.”

“Michael Ballard used his own land to solve a problem for a friend and farmworker in a county with arguably the most severe housing crisis in the country, and the government cracked down,” Avelar adds. “That is madness.”

Michael and Kellie Ballard. “I’m fighting the county and I’ll never listen to power-crazy bureaucrats that tell me I have to kick a family off our place,” says Michael says.

(Photo by IJ)

Ballard is adamant: Reason will prevail. “In the United States, we don’t have a democracy ruled by the whim of the masses. Our forefathers gave us a constitutional republic steered by elected representatives of the people. That’s a very distinct difference, and crucially important because it means our elected leaders have authority, but are restricted by the Constitution, which protects individual liberty.”

“That’s what is abused in my case—individual liberty,” he adds. “And I see it abused in so many cases across this country because the government seeks more and more control of private property. It’s undeniable and getting worse with time.”

Ballard concludes with a line in the sand. “I don’t care about the fines or prosecution. I will protect the Martinez family and the county will not put them on the street.”

For more articles from Chris Bennett ( cbennett@farmjournal.com or @ChrisBennettMS
or 662-592-1106), see:
Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told
American Gothic: Farm Couple Nailed In Massive $9M Crop Insurance Fraud
Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic
Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market
Power vs. Privacy: Landowner Sues Game Wardens, Challenges Property Intrusion
Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.
Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years
While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Ag Inputs Price-Fixing Lawsuits Dismissed

Wed, 18 Sep 2024 21:09:32 GMT

On September 13, 2024 a U.S. District Judge in the eastern district of Missouri, dismissed multidistrict litigation alleging multiple agricultural input companies conspired across three distribution levels.

In short, Judge Sarah Pitlyk said the plaintiffs failed to make a case the ag input companies violated U.S. antitrust law.

This series of lawsuits brought together as a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) came after the increased availability of e-commerce platforms.

The first class action lawsuit part of this case was filed in January of 2021.

Then, farmer plaintiffs filed multiple similar cases in various courts across the U.S claiming the defendants “created a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices inflated at supracompetitive levels by denying farmers access to transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions—a scheme that is facilitated by Defendants’ boycott of electronic sales platforms, with their purportedly greater price transparency.”

In the case, e-commerce platforms named as examples include Farmer’s Business Network (FBN), FarmTrade, and Agroy, Inc.

The manufacturer defendants include Bayer CropScience LP; Bayer CropScience Inc.; BASF Corporation; Corteva Incorporated; Pioneer Hi-Bred International; and Syngenta Corporation.

The wholesaler defendants include Cargill, Incorporated; Tenkoz Incorporated; Univar Solutions, Incorporated; and Winfield Solutions, LLC (Winfield).

The retailer defendants include CHS Incorporated; Federated Co-operatives Limited; GROWMARK Inc.; Nutrien Ag Solutions, Incorporated; and Simplot AB Retail Sub Incorporated.

From the court documents released last week, the judge agreed with five reasons the defendants moved to have the CAC dismissed.

1. Plaintiffs have not pled a plausible boycott conspiracy through either direct or circumstantial evidence, and that the CAC impermissibly relies on group pleading by failing to differentiate among Defendants.

2. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Defendants caused an injury that would confer standing to pursue antitrust claims.

3. Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claim is time-barred.

4. All of Plaintiffs’ state law claims fail for the same reasons that their federal antitrust claims fail, and that certain of the state claims fail for reasons related to state law.

5. Plaintiffs’ RICO claim fails as a matter of law.

The Sherman Act and RICO claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The U.S District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

In a general summary, the judge found the claims to be generalizations.

In the past four years, both in the U.S. (for example in the cases above) and Canada, anti-trust complaints have been brought to the courts and regulatory authorities.

For example, on March 15, 2022, the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) issued a press release and position statement when it closed an investigation after determining the evidence did not demonstrate an agreement existed between competitors with respect to FBN.

Are You Covered? How To Reduce Your Operation’s Insurance Risk

Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:49:33 GMT

With the cost of living on the rise, so are the values of insurance settlements paid out in lawsuits. Kevin Charleston, owner of Specialty Risk Insurance in Carthage, Mo., shares a few ways to protect yourself and your operation against a gap in coverage.

Who’s On the Policy
According to Charleston, the name on an insurance policy can cause confusion. Is it under the LLC? The operator and their spouse? The spraying business? He says this often gets lost in the shuffle when property is transferred into a trust.

“Whatever names are on the policy is who they’re going to write the check to. If it’s not correct, then that causes a whole big problem,” he said on an episode of the Farming the American Countryside podcast . “You really compromise the insurance contract if your name isn’t on it because they don’t have a duty to defend that name when it’s not on there.

Charleston recommends sitting down with your insurance agent for just a few minutes to double check that everything is named properly.

“Every time I sit down with somebody, I find out something they didn’t tell me about,” he says. “Nobody wants to call your insurance agent and talk to them unless you have to. But it’s just part of the deal.”

Valuation of Assets
Charleston says a common mistake is having liability insurance that only covers the value of the operation’s assets.

“You have to figure out your personal assets — not just the company you’re protecting — and if someone could get through the company to your personal assets [in the event of an accident and lawsuit],” he explains.

Even with personal assets included, he suggests taking the extra step to have coverage above that value.

“A jury of our peers is not necessarily a jury of our peers. It’s somebody who’s emotional and has never lived on a farm,” he says. “We’re seeing awards of $5 million to $15 million over something that would have been $300,000 three or four years ago. If there’s a child involved in any way, we’re seeing awards beyond what we’ve ever seen.”

Documentation
Another step Charleston says can help protect you is documenting as much as possible, such as:
• Safety training
• Defensive driving training
• DoT compliance
• Semi inspection/walkaround

“Trucks are the No. 1 target point for an attorney,” he says. “You need to have your scheduled maintenance documented. You need to have your walkarounds documented. That plays well in court if you have an issue.”

He says overall, it’s important to remember there’s a lack of public awareness when it comes to the ag industry.

“In farming and agriculture, our thought process of common sense is not the same typical thought process of somebody just driving down the road,” he says. “The biggest thing I tell everybody to plan for today is the people who don’t understand what we truly do.

To hear more from Charleston, listen to this episode of Farming the American Countryside.

Government’s Grip on Private Land Boosted by Court Ruling Against Hunting Clubs

Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:41:53 GMT

How much power does the government claim on private land? “Unfettered.”

