Author: Rusty Rumley

  • Right to Farm Bills in the South

    Right to Farm Bills in the South

    States in the South are in their legislative sessions, and several are looking to amend their right to farm statutes.  A right to farm statute is a state law intended to protect qualifying agricultural operations from nuisance lawsuits brought by neighbors for noise, dust, odor, or other actions that interfere with the neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property.  State law can vary dramatically across the country and small changes to language can have a major impact on how the law is applied in that state.

    Some proposed changes in the South are relatively minor, while others would make substantial changes in how nuisance laws would affect agricultural operations.  Below are the links to current bills in the South and a short description of the potential impact of the legislation.

    • Arkansas – HB 1434 – This bill was enacted into law and specifies that the burden of proof in a nuisance lawsuit is borne by the party that brought the lawsuit against the farming operation.  
    • Florida – HB 1361 and SB 1472 – Both bills are companion bills (bills that are largely the same, but filed in different chambers or by different members in the state legislature) that would allow farm operations to store, process and distribute organic material.  Organic material is defined as “vegetative matter resulting from landscaping maintenance or land clearing operations … ” This definition would not include organic material from animal agriculture operations.
    • Oklahoma – HB 1457 – Nuisance lawsuits involving the cultivation of medical marijuana would be excluded from the protections of the Oklahoma Right to Farm Act under this bill. 
    • South Carolina – H 3432 – This bill would change several things.  Importantly for the state right to farm statute, it would define several terms deemed “covered activities”, including composting. It would also require the Commissioner of Agriculture to investigate complaints about agricultural operations and make recommendations about best management practices.
    • Texas – SB 1421HB 2308, and HB 1750
      • SB 1421 – This bill could significantly strengthen the existing Texas Right to Farm Act by setting one establishment date for the agricultural operation and protecting all activities after one year has passed (unless it is determined to be a “substantial change”).  Currently, expansions are not protected until the expansion has been in existence for at least one year.  This bill would also extend coverage to veterinary practices, increase the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence, strengthen the attorney fees provision, limit the power of city governments to regulate farming operations in city limits, and make other small changes.
      • HB 2308 – Largely a companion bill to SB 1421; however, it does not have language about restricting the powers of city governments to regulate agricultural operations within city limits.
      • HB 1750 – Also largely a companion bill to SB 1421 and contains the language limiting city governments on how they regulate agricultural operations, but does not include the language on changing the establishment date or the addition of the language about “substantial change.”

    Words matter in the legal context.  Some changes, like with the Arkansas bill, may have little impact on how the state right to farm act is applied, while the changes to the Texas law, if enacted, could substantially change how nuisance lawsuits and zoning disputes move forward.  Even if your state is not on the list for proposed changes for this legislative term, it is common for other state legislatures to copy legislation and try to enact similar bills in their states in subsequent years. To see your state’s current right to farm statute, click here.


    Rumley, Rusty. “Right to Farm Bills in the South.Southern Ag Today 3(14.5). April 5, 2023. Permalink

    Photo by Alejandro Barrón: https://www.pexels.com/photo/corn-field-during-daytime-96715/

  • A Cheese by Any Other Name

    A Cheese by Any Other Name

    The U.S. Court of Appeals  for the Fourth Circuit (“4th Circuit”) recently decided InterProfession Du Gruyere vs. U.S. Dairy Export Council, which considered whether a geographic indication was essential to the use of the label “gruyère.”  The 4th Circuit decided that it was not, finding that using that term on labels in the United States does not depend on where the cheese was produced (often referred to as a geographical indication), but merely on whether it meets Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) standard of identity.

    FDA is responsible for the labeling of dairy products, among other things.  It partially regulates labels by creating “standards of identity,” outlining how specific words may be used.  FDA has created a standard of identity for gruyère cheese, defining it by the process needed to create the cheese, not by the location where the cheese is made.  

    In Europe, however, the label can only be used on cheese produced in the Alps region, near the Swiss/French border.  As a result, a group of Swiss and French cheese producers brought the lawsuit at issue today.  Ultimately, the court decided that FDA- and ultimately American consumers- saw gruyère as a type of cheese (similar to a label of “mozzarella” or “cheddar”) rather than one produced in a specific place.  

