FLAG : News Archives 1997-2002

New Article to Help Organic Farmers Understand Laws Prohibiting Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

ST. PAUL, MINN. —Most organic farmers are aware that they may not plant genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or seeds developed through genetic engineering, if they wish to market their crops as organic. Yet they may have questions about their legal rights and responsibilities with respect to the unintended presence of GMOs. Organic farmers and farmers transitioning to organic production need information about the regulations governing organic certification. To try to meet the need for legal information, Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) has written a new article, If Your Farm Is Organic, Must It Be GMO Free? Organic Farmers, Genetically Modified Organisms, and the Law.

This article examines requirements to avoid the use of genetic engineering that affect crop and livestock farmers who are certified organic, or who wish to become certified organic. It also briefly addresses handling requirements as they apply to organic farmers. The article concludes with a brief discussion of sales contracts and the ways in which they may impose responsibilities upon farmers that differ from the requirements for organic certification.

In 2004, FLAG published a Farmers’ Guide to GMOs. The new article is a companion piece to the book. “Organic farmers have particular concerns, from maintaining their organic certification to meeting the requirements of their buyers,” notes FLAG attorney Jill Krueger. “Unfortunately, the regulations can be confusing, and answers to some legal questions that organic farmers have are still unclear. The article discusses the importance of addressing issues related to GMOs throughout the organic plan as a way to minimize the risk of violating National Organic Program requirements. The article also discusses the importance of carefully considering risks and negotiating the contract before making promises related to genetically modified organisms to buyers.”

Farmers may download a free copy of the 40-page article by visiting FLAG’s Web site, www.flaginc.org. Printed copies can be obtained by calling FLAG’s office at 651-223-5400. In Minnesota, the phone call is toll-free at 1-877-860-4349. Printed copies are available to financially distressed farmers in Minnesota at no charge; for all others, the cost is $11.00, including postage.

New Publications to Help Farmers Understand Their Rights to Be Paid for Fruit and Vegetable Crops

ST. PAUL, MINN. — Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces a new booklet, Understanding Farmers’ Rights to Be Paid for Fruit and Vegetable Crops. Also available is a list of answers to frequently asked questions about farmers’ payment rights under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, Federal Law Protects Farmers’ Rights to be Paid for Fruit and Vegetable Crops. These materials contain important legal information for farmers about their rights to be paid for fruit and vegetable crops.

Because fruit and vegetable crops are perishable and are frequently sold by new farmers with little marketing experience, farmers selling these crops face unique challenges in receiving prompt and fair payment. FLAG’s new materials are intended to help farmers better understand their rights to be promptly and fully paid for their fruit and vegetable crops. FLAG wrote these materials to help answer questions raised by new farmers who were experiencing difficulties in securing payment for their fruit and vegetable crops. The materials were recently presented to a group of beginning farmers at a workshop hosted by The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc.

The materials focus on farmers’ rights to be paid under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, a federal law designed to ensure fairness in the fruit and vegetable industry. In addition to federal law, farmers’ rights and responsibilities with respect to fruit and vegetable sales transactions may also be governed by state and local laws. The booklet is primarily based on federal law, with many examples drawn from Florida state law. A specific focus of the booklet is sales transactions in which packing houses sell produce on behalf of farmers. The booklet also offers practical suggestions about how farmers can obtain written contracts, what details should be included in those contracts, the importance of recordkeeping, and steps farmers can take to protect themselves when buyers refuse to properly pay them for their fruit and vegetable crops.

News Release
For Release: October 2007
Contact: Jill Krueger – 651-223-5400

ST. PAUL, MINN. — Natural disasters pose a significant threat to all farmers, but organic farmers affected by natural disaster have particular concerns. To address these concerns, Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) has written a new article, Disaster Readiness and Recovery: Legal Considerations for Organic Farmers.

The new article focuses on aspects of federal disaster assistance that are of particular relevance for organic farmers. The first part of the article discusses steps that organic farmers may take to reduce the impact of natural disasters that may occur in the future. The second part of the article discusses federal programs that provide assistance to farmers in order to recover from natural disaster. The article concludes with information about how natural disaster and disaster recovery may affect farmers’ organic certification.

For over ten years, FLAG has regularly published a Farmers’ Guide to Disaster Assistance. The book uses clear language and detailed citations to applicable laws, regulations, and policies to help farmers and their advisors understand and obtain federal disaster assistance. It can be downloaded for free from FLAG’s Web site at www.flaginc.org. The new article is a companion piece to the book. “Organic farmers have particular concerns, from maintaining their organic certification to facing higher costs for crop insurance,” notes FLAG attorney Jill Krueger. “This article tries to meet the need for a source of legal information related to disaster readiness and recovery for organic farmers.”

More information has been made available about Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) availability for the flooded Minnesota counties. According to the FSA state office, only Houston and Winona counties have submitted requests for authorization to offer ECP assistance. Farmers in other declared counties who have needs that could be met through ECP should contact their FSA county office to urge them to submit a request.

Houston county has begun ECP sign-up. The deadline to apply is November 16. The county has not yet been given any funding (which is typical for ECP). In general, farmers can only receive cost-share for activities done after their application is approved and funded, but the county has requested a waiver of this requirement. In any case, farmers in Houston county should get their ECP applications submitted to start the approval process. The priority activities in Houston county are debris removal from farmland; grading, shaping, and leveling of farmland; and repair of water containment or water control structures. Farmers will need an estimate of their costs as part of the application.

Winona county’s request for authorization to offer ECP has been forwarded to the FSA national office, but it hasn’t yet been approved. Farmers in Winona county should check in with the FSA county office over the next week or so to find out when sign-up will start.

Minnesota farmers affected by recent flooding may be eligible for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through its Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program (IHP). This program provides financial assistance for housing repairs, temporary housing, and disaster-related personal expenses.

Contrary to some rumors, farmers can be eligible for FEMA assistance for damage to their homes and/or personal property. However, while a farmer’s house and personal losses may be covered by FEMA, damages to crops, livestock, farm equipment, and barns are not. Farmers should contact the Farm Service Agency to apply for assistance for farming-related losses.

IHP assistance is not intended to fully restore damaged property. It is emergency assistance designed to cover only the most urgent needs and give people a place to start. Although IHP benefits cannot be used to duplicate any costs that are already covered by a private insurance company, farmers covered by insurance should still apply because there may be help available for uncovered expenses or if the insurance settlements are delayed.

Farmers may be eligible for assistance through IHP for four different types of needs:

The maximum total amount of IHP assistance that any individual or household can receive for any given disaster declared on or after October 1, 2006, is $28,200.

To apply for emergency assistance through FEMA, residents of the disaster area should call 800-261-FEMA (800-261-3362) or register at www.fema.gov. Applicants will be asked to provide:

After the application is submitted, an inspector will call to schedule an appointment to visit the property, and within two weeks of that inspection the applicant should receive a decision.

Anyone who receives a denial or a smaller award than expected should appeal in writing within 60 days of receiving their decision. The original decision notice will include specific instructions regarding where to send the appeal.

Farmers’ ability to receive government assistance for disaster losses depends in large part on their ability to demonstrate the extent of those losses.

Documentation of disaster damage needs to show two things: the status of the farm the day before the disaster, and its status the day after the disaster. If a farmer has crop insurance, a crop insurance adjuster will visit the farm to certify the extent of crop damage. But when there is no crop insurance, or for damage to buildings, livestock, or equipment, the process is more complicated. So, as farmers start to clean up, they need to photograph everything, take notes, and get receipts and estimates.

To get started, it is often helpful to have good records on hand. Loans and credit reports will not only show how much money is owed, but will also have appraisals of equipment or structures bought with the loans. If these documents were destroyed in the disaster, additional copies can be ordered.

A wide range of documents can be used to show the value of what was on the farm before the disaster. Receipts and credit card bills show the value of purchased inputs or equipment. Acreage of specialty crops can be shown using receipts for inputs such as seed or fertilizer, multiplied by application rates. Sales records can show the prices that were expected for specialty crops. Documentation from auction barns or feedlots will show the number of animals on a farm before the disaster, keeping in mind that some disaster programs may cover losses due to the death of the animal or losses due to premature sales because of a lack of feed.

Most farmers will want to dive in immediately after a disaster and start rebuilding, clearing roads and fields, and repairing equipment. However, in some situations this can prevent them from getting compensated for their efforts to recover from the damage. In general, programs such as the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) require farmers to apply for help and receive approval before incurring the costs that will be the basis of the cost-share request. However, it appears that no Minnesota counties are currently approved for ECP assistance. It is possible that expenses for “emergency” repairs and conservation measures, such as repairs to fences where cattle could get loose, or removal of debris from fields and access roads, could be eligible for assistance later, if ECP funds become available for affected Minnesota counties. Farmers who feel they must take action now to prevent further damage may want to discuss their plans with FSA. It is possible that taking steps such as getting a written estimate to document costs will help a farmer maintain eligibility for any help that becomes available later.

It is also important for livestock farmers to document the cost of disposal of livestock mortality. Some past disaster programs have provided cost-share money for mortality disposal.

Minnesota farmers seeking assistance for property damage and other losses caused by recent flooding may find themselves confused by the many different agencies and programs that are offering aid. Disaster assistance programs tend to be very specific, focused on addressing a particular type of loss or need. Those seeking help often have to piece together aid from more than one program to meet their needs. In general, programs aimed at meeting the emergency needs of individual and families—such as food, shelter, and basic necessities—will not cover losses to income-producing property, such as farming structures, equipment, livestock, or crops. And farm disaster programs also tend to be very specific about the types of losses covered.

Here is a brief overview of the different federal disaster assistance programs that generally provide assistance for different types of losses. Disaster unemployment assistance is also generally available for farmers, as discussed in a separate sheet. State and private charitable programs may also be available, however, these tend to be offered only for home and personal needs.

