Category: Policy

  • Paved with Good Intentions: Unintended Impacts of Farm Bill Payment Limitations

    Paved with Good Intentions: Unintended Impacts of Farm Bill Payment Limitations

    While this may come as a surprise to some of our readers, farm program payment limits have been around almost as long as farm bills themselves. Modern payment limits are rooted in the Agricultural Act of 1970, but the earliest versions appeared in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the nation’s second farm bill. While payment limits are not a new phenomenon, recent times have seen a sharp increase in the complexity – and perhaps unintended consequences – of the rules enforcing them.

    Applying payment limits to Federal farm programs might seem relatively straightforward, but the decades-long debate over who should be eligible for assistance – and once they are deemed eligible, how much assistance they should receive – has resulted in a morass of regulations that are almost impossible for even the most astute attorney to follow. For example, with respect to eligibility, the Federal government devotes hundreds of pages to simply identifying who is “actively engaged in farming” and in determining whether a farmer’s income exceeds allowable thresholds for participation. While the intent (i.e., making sure the farm safety net is only accessible to those who really need it) may be laudable, we argue that the execution has made both risk management and farm transitions unnecessarily more challenging for family farms.

    In a recent article in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, we explored all of these topics, focusing on one element in particular: the 2008 Farm Bill’s treatment of individuals and legal entities for purposes of applying payment limitations. According to the 2008 Farm Bill, both individuals and legal entities may only qualify for a single payment limit. The “legal entities” implicated by this provision include limited liability companies (LLCs) and corporations, both of which are restricted to a single payment limit regardless of the number of members of the farming operation that individually qualify as eligible for payment limits. This is in sharp contrast to the treatment of general partnerships, which may, in effect, combine the payment limits of their individual partners. As a practical matter, family farming operations comprised of multiple stakeholders must structure as general partnerships or some other form of joint venture if they are to avoid being forced into a single payment limit (Figure 1).

    While this all may seem rather academic, it matters a great deal to those who rely on farm programs to manage the risks they face in production agriculture. For example, a family farm with multiple stakeholders actively engaged in the farming operation may have been advised by their attorney or accountant to structure as a pass-through LLC (to manage risk or tax liability); unbeknownst to them, their entire farming operation was then subjected to a single payment limit. Perhaps more importantly, LLCs are a very popular legal vehicle for facilitating farm transitions, yet Federal treatment of LLCs for payment limit purposes significantly disincentives their use. Ironically, in the same farm bill that Congress uses to authorize risk management tools for farmers and ranchers, the payment limit rules continue to expose real-life farmers and ranchers to even more risk.

    In the article noted above, we argue for taking what we call an “entity agnostic” approach to farm bill payment limitations. Under this approach, any entity (especially pass-through entities like LLCs) involving two or more individuals would be treated like a partnership, where the number of payment limits parallels the number of actively engaged participants. This change would not affect who is eligible for assistance (although those rules are ripe for modernization as well). As we argue in the article, the remaining “eligibility rules provide more than adequate safeguards to ensure those receiving farm bill payments are legitimately involved with their respective farming operations.”

    Congress has an opportunity in the impending farm bill debate to help facilitate farm transitions from one generation to the next by modernizing payment limitations to ensure they are not disincentivizing the use of LLCs.  If you would like to read more on this topic—or if you are having trouble falling asleep tonight—considering checking out the full, 60-page article at this link.

    Figure 1. Comparing the Disparate Application of Payment Limits for LLCs and General Partnerships under Current Law.

    Source: https://aglawjournal.wp.drake.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2024/04/Ferrell-Ready-for-Publish.pdf

    Ferrell, Shannon L., Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, and Bart L. Fischer. “Paved with Good Intentions: Unintended Impacts of Farm Bill Payment Limitations.Southern Ag Today 4(19.4). May 9, 2024. Permalink

  • Texas Farmers Sue USDA for Alleged Discrimination

    Texas Farmers Sue USDA for Alleged Discrimination

    A group of Texas farmers recently filed suit against the United States Department of Agriculture claiming that the USDA improperly discriminated against them in administering various disaster and pandemic relief programs. Plaintiffs in Strickland v. USDA challenge the USDA’s disparate treatment for certain producers based upon race and sex. The Plaintiffs assert that the USDA violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act.

    Background

    The Plaintiffs note that over the past four years, Congress appropriated $13.7 billion to USDA to implement crop and livestock disaster assistance and nearly $11.2 billion to implement disaster assistance programs for coronavirus-related relief.  The USDA took these appropriated funds and implemented a number of programs to aid farmers and ranchers who lost income, crops, or livestock due to natural disasters or the pandemic.