On Sept. 29, a court ruled against two hunting clubs in their lawsuit accusing the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) of private property rights violations. The Institute for Justice (IJ) represents both clubs and will appeal.

In its ruling, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted the government’s absolute power to “roam private land without consent, warrants, or probable cause.”

“Private land isn’t public property,” says IJ attorney Josh Windham. “That might seem obvious. But all too many officials, at every level of government, disagree. They think they have a blank check to invade private property. We’ll see what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has to say about that.”

No Warrant; No Guidelines

On Dec. 16, 2021, Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney hunting clubs sued PGC after game wardens consistently entered club lands without permission or warrant, and secretly monitored club members, including photo collection via installation of a hidden game camera. The wardens’ behavior, the lawsuit asserted, was a direct violation of Pennsylvania’s state constitution, which explicitly protects “persons, houses, papers, and possessions.”

(The Pennsylvania Game Commission declined Farm Journal’s general private property questions and deferred litigation questions to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. In turn, when asked by Farm Journal about Pitch Pine-Punxsutawney litigation, the Pennsylvania AG office deferred comment back to the Pennsylvania Game Commission.)

Most Americans assume law enforcement must obtain a warrant to enter or surveil private land, but for roughly a century, the Open Fields doctrine has allowed government officials, at state and federal levels, unqualified access to private land.

In its judgement on Sept. 29, the Commonwealth Court detailed the alarming powers and “unfettered discretion” assumed by government via Open Fields: The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Hunting Clubs are member-owned hunting clubs that own thousands of acres of private land in Clearfield County. Members use the properties to hunt, vacation, and enjoy nature. To ensure their members’ privacy, the Hunting Clubs have posted their properties with no trespassing signs and have installed gates at all entrances to exclude nonmembers and intruders. However, the Entry Statutes empower game wardens with unfettered discretion to enter upon and roam private land without consent, warrants, or probable cause.

Yet, in ruling against the two hunting clubs (Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney), the Commonwealth Court was bound by precedent set in Pennsylvania v. Russo (2007), when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said “possessions” do not include private land.

The Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney lawsuit now moves to appeal. The hunting clubs, represented by IJ , will seek to overturn the Russo decision, and ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to address a pressing question: Does the state constitution protect citizens from warrantless searches on private land?

“Russo was wrongly decided and we’re eager to show the Pennsylvania Supreme Court why,” Windham says. “The Open Fields doctrine destroys the point of having private land. It treats fences, gates, posted signs, and everything else you might do to keep your land private, as irrelevant. And, in turn, it gives the government unfettered power to enter your land, roam around, spy on you, take photos, record videos, take soil samples, ride around in bikes, trucks—even horses—all without a warrant. We’re supposed to think that’s constitutional?”

Presently, six states place state constitutional authority above the Open Fields doctrine: Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. (For more on Open Fields, see How Much Ag Property Is Protected From a Warrantless Search? )

The Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney arguments before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should take place in 2024, with a decision likely in 2025. IJ is currently litigating similar Open Fields cases in Virginia and Tennessee about warrantless intrusions on private land.

In an Oct. 2 IJ release, Frank Stockdale, president of the Punxsutawney Hunting Club, summarized the private landownership case: “The government has no right to spy on us on our own land without cause. This entire endeavor has been outrageous and needs to end now.”

For more from Chris Bennett (cbennett@farmjournal.com 662-592-1106) see:

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Young Farmer uses YouTube and Video Games to Buy $1.8M Land

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

Property Owner Fights Government Over Warrantless Searches On Homestead

Wed, 30 Aug 2023 14:01:39 GMT

In the name of regulation, does government have the power to override the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure protection? Indeed, contend Kansas state officials. Absolutely not, counters property and business owner Scott Johnson. “The government thinks it isn’t accountable, but we’re taking a stand.”

At stake is Johnson’s livelihood. He lives where he works. In 2020, when the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) demanded no-warrant access to Johnson’s property under penalty of repeated fines and loss of business license, Johnson fought back. Presently locked in a court battle with KDA, Johnson is resolute: “When average people find out what the government is doing, they’re disgusted. I’m fighting for what’s right.”

Breaching the Bill

At the edge of the Flint Hills outside Winfield, Kan., roughly one hour southeast of Wichita, Johnson operates nationally-recognized Covey Find Kennel ( CFK ), jointly owned with his wife, Harlene Hoyt. Johnson trains prize-winning bird dogs and he is one of the top handlers in the United States. His house, shop, and kennels sit together on a homestead in rural Cowley County, adjacent to abundant pastureland and wheat fields. CFK is a shipshape operation, clean as a whistle with an extensive list of accolades and awards as testament.

In Kansas, bird dog training is a pervasively regulated industry—lumped in with commercial fishing, animal breeding, horse racing, liquor, firearms, and mining. Operation of a bird dog training business requires a state-issued license, and all applicants must waive Fourth Amendment rights. No waiver; no license. No license; no business.

Licensees must agree to warrantless, unannounced inspections of premises and facilities, and must allow entry within 30 minutes of an inspector’s arrival—anywhere from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday to Friday.

In 2018, the Kansas Legislature tossed out the discretion to provide notice before an inspection: “Notice shall not be given to any person prior to inspection.” Failure to meet the 30-minute window results in a $200 penalty for a business owner. Additionally, if an owner denies property access to the state, a potential $1,000 penalty is in the cards, along with educational courses on animal treatment and a shutdown of the business.

In January 2020, while Johnson was training dogs away from CFK, a KDA inspector arrived at his homestead for a warrantless search. Unable to reach Johnson, the inspector called Harlene Hoyt, seeking entry into CFK, and warned of a fine if Hoyt didn’t arrive to allow access within 20 minutes. Hoyt was at work in Winfield where she manages a critical care clinic at a hospital and supervises 30 employees.

Juggling responsibilities, Hoyt rushed home and allowed inspectors onto the home property, avoiding a fine. KDA’s insistence on warrantless searches was a bridge too far for Johnson. He viewed the state’s action as a breach of the Bill of Rights.

“I’ve long asked the question of why the bureaucracy considers bird dog training as a pervasively regulated industry,” Johnson says. “We can’t get a license without the government taking our rights? Now we’re forced to let them search our home property? We face financial penalties and shutdowns if we don’t comply? We can’t travel together 30 minutes beyond our property without risking whether the inspector shows up? The public can’t believe what we’re dealing with.”