Farmers whose homes have been damaged or made uninhabitable due to a disaster, or who have suffered losses to the contents of their homes, could be eligible for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Farm Service Agency (FSA). All of these agencies require persons to maximize their insurance benefits for their losses.

FSA Emergency loans can be used to repair or rebuild damaged farm structures and equipment, and replace fencing damaged in a disaster. Damaged fencing may also be eligible for cost-share assistance through FSA’s Emergency Conservation Program, if funds are made available in the affected county.

Farmers who have coverage under a federal crop insurance policy or under the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) should contact their insurer or FSA immediately after the storms to report their losses. Farmers should work with adjusters to determine their losses and submit their claims. If a farmer with insurance or NAP coverage has not yet contacted the insurer or FSA, they should do so immediately. If a crop insurance or NAP claim is denied or the award is lower than expected, the farmer may seek review of the determination.

Crop losses can also be the basis for an FSA Emergency “production loss” loan if the farmer suffered at least 30 percent yield loss for at least one crop. If that threshold is met, the eligible loan amount is determined by the farmer’s production losses for all crops.

Farmers who were not covered by an insurance policy or NAP, and those who were covered but do not feel that their losses have been adequately addressed, will need to wait and see if Congress will authorize a crop loss assistance program that would cover their losses. Such programs have been made available in recent years, including one currently covering losses back to the beginning of 2005. There is no guarantee that such assistance will be authorized, nor is it known what coverage level might be offered under any such program. Farmers should nonetheless document their crop losses and retain this documentation to be prepared in case a future crop loss assistance program is offered.

There is no standing disaster assistance program for livestock that would be comparable to crop insurance and NAP for crop losses. Therefore, farmers with livestock mortality losses, livestock production losses, and feed losses due to disaster are in a wait-and-see situation. Each of these categories of losses has been covered at one time or another by a disaster program authorized by Congress in the wake of a major disaster. It is possible that some of these losses could be addressed by Congress in the future.

However, disaster-related loss of livestock that was owned by the farmer can be the basis for an FSA Emergency “physical loss” loan. Losses of livestock raised on contract cannot be the basis of an Emergency loan application.

Floods can leave a great deal of debris on farmland, access roads, and farmstead property throughout the affected areas. Activities like debris removal that are necessary to resume normal farming operations may be eligible for cost-share assistance under FSA’s Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). ECP cost-share may also be available to restore windbreaks and shelterbelts so long as the land is not enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As noted above, ECP funds are made available by county, so farmers are encouraged to report their losses to their local FSA offices to aid FSA in assessing the damage. ECP cost-share is generally limited to costs incurred after a farmer has been approved for the program, so farmers should communicate with their FSA offices about likely funding availability before beginning any non-critical cleanup.

Deadlines: Fillmore, Houston, Olmstead, Steele, Wabasha, and Winona counties – September 28; Dodge county – October 5

Minnesota farmers who are unable to pursue their livelihoods due to recent flooding may be eligible for Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA). This program is funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and administered by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.

Disaster unemployment provides temporary financial assistance to individuals, including farmers, who are unable to work as a result of a declared disaster and who would not qualify for standard unemployment benefits.

Benefits are paid on a weekly basis, and are available so long as the person is unable to work due to the disaster, up to a maximum of 26 weeks after the date the disaster was declared. The amount of the payment is based on the individual’s income for the prior tax year, and the benefit must be at least half of the state’s average weekly unemployment benefits.

An application for assistance must be submitted within 30 days after the availability of DUA has been announced in the county. For the disaster declaration of August 23, 2007, covering Fillmore, Houston, Olmstead, Steele, Wabasha, and Winona counties, a deadline of September 28 to apply for DUA has been announced. The availability of individual disaster assistance (including DUA) was only announced for Dodge county on September 5, so residents of that county have until October 5 to apply for DUA. However, it is always in a person’s best interest to apply for DUA as soon as possible to begin the receipt of benefits.

To apply for Disaster Unemployment Assistance, farmers must provide their Social Security number and proof of earnings—generally a tax return for the previous year.

Farmers in many Minnesota counties may be eligible for federal disaster assistance stemming from this summer’s drought. Additionally, we are monitoring whether disaster assistance related to the flooding in southeastern Minnesota will be made available to farmers, and will update you concerning any developments in that area.

On Tuesday, August 7, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns announced that 24 drought-impacted Minnesota counties have been declared disaster areas. Those counties, as well as 32 adjacent counties, will be eligible for low-interest loans from USDA. The press release, with USDA’s announcement listing the eligible counties, can be found on USDA’s Web site.

Those eligible for USDA’s low-interest emergency loans (EM loans) may use loan proceeds to restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of production costs associated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts. Qualified farmers and ranchers can borrow up to 100 percent of production or physical losses, to a maximum amount of $500,000.

INTEREST RATE
The current annual interest rate for emergency loans is 3.75 percent.

APPLICATION DEADLINE
Loan applications must be received within 8 months from August 7, 2007.

INSURANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Farmers with crop insurance should report any losses within the time frame specified in their crop insurance contract. Additionally, farmers with coverage under USDA’s Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), including for forage crops, also need to timely report their losses.

OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Through its Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), USDA provides emergency funding and assistance for farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters and for carrying out emergency water conservation measures in periods of severe drought. Farmers may want to report conservation needs resulting from the drought, so that their county office can report the need, and the state office can request that funds be allocated by the federal office. For more information on ECP, refer to Chapter 5 of the Farmers’ Guide to Disaster Assistance.

Through another program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), USDA provides farmers with technical assistance, cost share payments, and incentive payments to assist crop, livestock, and other agricultural producers with environmental and conservation improvements to their operations. EQIP funding is not triggered by natural disaster, but may be used for some conservation measures that help disaster recovery, prevention, and mitigation. Consult Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for availability of funds and sign-up dates. Additional information about EQIP is available on FLAG’s Publications Web page .

OTHER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT-IMPACTED FARMERS
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has developed a list of possible emergency water supply measures for Minnesota farmers. Keep in mind that, if farmers wish to seek cost share assistance through ECP or other conservation programs, they must generally be pre-approved for the assistance before implementing the conservation measures. Post-approval may be available in emergency situations.

Additionally, farmers needing to purchase feed, or who are feeding drought- stressed feedstuffs, can find purchase and feeding tips on the University of Wisconsin-Extension’s Web site at. Additionally, livestock producers in need of hay may wish to take advantage of the “Hay List,” an Internet-based service matching farmers needing forage with those who have forage to sell or donate.

The state will continue to assess the needs of farmers as the drought continues. You may want to encourage crop, forage/pasture, and livestock producers to report losses caused by the drought to FSA, so that FSA will have an accurate view of the damage caused, and can seek assistance from the national office if needed.

Farmers should keep detailed records of losses, unusual expenses, etc., in order to preserve eligibility for any assistance that may be announced later.

News Release
For Release: August 7, 2007
Contacts: Jennifer Jambor, FLAG Staff Attorney, 651-223-5400 or

ST. PAUL , MINN. — Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces publication of the Farmers’ Guide to Wind Energy: Legal Issues in Farming the Wind. The guide contains important legal information for farmers interested in a range of wind energy developments, whether leasing land to a third-party developer, installing a small wind turbine for on-farm energy needs, or developing a large farmer-owned wind project for profit.

This unique book provides a comprehensive overview of the legal landscape in which wind projects are built, with an emphasis on issues that matter for farmers. It contains critical legal information about regulation of the electric industry; project siting and financing, including government incentives; choice of business structure; property agreements; liability risks; turbine purchase and installation; tax benefits and obligations; and contracts with utilities to connect the wind project to the existing electric grid and sell the generated electricity.

“There are important legal issues in any type of wind-related investment, but these issues are often overlooked in other educational materials on the subject,” explains FLAG staff attorney Jessica A. Shoemaker. “Although this book does not eliminate the need to hire a lawyer, it is intended to empower farmers to make informed decisions in the face of increasing interest in wind energy.”

In addition to this new Farmers’ Guide to Wind Energy, FLAG has recently published other legal education materials related to wind energy. These include a discrete article on negotiating wind-related property agreements and a comprehensive report on state and federal incentives for farmer-owned wind projects.

To request a copy of the Farmers’ Guide to Wind Energy, or any other FLAG publication, call FLAG’s office at 651-223-5400. In Minnesota, the phone call is toll-free at 1-877-860-4349. Bound copies are available without charge to financially distressed farmers in Minnesota; for all others, a bound copy costs $35 plus shipping and can be ordered on FLAG's online publisher. The book can be also downloaded free from FLAG’s Web site at: www.flaginc.org. The Farmers’ Guide to Wind Energy was made possible with the generous support of the Bush Foundation.

New Guide to Help Farmers Participate in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

ST. PAUL , MINN. — Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces a new guide, Is Your Farm “EQIPed” For Conservation: A Farmers’ Guide to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The booklet contains important legal information for farmers interested in EQIP, or who are already participating in EQIP. EQIP assists eligible farmers and ranchers to address conservation concerns affecting soil, water, air, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources. Through EQIP, farmers and ranchers can apply for financial assistance, information, and training to implement eligible conservation practices on their farms.

EQIP assistance has enabled many farmers to make changes in their farming operations—such as using contour strips, or rotationally grazing livestock, or adopting integrated pest management--that they otherwise might not have been able to make. But it is important for farmers to understand that when they enroll in EQIP, they sign a legally binding contract.

“Farmers should read, understand, and keep copies of the EQIP contract, which includes the application, appendix, and conservation plan,” notes FLAG attorney Jill Krueger. These three documents set forth farmers’ rights and responsibilities when they participate in EQIP. Krueger notes, “FLAG wrote the guide to help farmers understand if they were eligible for the program, how it could help them in their farming operation, and also how to prevent or address any problems that might arise. For example, canceling the EQIP contract can have serious financial consequences for the farmer. But if the farmer’s circumstances change, they may be able to change the conservation plan and stay in the program, as long as they get written agreement from NRCS.”