    Complaint

    The Plaintiffs begin their Complaint with the following sentence summarizing their arguments:  “Natural disasters do not discriminate, and neither should the USDA.”  The Plaintiffs claim that the USDA based the amount of financial assistance provided by programs on race and sex despite a lack of Congressional authorization to do so. Plaintiffs note that the appropriations bills passed by Congress never mention race or sex.  The USDA, Plaintiffs claim, factored it in anyway.

    Plaintiffs assert that USDA used two different methods for calculating the amount and type of financial assistance for farmers and ranchers.  One method was used for producers falling within the following four categories:  (1) veteran farmers, distinguished by having served in the armed forces; (2) beginning farmers, distinguished by being new to the profession; (3) limited-resource farmers, distinguished by having low incomes, and (4) socially disadvantaged farmers, distinguished by being of a particular race or sex.  “Socially disadvantaged” farmers include American Indians or Alaskan Natives Asians or Asian-Americans, blacks or African-Americans, Hispanics or Hispanic-Americans, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, and women.  The Plaintiffs claim producers falling within these categories were paid “significant additional benefits” such as refunds of insurance premiums, refunds of fees, automatic enrollment in certain programs to cover non-insured crops, or additional financial assistance.  For other farmers, the Plaintiffs claim, a second method of payment calculation was utilized.

    These actions, the Plaintiffs allege, are unlawful and unconstitutional.  The lawsuit claims that the USDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by acting beyond the scope of authority granted by Congress.  Additionally, the USDA allegedly violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by discriminating and treating similarly situated farmers differently based on race and by discriminating and treating similarly situated farmers differently based on sex. Finally, the Plaintiffs claim the USDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by shifting its policy on processing insurance refunds to a “progressive factoring” system.  By doing so, Plaintiffs claim, the USDA stopped providing refunds of federal crop insurance and NAP insurance premiums and fees to all farmers, without offering a reasoned explanation for this action as required by the APA. The Plaintiffs ask the court to hold these programs unlawful and to enter various declaratory judgments and injunctions preventing the USDA from implementing programs based on race or sex absent clear Congressional authorization. 

    Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

    A week after the Complaint was filed, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking an injunction or stay against USDA to prevent the USDA from relying on discriminatory criteria as it issues disaster relief.  

  • Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Agricultural Producers

    Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Agricultural Producers

    Those who know little about production agriculture will often ask us why we have a farm safety net in the United States. While there are several justifications to choose from, one of the most notable is that farm policy is designed to help level the playing field for U.S. agricultural producers in the global marketplace. In this article, we illustrate the case of rice.

    Rice is an important part of the U.S. agricultural economy, particularly in the South where a number of local communities are highly dependent on the rice industry. Despite its importance, U.S. rice production accounted for just 1.2% of global rice production over the past 5 years. Consequently, the price received by U.S. producers is very much a function of market and political dynamics originating in the rest of the world. 

    In April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) reported on the global competitiveness of the U.S. rice industry, concluding that the global rice market was “characterized by significant government intervention in both imports and exports.” One of the most notable serial offenders is India, deploying a cadre of input subsidies and minimum support prices that support their growers to the detriment of producers around the world.  In 2020, our own analysis concluded that U.S. rice and wheat farmers were facing almost $600 million per year in lost sales due to the trade-distorting domestic support policies that were being utilized by India (that number rose to $850 million per year in a 2022 update). In February 2024, Rep. Jason Smith, the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means asked USITC to again investigate the global competitiveness of U.S. rice producers. While we won’t prejudge the outcome of their investigation, we can’t help but note that India’s rice exports more than doubled from 2015/16 (when the last USITC report was written) to 2021/22.  

    The bottom line is that producers in other markets have significant, government-sponsored benefits that advantage their rice producers over U.S. rice producers. All of this helps to explain why 2022/23 marked the lowest level for U.S. rice exports since 1985/86 (Figure 1). While previous Southern Ag Today articles have explored the temporary reprieve resulting from India’s recent export ban (see here and here), the eventual return to status quo will inevitably result in lower prices for producers around the world, including in the United States. 

    All of this serves as yet another reminder of the importance of the farm safety net in leveling the playing field for America’s agricultural producers. It also magnifies the importance of updating the farm safety net in the next farm bill to ensure that it is reflective of the risks currently being faced by America’s agricultural producers.  

    Figure 1. U.S. Rice Exports from 1985/86 to 2022/23.

