DTN writer Todd Neeley reported this week that, “A federal court on Tuesday dismissed one of several lawsuits challenging the EPA’s granting of small-refinery exemptions.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in an order the Advanced Biofuels Association did not identify a final agency action in its lawsuit filed in May 2018.

“The biofuels interest group argued EPA was overstepping its authority in granting an increasing number of Renewable Fuel Standard [RFS] waivers to small refiners.”

Mr. Neeley added that, “On Tuesday, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said during a news conference with agricultural journalists that rural Americans need to comment on EPA’s latest proposal on small-refinery exemptions. Grassley and other lawmakers filed official comments on the proposal.

“Agriculture’s expectation was the agency would account for exemptions to the RFS by averaging the actual volumes waived from 2016 to 2018.

“Instead, EPA proposed using U.S. Department of Energy recommendations on waived volumes from 2015 to 2017 that fall far short of gallons actually waived.”

A news release today from USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) stated that, “[RMA] today announced it will continue to defer accrual of interest for 2019 crop year insurance premiums to help the wide swath of farmers and ranchers affected by extreme weather in 2019. Specifically, USDA will defer the accrual of interest on 2019 crop year insurance premiums to the earlier of the applicable termination date or January 31, 2020, for all policies with a premium billing date of August 15, 2019. This extension is necessary since harvest progress has been very delayed and crop insurance claims are not typically settled until harvest is complete, squeezing cash flow even further. Bill Northey, USDA’s Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation, made the announcement at the National Association of Farm Broadcasters’ conference in Kansas City.

“‘USDA is committed to helping farmers and ranchers impacted by the weather challenges this year, and we hope this deferral will help ease cash flow challenges for producers, many of whom are caught in a very delayed harvest,’ Northey said.

“USDA had previously announced a deferral to November 30, 2019, providing producers with an additional two months from the traditional September 30 date. With today’s announcement, producers will have until January 31, 2020, to pay the 2019 premium without accruing interest. For any premium that is not paid by the new deadline, interest will accrue consistent with the terms of the policy.”

Today’s update added that, “This extended deferral builds on other steps USDA has taken to support farmers and ranchers impacted by flooding and other disasters. So far this year, producers have reported they were prevented from planting on nearly 20 million acres, a modern record. Indemnities from crop insurance have reached almost $6 billion this year, with more than $3.9 billion of that going to producers unable to plant because of flooding or excess moisture.”

The Associated Press reported yesterday that, “A former North Dakota grain trader who admitted to bilking farmers, elevators and commodity brokers out of millions of dollars was sentenced Tuesday to eight years in federal prison.

“U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland, who imposed the prison sentence, also ordered Hunter Hanson to pay $11 million in restitution.

“Hanson, 22, who became involved in the business shortly out of high school, pleaded guilty in July to wire fraud and money laundering for defrauding about 60 sellers in North Dakota, Minnesota and Canada. U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley of North Dakota said Hanson ‘undermined generations’ of hard work by families in agriculture.”

The AP article indicated that, “Court documents show that Hanson, of Leeds, contracted with the victims to buy crops and either failed to pay them or sent them checks that bounced. He allegedly laundered money between his multiple bank accounts and other businesses. At one point he had 11 identified bank accounts associated with his companies and owed one bank more than $460,000.

“Authorities say Hanson often bought crops from farmers and elevators above the per-bushel market value and then sold them below market value to further the Ponzi scheme. In doing that, Hanson lost more than $131,000 in transactions between McClusky Coop Elevator and Osnabrock Farmers Coop Elevator.

“Wrigley said the government will attempt to locate any of Hanson’s proceeds and ‘offset the losses to the degree possible.'”

Last month, DTN writers Katie Dehlinger and Todd Neeley reported that, “Tight profit margins are likely here to stay, and that could create challenges for producers, especially if land values stumble or interest rates rise above their current historically low levels, according to bankers and economists at two separate events on Tuesday.

“A group of farm credit CEOs held a press call on [October 22nd], outlining the state of the agriculture economy.

“Jeff Swanhorst, CEO of AgriBank, which provides farm loans throughout the Corn Belt, said the debt-to-asset ratio in agriculture remains in a strong position at 13.5%, and stable land values continue to hold up the farm economy.”

The DTN article noted that, “Currently, total U.S. farm assets stand at about $3.1 trillion with debts at $415.7 billion, according to USDA. By comparison, in 1980, farm assets stood at around $2.7 trillion with debt at $431.6 billion. The 1980 debt-to-asset ratio was 16.1%.

“In the current stressed farm economy, farmers are continuing to cut into working capital to weather low prices. Working capital is seen as a cushion to survive adversity, Swanhorst said.

“During agriculture’s boom time in 2012, working capital came in at just north of $160 billion, dropping to just under $60 billion in 2019.”

Dehlinger and Neeley added that, “University of Missouri FAPRI professor and former USDA World Agricultural Outlook Board Chairman Seth Myers said at a separate Farm Foundation event that the current low-price environment is here to stay for row crops. Farmers will need to adapt, or they’ll be pushed further to the margins. It’s a slow process, unlike the 1980s, when financial conditions deteriorated rapidly.”

DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported late last month that, “Some cattlemen groups often don’t agree on much, but they can agree the word ‘beef’ should only come from cattle, and not a plant-based or lab-grown alternative.

“Both the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association praised the introduction of the Real Marketing Edible Artificials Truthfully (MEAT) Act, by Rep. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, and Rep. Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y. Marshall stated the bill would ‘codify the definition of beef for labeling purposes‘ and provide enforcement measures for USDA if FDA does not take action against confusing protein claims.

“While ‘beef’ and ‘beef products’ are defined under the Beef Research and Information Act, the legislation that created the beef checkoff, the definition for beef and beef products does not have another federal definition. The Real Meat Act would change the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act will require the word ‘imitation’ for any product that is not derived from or does not contain meat.”

Mr. Clayton noted that, “Several states have passed laws restricting plant-based or lab-grown proteins from using terms such as beef or meat. A federal judge in early October declined to place a preliminary injunction on Missouri’s law, the first passed in the country. The company that makes Tofurkey products is suing the state, along with the Good Foods Institute.”

DTN writer Todd Neeley reported yesterday that, “The agriculture industry celebrated the 2015 waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule repeal that EPA finalized in recent weeks. But an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and an official with a major agriculture group said farmers and ranchers still face regulation under the Clean Water Act.

“On Oct. 22, 2019, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized the repeal of the Obama-era rule that agriculture and other industry groups and states had fought in court for years.

“The repeal reverts regulations to the 1986 version of WOTUS while the EPA continues to rewrite the definition. The 2015 rule was opposed by critics as an example of gross federal overreach, yet the 1986 rule also had its share of concerns.”

Mr. Neeley noted that, “‘The 1986 regulations re-imposed by EPA this month are broader than the 2015 regulations the agency just repealed,’ said Tony Francois, senior attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.

“Francois is the lead attorney in a lawsuit filed by the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association on Oct. 22, 2019. The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico attempts to protect ranchers from what Francois said is a broader WOTUS definition under the 1986 rule.

“‘The 1986 version asserts control over all non-navigable tributaries and all ‘neighboring’ non-navigable wetlands,’ he said. ‘The 2015 version merely asserts control over most of these features.'”

The DTN article explained that, “Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the next year will be important for agriculture when it comes to supporting EPA’s current efforts to rewrite the rule.

“‘The pre-2015 regs are problematic,’ he said. ‘They are expansive and lack the clarity we are hopeful the new regs will provide. We have two major goals — killing the 2015 rules so they will never come back and a new rule that provides significantly more clarity than the ’86 regs. To ensure we achieve both goals, we understand that we will have to go back to something before EPA finishes the new regs. If the process goes as we expect and hope, both the 2015 and the ’86 regs and guidance will be history soon.’

“Parrish said the main concern is, if the EPA’s repeal rule doesn’t hold up in court, it has the potential to bring the 2015 rule back from the dead.”

A news release last week from the Organic Trade Association stated that, “The Organic Trade Association on Thursday asked the U.S. District Court to rule in its favor on its organic livestock welfare lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In its motion for summary judgment, the trade association stated that USDA acted in an unlawful, arbitrary and capricious way when it killed new organic livestock standards centered around improving animal care and welfare.

“The Organic Trade Association argued USDA’s blocking of the implementation and rescission of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) rule in 2018 were actions plainly in excess of lawful authority and, if not corrected, threaten the consumer trust and historical growth that organic has always enjoyed.  The motion asked the court to immediately vacate USDA’s rescission and compel implementation of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule.

“The association contends the case has importance to all organic stakeholders because USDA made legal arguments that will reverberate adversely for years if not corrected by the federal judiciary. The association argues that USDA’s refusal to exercise its statutory authority to promote the improved livestock care practices on organic farms that were lost when the OLPP was rescinded and its refusal to consult with the National Organic Standards Board, are a radical departure from past administrations, and flatly contradict the intent of Congress in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).”

Last week’s update added that, “The Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule was published on Jan. 19, 2017, after more than a decade of extensive public input and a thorough vetting process. USDA in March of 2018 withdrew the final OLPP regulation, which was to go into effect in May 2018. Before the withdrawal, the agency attempted six times – either through the rulemaking process or through court filings – to delay the implementation of the rule, which had been developed by the organic industry and in accordance with the established federal rulemaking process. USDA failed to consult with the National Organic Standards Board on the withdrawal of the final rule, and arbitrarily ignored the overwhelming public record established in support of these organic standards.

“The Organic Trade Association filed its initial lawsuit against USDA in September 2017 over the department’s delays in implementing the final OLPP rule.

“USDA’s cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the trade association’s s motion is now due Dec. 4. The Organic Trade Association’s answer to USDA’s cross-motion is due Dec. 31. USDA gets a final reply on Jan. 28.  Sometime after that, the court will rule on the case.”