Farmers may request a free copy of the guide by calling FLAG’s office. Minnesota callers should dial FLAG’s office at 1-877-860-4349. For out-of-state callers, the number is 651-223-5400. The guide can be also downloaded from FLAG’s website by clicking here.

News Release
For Release: May, 2007
Contact: Jessica A. Shoemaker, 651-223-5400

New Report on Policy Incentives for Community-Based Wind Energy Developments

ST. PAUL , MINN. — Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces publication of a new report called Community Wind: A Review of Select State and Federal Policy Incentives. This is a user-friendly guide to existing state and federal policy incentives that specifically seek to promote the local benefits of wind energy developments.

The report covers laws from Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and the federal government that impact where and to whom the benefits of new wind energy developments flow.

Wind and other renewable energy sources are changing the face of American agriculture. FLAG is committed to providing legal information and education to assist farmers and rural landowners as they respond to these changes.

In addition to the enclosed report, FLAG plans to publish other wind-related legal education materials in the near future. These will include a piece on negotiating wind-related property agreements and a comprehensive Farmers’ Guide to Wind Energy.

A free copy of the Community Wind report can be requested by calling FLAG’s office. Minnesota callers should dial FLAG’s office at 1-877-860-4349. For out-of-state callers, the number is 651-223-5400. The fact sheet can be also downloaded from FLAG’s website.

News Release
For Release: April 18, 2007
Contacts: Susan Stokes, Farmers’ Legal Action Group, St. Paul/651-223-5400

Farmers’ Legal Action Group Testifies Before Senate Agriculture Committee: Congress Should Help Restore Balance in Agricultural Markets and Contracts

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (April 18, 2007) Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG) Program Director Lynn Hayes testified before the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry today, urging Congress to include in the 2007 Farm Bill provisions that restore open and competitive agricultural markets and fair agricultural contracts.

“Over the last few decades, the markets for farmers’ agricultural commodities have experienced a rapid consolidation of market share in the hands of a few large companies and dramatic trend toward more vertical coordination by processing and packing companies,” Hayes testified. “These trends have resulted in huge reductions in the number of buyers available to compete for farmers’ products, a loss of transparency in the markets, manipulation of prices paid to farmers, a sharp increase in the use of production contracts, and a horrendous imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and processors.”

FLAG’s testimony includes suggestions for reform of agricultural contracts to equalize farmers’ bargaining power, including full disclosure of risks and methods of payment and compensation; compensation for growers who make significant investments if t contracts are terminated without good cause; and a prohibition against binding arbitration unless all parties to the dispute agree to it in writing after the dispute arises.

FLAG’s testimony also included a recommendation that Congress pass legislation addressing packers’ use of forward contracts negotiated in secret that create a “captive supply” of livestock; banning packer ownership of livestock longer than seven days in advance of slaughter; and strengthening the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, which was intended to prohibit unfair practices between packers and producers.

FLAG Executive Director Susan Stokes added: “Congress has before it a historic opportunity to level the playing field and address the imbalances in market power that have increased dramatically over the past decade. We are grateful to Senator Harkin and the Committee for inviting FLAG to testify on these critical issues that affect family farmers across the country.”

News Release
For Release: March 8, 2007
For More Information: Jill Krueger – 651-223-5400

ST. PAUL, MINN. — Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces a new booklet, Understanding Farmers’ Market Rules. The booklet contains important legal information for farmers who sell their vegetables, fruits, flowers, meats, and other foods at farmers’ markets. FLAG wrote the booklet to help answer questions it received from farmers. Farmers’ markets are especially popular among beginning farmers, immigrant farmers, specialty crop farmers, and limited resource farmers. Many farmers who are interested in direct marketing and value-added agriculture begin by selling at farmers’ markets. Because farmers’ markets appeal to new farmers and to farmers with little direct marketing experience, there is a greater need for information for farmers to turn to when they have questions. The booklet is intended to help farmers understand their responsibilities and rights as farmers’ market vendors. FLAG attorney Jill Krueger notes that, “Even though the details of the rules may be different from market to market, there are a few commonly used rules of the market that most often give rise to misunderstandings.” The focus of the booklet is on preventing problems by improving understanding of market rules. But the booklet offers practical suggestions farmers can follow to try to resolve any problems that may arise. It also gives ideas on how to learn about other requirements that may apply to sales at a farmers’ market. In addition to market rules, a market vendor’s rights and responsibilities may also be governed by federal, state, and local laws. A free copy of the article can be requested by calling FLAG’s office at 651-223-5400. Minnesota callers may dial FLAG’s office at 1-877-860-4349. The article can be also downloaded from FLAG’s website at: www.flaginc.org.

FLAG Honors 20 Years of Service to Family Farmers and Rural Communities

On June 12, 2006 FLAG hosted a Continuing Legal Education seminar entitled This Is Not Your Grandpa's Farm Law: Cutting Edge Legal Issues in Agriculture Today. The program and presenters were as follows: (Click on the presenter to see their wirtten material)

Full binder of CLE materials available for $75. Please contact FLAG to request a copy.
View Brochure (PDF)| Photos (HTML)

On November 17, 2006, FLAG held a Farm Fresh Breakfast to honor some of the people who have performed vital roles in the family farm movement during the past two decades. St. Paul’s Mayor Chris Coleman declared the day "FLAG's Family Farmer Celebration Day" and signed a Mayoral Proclamation describing FLAG’s work since its founding in 1986. Featured speaker was Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch, and The Honorable Walter F. Mondale gave a keynote address. Nationally syndicated agricultural columnist Alan Guebert acted as the Master of Ceremonies. Awards included:

View Invitation (PDF) | Program (PDF) | Photos (HTML) | 20th Anniversary Video Scrapbook (99.26 MB WMV file) Please note: This is a 20-minute video with music. Depending on your Internet connection, this could take several minutes to download.

National Farmers Union President Tom Buis drops by the FLAG office to visit with
the staff and Board of Farmers' Legal Action Group.
(November 17, 2006)

SAINT PAUL, MN (September 20, 2006) – Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG), is pleased to announce that Lynn A. Hayes became FLAG’s Program Director, effective September 1, 2006.
FLAG—a nonprofit law center that works on behalf of family farmers and rural communities—was founded in 1986 in response to the farm crisis then sweeping the country. Hayes was one of FLAG’s founding attorneys.

During her tenure at FLAG, Hayes was lead or co-counsel in several nationally significant lawsuits, including Coleman v. Lyng, a national class action lawsuit against the Farmers Home Administration that resulted in an order that protected more than 80,000 farmers from foreclosures for 18 months; the Minnesota Milk Producers Association's challenge to federal milk marketing order provisions that discriminated against Midwest dairies; and the challenge of federal commodity checkoffs that was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hayes has presented at hundreds of workshops for farmers and their advocates on agricultural credit, contract farming, environmental issues related to farming, commodity pricing, and antitrust issues.

”We are thrilled to have Lynn, one of the first and most tireless legal advocates for family farmers, back at FLAG and leading our legal work,” said Susan Stokes, FLAG’s Executive Director.

Hayes left FLAG in the spring of 2002 to move to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. After working remotely for three years for the Office of the Monitor reviewing African-American farmers’ claims in the race discrimination case against USDA, Pigford v. Veneman, and acting as "Of Counsel" for FLAG, Hayes rejoined the organization as a Senior Staff Attorney for FLAG in February 2006. She resumed her previous position of Program Director on September 1.

Hayes received her B.A. in English from Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and her J.D. from Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C.

FLAG works to support a strong agricultural economy that supports vibrant rural communities, protects the environment, and promotes a safe, diverse, and stable food supply.

Karen Krub Testifies before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry in a hearing to examine the Department of Agriculture farm loan programs.

For More Information:
Susan Stokes, Executive Director Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. (651) 223-5400

Farm Organizations Urge a U.S. Court of Appeals to Uphold State Laws that Promote Family Farming.

ST. PAUL , MINN. —Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG) today filed an Amicus, or Friend of the Court, brief asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold states' authority to enact laws that promote family farming by restricting corporations’ ability to own farmland or engage in farming. The Amicus brief, filed on behalf of 35 national, regional, and state farm and community organizations, urges the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a December 2005 decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska which struck down "Initiative 300," Nebraska's constitutional amendment that restricts non-family-owned corporations from engaging in farming and ranching.

The U.S. District Court held that the Nebraska corporate farming law violates the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against out-of-state economic interests. The farm organizations argue that Initiative 300, like other states’ laws restricting corporate farming, fosters family farming and healthy rural communities, and is a legitimate regulation of a state's agricultural system.

"Studies and real-life experiences show that family farming provides real social and economic benefits for entire rural communities," says Kathy Ozer, Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition. "In contrast, non-family-owned corporate farming is associated with lower incomes, less civic involvement, and a decline in the general welfare of rural America."

Minnesota Farmers Union President Doug Peterson adds, "The citizens of Nebraska wisely voted to approve a constitutional amendment which they believed promotes family farming and allows for the continued viability of their rural communities. The courts should not overrule their decision."

Mark Schultz, Policy Program Director for the Land Stewardship Project, emphasized, "Other states have also recognized the importance of preserving family farming through restrictions on non-family-based corporate farming. For example, the Minnesota Legislature found that it is in the interests of the state to encourage and protect the family farm as the most socially desirable mode of agricultural production. Family farming enhances the stability and well-being of our rural communities and rural families."

Eight states have laws similar to Nebraska’s that may be open to legal challenge if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals does not reverse the lower court’s decision in this case. Susan Stokes, FLAG’s Executive Director, warns: "An Eighth Circuit decision reversing the U.S. District Court in Nebraska is key to states’ retaining the ability to pass laws that help preserve the family farm system of agriculture."

Farmers' Legal Action Group is a non-profit law center dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land. The brief is available at www.flaginc.org.