    Source: Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) Data, USDA-FAS

    Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Agricultural Producers.Southern Ag Today 4(15.4). April 11, 2024. Permalink

  • Higher Reference Prices Are Critical… But So Is Increasing Payment Limits

    Higher Reference Prices Are Critical… But So Is Increasing Payment Limits

    In a recent Southern Ag Today article we highlighted the overwhelming need to increase commodity reference prices in the next farm bill based on hearing testimony from the commodity groups.  While we continue to believe that this is the first and most important step in making meaningful changes to our country’s farm safety net, a very close second would be to increase the payment limit to account for the impact of inflation.  Actually, we would argue that payment limits should be eliminated completely because they are implemented for social engineering not economic reasons…but that is a discussion for another day.

    Why do we think payment limits should be increased?  Using data from the Agricultural and Food Policy Center’s (AFPC) database of representative farms—and illustrated for crop year 2025—the 3,400-acre Iowa corn/soybean farm is projected to be facing much lower commodity prices.  In 2025, market receipts are projected to be $2.5 million with corn and soybean prices at $4.30 and $10.46/bu.  Costs in 2025 are projected to be lower at $2.7 million, resulting in a $200,000 loss without government assistance (of course, the loss could also be much larger if prices fall more than expected).  Assuming ARC and/or PLC are improved to the point that they would trigger assistance in 2025, the support would be limited to $125,000, leaving the farm with a loss of $75,000.  Even though Congress will have spent hundreds of hours conducting hearings and debating how to help farmers stay in business… payment limits will reduce the effectiveness of the improved safety net.  Said another way, the producer puts $2.7 million at risk through borrowing or self-financing, and if there is a price or production problem, the Federal government will help with up to $125,000, or 4.6% of what the producer has at risk in this example. 

    How much payment limits should be raised tends to be almost as contentious as whether we should have them.  As a frame of reference, modern-day payment limits trace their roots to the 1970 Farm Bill with a $55,000 payment limit for each of the annual programs for wheat, feed grains, and cotton in crop years 1971, 1972, and 1973.  The figure below illustrates the magnitude of that payment limit ($55,000 for a single program/crop) were it in place today and indexed for inflation. That $55,000 payment limit would have been $413,247 in 2023, more than three times larger than the current combined payment limit of $125,000 applying to all covered commodities eligible for ARC and PLC.  If the limits from the 1970 Farm Bill were combined for a producer growing all three crops (i.e., $165,000), the payment limit today would be just over $1.2 million. Again, this doesn’t mean a producer is entitled to a payment of $1.2 million; it simply means that any losses up to $1.2 million could be covered. Instead, under current law, any losses beyond $125,000 are borne entirely by the producer.

    Figure 1. Initial 1970 Farm Bill Limit ($55,000) Indexed for Inflation.


    Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “Higher Reference Prices Are Critical… But So Is Increasing Payment Limits.” Southern Ag Today 4(13.4). March 28, 2024. Permalink

  • ARC and PLC Deadline TOMORROW!

    ARC and PLC Deadline TOMORROW!

    The Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-22) was signed into law on November 16, 2023.  The bill extended various programs, including the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs, through September 30, 2024.  As a result of the extension, ARC and PLC will be in place for the 2024 crop year under the same parameters as those negotiated in the 2018 Farm Bill (i.e., the same base acres, program yields, and Reference Prices, etc).  Growers have until tomorrow (March 15, 2024) to make an election between ARC and PLC on a crop-by-crop and farm-by-farm basis and to enroll their farm(s) for the 2024 crop year. 

    If you are unable to make it to your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office by the close of business tomorrow, we highly encourage you to call the office to inquire about the possibility of getting on a register to preserve the option of signing up at a later date. Under the 2018 Farm Bill, the election and enrollment are an annual decision; as a result, even if you haven’t participated in recent years, you should be able to sign up for 2024 if you wish (assuming there aren’t other factors impacting your eligibility).

    For many growers in the South, March 15th is also the Sales Closing Date for crop insurance on several crops.  As we noted in an earlier Southern Ag Today article, we highly encourage you to consider your FSA enrollment in light of the crop insurance options available to you. In many cases, the decisions you make on one will affect the other.  For example, you cannot participate in the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) on a farm if the base acres for that crop have elected ARC for the crop year (and vice versa, especially for winter wheat producers who have already purchased SCO on the 2024 crop).  Similarly, cotton producers cannot purchase a Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) policy on any farm (FSA Farm Number) where the seed cotton base has been enrolled in ARC or PLC for that crop year.

    Despite bearish prices for many commodities, ARC and PLC are still unlikely to provide any assistance in most cases.  As a result, we highly encourage you to consider all of the crop insurance options available to you – including area-wide options like STAX, SCO, and the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) – before making your FSA election/enrollment decisions. 


    Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “ARC and PLC Deadline TOMORROW!Southern Ag Today 4(11.4). March 14, 2024. Permalink