    Geographical indications are used worldwide, helping protect producers’ market share in specific regions.  Whether you’re interested in “Idaho Potatoes” or “Parmigiano-Reggiano,” a part of the label’s meaning includes an indication of the area where the product originated.  This case illustrates a trend that international food and beverage manufacturers are becoming more proactive in protecting names with a regional geographical significance.  This is an important international trade issue because we expect similar litigation from other affected producers. On a larger scale, the European Union focuses on including geographical indicators as a critical part of trade deals and we expect this trend to continue.  To learn more about geographical indications and international trade, click here for a National Agricultural Law Center webinar.


    Rumley, Rusty. “A Cheese by Any Other Name.Southern Ag Today 3(12.5). March 24, 2023. Permalink

  • Fence Laws for Rural Landowners

    Fence Laws for Rural Landowners

    Questions regarding fence disputes are a regular inquiry at the National Agricultural Law Center.  For such a common issue, one would assume that this area of the law is relatively straightforward, but that is not always the case!   All fifty states have passed laws relating to fences and livestock running at large, but there are significant differences between the states and sometimes even within the same state.  For example, Texas is an “open range” state which means that livestock owners are not required to fence in their livestock; however, counties can, and have, adopted local stock laws that effectively close the range in those counties.  It can be very difficult to determine whether a Texas county has adopted a local stock law closing the open range in that county because older records are often hard to find and may not be found online. 

    The confusing nature of fence laws causes numerous problems across the country, but a few general rules apply to most of the southern states.  If you have livestock, you typically have a duty to keep them on your property (except for some counties in Texas.)  What constitutes a legal fence is typically found in your state law, but the fence must be sufficient to keep your livestock on your own property.  The last area where significant questions arise covers maintaining and paying for the boundary fences between neighbors.  Once again, this area of the law is highly dependent on where your property is located.  It is dependent on the state, but some states have antiquated fence laws which further complicates the problem.  To read your state fence law, click here.  

    If you do have a fence issue with your neighbor, the cheapest way for both parties to resolve the dispute is to come to an agreement that everyone can accept.  Fences are not cheap, but lawsuits will typically cost more in the long run.  

    Source – the National Agricultural Law Center

    Rumley, Rusty. “Fence Laws for Rural Landowners“. Southern Ag Today 2(24.5). June 10, 2022. Permalink

  • Carbon Contracts for the Farmer

    Carbon Contracts for the Farmer

    Private companies are approaching farmers and forest landowners about entering into carbon contracts, generating a lot of interest.  Carbon contracts are voluntary agreements that landowners can enter into promising to use certain practices such as limited/no-till farming, planting cover crops, or forego the harvesting of mature timber and then paying the farmer for sequestered carbon.  Contracts are difficult to come by and typically contain confidentiality clauses; however, there are some common elements that landowners should be aware of before signing.

    • The length of the contracts can vary substantially.  I have read contracts that range from one year to ten years in length, and some may be longer.  One contract required the storage of carbon in the field for the next one hundred years.  Ensure that you can comply with the contract for the entire life of the agreement.
    • To measure the carbon sequestered, the landowner often has to grant the other party access to the property to take those measurements. 
    • Payments, and payment mechanisms, can vary substantially. For example, some contracts pay for certain practices, such $3 per acre for no-till farming, while other contracts pay based on the tons of carbon sequestered, typically around $15-$20 per ton, but this can vary as well.
    • Read the definitions section carefully, as words may not mean what you think they mean.
    • Many contracts pay only for the carbon sequestered and allow the other party to sell off other environmental benefits, such as water quality credits. Unfortunately, some of the contracts do not have a mechanism to enable the landowner to realize any gain from the sale of other environmental benefits, so make sure that your contract allows you to profit from all potential environmental benefits.

    If approached with a carbon contract, read it carefully, make sure that it makes financial sense to adopt the practices you will be required to follow, and consult with a knowledgeable attorney before signing.

    Source – Considering Carbon Series from the National Agricultural Law Center


    Rumley, Rusty. “Carbon Contracts for Farmers.” Southern Ag Today 1(43.5). October 22, 2021. Permalink