April 3, 2006: The Minnesota Supreme Court last week affirmed a $62 million decision against BASF Corp. for defrauding farmers with deceptive labels on one of its herbicides. The farmers, represented by Minneapolis lawyer Douglas Nill , originally prevailed with a $15 millionjury verdict, which was trebled, and has since grown with interest over eight years. FLAG submitted an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court on behalf of the farmers to the BASF is appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For More Information:
Dana Jackson, Land Stewardship Project, 651-653-0618;
Barth Anderson, Wedge Community Co-op, 612-465-8810

Real Dirt on Farmer John Film & Farmer Panel Discussion to be Featured Jan. 20 in Minneapolis

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn.—The award-winning film, The Real Dirt on Farmer John, will be shown Friday, Jan. 20, at the Regal Brooklyn Center 20, 6420 Camden Ave. N., in Minneapolis. Call 1-800-326-3264 (ext. 251) for show times. For information on group ticket sales, contact Chris at 763-560-6300. A panel discussion consisting of Twin Cities area farmers will take place between showings. The discussion, sponsored by the Land Stewardship Project and the Wedge Community Co-op, will give audience members an opportunity to respond to the film, as well as to learn how they can support a local food system based on sustainable family farming.

The Real Dirt on Farmer John (www.therealdirt.net) is a character study/docudrama depicting a 55-year span in the life of John Peterson and his Illinois farm. Filmmaker Taggart Siegel weaves together Peterson’s haunting and humorous journey of struggle that consists of “hippie days,” vicious rumors and violence, the farm crisis of the 1980s, death and resurrection. The film documents how despite numerous obstacles and setbacks, Peterson’s conventional farm was successfully reinvented as Angelic Organics, a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) operation that serves the Chicago area. Angelic Organics (www.angelicorganics.com) is a partner in the Stateline Farm Beginnings initiative in Illinois, a beginning farmer program developed by the Land Stewardship Project (LSP) here in Minnesota.

The Real Dirt on Farmer John has won numerous awards, including the Chicago International Documentary Festival’s Audience Choice Award for Best Feature.

LSP, founded in 1982, is a nonprofit, membership-based organization that works to foster an ethic of stewardship for farmland, to promote sustainable agriculture, and to develop sustainable communities. LSP provides numerous resources for connecting family farmers with consumers who want to purchase fresh, locally produced food. For more information, visit www.landstewardshipproject.org, or call 651-653-0618. The Wedge Community Co-op, founded in 1974, is a pioneer in bringing organically produced food to Twin Cities consumers. Details on the Wedge are available at www.wedge.coop or by calling 612-871-3993.

Please join FLAG senior staff attorney Stephen Carpenter and Farmer John
for a Q&A session on family farms after the early evening screening
Sunday, January 22nd
click here for more detail

For Release: September 6,2005
Contact: Jill Krueger - 651-223-5400 or jkrueger@flaginc.org

Disaster Assistance Guide for Farmers Recovering From Hurricane Losses Available

ST. PAUL, MINN. — When a natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina strikes, all residents of affected communities need information about the help that is available. The information needed by affected farmers can be especially difficult to find. Federal programs can provide some relief to family farmers after a disaster—if the farmers can make it through the maze of rules and regulations.

Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG) has written a book called Farmers’ Guide to Disaster Assistance which clearly describes the federal disaster assistance programs that are available to help farmers facing property, production, and income losses due to disaster. The book includes detailed citations to applicable statutes, rule, and policies to help farmers and their advisors understand and obtain federal disaster assistance.

The fifth edition of the Farmers’ Guide was published in October 2004. Updates are posted on the FLAG Web site and are also available in hard copy. As Congress and federal agencies respond to the damages caused by Hurricane Katrina, FLAG will continue to update its disaster information for farmers.

Farmers’ Guide to Disaster Assistance includes detailed descriptions of programs that may be of benefit to farmers, such as housing and grant assistance offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, disaster unemployment assistance, federal crop insurance, the noninsured crop disaster assistance program, the Emergency Conservation Program, disaster assistance programs for livestock producers, Emergency Loans from the Farm Service Agency, the Disaster Set-Aside program for existing loans from Farm Service Agency, Small Business Administration Disaster Loans, as well as brief discussions of bankruptcy and federal income tax issues as they relate to losses caused by natural disaster.

"Farmers' Guide to Disaster Assistance provides farmers with information on important legal issues such as program eligibility, obligations of farmers who participate in the programs, and appeal rights," says Jill Krueger, FLAG staff attorney and one of the book’s authors.

Press Release
June 30, 2005

For More Information:
Jill Krueger - (651) 223-5400

Understand Your Rights When You Assign Part of Your Milk Check

ST. PAUL , MINN. — A booklet to help dairy farmers understand their legal rights and responsibilities when they assign part of their milk check has just been published. The booklet is called, "Making the Most of Your Milk Check: What Dairy Farmers Need to Know about Assignments."

Written by Farmers' Legal Action Group in cooperation with the Minnesota Family Farm Law Project, the booklet gives information on things dairy farmers may want to consider before they agree to assign part of their milk check. The booklet also discusses options for farmers who have made an assignment and find that there is not enough money left for them to run the farm and live on after the assignment is taken.

"This booklet offers legal information in plain English that farmers can understand and use," says Barry Bartelt, a paralegal with Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services in Mankato , Minnesota. "Reading this report will help farmers make informed choices, even when faced with financial difficulties caused by weather, illness in their dairy herd, or low milk prices," says attorney Roger Grugel of Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

The booklet discusses basic legal principles, with some examples of specific Minnesota laws. The laws in other states may vary. Farmers with further questions may want to see an attorney for advice about their particular situation.

Updated Farmers' Guide to Disaster Assistance Available

ST. PAUL, MINN. — Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces that its fifth edition of Farmers' Guide to Disaster Assistance is now available. With severe drought and early frosts in parts of the Midwest and Great Plains states, and repeated hurricanes and tropical storms in the Southeast and up and down the Atlantic coast, 2004 delivered punishing weather with devastating effects on agricultural production. Federal programs can provide some relief to family farmers after a disaster—if the farmers can make it through the maze of rules and regulations. The Farmers' Guide uses clear language and detailed citations to help farmers and their advisors do just that.

Farmers' Guide to Disaster Assistance includes detailed descriptions of programs offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, federal crop insurance, the noninsured crop disaster assistance program, the Emergency Conservation Program, disaster assistance programs for livestock producers, Emergency Loans from the Farm Service Agency, the Disaster Set-Aside program for existing loans from Farm Service Agency, Small Business Administration Disaster Loans, as well as brief discussions of bankruptcy and federal income tax issues as they relate to losses caused by natural disaster. Updated information will be posted on the FLAG website, www.flaginc.org.

"This updated fifth edition of Farmers' Guide to Disaster Assistance provides farmers current information on important legal issues such as program eligibility, obligations of farmers who participate in the programs, and appeal rights," says Jill Krueger, FLAG staff attorney and one of the book's authors.

For More Information:
David Moeller, FLAG, 651-223-5400
Michael Sligh, RAFI-USA, 919-542-1396

Farmers Urged to Learn about GMOs Before Planting 2005 Crops
GMOs are legal minefield for both growers and their neighbors

Pittsboro, N.C. (November 19, 2004) - The commercial production of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has created a legal minefield for American farmers and requires that farmers be particularly sure footed, says Farmers' Guide to GMOs, just released by the Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) and Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI-USA).

Co-author and attorney David R. Moeller of FLAG says that whether farmers grow GMOs, conventional seeds, or are certified organic, the use of GMOs in commercial agriculture can affect operations and have costly legal ramifications.

"After almost a decade of commercial production, we have reached that point," Moeller said, "where every farmer has a stake and has to be fully aware of the legal ramifications. No farmer should buy seed for next season without having a grasp of the information contained in this Guide."

Co-author Michael Sligh of RAFI, said, "The problems GMOs are creating for farmers are getting increasingly complex. We at RAFI felt it was time to invest in a collaborative effort to inform all farmers of the risks and legal liabilities involved and help them protect their self interests." Copies of the Farmers' Guide to GMOs, the first comprehensive look at the subject, are available free at www.flaginc.org and www.rafiusa.org.

GMO contamination is one of the primary GMO-related problems. "In a world of widespread production of GMO crops, what one farmer plants may seriously affect all of his neighbors' crops. Certain crops, such as corn and canola, cross-pollinate, causing genetic material to migrate," Moeller said. "Farmers may be unable to market contaminated non-GMO crops, and GMO growers may face liability for unintentional contamination of their neighbors' crops."

GMO development and marketing is concentrated in a few biotechnology companies - Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Aventis - who control most of the GMO technology and the resulting seed and chemical markets. GMOs are regulated by three federal agencies. USDA regulates pre-release testing and procedures, including field trials. EPA regulates pesticides contained within GMOs and sets tolerance levels for pesticides that end up as residues in foods. FDA has regulatory authority over food produced from GMOs, claiming that it is "generally recognized as safe."

Moeller said farmers assume significant obligations and legal liabilities when they sign GMO contracts. "Common obligations include how and where to plant, including creating'refuges' of non pest-resistant varieties; giving up the right to save seed; opening up their fields and all records, including filings usually subject to the Privacy Act, to inspections; and agreeing to specified remedies if the farmer violates the agreement."

In most cases saving seed - an age-old practice among farmers - is prohibited as to GMOs, and there are stiff penalties for doing so. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case limited a statutory seed-saving exemption, and a Canadian case ruled that a farmer could not save seed from a crop contaminated with GMO technology. "Farmers may not save seed containing'patented' genes resulting from accidental cross pollination from a neighboring GMO group or any other source," Sligh said.

Farmers who sign a technology agreement have little recourse if the company asks to inspect their fields. Where there is no contract, farmers should seek legal counsel and require the company to show cause. In every case when samples are demanded, farmers should make sure an identical independent sample is taken and analyzed, Moeller said.

Selection of uncontaminated seeds, planting at a distance from GMO crops, creating buffer areas, and meticulous cleaning of equipment and storage areas are all important. Moeller counsels farmers to avoid making broad statements of non-GMO warranty and to emphasize efforts made to prevent contamination beginning, of course, with the statement that seed have been certified GMO free. Organic farmers risk losing their certification through GMO contamination.

