Category Archives: Uncategorized

U.S. EPA Wants Public Comments on Regulatory Reform

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on EPA regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.   The request for comments is in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which required the heads of agencies such as the EPA to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to repeal, replace, or modify regulations that create unnecessary burdens on the American people.

In announcing the agency’s regulatory reform plans, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that, “EPA will be listening to those directly impacted by regulations, and learning ways we can work together with our state and local partners, to ensure that we can provide clean air, land, and water to Americans.”  Pruitt also issued harsh criticism of “misaligned regulatory actions from the past administration.”

Consistent with President Trump’s Executive Order, Pruitt appointed several EPA staff to a Regulatory Reform Task Force that will guide the agency’s reform efforts.  In establishing the public comment process, the Task Force is asking entities significantly affected by federal regulations, including state, local and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations to provide comments that will help the Task Force identify regulations that:

  • Eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation;
  • Are outdated, unnecessary or ineffective;
  • Impose costs that exceed benefits;
  • Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
  • Rely on data, information or methods that are not publicly available or sufficiently transparent for reproducibility;
  • Derive from Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been rescinded or modified.

The comment period offers the agricultural community an opportunity to raise concerns with EPA regulations that may negatively impact agricultural production.   Note that agencies such as the EPA do not base regulatory decision-making on the total number of comments for or against an issue; it is not like a popular ballot vote.  Instead, the EPA must base its regulations on information contained in public comments as well as on scientific data, expert opinions, and facts.  After receiving comments in this initial public participation period, the EPA will likely develop recommendations for regulatory reform.  If so, the agency must offer the public additional opportunity to comment on its reform proposals.

The EPA will accept public comments on regulatory reform until May 15, 2017.  Instructions for submitting comments are available here.  The agency has already received over 18,000 comments on its online docket, which is available here.  Members of the public may request that the EPA allow more time to submit comments, and the EPA may consider late-filed comments if their decision-making schedule permits it.  However, commenters should be aware that agencies do not have to consider late comments.

The EPA is also hosting public meetings around the country on regulatory reform in regards to different topics such as water, chemical safety and pesticides.  A list of the public meetings is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized

Clearing the Fence Row and Trimming Back Overhanging Branches

Written by: Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Farmers are gearing up for spring and preparing to plant crops and graze livestock. Part of spring-cleaning may involve clearing partition fence rows at the edge of fields and trimming back overhanging branches above the fence. Overgrown tree branches can affect crops and pose a hazard to agricultural equipment. Removing trees that obstruct the fence row, noxious weeds tangled in the fence, and other unwanted vegetation is a serious matter for Ohio farmers. Ohio law provides for ways to clear a partition fence shared between two neighboring properties. Ohio law also cautions against damaging trees when trimming overhanging branches.

Clearing the fence row

This section only applies to the removal of vegetation in the fence row. Clearing overhanging trees above the fence is a separate matter discussed further below.

A partition fence is a fence that follows the division line between adjoining properties of two owners. The term “fence row” refers to the strip of land that is on either side of the fence. In order to keep a fence in good condition, owners should occasionally clear the fence row of obstructions caused by vegetation. Clearing a fence row keeps noxious weeds, brush, briers, and other vegetation from spreading onto a neighbor’s property. Ohio law provides several methods for a landowner to clear the fence row legally.

The easiest way to clear the fence row is to ask a neighbor to clear his or her side of the partition fence. Ohio law creates a duty for owners on either side of a partition fence to clear brush, briers, thistles and other noxious weeds in a strip four feet wide along the line of the fence, after a landowner gives notice to a neighbor asking them to do so. It is best to be polite, patient, and clear when speaking with a neighbor about when you would each like to clear the fence row. A landowner and a neighboring owner should try to establish a timeline to clear each side of the fence row.

What if a landowner asks a neighbor to clear the fence row on their side of a partition fence and they refuse? Once a landowner asks a neighbor to clear a fence row, that neighbor has ten days to do so. If a neighbor does not clear it within ten days, the landowner can ask the local board of township trustees to arrange for the fence row to be cleared.