“No Connection to Rural Life”

Represented by the Kansas Justice Institute , Johnson launched a lawsuit against KDA in October 2022. Johnson contends KDA’s warrantless search policy violates the Fourth Amendment and the fundamental right to freedom of movement. Also, the lawsuit challenges the inclusion of dog training as a pervasively regulated industry. Johnson’s suit does not challenge Kansas law concerning breeders, shelters, animal rescues, pet stores, research facilities or distributors.

(Citing ongoing litigation, KDA declined a Farm Journal interview request.)

“The state’s restrictions on us are not reasonable or constitutional,” Johnson notes. “I work in the field or sometimes out of state and my wife works elsewhere—we can’t always get home in 30 minutes. We live and train dogs in the same rural place. I provide a quality service at a quality facility, and I’d be out of business if I provided anything less.”

Sam MacRoberts, general counsel and litigation director of Kansas Justice Institute, echoes Johnson’s concerns. “Warrantless searches put Scott’s livelihood at risk. There is an automatic penalty of $200 the first time, and if it happens three times, the result could be license revocation.”

“Scott is forced to either comply to warrantless searches or have his livelihood ruined,” MacRoberts explains. “The government says, ‘Hand over your search rights or you can’t get a license.’ That means you can’t earn a living unless you waive your rights. That is unconstitutional because the government is forcing someone to give up rights in exchange for a license.”

Compounding the overreach, according to MacRoberts , is a government-mandated restriction on travel. “If Scott is not on his property within 30 minutes of when a search is to begin, it’s an automatic penalty. Because Scott travels around the Midwest and beyond, he can’t leave with Harlene or he’ll risk penalties and closure of his business.”

“We filed Scott’s case in Wichita, but if he and Harlene attend court together in Wichita, they risk getting an automatic $200 penalty,” MacRoberts adds. “What if they go to court and a state inspector shows up at their home business? The state’s search regime is unreasonable.”

Depending on circumstances, surprise warrantless searches are conducted every three months to 24 months. When Johnson is on the road and Hoyt is traveling with him or under a heavy hospital work schedule, Johnson hires independent contractors to feed, water, clean, and care for the dogs. However, as stated in Johnson’s complaint: “The role of these contractors is limited. They do not have access to all of CFK’s records or the entire property, and they do not have the authority to represent Mr. Johnson or CFK.”

KDA policy—not the inspectors—are the problem, insists second-generation trainer Johnson. “I don’t blame the inspectors because they’re just doing their job. But their bosses are unelected officials with no connection to rural life. If I was actually doing anything wrong I’d have gone out of business a long time ago.”

Home and Castle

On May 6, 2023, Johnson’s civil and property rights lawsuit against KDA was denied in federal court. Johnson appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Ultimately, Scott is going to be vindicated,” MacRoberts says, “because what the government is doing violates the Fourth Amendment and is unconstitutional.”

“Your home in your castle,” MacRoberts adds. “Government can’t come in just because it wants to.”

The crux of the case narrows to simple constitutional freedoms, Johnson emphasizes. “One, we want to be free to come and go on our property without penalty. Two, we want people to know the government thinks it can intrude on home and property, without accountability, anytime it wants. We want people to know what we’re facing from the government is not reasonable.”

For more from Chris Bennett (cbennett@farmjournal.com 662-592-1106) see:

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bagging the Tomato King: The Insane Hunt for Agriculture’s Wildest Con Man

Young Farmer uses YouTube and Video Games to Buy $1.8M Land

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

The Arrowhead whisperer: Stunning Indian Artifact Collection Found on Farmland

Fleecing the Farm: How a Fake Crop Fueled a Bizarre $25 Million Ag Scam

Skeleton In the Walls: Mysterious Arkansas Farmhouse Hides Civil War History

US Farming Loses the King of Combines

Ghost in the House: A Forgotten American Farming Tragedy

Rat Hunting with the Dogs of War, Farming’s Greatest Show on Legs

Evil Grain: The Wild Tale of History’s Biggest Crop Insurance Scam

Drones for Deer Recovery? Landmark Legal Fight Pits Hunters vs Government

Tue, 29 Aug 2023 12:23:09 GMT

Drones for me, but not for thee? Hunters have a right to use drones in recovery of downed deer, says Mike Yoder, and that right is anchored in the First Amendment.

A bellwether legal fight is underway that pits hunting, freedom of speech, and entrepreneurship against the bounds of government control. Michigan, along with many other states, insists drone use on private or public land is illegal in all hunting-related action, including location of downed deer.

Yoder has filed a federal lawsuit, contending he has the constitutional right to collect and disseminate information on the location of downed game—via freedom of speech. “What’s happening is government overreach. Drones handled the right way mean an end to stomping around the woods or tracking with dogs to stir up unnecessary pressure on deer,” he says. “Drones are the future of game recovery.”

Leave No Deer Behind

Raised in an Ohio Amish community, Mike Yoder typically is found spraying Midwest corn and soybean fields during crop season, but in fall 2022, he launched Drone Deer Recovery (DDR), a business aimed at using drone technology to locate downed game with a temporary eye in the sky. When DDR jumped out of the gate with heavy demand, Yoder began offering drone licensing packages and training to operator customers across the U.S.

Yoder’s services and technology are extremely effective: DDR finds the needle in the haystack.

The DDR process is standard. A given hunter contacts DDR for help in locating a downed deer. When DDR arrives on-site, the hunter signs paperwork attesting to a lost deer kill. Deploying state-of-the-art tech, DDR sends up a drone at approximately 400’, searching for the dead deer’s body heat signature with a thermal camera. Once telltale heat is detected, the drone’s 200x zoom camera checks the spot to confirm presence of a carcass, and the GPS location is collected.

DDR then passes the GPS pin to the hunter client and the deer is physically recovered.

“Probably 97% of our business is archery-related and we search roughly 800 to 1,000 yards from the track site or where the deer ran according to the hunter’s eyes,” Yoder explains. “We recover almost 100% all carcasses—that’s how great the technology works.

DDR drones deploy incredibly precise technology, detecting heat up to two days after a kill, Yoder describes. “Heat signatures from deer last according to outside air temperatures and several other variables. Ideally, if temperatures are between 30-40 F, then finding a deer 36-48 hours after a kill is very possible in daytime or night. We can search at night anytime, but we need overcast conditions to search in daytime, otherwise sunlight distorts the thermal readings.”