Recent research on the costs and benefits of GMOs surprisingly shows that pesticide use has increased on herbicide tolerant crops. Sligh says this is due primarily to farmers' reliance on a single herbicide - glyphosate - that must be sprayed in increasing amounts to keep up with the shift in weed populations toward more difficult to control species and the development of resistance to certain weeds.

FLAG is a nonprofit law center dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities to help keep family farmers on the land. RAFI-USA is dedicated to community, equity, and diversity in agriculture. This Farmers' Guide to GMOs is a joint project of FLAG and RAFI-USA with financial support from the Nathan Cummings Foundation and The John Merck Fund, and the Lawson Valentine Foundation.

ST. PAUL, MINN. — Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) staff attorney David Moeller was elected to the American Agricultural Law Association's (AALA) Board of Directors at AALA's annual October conference. AALA is the only national professional organization focusing on the legal needs of the agricultural community.

ST. PAUL, MINN. — Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG), a national public interest law firm serving family farmers, has hired Patti Lazarus as Development Director. Prior to joining FLAG, Ms. Lazarus was the Executive Director of the Community Foundation of Grand Forks, East Grand Forks and Region in Grand Forks, North Dakota . Ms. Lazarus is responsible for raising the visibility of FLAG, providing individual donors, foundations and other organizations with opportunities to support family farms in Minnesota and across the country. She graduated from the University of North Dakota with a B.S. in Psychology, and has been involved in the work of several non-profits in Grand Forks, including serving as board president of both United Way and the Community Violence Intervention Center .

North Dakota State University facing liability with genetically modified crops

Bismarck , ND - Farm and community advocacy groupsexpressed concern today to North Dakota State UniversityPresident Joseph Chapman in a letter describing potential liability issues facing the university if it is the release mechanism of genetically modified herbicide tolerant wheat.

NDSU, through RoughRider Genetics, has already released Roundup Ready soybeans and is contemplating releasing Roundup Ready wheat as well.

Farmers Legal Action Group sent the letter explaining NDSU's potential legal liability in releasing genetically modified wheat, to President Chapman and other university and state officials at the request of Dakota Resource Council (DRC) and Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society (NPSAS).

"The issues raised in our letter," said David Moeller, lawyer with Farmers Legal Action Group, a nonprofit law center dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land, "are serious considerations with the potential of doing dramatic financial harm to NDSU and the state of North Dakota if genetically modified wheat is released prematurely or at all."

"NDSU is facing serious liability issues," said Todd Leake, a farmer from Emerado andchair of the DRC's food safety task force, "And the University is too important to farmers in North Dakota to ignore the potential problems.Genetically modified wheat is very different from the glyphosate tolerant soybeans NDSU now sells if for no other reason than it is an export commodity and our export customers do not want it.They have the ability to keep it out."

"There is serious potential for liability and harm with releasing genetically modified wheat," said Theresa Podoll, executive director of NPSAS, North Dakota 's largest sustainable agriculture organization, "not just for farmers, grain dealers, and the economy of North Dakota but for the entity responsible for the decision to release the first genetically modified wheat. And in the case of the Roundup Ready wheat being developed by NDSU and Monsanto, NDSU holds the power to release. NDSU is the decision maker."

For more information:
Jill Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. 651-223-5400

ST. PAUL, MINN. - On August 15, 2003, President Bush signed H.R. 2465, extending the authority for Chapter 12 bankruptcies from July 1, 2003, to January 1, 2004. Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code is the family farmer bankruptcy chapter. Chapter 12 was first enacted in 1986 and has been extended through numerous temporary authorizations.

"I'm glad to see Congress acted just before their August recess to maintain this necessary protection for family farmers facing foreclosures," said Jill Krueger, an attorney with Farmers' Legal Action Group. "At least for the rest of 2003 farmers will have Chapter 12 available as an option."

Some Congressional members have repeatedly pushed to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the overall bankruptcy code. These efforts have largely been tied to larger bankruptcy overhaul bills pending before Congress.

Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) is a nonprofit law center in St. Paul, Minnesota dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land.

On July 29, FLAG submitted comments on behalf of the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) concerning the proposed rule to amend USDA debt collection regulations, published at 68 Federal Register 32,418 (May 30, 2003).

For more information:
Jill Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. 651-223-5400

Some Farmers No Longer Eligible for Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs)

ST. PAUL, MINN. - The Farm Service Agency (FSA) issued a notice in early July, notifying local FSA offices that farmers who are delinquent on any federal non-tax debt are no longer eligible for federal marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments. The federal marketing assistance loan program provides short-term loans to farmers who offer their crops as collateral. This enables farmers who are not delinquent to delay sale of their crops after harvest until prices are more favorable, at which time the farmers may sell the crops and repay the loans. Eligible farmers may choose to receive loan deficiency payments (LDPs) instead of marketing assistance loans when the posted county price falls below the loan rate for eligible crops.

Some are critical of the law making delinquent farmers ineligible for the assistance. "Marketing assistance loans and LDP's are more like price supports than traditional farm loans. It is hard to understand why farmers who are behind on their federal debts should not receive the same federal marketing assistance as every other farmer," stated Jill Krueger, an attorney at Farmers' Legal Action Group.

Congress made delinquent farmers eligible for marketing assistance loans and LDPs in the past. However, with the passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress would need to act again in order to restore eligibility for delinquent farmers.Krueger points out, "When delinquent farmers were made eligible in 2001, their payments were required to be applied to their FSA debts. The government's interests were not harmed, but the likelihood that those farmers would keep farming was increased, because the marketing assistance helped them to catch up on their debts."

Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) is a nonprofit law center in St. Paul, Minnesota, dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land.

On June 30, FLAG submitted comments on behalf of the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) and the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) concerning the Notice of Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Livestock and Meat Market Study.

For more information:
Jill Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. 651-223-5400

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Chapter 12 bankruptcy is set to sunset on June 30, 2003. Chapter 12 is the section of the federal bankruptcy code designed to enable family farmers to reorganize their debts, establish a payment plan, and continue farming. It has been allowed to sunset several times since it was first enacted in 1986. Each time, Congress has reenacted Chapter 12, but sometimes only after months have passed during which Chapter 12 was not available. There are two bills addressing Chapter 12 currently before Congress. If one of the bills is passed, Chapter 12 will either be extended for another six months or made a permanent part of the bankruptcy code.

Jill Krueger, an attorney with Farmers' Legal Action Group says that, "Minnesota has a number of resources to help farmers address financial difficulties. Chapter 12 bankruptcy is an important legal tool. It may be available to farmers again in the future, but until it is, farmers may want to seek advice on how other forms of legal action can help."

Farmers in need of assistance may contact FLAG for referrals at 651-223-5400 to legal services attorneys and Minnesota Farm Advocates in their area. The toll free number is 800-223-4534.

On June 9, FLAG submitted comments on behalf of the National Family Farm Coalition to the proposed rule to amend the farm loan eligibility provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill Regulations.

On June 9, FLAG submitted comments on behalf of the National Family Farm Coalition concerning the proposed rule to amend the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, published at 68 Federal Register 27,941.

For more information:
David Moeller, Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. 651-223-5400

ST. PAUL, MINN. - By now, most farmers' and farm owners' base acres and yields under the new Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program, or DCP, have been established. The next step for interested farmers and farm owners is to sign up to participate in the program, if they have not yet done so. In order to participate in DCP, farm owners and farmers must sign a contract every year. The deadline to sign a DCP contract this year is June 2. Farmers seeking to sign up after that date must pay a late fee.

"It's important for farmers to understand their legal rights and responsibilities before they sign a DCP contract," says FLAG attorney Jill Krueger. "Under the previous Farm Bill, some farmers got caught off guard when they planted fruits and vegetables on program acres, or when they changed the business structure of the farm. Farmers need to understand that the DCP rules are different."

On April 9, 2003, FLAG submitted comments on behalf of the Western Organization of Resource Council to the Agricultural Marketing Service regarding the establishment of guidelines to implement voluntary Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork, fish, peanuts, and perishable agricultural commodities.

News Release
For more information:
Jill Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. 651-223-5400

Are Your Bases Covered? New Report Explains Direct and Counter-Cyclical Farm Program Payments

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Farmers and farm owners trying to make important decisions about their base acres and yields for USDA'S new Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program by the April 1, 2003, deadline have a new resource to turn to. Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. has written a plain language report on the rules governing the program. The report is entitled, "Are Your Bases Covered? The 2002 Farm Bill's New Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payment Program."

In straightforward, understandable language, the report discusses the factors farm owners should consider as they make their choices about their base acres and yields. For example, before submitting a summary of yield information, farmers should make sure they have copies of evidence supporting the yield information in their possession.

The report also discusses issues that may arise under annual DCP contracts well beyond April 1, 2003. For example, the report explains changes to the rules for planting fruits, vegetables, and wild rice on farm program base acres.

For more information:
Kathy Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition, 202-543-5675
Jill Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, 651-223-5400

ST. PAUL, MINN. - On December 19, 2002, President Bush signed H.R. 5472, extending the authority for Chapter 12 bankruptcies from January 1, 2003, to July 1, 2003. Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code is the family farmer bankruptcy chapter. Chapter 12 was first enacted in 1986 and has been extended through temporary authorizations. The latest extension is Public Law No. 107-377."I'm glad to see Congress and the President saw the need for extending this necessary protection for family farmers facing foreclosures," said Kathy Ozer, Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition. "At least for the first half of 2003 farmers will have Chapter 12 available as an option."Some Congressional members have pushed to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the overall bankruptcy code. These efforts have largely been tied to larger bankruptcy overhaul bills. It remains to be seen how these efforts will impact the status of Chapter 12.The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) was founded in 1986 to serve as a national link for grassroots organizations working on family farm issues. NFFC's membership currently consists of 33 grassroots farm, resource conservation, and rural advocacy groups from 33 states.