After a landowner notifies the trustees that a neighbor refused to clear the fence row within ten days, the township trustees must view the property to determine if there is just cause for the complaint. Next, if there is a cause for the complaint, the trustees will enter into a contract with a third party to clear the fence row and certify the associated costs to the county auditor. The county auditor will bill the neighboring landowner for the work to clear the fence row. The auditor will assess these costs against the neighboring landowner by adding these costs to his or her property tax bill.

Trimming back overhanging branches

Landowners have the right to trim vertically and remove overhanging obstructions from above their side of the fence. Ohio courts recognize this privilege to remove obstructions, but not without limitations. Ohio courts do not permit landowners to cause harm to the other side of the property line. A landowner should be careful not to damage the neighbor’s trees or trespass on to the neighbor’s property when trimming overhanging branches. Landowners may be liable to a neighbor if they recklessly damage a neighbor’s tree when removing overhanging branches.

Landowners should review their rights and responsibilities to maintain fences prior to clearing the fence row this spring. For more information on line fence law, visit the Ag Law Library here.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Contentious Des Moines Water Works Litigation Comes to an End

Federal court dismisses Clean Water Act lawsuit against Iowa drainage districts

A federal district court has dismissed the controversial Des Moines Water Works lawsuit that put the agricultural community on edge for the past two years.  While the decision is favorable for agriculture, it didn’t resolve the question of whether the water utility could prove that nitrates draining from farm fields are harming the utility’s water sources.  The court’s dismissal prevents Des Moines Water Works from further asserting such claims.

The lawsuit by the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) utility sued irrigation districts in three Iowa counties for allowing discharges of nitrates through drainage infrastructure and into the waterways from which the utility drew its water.  In addition to claiming that the discharges violate the federal Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements, DMWW also asserted nuisance, trespassing, negligence, takings without compensation, and due process and equal protection claims under Iowa law.   The utility sought monetary damages for the cost of removing nitrates from its water as well as an injunction ordering the drainage districts to stop the discharges with proper permits.

The federal district court first certified several questions of state law to the Iowa Supreme Court to clarify whether Iowa law provided immunity to the drainage districts for DMWW’s claims.   On January 27, 2017, the Iowa Supreme Court responded in the positive, explaining that Iowa drainage districts had been immune from damages and injunctive relief claims for over a century because drainage districts “have a limited, targeted role—to facilitate the drainage of farmland in order to make it more productive.”  The Iowa court also clarified that Iowa’s Constitution did not provide a basis for DMWW’s constitutional arguments.

Turning to the party’s claims in light of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal district court focused on the drainage district’s motion to dismiss DMWW’s claims based on the doctrine of redressability, which requires a showing that the alleged injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.  The doctrine of redressability concludes that a plaintiff cannot have standing to sue and therefore cannot proceed in a case if the defendant doesn’t have the power to redress or remedy the injury even if the court granted the requested relief.

The drainage districts argued that they could not redress DMWW’s Clean Water Act claims because the districts had no power to regulate the nitrates flowing through the drainage systems.  The court agreed, stating that “DMWW seeks injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties against the drainage districts arising from alleged duties and powers that the districts simply do not possess under Iowa law.  DMWW may well have suffered an injury, but the drainage districts lack the ability to redress that injury.”

The federal district court also dismissed DMWW’s remaining claims against the drainage districts.  DMWW argued that the immunity given the drainage districts as described by the Iowa Supreme Court prevented DMWW’s remaining claims and thus violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses.  The federal district court found these contentions to be “entirely devoid of merit” and dismissed the state law claims of nuisance, trespassing, negligence, takings, due process and equal protection.  Because none of the counts against the drainage districts survived the court’s scrutiny, the court dismissed and closed the case.

What does the decision mean for agriculture?

The DMWW case was a futile but somewhat inventive attempt to allocate liability for nitrate pollution to the agricultural community.  “Unregulated agricultural discharges into Iowa’s rivers, lakes and streams continue to increase costs to our customers and damage Iowa’s water quality and environment,” said DMWW’s CEO Bill Stowe upon filing the lawsuit.  A public poll by the Des Moines Register soon after Stowe brought the DMWW lawsuit showed that 42% of the respondents agreed with him in believing that farmers should pay for nitrate removal from DMWW’s waters, while 32% thought those who lived in Des Moines should pay to remove the nitrates.