The entire process is minimally intrusive, Yoder notes. “We’re 400’ feet above ground level and make almost no noise—so quiet that 99% of deer in the vicinity don’t even know we’re searching. There’s no human pressure to bedding areas and no dog disruption.”

Yet, if Yoder or any hunter sends the proven drones into Michigan air above private or public land to find a dead deer, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) responds with a penalty of up to 90 days in prison and a fine as high as $1,000. DNR claims Michigan’s “Drone Statute” bans all drone tech related to deer hunting. Period. Full stop.

(Citing ongoing litigation, DNR declined Farm Journal interview requests related to drone technology and hunting regulations.)

“DNR can use the drones to do any kind of activity it chooses, but allows no one else to do the same,” Yoder says. “Their position is ridiculous because drones can be used for the good of hunters, the state, and the overall deer population. I’m fighting for what’s right.”

Baby and Bathwater

Blocked by Michigan from operating his drone business to recover deer, Yoder filed suit in July 2023, contending DNR is actively violating freedom of speech. He is represented pro bono by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).

Donna Matias , PLF attorney, describes Yoder’s position. “Mike Yoder and DDR find dead deer and create information with a GeoPin. They then convey the information to paying customers—essentially telling the hunters where the deer is located. However, Michigan DNR is preventing them from doing so and that is a direct violation of free speech and the First Amendment.”

“The importance of the First Amendment is not just related to political speech, it also protects situations where innovative technology applies—and Mike Yoder is an incredibly innovative entrepreneur,” Matias continues. “He has come up with business model that benefits hunters, wildlife, himself, and other business owners. Entrepreneurship is a fundamental right in our country and in this case, DNR violates the First Amendment and also violates Mike’s right to earn a living and to establish economic opportunities for others.”

By banning recovery of game by drone, Matias says DNR has thrown down a “broad blanket” that includes an interpretation of Michigan’s Drone Statute that prohibits constitutionally protected activity. As stated in the statute: An individual shall not take game or fish using an unmanned vehicle or unmanned device that uses aerodynamic forces to achieve flight.

According to the statute, the meaning of “take” is further detailed as: to hunt with any weapon, dog, raptor, or other wild or domestic animal trained for that purpose; kill; chase; follow; harass; harm; pursue; shoot; rob; trap; capture; or collect animals, or to attempt to engage in such an activity.

Yoder is adamant: Michigan’s Drone Statute, written in 2015, is already outdated and disconnected from technological reality. “DNR is so hard against this because it freaks them out. They had no idea the technology would develop so effectively and it’s still changing fast. Like every single technology in existence, there will always be abusers, but when you look at the amount of deer waste every single year, drone recovery benefits everyone. DNR wrote regulations without a clue about how effective the drones would become and now they won’t admit it.”

In a nutshell, believes Yoder, DNR is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Outlaws and Abusers

In 2023, roughly 6 million whitetail deer were legally harvested in the U.S. How many were lost to waste and never found after a kill? “The numbers of deer killed and then never found are huge,” Yoder says. “We’re talking about large, large amounts of deer wasted, and Drone Deer Recovery will make a substantial difference in lowering those waste numbers.”

“When you go nationwide and do the math, the bowhunting numbers are stunning,” Yoder continues. ‘Studies have different ranges in different states, but in some cases 50% of deer harvested are never recovered.”

The variant studies are summarized by Dr. Steven Ditchkoff , a renowned professor in wildlife ecology at the helm of the Auburn University deer research program. In a 2019 Deer & Deer Hunting article, Ditchkoff wrote:

The earliest reported studies on bowhunting wounding rates were from Wisconsin and New York, in 1958 and 1963, respectively. These earliest studies reported that 10% and 7%, respectively, of deer shot by archers were never recovered. Terminology is important here: Recovered simply means that they weren’t found by the hunter.

Other studies in Iowa and Michigan reported similar results, suggesting that bowhunting wounding rates were 17% and 12%, respectively. In contrast to these reports, six other studies from Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Dakota and Wisconsin reported bowhunting wounding rates ranging from 3% to 58%.

If we’re to believe one group of studies, then bowhunting wounding rates of deer are less than 20%, meaning that for every 10 deer hit by archers, two or fewer are not recovered. But if we’re to believe another set of studies, then one out of three or even one out of two are never recovered.

Deer recovery by drone is a help, not a hindrance, to the overall deer hunting industry, Yoder urges. “We need good people to speak up because the state’s position makes no sense. Used in the proper way and in professional hands, drone equipment helps any state maintain healthy deer numbers.”

How does Yoder respond regarding the use of drone technology by outlaws and poachers to scout or hunt deer?

“It’s like anything else: You’re always going to have bad people that hunt illegally, but they will act regardless of the law,” Yoder says. “The government is supposed to penalize the lawbreakers—not everyone else too. There will always, always be technology abusers.”

“At DDR , we stand on professionalism and engage in one thing—carcass recovery,” Yoder concludes. “We do it the right way and provide an effective and minimally intrusive means to recover lost game. It works like nothing we’ve ever had in deer hunting history and it is the future for all the right reasons, but the only one that can’t see that is the government.”

For more from Chris Bennett (cbennett@farmjournal.com 662-592-1106) see:

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bagging the Tomato King: The Insane Hunt for Agriculture’s Wildest Con Man

Young Farmer uses YouTube and Video Games to Buy $1.8M Land

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

The Arrowhead whisperer: Stunning Indian Artifact Collection Found on Farmland

Fleecing the Farm: How a Fake Crop Fueled a Bizarre $25 Million Ag Scam

Skeleton In the Walls: Mysterious Arkansas Farmhouse Hides Civil War History

US Farming Loses the King of Combines

Ghost in the House: A Forgotten American Farming Tragedy

Rat Hunting with the Dogs of War, Farming’s Greatest Show on Legs

Evil Grain: The Wild Tale of History’s Biggest Crop Insurance Scam

Game Wardens Steal Private Landowner’s Trail Camera, Lawsuit Explodes

Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:52:09 GMT

In the early afternoon of April 8, 2023, three game wardens garbed in leafy camo snuck past no-trespassing signs, entered Josh Highlander’s private land, proceeded to his legal food plot, and stole his game camera, all without warrant or consent.

The camera, one of four taken from the Highlander that day, represents a shocking government assertion: the power to seize property from private land without consent, warrant, or probable cause to investigate a landowner. Highlander, who contends the government has stepped too far, is fighting back through a major constitutional lawsuit.