News Release
For Release: September 20, 2002
Contact: David Moeller (651-223-5400)

Farmers' Legal Action Group Announces Shared Appreciation Agreement Web Page

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces the creation of a Shared Appreciation Agreement (SAA) information resources web page to assist farmers with questions about this USDA program. As of late 1988, whenever a farm loan borrower receives a write-down of debt owed to the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), now the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the borrower must sign an SAA. An SAA is a contract between FmHA/FSA and the borrower in which the borrower promises to pay a certain amount of money in the future if the property securing the agreement increases in value, allowing FmHA/FSA to "recapture" all or a portion of the write-down amount.The web page is intended to provide current and background information on SAAs, including federal laws, regulations, and notices; SAA case decisions; FLAG informational memos and fact sheets; and other informational resources. Please note that the SAA information is not intended to provide specific legal advice. Each borrower should carefully look at his or her own SAA agreement for specific requirements and should seek individual assistance for any problems or questions.

News Release
For Release: August 15, 2002
Contacts: Bruce Lubitz (218-334-3276),
Jill Krueger (651-223-5400)

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Minnesota Farm Advocates and Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) are sponsoring a traveling "Agriculture Information Fair," for farmers who have suffered damages from the recent flooding in northwestern Minnesota. Farmers will be able to pick up helpful information and have free one-on-one visits with experts from participating government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and others.

"We are intending to provide farmers with timely information on disaster assistance and available resources that can begin to put them back on a path to recovery," Minnesota Farm Advocate Bruce Lubitz said.USDA has designated counties in northwestern Minnesota as disaster areas making farmers immediately eligible for USDA emergency (EM) farm loans due to crop losses. Counties that were named primary disaster areas on Aug. 7, 2002, are Becker, Beltrami, Kittson, Koochiching, Lake of the Woods, Mahnomen, Marshall, Norman, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake and Roseau. The contiguous counties of Cass, Clay, Clearwater, Hubbard, Itasca, Otter Tail, St. Louis and Wadena are also eligible for assistance.For more information on the Agricultural Information Fairs, contact Bruce Lubitz by phone at (218) 334-3276.

Farmers' Legal Action Group Receives $75,000 Grant From the Minneapolis Foundation

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) has received a $75,000 grant from the Emma B. Howe Foundation, a supporting organization of the Minneapolis Foundation. This grant will support legal work on behalf of Minnesota's family farm movement. FLAG, a nonprofit law center dedicated to keeping family farmers on the land, was founded in 1986. Since its inception, FLAG has provided an extensive array of legal services to financially distressed farmers and their advocates and attorneys nationwide, with a focus on Minnesota and the upper Midwest. FLAG gained a strong reputation as a national leader on farm credit issues, helping thousands of farmers weather the financial crisis of the 1980s. Since that time, its work has broadened to include other issues of concern to family farmers and ranchers including sustainable agriculture, corporate concentration and vertical integration in the poultry and livestock industries, contract farming, and legal help for farmers seeking to develop value-added enterprises. By providing legal education, backup support, impact litigation, and legislative and administrative technical assistance services to its client organizations, FLAG plays a key role in preserving the family farm system of agriculture in this country. FLAG maintains a toll free hot-line for Minnesota farmers at (800) 233-4534. "FLAG is honored to have the support of the Emma B. Howe and Minneapolis Foundations," said FLAG Co-Director Corinne Rafferty. "Family farmers in this country are struggling to survive in a system that favors large corporate enterprises. They need lawyers on their side, helping to change the rules so that smaller family-owned farms can thrive. The Minneapolis Foundation grant allows us to provide those resources to Minnesota's farmers and the groups that represent them."

Unemployment Assistance May Be Available for Minnesota Farmers Affected by Disaster

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) wants to remind Minnesota farmers that even people who normally would not qualify for unemployment benefits may be eligible for disaster unemployment assistance. Disaster unemployment assistance is made available through a cooperative effort between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (MDES).Farmers may be considered to be "unemployed self-employed" individuals if they are totally or partially unable to work on the farm because of the disaster for one or more weeks. The amount of the assistance may be based on past income or on a percentage of the state's average weekly payment of regular unemployment. Farmers have the right to appeal any decision on eligibility for assistance or on the level of benefits.For an application and information on the deadline in your county, contact the nearest Minnesota WorkForce Center or call (888) 438-5627. Applications for Disaster Unemployment Assistance must be filed within 30 days of the official announcement date of the disaster. If the applicant can show "good cause" for filing late, however, MDES must accept the application. FLAG staff attorney Jill Krueger encourages farmers who are uncertain about whether they are eligible to go ahead and apply. "Farmers won't receive assistance if they don't apply," says Krueger.Disaster Unemployment Assistance is discussed in FLAG's Federal Disaster Assistance for Farmers, which describes in plain language the rules for a variety of federal disaster programs. The guide is available at no charge to Minnesota farmers affected by the disaster by contacting FLAG at (651) 223-5400 or (800) 233-4534.The following Minnesota Farm Advocates can help farmers with Disaster Unemployment Assistance and other farm related issues: Garnette Hanson and Mary Reierson (Area Agriculture Information Center in Thief River Falls) at 218-681-6236; Bruce Lubitz (Western Minnesota Farm Resource Center in Frazee) at 218-334-3276; and Jan Boll (Trail) at 218-268-4472. Farmers may be eligible for legal assistance through Legal Services of Northwest Minnesota, which may be contacted at 800-450-8585.

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces that the report Assessing the Impact of Integrator Practices on Contract Poultry Growers is available at no charge. This report includes analysis of: a broiler growers survey a conducted in 1999, the legal implications of provisions in 18 growout contracts, and court decisions and current state and federal laws affecting growout arrangements. The report offers recommendations to address identified grower concerns. The project was funded by a Fund for Rural America grant of the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services of USDA. Project contributors were FLAG, Professor Lee Schrader of Purdue University, the National Contract Poultry Growers Association (NCPGA), Professor John Wilson of Duke University, the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI-USA), and Professor Neil D. Hamilton of Drake University School of Law. The report can be found on FLAG's website. A bound copy of the report can be obtained by contacting FLAG.

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG) announces that Corinne Rafferty, Susan E. Stokes and Carl L. Flink have recently joined the nonprofit law center based in St. Paul, Minnesota. FLAG is dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land.

Ms. Rafferty is FLAG's co-director. Prior to joining FLAG, she worked at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and the Veatch Program foundation. Ms. Rafferty shares responsibility for administration, fundraising, and communications with Randi Roth while Ms. Roth is Monitor in the settlement of the Pigford v. Veneman case. Ms. Rafferty graduated from Hastings College of the Law.

Ms. Stokes is a Senior Staff Attorney. Prior to joining FLAG, she was a partner at the law firm of Sprenger & Lange in Minneapolis, where she focused on civil rights class actions in the employment arena. Ms. Stokes is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School.

Mr. Flink is a Staff Attorney. He previously was a summer extern at FLAG. Mr. Flink is a 2001 graduate of Stanford Law School.

ST. PAUL, MINN. - Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) congratulates FLAG board member Dave Frederickson on his election as National Farmers Union (NFU) president. Over the weekend at its 100th Annual Convention in Irving, Texas, NFU members elected Frederickson the organization's twelfth president. Frederickson joined FLAG's board in 1999.

FLAG is a nonprofit law center in St. Paul, Minnesota dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land.

(January 19, 2000)On January 4, Judge Paul Friedman appointed Randi Ilyse Roth, FLAG’s executive director, as monitor in the class action lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman (the African-American farmers’ civil rights lawsuit). Stephen Carpenter, a staff attorney at FLAG, will be senior counsel to the project, and the rest of the staff at FLAG will be involved as well. This is a wonderful opportunity to make a difference in critically important work, and it is a huge undertaking.The class includes approximately 20,000 African-American farmers. The consent decree provides that the farmers are entitled to certain types of relief in certain situations. The monitor’s job includes resolving all class members’ complaints about denials of their claims of relief, reporting to the court and to the Secretary of Agriculture on the implementation of the decree, and more. If you are interested in learning more about the case, please let us know. The court’s opinion, the consent decree, and the order appointing the monitor are all posted on the court’s web site.Ms. Roth plans to commence operations of the Monitor’s office by about March 1, 2000. At least for now, class members and the public should continue to direct their calls about the lawsuit to the Poorman-Douglas Corporation at 1-800- 646-2873.

On Friday, April 23, FSA published a rule in the Federal Register allowing for suspension of payment due under an expiring Shared Appreciation Agreement (SAA) if the farmer is unable to pay the SAA amount due. The initial suspension is for one year, but it may be renewed for up to two more years if the farmer continues to be unable to pay. The SAA debt will accrue interest during the suspension period.Farmers who received notice of their SAA amount on or before April 24, 1999, must make a written request for suspension by May 24, 1999. Farmers who received notice of their SAA amount after April 24, 1999, will have 30 days after they received notice to make a written request for suspension. In the near future FLAG will have a more detailed analysis of the SAA suspension rule and issues that farmers will want to consider. Until then, you can find the FSA press release announcing the rule on USDA's web site at April 1999 News Release 0181 and the suspension rule as published on the Federal Register web site.

