Thursday, October 6, 2022

More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics


The courts have continued to issue decisions of relevance to farmers, ranchers and rural landowners.  In today’s post, I take a look at some of them from around the country.  From property rights to income tax to bankruptcy to herbicide crop damage and landowners disputing over drainage – it’s covered below.

Court Says Public Has Right to Use Private Riverbeds

Adobe Whitewater Club of N.M. v. N.M. State Game Comm'n., No. S-1-SC-38195, 2022 N.M. LEXIS 34 (N.M. Sup. Ct. Sept. 1, 2022)

 The plaintiffs, various environmental and recreation groups, sued the New Mexico State Gaming Commission (Commission), claiming a regulation of the Commission violated the public’s right to use parts of New Mexico’s rivers.  In 2017, the Commission, promulgated a regulation that outlined a process for landowners to obtain a certificate allowing them to close public access to segments of public water flowing over private property.  The plaintiffs challenged the regulation as unconstitutional. Article XVI, Section 2 of the New Mexico state constitution states, “the unappropriated water of every natural stream, perennial or torrential, within the state of New Mexico, is hereby declared to belong to the public.” The issue was whether the public’s right to use the public waters included the right to use the privately owned waterbeds. The New Mexico Supreme Court determined that riverbeds were considered navigable waterways and were subject to the “public trust doctrine.”  The private landowners along the riverbed intervened in the lawsuit and claimed the public would be considered trespassers on their land and they could exclude the trespassers. The Court disagreed, finding that the public has the right to use private land when reasonably necessary to gain access to or enjoy public rivers. The Court stated, “A determination of navigability only goes to who has title to the bed below the public water, not to the scope of the public use.”  As such the court concluded that the public had access to such rivers to float, wade, fish and engage in other recreational activities that would have a minimal impact on the rights of private property owners.   In addition, the Court held that such waters are and always have been public.  Accordingly, the Court invalidated the Commission’s regulation. 

Retained Ownership of Minable Surface Negates Conservation Easement Deduction.

C.C.A. 202236010 (Sept. 9, 2022)

The Chief Counsel’s office of IRS has taken the position that a conservation easement donation is invalid if the donor owns both the surface estate of the land burdened by the easement as well as a qualified mineral interest that has never been separated from the surface estate, and the deed retains any possibility of surface mining to extract subsurface minerals.  In that instance, the conservation easement doesn’t satisfy I.R.C. §170(h).  The IRS said the result would be the same even if the donee would have to approve the surface-mining method because the donated easement would not be donated exclusively for conservation purposes in accordance with I.R.C. §170(h)(5).  The IRS pointed out that Treas. Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(4) states that a donated easement does not protect conservation purposes in perpetuity if any method of mining that is inconsistent with the particular conservation purposes of the contribution is permitted at any time.  But, the IRS pointed out that a deduction is allowed if the mining method at issue has a limited, localized impact on the real estate and does not destroy significant conservation interests in a manner that can’t be remedied.  Surface mining, however, is specifically prohibited where the ownership of the surface estate and the mineral interest has never been separated.  On the specific facts involved, the IRS determined that the donated easement would not be treated at being made exclusively for conservation purposes because the donee could approve surface mining of the donor’s subsurface minerals.  

Family Farms Not Part of Bankruptcy Estate.

Ries v. Archer (In re Archer), Nos. 17-20045-RLJ-7, 19-02001, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2250 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2022)