Highlander has never had a hunting violation in his life. “The feeling of security on my private land is gone, like watching a piece of glass shatter,” he says.

“This is happening all over the country,” says Joshua Windham, an attorney representing Highlander from the Institute for Justice (IJ), a national public-interest law firm and legal advocacy group. “The government is invading private land, spying on people, and seizing their property in an effort to gin up evidence that they’ve done something wrong, all without judicial oversight. And the scariest part of it all? Most of it happens in secret. We’re really just seeing the tip of the iceberg in this case.”

In the Name of the State

In eastern Virginia’s New Kent County, Highlander, 37, lives on 30 acres of old-growth hardwood. His property is heavily posted with eye-level, no-trespassing signs pinned to trees roughly every 20 feet.

On April 8, opening day of Virginia’s turkey hunting season, Highlander killed a turkey on his property at roughly 7:45 a.m. and logged the harvest location using the Department of Wildlife Resources’ (DWR) Go Outdoors Virginia mobile app. He soon learned that his father and brother, who were hunting turkey over legal food plots on separate private properties, had been confronted by DWR game wardens that morning. His brother was ticketed for allegedly hunting over bait and has hired an attorney to contest the ticket. Before the wardens left, they seized at least three privately owned cameras from the properties where Highlander’s brother and father were hunting.

(Virginia DWR did not respond to Farm Journal questions regarding Josh Highlander’s claims or complaint. Additionally, Virginia DWR did not respond to Farm Journal questions about its general policy regarding no-warrant seizure of private property.)

Next, the wardens targeted Josh Highlander. As the morning progressed, Highlander cleaned his kill and packaged the meat, took care of a few chores while his wife and 6-year-old son played basketball in the yard, and finished by early afternoon with a shower. He had no inkling that three game wardens—without warrant or consent—were already moving across his land, armed and intent on seizing his private property in the name of the state.

Anything Goes?

Chasing the basketball into the woods during play, Highlander’s wife spotted a stranger clad in leafy camouflage moving through the brush. “She got scared and came in the house with my son while I was showering and told me somebody was on our property,” Highlander recalls. “By the time I got out there, nobody was around—but my camera was gone from my food plot.”

The food plot is roughly an acre in size; Highlander’s Tactacam Reveal game camera was attached to a pole and elevated 4’ off the ground, perched roughly 150 yards from his house.

Unbeknownst to Highlander, three DWR game wardens had parked at the end of a nearby residential road, crossed an adjacent piece of private property on foot, and entered Highlander’s property at approximately 2 p.m. They marched to Highlander’s food plot, removed the camera from the pole, and reversed course to their vehicles.

The game wardens did not tell Highlander about the seizure before or after the intrusion onto his land, and they never presented a warrant. Significantly, Highlander’s turkey kill earlier in the morning was on the other side of the 30-acre property—away from the food plot, says IJ attorney Windham. “When the game wardens came that day, they went straight to Josh’ food plot, walked past his no-trespass signs, took his camera, and left. They didn’t go to the place where he killed the turkey and they didn’t come when he killed it—but instead came about seven hours later.”

“You can only kill one turkey a day and you can only hunt till noon for the first six weeks of the season,” Highlander echoes. “They came in the afternoon so they knew they weren’t gonna catch me hunting over bait. They came onto my land just to look around the food plot and steal my camera.”

No DWR officials—before or after—informed Highlander they had taken his camera. They haven’t accused him of a crime. They haven’t given the camera back.

“I don’t know if they took anything else,” Highlander adds. “I don’t know if they planted cameras that day to watch me or if they planted them in the past. I don’t know if they’d been on my land before. When it comes to the abuse of power by the government, I can believe anything now.”

Retroactively Spy

Highlander initially reported the trail camera theft to the New Kent County sheriff’s office, which later confirmed to Highlander that DWR had taken the device. As of June 2023, DWR has not informed Highlander of its possession of his camera.

What did DWR do with the camera? According to a complaint filed by Highlander:

After the DWR officers seized the camera from Mr. Highlander’s property, Defendant Adams (DWR game warden) physically opened the camera and removed the storage card in order to access photos on the card. On information and belief, Adams then downloaded copies of thousands of photos from Mr. Highlander’s camera, stored them on her computer, and has been reviewing the photos to see if she can find any evidence that Mr. Highlander has violated any hunting law or regulation.

In other words, Defendant Adams seized Mr. Highlander’s camera without a warrant and has been effectively using that camera to retroactively spy on Mr. Highlander.

After seizing Mr. Highlander’s camera, opening it, removing its storage card, and downloading photos from the card, Defendant Adams obtained a search warrant directed to Reveal by Tactacam—the company that made the camera and that hosts online photo storage for its customers—for any additional photos associated with Mr. Highlander’s camera.

Again, no DWR officer ever sought or obtained a warrant to enter Mr. Highlander’s property on April 8, 2023, to seize his camera, or to physically search his camera.

Tip of the Iceberg?

Presumably, DWR game wardens walked onto Highlander’s property using the U.S. Supreme Court’s Open Fields doctrine. Federal and state agencies often claim the doctrine allows government officials to secretly enter private land and spy on landowners. In a nutshell, the doctrine says private land (outside home and yard) receives zero Fourth Amendment protections from warrantless intrusions.

What happened on Josh Highlander’s land is the tip of the iceberg, contends IJ attorney Windham. “We’re litigating cases right now in Pennsylvania and Tennessee about similar warrantless intrusions on private land . The problem is, 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that private land isn’t protected from warrantless searches. That’s wrong, our cases seek to convince state courts that whatever the U.S. Supreme Court believes about the federal Constitution, their own state constitutions can and should protect private land from these kinds of intrusions.”

Highlander’s case takes things up a notch. Normally, government uses the Open Fields doctrine to search private land. But in Highlander’s case, government used the doctrine to seize property from private land. Windham says the government action is unconstitutional: “The Open Fields doctrine, even as the U.S. Supreme Court has described it, has never applied to warrantless seizures. But it’s hardly surprising that we’ve gotten to this point. When you give the government unlimited power to invade private spaces, they’re going to push that power to its limits.”

What happens next in the case? Highlander’s complaint will force the DWR to justify its conduct.

“Three game wardens put on full camo suits, parked in a residential cul-de-sac, walked onto Josh Highlander’s land past a row of no-trespass signs, went to his food plot, stole a game camera, and then left after scaring his wife and child, all without his consent or a warrant,” Windham concludes. “That violates the Virginia Constitution, and it’s time for DWR to answer for what it’s done to Josh Highlander and to so many others.”