If the goal is to force agriculture to reduce nutrient run off or pay for the cost of removing nutrients from waterways, the DMWW case tells us that suing those who oversee agricultural drainage infrastructure projects is not the proper mechanism for accomplishing that goal.  So will the next strategy be to sue the farmers who use the nutrients and the drainage infrastructure?

One challenge in suing farmers directly for nutrient runoff, and the issue that was not addressed in DMWW, is whether nutrient runoff from farm fields carried through drainage systems constitutes a “point source” that requires regulation under the Clean Water Act, or whether nutrient runoff fits within the agricultural exemption under the Clean Water Act.  That law defines a “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged,” but states that point sources do not include “agricultural storm water discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.”  What we still don’t know after two years of DMWW litigation is whether a court would put the transport of agricultural nutrients through drainage systems in the point source definition or would consider it an agricultural exemption from the point source definition.

A second challenge in an attempt to bring agricultural nutrients under the Clean Water Act is whether a plaintiff could prove the actual origin of a downstream nutrient—who applied the nutrient that ended up downstream?  DMWW sought to minimize this challenge by suing the drainage districts that oversee the entire region.   But DMWW still would have had to trace the nutrients to the region, a difficult task.

Meanwhile, the agricultural community expects that its voluntary efforts to reduce nitrate and phosphorus runoff from farm fields will positively impact water quality and reduce the possibility of more litigation like the DMWW case.   A multitude of voluntary efforts are underway, such as Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy and the flourish of cover crops in the Western Lake Erie Basin.  Ohio has also added a regulatory approach that requires farmers to engage in fertilizer application training.   Let’s hope these initiatives will reduce nutrient impacts before another party is willing to point its finger and agriculture and pursue a lawsuit like DMWW.

Read the federal district court’s decision in DMWW here.  Our previous post on DMWW is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized

Regulating Livestock Welfare Remains an Issue Around the Country

Written by:  Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Livestock producers in Ohio have been subject to standards for the care of livestock since 2011 but animal welfare is still a topic of debate around the country. Most recently, attention turned to the care of livestock raised under the National Organic Program and animals raised in confinement in Massachusetts.   In this post, we examine the proposed federal organic standards and a livestock care ballot initiative passed in Massachusetts.  The discussion provides an opportunity to take a look at the status of Ohio’s livestock care standards.

Federal Organic Standards

On January 19, 2017, the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) promulgated a final rule for the National Organic Program (NOP).  The rule concerns practices for organic livestock and poultry.  Namely, the rule “clarifies how producers and handlers participating in the NOP must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing.”  These treatment standards are applicable at numerous times throughout the lives of livestock, including when the animals are transported or slaughtered.  Additionally, the rule spells out the amount and type of indoor and outdoor space organic poultry must have under NOP.  The rule also describes the timing and methods for physically altering livestock and poultry under NOP.  The rule allows “[p]hysical alterations…only…for an animal’s welfare, identification, or safety.”  For example, the rule limits the use of teeth clipping and tail docking in pigs, and prohibits the de-beaking of chickens or face branding of cattle.  Many other banned and limited alterations are spelled out in the rule, as well as provisions that require active monitoring of animal health and treatment of injuries, sicknesses, and diseases.  The rule was originally supposed to become effective on March 20, 2017.  The Trump Administration, however, has since instituted a regulatory freeze in order to review recently made regulations.   In response to the regulatory freeze, AMS pushed back the effective date to May 19, 2017.  Barring any decisions by the new administration to the contrary, the rule should become effective on that date.  More information concerning this final rule is available here.

