A comprehensive summary of today’s judicial, legislative, and regulatory developments in agriculture and food. Email important additions HERE.
United States of Am. (Bureau of Land Mgmt.) v. Korman, 2018 MT 232, This Case involves the United States’ water rights in two small reservoirs on federal grazinglands within Montana Water Basin. The case is made up of forty-six stock and wildlife claims filed by the BLM on twenty-three reservoirs, all located on federal land. The claims were filed for each reservoir as multiple uses of the same historical appropriation, specifically for stock and wildlife uses. Appellants objected to all forty-six BLM claims. The court upheld that appellants had forfeited water rights, and that the wildlife had claims to the water.
IN RE: ROGERS BENJAMIN MORRIS, DEBTOR., No. 18-10964-NPO, 2018 WL 4440410 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. Sept. 14, 2018); The main issue in the confirmation of the to the Debtor’s plan in Chapter 12. The court’s main area of consideration was the feasibility of the plan. The court found that the plan was not feasible, because of the standard the court adopted.
Butler v. United States, No. 17-667L, 2018 WL 4444574 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 18, 2018); Cross motion for summary judgment regarding a rails to trails case. The case involves the interpretation of several different deeds that conveyed easements and right of ways for the former rail road tracks, and any compensation that landowners would be entitled too. Summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, based on the type of conveyance of the land to the rail road in the deeds.
MONTEREY COASTKEEPER et al., Plaintiffs & Respondents, v. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, Defendant & Appellant; GROWER-SHIPPER ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA et al., Interveners & Appellants. Additional Party Names: California Farm Bureau Fed’n, California Sportfishing Prot. All., Grower-Shipper Ass’n of Santa Barbara & San Luis Obispo Ctys., San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, W. Growers Ass’n, No. C080530, 2018 WL 4443626 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018); Unpublished opinion This case involves a challenge to a section 13269 waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated agricultural land. The judgment is modified to provide that a writ of mandate shall issue commanding the State Board to commence further proceedings as appropriate to formulate a new or modified waiver under Water Code section 13269 or another program that satisfies the waste discharge requirements of the Water Code and applicable state water policies.