For more from Chris Bennett (cbennett@farmjournal.com 662-592-1106) see:

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bagging the Tomato King: The Insane Hunt for Agriculture’s Wildest Con Man

Young Farmer uses YouTube and Video Games to Buy $1.8M Land

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

The Arrowhead whisperer: Stunning Indian Artifact Collection Found on Farmland

Fleecing the Farm: How a Fake Crop Fueled a Bizarre $25 Million Ag Scam

Skeleton In the Walls: Mysterious Arkansas Farmhouse Hides Civil War History

US Farming Loses the King of Combines

Ghost in the House: A Forgotten American Farming Tragedy

Rat Hunting with the Dogs of War, Farming’s Greatest Show on Legs

Evil Grain: The Wild Tale of History’s Biggest Crop Insurance Scam

4 Items EPA Discussed this Week that Will Impact Producers

Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:36:19 GMT

Michael Regan, EPA administrator, appeared before the House Ag Committee on Wednesday to discuss everything from WOTUS to the farm bill. Here are the highlights that will directly impact producers:

1. Year-Round E15

EPA is not yet ready to issue an emergency declaration to allow E15 fuel to be sold during the summer months as they did in 2022. While Regan said that many of the conditions are still in place that prompted the 2022 emergency waiver, he said EPA staff has not yet brought him enough evidence to issue an emergency waiver.

He cautioned that administrative moves by the Trump administration to allow year-round E15 sales did not survive court challenges. But he said no options are off the table as of yet and that EPA was continuing to work with the Department of Energy and others on the situation.

2. Biodiesel Blending Levels

Proposed 2023, 2024 and 2025 Renewable Fuel Standard volumes for biomass-based diesel and advanced volumes do not match the industry’s current production. Regan explained:

“Let me just say that in 2022 we set the highest volumes ever in EPA’s history. So we’re proud of that and what we plan to do is continue that trajectory. As you know we proposed a rule and we’re in that proposal phase and there aren’t too many things that I can comment during this time of comment but what I can say is that 2023, 2024, and 2025 will continue that positive trajectory.”

According to Regan, his team is taking comments from industry stakeholders and have been offered “a lot” of data that Regan believes will be “reflected in the final rule.”

3. The Future of Biofuels

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), asked Regan the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. Last week, EPA announced emission standards for new cars. That announcement led to concerns from the biofuels industry and farmers in regard to the administration’s view on the role biofuels have been playing and can continue to play in reducing emissions and powering our cars and trucks.

Regan was asked what he would you say to our farmers and our domestic biofuels industry – the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. His response:

“Well, I think we see a significant role. It’s called walking and chewing gum at the same time. I think that when you look at the policies of this EPA, and the investments that we’re making in biofuels and advanced biofuels, just by the last RVO volumes we set and the ones we’re anticipating setting, and then the partnership that I have with Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Buttigieg as we look at the role of biofuels with aviation fuels, we see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complimentary to the EV fuels future. And so we think that we can do both – we see a balance here. And in both cases, we’re trying to follow the markets, follow technology, and follow the science as well.”

As for the recent EPA proposal which would tighten tailpipe emissions and force more electric vehicles (EVs) to be used, Regan said the plans do not work against biofuels. EPA is working to implement complimentary policies on that front. “We see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complementary to the EV fuels future,” he said.

4. Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule on wetlands protections and declared, “Any goodwill the administration has built with farmers and ranchers is gone.”

House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) mirrored Bacon’s comments.

“Historically, EPA has over-regulated the agriculture industry,” criticizing agency actions on pesticides, electric vehicles, and WOTUS.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on an Idaho case that would restrict federally recognized wetlands to territory with a direct surface connection to a waterway.

Regan said the EPA issued its WOTUS rule last December in the face of “looming litigation” over not having a regulation. Courts have put on hold the recent Biden/EPA rule in 26 states.

Despite “enduring” 4.5 hours in the committee hearing, Regan shows promise in working more in favor of rural America, according to Thompson. He says Regan called him following the meeting to “emphasize how much he wants to do a better job” of working with the House Ag Committee.

What’s Wrong with the Current Waters of the U.S. Rule?

Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:26:01 GMT

The latest Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) definition—put into motion by the Biden administration on March 20—was met with a wave of backlash from the ag industry for its “overreaching” jurisdiction.

That opposition was validated on Wednesday when a U.S. District Court Judge, Daniel Hovland, granted an injunction that blocks enforcement of the WOTUS rule in 24 states.

“An injunction at this early stage can avoid the massive waste of resources and delayed projects in pursuit of permits that may soon be legally irrelevant,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote in his ruling.

Related story: What Bodies of Water are Considered WOTUS?

Hovland’s decision follows a similar injunction that was filed in Texas on March 20, which effectively blocked WOTUS enforcement in Texas and Idaho. He says the EPA’s final WOTUS rule was premature, as the pending U.S. Supreme Court WOTUS case will settle the dispute in all affected states.

So, what makes EPA’s final WOTUS rule “unlawful” and worthy of an injunction? Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs at NCBA, says it comes down to bureaucracy.

What’s Wrong with WOTUS?

Under the current rule, the following bodies of water are considered WOTUS and therefore subject to federal regulation:

• Traditional navigable waters
• Tributaries that contribute perennial or intermittent flow to such waters
• Certain ditches that meet specific criteria related to flow and function
• Certain lakes and ponds
• Impoundments of otherwise jurisdictional waters
• Wetlands that are adjacent to jurisdictional waters

Lane says the EPA’s WOTUS “patchwork” in words like “certain lakes and ponds” has carved-out room for discretion. He says this discretion will rob policymakers and landowners of time and money.

“As I understand it, this rule says EPA is going to determine jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis—that just blows me away,” Lane says. “This is never the way you want a bureaucracy to interact with your private businesses.”

Richard Gupton, senior vice president of public policy and counsel at the Ag Retailers Association, echoed Lane.

“Rushing the new rule out only served to increase uncertainty for the ag retail industry while eroding [landowners] trust in the EPA’s deliberations and stakeholder consultations.”

The remedy, according to Lane, is for EPA to define exactly what the land and water “safe harbors” are and remove any room for opinion. And Lane isn’t alone in that thought.