Massachusetts voters approve livestock confinement ballot initiative

Some states have taken it upon themselves to address various aspects of animal welfare.  This past Election Day, Massachusetts passed Question 3, a ballot initiative concerning confinement of livestock.  Question 3, also called the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, applies to farm owners and operators who raise breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens within the state, and also to business owners and operators who sell products from such livestock within the state.  When the Act becomes effective on January 1, 2022, this will mean that any farmers or businesses selling their pork, veal, or eggs in Massachusetts, even if they are not physically located within the state, would have to comply with the state’s confinement rules.  The law prohibits the aforementioned livestock being “confined in a cruel manner,” meaning that the animals cannot be “confined so as to prevent [them] from lying down, standing up, fully extending [their] limbs, or turning around freely.”  There are certain exceptions to this rule, including during transport, at fairs, during a veterinary examination, etc.  When the Act goes into effect, violators will face a $1,000 civil fine per violation, and/or an injunction

Ohio Livestock Care Standards

As many will remember, Ohio has its own laws and regulations concerning livestock welfare.  Voters passed an amendment to the Ohio Constitution in 2009.  The amendment created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, which was tasked with creating the actual “care standards” for livestock animals in the state.  The first of these “livestock care standards,” or rules, became effective on September 29, 2011.  Standards exist for different types of livestock and cover everything from acceptable euthanasia practices for each species, to the provision of food and water, to acceptable methods of transportation.  The board continues to meet regularly to review the care standards.

The regulations on livestock care include an investigation process initiated by complaints on potential violations of the standards.  Since the standards became effective, the Ohio Department of Agriculture has received a number of complaints and works with operators to bring them into compliance if the agency finds a violation. According to Farm and Dairy, there were 51 such investigations in 2012, 29 in 2013, and 23 in 2014.  In 2015, there were 33 investigations—23 of which resulted in no violations of the standards.   Producers can learn more about the livestock care standards at http://www.agri.ohio.gov/LivestockCareStandards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Uncategorized

A Worrisome Week for WOTUS

Written by: Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, and Peggy Hall, Asst. Professor, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

 The controversial “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) Rule suffered two governmental assaults this week.   We reported earlier this year about litigation over the Rule and a Senate Resolution urging withdrawal of the Rule.   Actions this week in the House of Representatives, the White House and the EPA echo the Senate’s sentiments and push the Rule further towards its demise.

The House Resolution

In the U.S. House of Representatives, Ohio’s Representative Bob Gibbs introduced a resolution on February 27, 2017 stating that the Rule should be vacated.  House Resolution 152 declares that the Clean Water Act (from which the Rule derives) is one of the nation’s most important laws whose success requires cooperative federalism, under which federal, state and local governments have a role in protecting water resources.   Based upon the foundation of cooperative federalism, “Congress left to the States their traditional authority over land and water, including farmers’ field, non-navigable, wholly intrastate water (including puddles and ponds), and the allocation of water supplies.”  The Resolution asserts that the latest revision to the Rule, however, claimed broad federal jurisdiction over water that encroaches upon the authority of the States and undermines the Clean Water Act’s historical exemptions from federal regulation.  The Resolution also claims that the EPA failed to follow proper processes when issuing the Rule.

 The Executive Order

 President Trump’s executive order  (EO) issued on February 28, 2017 calls for the EPA and the Army for Civil Works (“Civil Works”, a part of the Army Corps of Engineers) to “rescind or revise” the WOTUS Rule.  It is important to note, however, that the EO does not abolish the Rule; it simply orders the two agencies to review the Rule and try to adapt it to the Trump administration’s policies.   The EO includes a policy statement explaining that it is in the best interest of the United States to keep “navigable waters… free from pollution,” but there is also a strong interest in promoting economic growth, so any changes to the Rule must balance both of those interests.  The EO also gives the Attorney General the discretion to communicate any potential changes to the WOTUS Rule to federal courts with pending WOTUS litigation.

The EO further directs the EPA and Civil Works, when revising or rescinding the WOTUS Rule, to construe “navigable waters” as Justice Scalia did in the Supreme Court case Rapanos v. U.S.   Under the Clean Water Act, “navigable waters” are defined as “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.”  This means that the terms “navigable waters” and “waters of the United States” are interchangeable.   In Rapanos, Justice Scalia, who wrote the decision for a plurality of the Court, asserted that navigable waters/WOTUS cannot be “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”  Instead, they must be “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water,” or wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to permanent water bodies.   Scalia’s interpretation is at odds with the interpretation contained in the Obama administration’s WOTUS Rule.

