Ag Law in Review: 2016 Edition

Updated: Jul 1, 2020


Solar panels on grass field (Photo by Edwin Remsberg).
Solar panels on grass field (Photo by Edwin Remsberg).

This post is not legal advice. See here for the site’s reposting policy.


Although we are now into 2017, I want to take a look back at some of the big legal developments in the area of agricultural law during 2016. We saw a few important developments last year in the field and will probably see more in 2017 with a change in presidential administrations. Keep reading here, and this site will work to keep you updated on recent developments in 2017.


Rise of Solar Energy Leasing

Not a court ruling, but we have seen some landowners receive offers to lease property for solar energy development in Maryland. Solar energy leases are often long documents requiring the landowner to work with an attorney to determine the implications of the lease and assist in negotiating better terms. To get some background information on solar energy, see this post by Ashley Ellixson and myself. There are also videos available from workshops by Dr. Sebastien Houde and myself around Maryland. Dr. Houde discusses the econ issues here, and I discuss the legal matters here.

Besides some counties placing moratoriums on solar energy development, many landowners with conservation easements may not be able to sign without approval of the conservation easement holder. The Maryland Ag Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) announced new regulations in 2016 to allow for some development of preserved farmland for solar energy. To review the new regulations, check out my earlier blog post. These new regulations will only impact preserved farmland with MALPF; preserved farmland with other easement holders will not be affected.


Chesapeake Bay Litigation


Two bridges over body of water (Photo by Edwin Remsberg).
Two bridges over body of water (Photo by Edwin Remsberg).

In late February, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to hear a challenge to the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL) litigation, leaving in place a Third Circuit Court of Appeals petition about whether the EPA developed the Bay TMDL properly under authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA). To review the Third Circuit’s ruling, click here. Although this effectively ends the challenge to the Bay TMDL, we will see this fight continue with the establishment of larger TMDLs.


Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Involving Wetlands Determination

June saw the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (8 – 0) in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes. Hawkes settled when landowners can appeal a determination by EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers that the landowner’s property includes a “waters of the United States” and falls under the CWA. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled landowners could appeal this determination in the federal court system. Read more about this decision in Ashley’s post.


Federal GMO Labeling Law

In July, Congress passed and the President signed the law, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. This law creates a federal standard for the disclosure of bioengineered ingredients in food. The law also preempts states from passing state specific labeling requirements for the presence of bioengineered ingredients. This federal law effectively preempts Vermont from enforcing their GMO labeling law which was scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2016. Mayhah and Ashley have developed a two-post covering the law; check out Part 1 and Part 2.


Class Certification Granted in Syngenta Litigation

In September, the federal judge overseeing the Syngenta litigation certified 9 classes (1 nationwide class and 8 statewide classes) of producer plaintiffs in the multi-state litigation. The claims in this litigation center around Syngenta releasing certain corn varieties to be grown in the United States but not yet approved for certain export markets, mainly the Chinese market. The varieties were discovered in shipments of U.S. corn to China and were rejected in 2014. After the Chinese rejected these shipments, the price of corn dropped significantly. The producer plaintiffs argue that this drop in price is due to the Chinese rejection and Syngenta had a duty of care not to release the corn varieties on the market until the Chinese had approved. To learn more about the class certification, check out