“This isn’t just a philosophical dispute: farmers and ranchers in the remaining states are left with no clear way to determine where federal jurisdiction begins and ends on their own property,” said Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president, in a press release . “With the rule now on hold in more than half the country, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps should do the right thing by listening to our legitimate concerns and rewriting the rule to draw a bright line of jurisdiction.”

A Change Agent for Social Justice in Agriculture

Fri, 24 Feb 2023 20:14:29 GMT

In celebration of Black History Month, AgDay host Clinton Griffiths had a chance to chat with John Boyd Jr., a fourth-generation farmer who grows soybeans, corn and wheat and runs 150 head of beef cattle on a 1,600-acre farm in Baskerville, Va.

Outside of farming, Boyd dedicates his time to being a voice for change in the industry as the founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association.

The goal of the association is to educate and train farmers as well as raise visibility.

“Believe it or not, there are many people who don’t even know black farmers exist,” Boyd says. “We have 116,000 members in 46 states, primarily in the Eastern corridor of the U.S. and around to Texas. Mississippi and Alabama are the two biggest membership states and there’s about 3,000 black farmers in California.”

His desire is to embrace and acknowledge what’s happening so all farmers can work together.

“We have to raise our voices to let people know we’re here, what our needs are,” he says. “The administration and whoever is running need to hear what we have to say. We need to hear how they’re going to help America’s farmers stay on the land.”

According to Boyd, the Biden Administration isn’t doing that right now.

“They made a lot of promises to the National Black Farmers Association. Biden really courted their support; he really came asking me for his support. We supported him, probably 99% of our membership did,” Boyd says. “We need to be treated the same way we were during the campaign now that they’re in office.

“And for the Republicans, we need to hear from you. Don’t shy away from black farmers because you think they’re going to vote Democrat. Make a plea for their support. That’s what’s missing – the black farmers’ side of things,” he adds.

A Lawsuit Against USDA Takes Shape

Recently, four plaintiffs, one of which is Boyd, filed a lawsuit against USDA claiming the agency failed to keep promises it made to help socially disadvantaged producers pay off delinquent farm loans – up to 120% of the debts. USDA dropped the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 after other farm organizations said the provisions discriminated against white farmers.

“We made plans based on the agreement that we signed with USDA,” Boyd says. “The government broke this contract between black farmers and other farmers of color and simply said they weren’t going to do it and repealed it. Based on that commitment, many black farmers made changes to their farming operations – they bought tractors and things they thought they would need to improve their farming operation.”

Since dropping the program, USDA has announced other programs to help socially disadvantaged farmers, however plaintiffs in the case say those new programs don’t match the agency’s earlier promise.

Boyd isn’t asking for sympathy. “We’re very dignified people,” he says.

He’s just a guy who loves to farm and loves the land, as he describes, and wants that legacy to continue for generations to come.

Boyd’s grandfather, Thomas, and father, John, taught him that the land knows no color. “It’s never mistreated anybody. All great things come from the land – clean drinking water, timber to build your house, food for you and your family,” he says.

Through his work with the National Black Farmers Association, Boyd is committed to being a change agent.

“When they stop asking us on a farm loan application, such as USDA, to identify ourselves as ‘black,’ and the same goes for banks, then we can integrate into America’s systems. But right now, every day the challenges are far more difficult for me as a black farmer,” he says.

DOJ Weighs in on Right to Repair Court Case

Wed, 15 Feb 2023 17:36:47 GMT

A filing Tuesday by the Department of Justice (DOJ) urged a federal court in Illinois not to throw out a class action suit that consolidated several farmers’ lawsuits against John Deere over repair restrictions , one that the U.S. gov’t is not directly involved in at this point.

The DOJ filing said that farmers could face higher repair costs due to the restrictions on repairing their equipment and the court should reject Deere’s stance that a competitive market for tractors and other agricultural equipment equates to a competitive market for repairs.

Related article: Can You Now Repair Your Own John Deere Equipment?

The DOJ said the case is similar to a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Kodak relative to copy machines where the court ruled that Kodak restricting access to replacement parts by independent repair shops can be an antitrust violation.

The DOJ filing also said repair restrictions increase financial pressures on farmers, noting an “uptick in family farmer bankruptcies nationwide” since 2014:

“These various machines, or ‘tractors’ for short, enable American agriculture. When they break or fail to operate and repair markets function poorly, agriculture suffers. Crops waste. Land lies fallow,” the filing said.

Related article: John Phipps: In Right to Repair, Farmers May Be Watching the Wrong Battle

The DOJ filing was silent on whether they thought farmers would eventually be successful in their suit.

Deere maintains that 98% of repairs can be done without using an authorized dealership and it recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation recommitting to farmers having access to repair information and tools. Critics note remaining restrictions on what farmers and independent repair shops can and cannot repair.

Accidents Happen. Don't Lose the Farm Because of Them

Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:04:27 GMT

It’s well after lunch, mid-afternoon at an all-day grower meeting, but the 20-plus farmers sitting on metal folding chairs arranged in a half circle are focused intently on the speaker in front of them.

“Only 50% to 60% of farmers going down the road hauling a load of hay, driving a semi with grain or some other piece of equipment are doing so legally,” Fred Whitford tells them.

He pauses momentarily, reflects on what he’s just said, then nods his head: “Yeah, I’m pretty comfortable that’s true. It doesn’t take much to be at fault; it could be as simple as driving on bald tires.”

The farmers look around at each other nervously as Whitford builds on his initial comment.

“If I don’t have grooves in my tires I can’t move water, and I can hydroplane. When I go to brake, I don’t have braking power and the truck won’t stop.…What then?”

Maybe the truck just ends up in a ditch. At the other extreme, the driver has a major accident with a motorist that causes death or life-long incapacitation.

It’s not uncommon. Data from the past decade show that while only 19 of every 100 Americans live in rural areas, more than 50% of all fatal roadway accidents take place there, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

It’s a heavy topic, but Whitford wades into it, intent on helping the farmers present prepare for if or when calamity strikes.

Pitfalls To Avoid
One common problem is farmers tend to have insufficient insurance, says Whitford, Clinical Engagement Professor, Botany and Plant Pathology and Director of Pesticide Programs at Purdue University.

“Say you have $2 million dollars of liability coverage, which roughly covers your net worth. One of your vehicles is involved in an accident that causes the death of a child.