Agency Response to the Executive Order

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Civil Works acting Secretary Douglas Lamont didn’t waste any time responding to Trump’s EO.  On the same day Trump signed the Order, the agencies filed a Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule.  In the notice, the agencies explain their intentions to follow the EO, review the Rule and consider adopting Justice Scalia’s interpretation of navigable waters.   The agencies state that they will utilize new rulemaking to “provide greater clarity and regulatory certainty concerning the definition of ‘waters of the United States.’”

 Refresher:  What’s in the WOTUS Rule?

The Obama Administration’s WOTUS Rule was released in the Federal Register on June 29th, 2015, and went into effect on August 28th, 2015.  According to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers at the time, the rule was meant to “clarify the scope of ‘waters of the United States’…protected under the Clean Water Act.”  In particular, the Rule states that a number of bodies of water qualify as WOTUS, such as: “tributaries to interstate waters, waters adjacent to interstate waters, waters adjacent to tributaries of interstate waters, and other waters that have a significant nexus to interstate waters.”  The Rule elaborates on the definition of “tributaries,” which are WOTUS if they flow “to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the territorial seas,” regardless of whether the flow is year-round, seasonal, or due to precipitation.  Tributaries flowing into navigable and interstate waters that have “a bed and banks,” as well as “an indicator of ordinary high water mark” qualify as WOTUS under the Rule.  “Adjacent waters” means “all waters located in whole or in part within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark” of WOTUS, as well as “all waters within the 100-year floodplain” of WOTUS.   Numerous different kinds of water can be “adjacent,” such as “wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows,” and “impoundments.”   More information about the WOTUS Rule is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized

Farmers Have One Month to Decide Whether to Stay in Syngenta Litigation

Farmers are receiving a lot of attention from law firms these days, from video mailers to offers of free consultations, dinners, hats and more.  The purpose of these marketing efforts is to entice farmers away from participating in the current class action lawsuit against Syngenta.  Law firms want farmers to exclude themselves from the class action litigation and participate in individual lawsuits their firms would bring against Syngenta.  With a deadline of April 1 looming, farmers must decide whether to remain in or step away from the class action lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit, known as “In re Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation,” is pending before the U.S. District Court in Kansas.  It is one of two major lawsuits regarding corn rejected by China in 2013 because China had not yet approved Syngenta’s Duracade and Viptera brands of genetically-modified corn.  The lawsuit consolidated hundreds of similar federal court cases that all claimed that Syngenta should be liable for the drop in corn prices that followed China’s rejections because Syngenta stated that it had obtained all necessary regulatory approvals for Duracade and Viptera, but instead released the seed before receiving China’s approval.

Class Certification

Last September, the court certified the litigation as a class action lawsuit, which allows the case to commence on behalf of all class members.  Any farmer that fits within the class definitions is automatically included in the lawsuit and does not have to pursue individual litigation against Syngenta.  The court established a nationwide class of “producers,” defined as any person or entity listed as a producer on an FSA-578 form filed with the USDA who priced corn for sale after November 18, 2013 and who did not purchase Viptera or Duracade corn seed (farmers who used Syngenta’s seed have different legal claims).  The nationwide class is for producers bringing claims under federal law.  The court also certified eight state classes for producers bringing claims under state laws, including Ohio.  Syngenta appealed the class certification, but the Tenth District Court of Appeals denied the appeal.

Ohio farmers who fit the definition of “producers” are now automatically members of both the nationwide and Ohio classes.  This means that every Ohio producer can receive a share of any award or settlement that results from the litigation, with required documentation.  However, Ohio producers may choose to exclude themselves from or “opt out” of their classes and bring their own individual actions against Syngenta.  The district court required attorneys for the class action suit to notify all potential producers of the lawsuit and of a producer’s right to be excluded from the litigation.   A producer must send an exclusion request by April 1, 2017, following the process for exclusion stated in the court’s order, available here.