A chapter 7 trustee sought a declaration that certain farm ground was a part of the bankrupt estate. The debtors, a married couple, had eight children, who all but one became medical doctors. The debtors had funded their children’s education throughout their lives with funds derived from the family farm. They owned 14 sections of land in Moore County, Texas, (northwest Texas) comprising what was referred to as the “Moore County Farm.”  Although, the deed from 1988 for the land listed the defendant’s children’s IRA as the grantee-buyer of the land, the children did not have IRAs at the time or played any part in purchasing the land. The children were not given any right to manage or operate the Moore County Farm so long as the debtors were mentally competent. Beginning in 1998, the USDA and CRP program began making payments to some of the defendant’s children and in 2007 farmers who rented land from the Moore County Farm began to pay some of the children. The children began to open accounts and lines of credit associated with the expenses of the Moore County Farm. From 2005 to 2017, the debtors instructed some of their children to apply as “New Producers” to the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Through this program they were provided with favorable crop insurance as “managers” of a farm, but none of the children had managerial control. Ultimately, the children were charged with and convicted of insurance fraud. Along with the 1988 deed, the debtors executed a warranty deed for the Moore County Farm to some of the children in 2006 and later transferred the farm to the children’s IRAs. In 2008, one of the defendant’s children purchased 670 acres in Randall County, referred to as the “Randall County Farm”. The debtors ultimately had primary authority and control of the farming operations of the Randall County Farm along with the Moore County Farm and had full control over the finances and accounting of the farms. The children did pay for some of the expenses on the Randall County Farm, but overall, the debtors operated the two farms as one entity.  There were no further legal issues until 2011 when one of the debtors’ cows was hit by a motorist who sustained serious injuries because of the accident and filed suit. The court awarded the man $8.95 million in damages to be paid by the debtors. The debtors then filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court noted that the children had shared significant responsibilities over the Moore County Farm with their father and that their father wanted to pass the property to his children through the deeds. The court concluded that just because the debtors continued to run the farm did not mean they did not want to ultimately gift the land to the children. The bankruptcy trustee argued this was another scam set up by the family, but the court was not convinced given the common desire of parents to devise property to their children. The evidence showed that the debtors’ intent was for the children to own the farms and operate them for enjoyment.  Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the Moore County Farm was not part of the bankruptcy estate. The trustee claimed that the Randall County Farm should have been a part of the estate. Because one of the children who purchased the land negotiated a conservation plan with the USDA, received CRP payments, and paid for the farm expenses, the child was the true owner of the Randall County Farm and could not be considered part of the bankruptcy estate. 

FIFRA Doesn’t Preempt State-Based Warranty Claims

Kissan Berry Farm v. Whatcom Farmers Cooperative, et al., No. 82774-0-I, 2022 Wash. App. LEXIS 1766 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2022)

The plaintiffs, five state of Washington red raspberry farms, claimed that the use of herbicide Callisto in 2012 killed their berry plants causing more than $2.5 million in lost production for 2012 and two following crop years.  Callisto’s use was recommended by an agronomist working on behalf of. the defendant. Callisto’s maker, Syngenta was also named in the suit.  Callisto’s label stated that it was safe for use on red raspberries. The label also indicated that usage could result in some crop damage and that compensation for crop damage was limited to the price of the herbicide.  The plaintiffs asserted that Syngenta and the agronomist had made various warranties that Callisto was safe for use on red raspberries.  Syngenta’s position that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted the farmers’ claims.  The trial court agreed on the basis that the plaintiffs’ claims would have required Syngenta to change the product label due to state law.  The appellate court reversed based on Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005). Under Bates, state law cannot require a change to a federally approved label, but state-based claims for breach of warranty are not preempted.   the Supreme Court found that a pesticide manufacturer who is found liable for state law breach of express warranty claims is not then induced to change their federally registered pesticide label.

Comparative Fault for Unmaintained Waterway

Watters v. Medinger, No. 21-1076, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 667 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022)

The parties had been in various legal spats involving farmland for over a decade.  The plaintiff owned farmland adjacent to the defendant that contained waterways.  The plaintiff sued the defendant claiming the defendant altered his land in various ways causing extreme degradation and erosion along the plaintiff’s waterways.  The trial court determined that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to maintain or mow around the waterways, which allowed for ragweed to grow. The ragweed destroyed the grass along the waterway, which meant the water would flood quicker than it would have if grass could absorb some of the moisture. The trial court found that the defendant’s construction of a new cattle shed and addition of drain tiles did cause damage to the plaintiff’s property, but the at that time the plaintiff had already stopped properly maintaining the waterway. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $2,000 in damages to repair the damage caused by the erosion. The plaintiff appealed claiming that the damage award was insufficient.  The appellate court reviewed the plaintiff’s argument that the jury instruction was improper regarding comparative fault. The plaintiff tried to argue that he could not repair any part of the erosion until the drainage issues were solved. The appellate court held the plaintiff failed to address the failure to maintain the waterway before the draining issues arose. A farm tenant testified that the plaintiff’s property was already in “tough shape” before the defendant made any changes to his property. The appellate court held the comparative fault instruction was proper, because there was “a causal connection between the plaintiff’s fault and the claimed damages.”  Further, the appellate court held the award of damages was sufficient because the jury settled on an amount within the range of evidence based on expert testimony. Just because the amount was at the low end of the range did not mean the amount was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.


Agricultural law and taxation is a very dynamic discipline.  There is never a dull moment -more fodder for my radio shows and TV interviews, and content for my books and seminars.

Bankruptcy, Civil Liabilities, Environmental Law, Income Tax, Real Property, Water Law | Permalink


Post a comment