The jury awards the child’s parents $5 million. Your insurance company would only be responsible for covering the first $2 million, while you would be responsible for the remaining $3 million,” he says. “That could bankrupt your business.”

Whitford brings up another common issue he sees.

“Who has their farm in an LLC?” he asks the group.

A couple of farmers raise their hands. Most are studying the floor. One mumbles that his land and equipment are in a single corporation.

“Well, sir, that’s not a good idea,” Whitford politely tells the farmer. “I can go into the corporation, get all the insurance money and then I can sell the land. I see it happen all the time.”

Whitford tells the farmer to go home and put his land in a corporation separate from his equipment. “You want to protect the one asset that brings you income,” he advises.

“This is why investing the time with an attorney is so vital.”

Whitford also encourages the group to meet with their insurance agent. “Ask them some questions, like ‘How much am I covered for? And what does that mean?’”

Insurance agents often tell Whitford that when they ask their farm clients to come in for an annual review many don’t even return their calls. “Not getting your annual insurance review is lost opportunity to protect your assets,” he says.

He acknowledges a basic insurance policy for the farm is pricey, and there’s no escaping the expense.

However, additional coverage beyond the basic policy is often available at a more palatable rate. Sometimes referred to as an umbrella policy, it provides additional protection that could literally save the farm.

“It often adds $5 million, $10 million of protection on top of your basic policy and at a discounted rate, but insurance agents often don’t bring it up because they know the odds of you buying it are slim,” Whitford says.

Talk, Listen, Act

As part of your annual meeting with your insurance agent, don’t hold back, Whitford tells the farmers in the room.

“Get your agent’s best advice, discuss all of the possible insurance options, then make the best decisions for you and your farm regarding coverage and policy limits,” he says.

While most farmers believe insurance is important, few read their policies. It’s true that an insurance policy is tedious reading, but making an effort to understand what is (and what is not) covered is important.

“After you suffer a loss, it will be too late to make any changes,” Whitford says. “Even if you don’t personally read your policy, at least develop a list of questions you want your insurance agent or attorney to answer.”

More Information Available

Fred Whitford is the author of more than 300 publications. Two of his recent ones are:

The Aftermath of a Farm Truck Crash: Lawsuits, Settlements, and Court Proceedings

Farm Truck Accidents: Considering Your Liability Management Options

Federal Judge in Texas Struck Down Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

Fri, 11 Nov 2022 20:34:42 GMT

The Job Creators Network Foundation filed a lawsuit in October on behalf of a student loan borrower who does not qualify for the full $20,000 in debt relief and one who is ineligible altogether. The suit alleges the administration violated federal procedures by denying borrowers the opportunity to provide public comment before unveiling the program.

U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman, who was appointed by Donald Trump, declared the policy unlawful in the Thursday order.

“In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone,” Pittman wrote in his order. “Instead, we are ruled by a Constitution that provides for three distinct and independent branches of government.”

In a statement, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said of the administration: “We strongly disagree with the District Court’s ruling on our student debt relief program and the Department of Justice has filed an appeal.”

More than 26 million people have applied for loan relief. Jean-Pierre said the administration will hold onto their information “so it can quickly process their relief once we prevail in court.”

EPA Sends RFS Plans to Next Phase as Nov. Deadline Approaches

Thu, 10 Nov 2022 15:41:19 GMT

EPA sent the proposed levels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2023 and beyond to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) .

EPA is facing a Nov. 30 deadline to propose the levels as part of a negotiated deal with Growth Energy which sued EPA for failing to deliver the proposed levels by the statutory deadline.

The Details

Each year, EPA sets a renewable fuel standard (RFS), which requires gas and diesel be blended with a minimum volume of renewable fuels.

Provisions in the Clean Air Act for the RFS projected target blending volumes of renewable fuel for the program only through 2022. EPA is required to establish new blending volumes 14 months ahead of the first year (2023).

“For years 2023 and thereafter, EPA must set those volumes based on an analysis of factors specified in the statute,” the agency said in the description of the proposed rule. “This rulemaking will establish volume requirements beginning in 2023.”

That leaves the door open for EPA to propose levels for multiple years through this rulemaking. Prior reports indicated that the agency would propose levels for 2023, 2024 and 2025.

EPA has just three weeks to meet the already extended Nov. 30 deadline. Growth Energy said that will be the final extension for the EPA plan.

More at Stake

The news follows the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) newly released study in the EPA’s methods of enforcing the RFS. Based on the study, GAO offered seven recommendations, including that the EPA:

1. Develop new policies and procedures for making RFS decisions.
2. Construct a new approach to better meet its annual March deadline.

The agency partially agreed with the two listed recommendations but disagreed with all others.

More on renewable fuel:

EPA’s Small Refinery Exemption Data Under Fire by U.S. Accountability Office
John Phipps: It’s Now Less About the Supply of Oil, And More About Refining Capacity in the U.S.
EPA Faces Lawsuit for Ethanol’s Impacts on Endangered Species

Minority Farmers Sue Over Repeal of the Debt Relief Program

Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:28:28 GMT

Four minority farmers filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims over repeal via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of the minority debt relief effort for USDA borrowers previously held up in court by suits filed by white farmers who alleged discrimination since the effort was based on race, not need.

The Virginia farmers filing the suit allege repeal of the debt relief effort is a breach of contract by the government, arguing some farmers made financial plans based on the expectation of getting debt relief.

Promised Debt Relief

Reuters reported that around 14,000 farmers of color received letters from USDA in 2021 that promised debt relief of around $2.4 billion.

The initial race-based debt relief effort was contained in the American Rescue Plan but did not proceed due to court challenges. The IRA repealed that debt forgiveness effort and replaced it with one based on need.

The climate, health, and tax law earmarked $3.1 billion for “farm loan immediate relief for borrowers with at-risk agricultural operations” and $2.2 billion, to be administered by entities outside USDA, for payments of up to $500,000 each to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who had experienced discrimination in the past in USDA loan programs.

Industry Responds

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, likened the situation to the loss of assistance to Black farmers after the Civil War.

“The U.S. government must honor its commitment to us and the thousands of Black, Native American, and other farmers of color who are being forced into bankruptcy and foreclosures,” said John Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Association and one of the “class representatives” in the suit.

More on the IRA:

Will the IRA’s Biofuel Provisions Ease Pump Prices? Sen. Ernst Isn’t Convinced
What’s Ag’s Stake in the Senate-Passed Inflation Reduction Act?
IRA 2022 - What It Means For Farmers