(March 31, 1999)Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman today announced a major overhaul of the 60-year old federal milk marketing order program that will significantly streamline and improve the nation's wholesale milk pricing system."These reforms will help make sure that America's dairy farmers receive a fair price and that American consumers continue to enjoy an abundant, affordable supply of milk," said Glickman. "Our changes will also simplify the wholesale milk pricing system, making it more market-oriented and more equitable."The milk marketing order program ensures the fair marketing and pricing of milk. It is not a dairy support program. The current dairy support program expires on December 31, 1999, unless Congress chooses to extend it.Milk marketing orders classify milk by use, set minimum prices that handlers must pay for each class of milk, and provide for paying average prices to all dairy farmers who supply a particular region.Though the program does not set retail prices, these reforms are expected to reduce the average price of drinking milk by about two cents per gallon.The reforms announced today include —

Deferral Program for Shared Appreciation Agreement Program
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman announced that he will issue emergency rules allowing for at least a one-year deferral of the payment many farmers owe under Shared Appreciation Agreements they signed with the Farm Service Agency (formerly the Farmers Home Administration) when their loans were restructured and written down. For the complete news release, see USDA's web site at March 1999 News Release 0111.We have spoken with an official in the Secretary’s office about this announcement. We will not know all of the details of these changes until the emergency and proposed rules are issued. We will publish more information at that time.FSA intends to act quickly to issue an emergency rule that will authorize a one-year deferral of the amount due under the Shared Appreciation Agreement. This deferral means that a farmer will not be expected to make the payment due under the Shared Appreciation Agreement for at least one year. Due to budget restraints, interest will accrue during the deferral period at the federal borrowing rate, which is now about 5 percent.According to an official in the Secretary’s office, farmers will be eligible for the one-year deferral simply by signing a certification that they cannot afford to make the payment due under the Shared Appreciation Agreement. If at the end of the first year of deferral a cash flow plan shows that the farmer is still unable to pay the amount due, he or she may be eligible for up to two additional years of deferral.According to our sources in the Secretary’s office, farmers who have already signed a non-program loan with FSA to refinance the amount owed under the Shared Appreciation Agreement will NOT be able to get the one-year deferral. I think this is because to be eligible for that loan, they had to show they could cash flow the loan payments. Therefore, they will not be able to certify that they cannot afford to make the payments, which is the requirement for obtaining the deferral.

Deduction for Value of Capital Improvements
FSA also plans to change the rules to allow for deduction of capital improvements made during the term of the Shared Appreciation Agreement from the appraised value of the property used to calculate the amount owed. FSA believes that it cannot issue emergency rules to make this change. This means that it will take FSA a longer time to make this change than to put the deferral program in place. However, FSA is considering whether it can deduct the value of the capital improvements after the first year of deferral has ended. We will learn more about this when we see the proposed rules.

Advice for Farmers
Our advice to farmers is that until the rules implementing the deferral program are published, they should:

FLAG Communications
FLAG will continue to communicate with FSA on these Shared Appreciation Agreements and will be making comments on both the emergency and proposed rules FSA plans to publish. We will publish more information as we learn more.

(August 18, 1998)ST. PAUL, MN—The Minnesota Milk Producers Association (MMPA) announced today that it will continue its legal challenge to fluid (Class I) milk prices set by USDA that discriminate against Minnesota dairy farmers. MMPA’s announcement was in response to a decision issued yesterday by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court reversed an earlier lower court decision that had declared unlawful the fluid milk prices set under federal milk marketing orders."We are very disappointed by the decision," said Lee Johnston, president of MMPA and a Morrison county dairy farmer. "Elimination of USDA’s discriminatory milk pricing system is so important to Minnesota dairy producers that we must continue with this lawsuit. We believe that the court was wrong when it found that the law gives the Secretary complete discretion to decide whether to modify unlawful marketing orders." MMPA’s next step will be to file a petition for rehearing with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This petition is expected to be filed in the next few weeks.The decision by the court of appeals is the latest judgment in a battle waged by MMPA since 1990 when it first filed the lawsuit. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota had issued a series of orders ruling that USDA’s decision to continue the current pricing system was arbitrary and capricious. In November 1997, the district court found the pricing system unlawful and enjoined USDA from enforcing it. The injunction was later stayed pending a ruling by the court of appeals. MMPA’s lawsuit and its repeated successes in the lower court were a key factor in Secretary Glickman’s decision to consider far-reaching reform of the Class I milk pricing structure as part of the consolidation of federal milk marketing orders currently being undertaken by USDA. As it takes the next steps in its lawsuit against the discriminatory pricing structure, MMPA will also continue to pressure the Secretary of Agriculture to correct the Class I milk pricing structure when he issues rules creating new federal orders in 1999."The Secretary’s preferred pricing option in the ongoing milk marketing order reforms would provide some relief to Minnesota dairy producers," said Johnston. "The Secretary should continue to support this as the best of the proposed options for reflecting current conditions in the industry and fulfilling the requirements of the law."

April 16, 1998On April 3, 1998, United States District Judge Sam R. Cummings of the Northern District of Texas issued a decision ordering the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a loan guarantee to a bank that had brought a successful USDA National Appeals Division (NAD) challenge to the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA’s) initial denial of the guarantee application. First National Bank v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 5-97-CV-133-C. Despite NAD’s reversal of the agency’s decision, FSA had refused to issue the guarantee, claiming that updated financial information had to be supplied and a new application submitted.

FSA Denies Loan Guarantee Application
In 1995, Jim and Rebecca Baker approached First National Bank about a loan to refinance their then-current operating debt and purchase additional livestock. As part of their farm plan, the Bakers noted their intention because of relatively high grain prices and low cattle prices to harvest wheat for sale in 1995 and 1996 rather than graze it out as they had previously done. First National Bank approved their application, including the decision to harvest rather than graze out the wheat, and submitted the application to FSA. FSA then issued a written denial of the loan guarantee application. One of the reasons given for the denial was that because the Bakers had customarily grazed out their wheat production, the harvest and sale income was not based on the Bakers’ proven record of production and financial management and could therefore not be recognized in the farm plan.

NAD Reverses Denial and Directs Agency to Issue Loan Guarantee
First National Bank appealed the denial to NAD, and FSA withdrew all bases for its denial except the inclusion of wheat harvest income. In 1996, a NAD hearing officer issued a determination reversing the agency’s decision on that point. The hearing officer found that deviation from historical performance is authorized under agency regulations if there is adequate justification, that the estimated income from the wheat harvest had been based upon approved records, and that the decision to harvest rather than graze out wheat was a sound management decision given the current market information.

FSA Refuses to Implement NAD Decision
The FSA deputy administrator for farm credit programs later refused the state office’s request to seek further review and reversal of the NAD hearing officer’s decision. However, the deputy administrator instructed the state office to obtain updated financial information before proceeding with the loan guarantee. The state office then wrote to the bank insisting that the Bakers’ "start over" with a new application and new financial information.

Court Orders FSA to Issue the Guarantee
First National Bank then filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that FSA had demonstrated a policy and practice of refusing to timely or properly implement NAD decisions with which the agency disagrees. The court granted summary judgment for First National Bank, finding that FSA had violated federal statutes and USDA regulations requiring prompt implementation of NAD determinations as if no adverse decision had been made. The court refused to remand the case to the agency, instead ordering the Secretary of Agriculture to proceed with processing the loan guarantee application based upon the facts and law in effect at the time of the original application.A more extensive summary of First National Bank v. Glickman was recently published by the attorney for the bank, James T. Massey, in the Agricultural Law Update, the publication of the American Agricultural Law Association. This article has been reprinted on our Online Articles page with permission from the author.

March 20, 1998As reported in the last issue of Farmers' Legal Action Report, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in July 1997 affirmed a district court ruling allowing two North Dakota brothers to claim compensation for their costs and fees incurred in successful USDA NAD appeals. The claims could be brought under the federal Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), found at 5 U.S.C. sec. 504. EAJA requires the merits of the fee application to be considered first by the agency that handles the underlying appeal. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s award of costs and fees to the brothers and ordered the district court to remand the case to NAD to allow a hearing officer to consider the merits of the brothers’ fee applications. (See Online Articles to read the complete article.)On February 20, 1998, a NAD hearing officer issued two EAJA determinations awarding Dwight and Darvin Lane a total of $213,997.77 in attorney fees, agent fees, and appraisal costs. USDA regulations provide that the parties have 30 days to seek review of the hearing officer’s decision.If you would like a copy of the hearing officer’s determinations, please contact FLAG.

March 19, 1998Appeals in the Minnesota Milk Producers Association’s lawsuit challenging the unfair prices set by federal milk marketing orders for Class I (beverage milk) were heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on February 9, 1998. A decision on the appeals has not yet been issued.FLAG attorneys representing MMPA recently won a major victory for Upper Midwest dairy farmers. On November 3, 1997, United States District Court Judge David Doty issued an order declaring unlawful the Class I differentials in most of the federal milk marketing orders and prohibiting the Secretary of Agriculture from enforcing them. The Class I differentials that Judge Doty declared unlawful are set according to a system that fixes the minimum prices that must be paid for beverage milk at levels that increase with the marketing order’s distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Judge Doty ruled that these prices were unlawful because USDA has not shown that they reflect supply and demand conditions in most parts of the country, as is required by the federal law that authorizes milk marketing orders.Shortly after the district court issued its decision, USDA asked Judge Doty to delay the effect of his order until an appeal of the decision was completed. In addition, several dairy interest groups and state departments of agriculture from regions outside the Upper Midwest attempted to enter the lawsuit on the side of USDA and also asked the court to delay the effect of its decision until an appeal was completed.On December 5, 1997, Judge Doty granted USDA a short stay of his order prohibiting enforcement of most of the Class I differentials until February 15, 1998. He granted this stay to allow USDA and MMPA to seek an expedited appeal of his decision. The court held that this short stay would also ameliorate any sudden impact the elimination of the Class I differentials might have on the dairy industry and provide an easier transition to any new differentials promulgated by the Secretary. The December5 court order also denied the request of the dairy interest groups and state departments of agriculture to enter the lawsuit on the side of USDA, ruling that since the case had been filed in January 1990, they had waited far too long to enter the case and the delay would substantially prejudice MMPA’s interests in the lawsuit.MMPA and USDA agreed to an expedited schedule for the appeal of the November 3, 1997, district court decision. Several of the dairy interest groups and state departments of agriculture also sought appeals of the district court’s denial of their requests to enter the lawsuit. All of the appeals were consolidated. On February 9, 1998, in St.Louis, Missouri, the court of appeals heard arguments on all of the appeals. On February 12, 1998, the court issued an order delaying the effect of the district court’s order prohibiting enforcement of the Class I differentials until the court issues its decision on the appeals.USDA has not issued any revised Class I differentials in response to Judge Doty’s order and is unlikely to do so before final resolution of all appeals in the lawsuit. However, on January 30, 1998, in response to the 1996 Farm Bill, which requires consolidation of the approximately 30 current milk marketing orders into 10 to 14 orders, USDA published proposed rules for reforming marketing orders. 63 Fed. Reg. 4802 (1998). These proposed rules put forward two possible options for Class I differentials. One option, known as Option1A, makes only very minor adjustments to the differentials and would not address the concerns raised by MMPA in the lawsuit. The second option, known as Option 1B, would mean significant reform of the differentials and would eliminate much of the discriminatory impact of the current pricing structure on Upper Midwest dairy farmers which led to MMPA’s lawsuit. If USDA ultimately adopts Option 1B, it proposes to implement it over a five-year phase-in period. MMPA supports Option 1B with some revisions to smooth out the intra-order price differences and without any phase-in period. Comments on the proposed rules must be sent to USDA by April 30, 1998.

