Water law disputes
Water law was in the news across the country this year. Disputes involved private citizens, such as Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Authority in Texas, where lower courts found a taking and awarded a pecan farmer damages after the Edwards Aquifer Authority denied his permit to irrigate his orchards. This case is currently pending on appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.
There were also several disputes between states, including Texas v. New Mexico, a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in which Texas claims New Mexico is violating the 1938 compact. Other interstate disputes involved Florida and Georgia, Montana and Wyoming, and Kansas and Nebraska. Each dispute is likely to last for years before coming to resolution.
There were even international issues, including a dispute between the U.S. and Mexico regarding waters of the Rio Grande that resulted in political pressure and bills being introduced in Congress seeking to require Mexico to comply with its obligations under a 1944 treaty.
Additionally, 2014 saw a major shift to California’s legal approach to groundwater as new legislation was passed in the face of a devastating drought plaguing much of the state.
WTO rulings
The World Trade Organization was also interested in agriculture issues this year. In September, a settlement was reached between Brazil and the U.S. in a cotton case that lasted for over a decade.
Brazil agreed to terminate the case, give up rights to take counter-measures against the U.S. and not to bring any actions against current farm bill cotton support provisions in exchange for the U.S. paying $300 million to the Brazil Cotton Institute.
In October, the WTO issued its ruling in a case involving claims by Canada and Mexico that the U.S. country of origin labeling law violated WTO rules by favoring American meat.
The WTO agreed, finding that country of origin labeling is permitted, but the approach taken by the U.S. in the COOL regulations was not allowed. It remains to be seen whether COOL regulations will be further modified or if other steps may be taken.
GMO labeling
Debate is ongoing in many states over whether mandatory labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients should be required and whether doing so is legal. Three states, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut, have passed labeling laws to date, and two more, Colorado and Oregon, rejected provisions in their November elections.
The Vermont law is currently being challenged on constitutional grounds while the Maine and Connecticut laws will not go into effect until other neighboring states pass similar legislation.
Horse slaughter
The horse slaughter debate raged throughout the beginning of the year as lawsuits between various animal rights groups and proposed horse slaughterhouses made their way to court.
The issue was answered, at least for now, when Congress passed the current appropriations bill containing no funding for inspections of horse slaughter facilities. Without federal inspections, these slaughter plants are unable to slaughter horses.
Endangered Species Act
For landowners in New Mexico, Texas, Kansas, Colorado and Oklahoma, who believe voluntary conservation plans alleviated the need for it, the listing of the lesser prairie chicken as threatened under the Endangered Species Act caused a great deal of discontent and controversy.
Also unhappy were environmental activist groups, who believe the bird should have been listed as endangered, a step higher than the threatened listing granted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are numerous lawsuits pending related to this listing.
Missouri right to farm amendment
In August, Missouri voters passed a “right to farm amendment” to the state’s constitution, “forever guaranteeing” farmers and ranchers the right to engage in farming and ranching practices.
Supporters of the bill argued it was necessary to protect Missouri’s farmers and ranchers from laws being pushed by animal rights groups in other states, such as bans on certain hen cages or farrowing crates, and prevent such laws from being passed in Missouri.
On the other hand, opponents argue this law is too broadly written and will benefit large “corporate” farming operations rather than family farmers within the state.
‘Ag gag’ laws
Earlier in the year, Idaho passed an agricultural protection law, commonly known as an “ag gag” law, protecting agricultural operations from secret recordings of their operations. Almost immediately, a lawsuit was filed challenging this law on constitutional grounds, primarily arguing that the statute violates the First Amendment.
In September, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which will now continue on. A similar suit is currently pending in Utah challenging the “ag gag” law in that state. 
Tiffany Dowell is an assistant professor and extension specialist with Texas A&M University.