Pros and Cons of Staying in the Class

A major benefit of remaining in the class action lawsuit is convenience.  Class members in the lawsuit have no responsibility for the proceedings, which falls upon the attorneys who represent the entire class.  However, convenience comes at the cost of deferring decision making authority and losing a share of the award or settlement to court-ordered attorney fees, although class members may file objections to such decisions.  Exclusion from the class gives producers freedom to pursue their own actions, which will likely lead to a stronger role in decision making and the ability to negotiate attorney fees.  Exclusion also allows a farmer who may not agree with the litigation on principal to dissociate from the lawsuit.

What’s Next?

The court has scheduled “bellwether” cases in the lawsuit, which will go to trial in June.  Bellwether cases are chosen to be representative of the class.  Allowing these cases to go to trial gives an indication of how the litigation will play out—the strength of each side, how juries react and how the law applies to the situation.   Upon completion of the bellwether cases, both sides should be better able to decide whether to settle the lawsuit or continue with litigation.

The U.S. District Court’s website for the Syngenta class action lawsuit is http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/syngenta-ag-mir162-corn-litigation/

Leave a comment

Filed under Biotechnology, Business and Financial, Crop Issues, Uncategorized

Ohio Legislature May Reconsider CAUV Bill

Written by:  Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

The Ohio Legislature is once again considering a bill regarding Ohio’s current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) program. CAUV permits land to be valued at its agricultural value rather than the land’s market or “highest and best use” value. Senator Cliff Hite (R-Findlay) introduced SB 36 on February 7, 2017. The bill would alter the capitalization rate used to calculate agricultural land value and the valuation of land used for conservation practices or programs. The bill has yet to be assigned to a committee.

The content of SB 36 closely mirrors the language of a bill meant to address CAUV from the last legislative session: SB 246. Introduced during the 131st General Assembly, SB 246 failed to pass into law. SB 246 proposed alterations to the CAUV formula which are identical to those proposed by the current bill: SB 36. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s report on SB 246, the bill would have proposed changes that would have led to a “downward effect on the taxable value of CAUV farmland.” The likely effect for Ohio farmers enrolled in CAUV would have been a lower tax bill.

Due to the similarity between the two bills, the potential impacts of SB 36 on the CAUV program will likely be comparable to those of the previous bill. The proposed adjustment of the capitalization rate is likely to reduce the tax bill for farmers enrolled in CAUV. More specifically, the bill proposes several changes to the CAUV formula:

  • States additional factors to include in the rules that prescribe CAUV calculation methods. Currently, the rules must consider the productivity of the soil under normal management practices, the average price patterns of the crops and products produced to determine the income potential to be capitalized and the market value of the land for agricultural use. The proposed legislation adds two new factors: typical cropping and land use patterns and typical production costs.
  • Clarifies that when determining the capitalization rate used in the CAUV formula, the tax commissioner cannot use a method that includes the buildup of equity or appreciation.
  • Requires the tax commissioner to add a tax additur to the overall capitalization rate, and that the sum of the capitalization rate and tax additur “shall represent as nearly as possible the rate of return a prudent investor would expect from an average or typical farm in this state considering only agricultural factors.”
  • Requires the commissioner to annually determine the overall capitalization rate, tax additur, agricultural land capitalization rate and the individual components used in computing those amounts and to publish the amounts with the annual publication of the per-acre agricultural use values for each soil type.

To remove disincentives for landowners who engage in conservation practices yet pay CAUV taxes at the same rate as if the land was in production, the proposed legislation:

  • Requires that the land in conservation practices or devoted to a land retirement or conservation program as of the first day of a tax year be valued at the lowest valued of all soil types listed in the tax commissioner’s annual publication of per-acre agricultural use values for each soil type in the state.
  • Provides for recalculation of the CAUV rate if the land ceases to be used for conservation within three years of its original certification for the reduced rate, and requires the auditor to levy a charge for the difference on the landowner who ceased the conservation practice or participation in the conservation program.

To read SB 36, visit this page. For more information on previous CAUV bills, see our previous blog post.

Leave a comment

Filed under Tax, Uncategorized