March 12, 1998USDA’s National Commission on Small Farms has published a final report, "A Time to Act." The Commission made nearly 150 recommendations to correct what it believed were biases against small farms in federal policy and markets. The Commission defined small farms as those with sales of sells than $250,000 and that were operated by families that own or lease the farm’s assets.

Tens of thousands of farmers who are behind on their loan payments to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) (formerly the Farmers Home Administration) have received or will be receiving notices about offsets. The notices say that the agency will use a procedure called administrative offset to take government payments owed to the farmer. The payments will be applied to the farmer’s delinquent FSA loans. Through administrative offsets, the FSA Farm Loan Program intends to take payments issued through the Production Flexibility Contract (PFC), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Loan Deficiency Program (LDP), and any other FSA Farm Program payments owed to a person delinquent on an FSA loan. This notice also applies to other federal payments owed to the farmer.Prior to August 1, 1997, FSA did not have the regulatory authority to use administrative offsets until after a farmer’s FSA loan accounts were accelerated. Acceleration does not occur until after the farmer is given the opportunity to be considered for all of FSA Loan Servicing Programs and all appeals from denials of these programs are completed. So until the new revisions in the offset regulations were implemented on August 1, 1997, offsets did not occur until after a farmer-borrower was fully considered for all of the programs available to assist him or her.On August 1, 1997, new FSA regulations were issued that allow offset prior to the acceleration of the loan. According to FSA Instructions, any farmer-borrower who has a loan payment that is 90 days past due (60 days delinquent) will be sent the notice saying that FSA will exercise administrative offset.Farmers’ Legal Action Group has prepared a packet of information explaining how farmers should respond to the notice of administrative offset. Farmers who want to challenge FSA’s ability to take their Farm Program payments by administrative offset can order a copy of this packet by contacting FLAG at 651-223-5400 or by email to lhayes@flaginc.org.

On behalf of the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC), FLAG wrote a petition asking USDA to issue rules restricting the packers’ use of captive supplies in the cattle industry. The rules proposed in the petition are designed to prevent packers from using their concentrated market power to break prices paid to cattle producers and to ensure open, competitive markets for cattle. The petition asks USDA to issue rules that:

The petition includes an extensive discussion of how the Packers and Stockyards Act supports the issuance of these rules. It also includes discussion of many recent economic studies which demonstrate that packers’ ownership and feeding of their own slaughter supplies and use of forward contracts are likely to result in reductions of cash market prices for cattle.USDA published the petition seeking public comment. The public comment period ended April 14, 1997. As a result of the organizing efforts of the WORC organizations and their members, 1685 comments supporting the rules were submitted by cattle producers, farm organizations, county officials, state attorneys general, and others. In all, 173 organizations submitted comments in support of the rules proposed in the report.USDA is now in the process of reviewing the comments. Once the review is complete, USDA will decide whether to enact the rules proposed in the petition.

Adverse Action Moratorium in FSA Credit Cases Containing Civil Rights Complaints

USDA is now publicly recognizing that it has severe civil rights problems. From the farmer’s perspective, the problems in the Farm Services Agency (FSA) credit programs include:

Failure to provide sufficient outreach and education to minority farmers.

Failure to properly investigate farmers’ allegations of discriminatory treatment.

Failure to remedy the situation when farmers have suffered from civil rights violations.This Administration has just concluded an extensive series of "listening sessions" regarding the state of civil rights enforcement at USDA. The report that summarizes those sessions concludes by saying:

Now that USDA has recognized the problems, we are all waiting to see what they will do to improve the situation. In the meantime, FSA has issued a freeze on all "adverse actions" in FSA loan cases in which the farmer has complained about discrimination and the complaint is not resolved. FC-94 (Dec. 18, 1996) says:

Please note that the freeze is not restricted to cases in which the farmer has filed a formal complaint: it applies, for example, even when the complaint was just an oral comment that got jotted down in the running record.If you are involved in a case in which the farmer’s problems may be caused, at least in part, by discriminatory behavior, you should file a complaint, and ask that the FC-94 freeze be applied to your farmer’s case immediately. FPA advocates can call or email FLAG for copies of FC-94 and for more specific advice about how to handle these situations.

The 1996 Farm Bill suspended authorization until 2003 for the major federal emergency assistance programs for livestock producers, known collectively as the Livestock Feed Program (LFP). Those already holding 1996 LFP contracts when the Farm Bill was enacted could continue to receive assistance under those contracts, but this affected only a limited number of producers.After the suspension of LFP authority, USDA used other statutory authority to implement assistance programs for livestock producers facing feed emergencies in the 1996 crop year. These programs draw upon the Federal Grain Disaster Reserve and are only available in presidentially declared disaster areas.Although no assistance programs are currently authorized for 1997 and subsequent crop years, any livestock producer who experiences feed losses due to natural disaster in those years should continue to document the losses and report them to the county FSA office. This documentation will provide support for any assistance request made by the local offices and may make the producer eligible for assistance from the first day that any new program is authorized.

CAUTION: The following programs are authorized for 1996 crop year emergencies only. No program is currently authorized for emergency feed assistance to livestock producers after the 1996 crop year ends.

Disaster Reserve Assistance Program
In July 1996 USDA established the Disaster Reserve Assistance Program (DRAP) to provide assistance to livestock producers experiencing feed crop production losses due to natural disasters. DRAP is available when an entire county in a declared disaster area suffers at least a 40 percent loss in 1996 crop year feed production. Each individual producer seeking assistance must also suffer at least a 40 percent loss in 1996 crop year feed production and must have insufficient feed available to meet the needs of his or her eligible livestock. Approved producers receive cost-share payments up to 30 percent of the of the cost of feed purchased during the assistance period to meet the needs of eligible livestock.

Emergency Feed Grain Donation Program
The Emergency Feed Grain Donation Program was established in mid-January 1997 to provide assistance to livestock producers whose livestock were in danger of perishing after a series of blizzards hit the Northern Plains. Those approved for assistance are reimbursed for the cost of hiring snow removal equipment to reach stored feed or stranded livestock and the cost of feed purchased to keep livestock alive while waiting for the equipment to do the job.

Foundation Livestock Relief Program
The Foundation Livestock Relief Program was established at the end of January 1997 and provides up to 30 days of 30 percent cost-share assistance for feed purchased by producers in disaster areas of the Northern Plains where livestock experienced greatly increased feed needs due to prolonged extreme winter weather. After record-breaking floods hit the Northern Plains in the spring of 1997, this program was reopened for an additional 15 days in designated disaster counties.

Feed Donations to Indian Livestock Producers
In addition to the assistance available under the programs described above, Indian livestock producers on reservations or other Indian lands suffering acute economic distress due to natural disasters may also be eligible to receive direct donations of Federal Disaster Reserve grain to feed subsistence livestock.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has several kinds of assistance available to farmers in a disaster. They include Individual and Family Grants, Temporary Housing Assistance, and Disaster Unemployment Assistance. This short article will focus on Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA).

The Problem
FEMA’s DUA program can be a big help to farmers, but one can encounter a lot of red tape in trying to get it. Although it’s a federal program governed largely by federal regulations, the program is administered by state unemployment offices (the states’ "Department of Labor and Employment Security"). In the 1993 flood disaster, we heard that a lot of farmers had trouble getting the benefits to which they were entitled.

Summary of Farmers’ Rights to DUA
Even if your state does not normally provide unemployment benefits for farmers, FEMA requires your state to provide benefits to farmers who meet FEMA’s requirements. Farmers must apply for DUA within 30 days of the official announcement date of the disaster, although late applications may be accepted for good cause. Farmers may qualify as "unemployed workers" or as "unemployed self-employed individuals" depending on their specific situations. The unemployment must be caused by the disaster.

If a farmer is eligible, his or her benefits will be based on past income. There are special rules that the unemployment office must follow to calculate past income for farmers. A farmer’s DUA benefits should be at least 50 percent of the state’s weekly payment of regular unemployment benefits. (This amount may be reduced, though, if the farmer worked less than full-time before the disaster and/or if the farmer received any other wages, benefits, or other income in during the disaster.)A farmer can appeal any determination about eligibility for or benefit levels of DUA.

How to Learn More
You can learn more about the details of DUA rules—and other FEMA programs and other forms of federal disaster assistance—by reading FLAG’s Farmers’ Guide to Disaster Assistance.

FLAG Home

Ways to Support FLAG

FLAG Honors 20 Years of Service to Family Farmers and Rural Communities

Disaster Assistance Guide for Farmers Recovering From Hurricane Losses Available

Updated Farmers' Guide to Disaster Assistance Available

Special Sections

Litigation

FLAG Home

Ways to Support FLAG

FLAG Honors 20 Years of Service to Family Farmers and Rural Communities

Disaster Assistance Guide for Farmers Recovering From Hurricane Losses Available

Updated Farmers' Guide to Disaster Assistance Available

Special Sections

Litigation