Menu

For the past 1 1/2 years, American Farm Bureau Federation has been working on a long-term legal strategy to support its policies, according to Julie Anna Potts, the organization's lead attorney.

"We've been looking at where we've been in the past and where we want to see the law go in the next 10 to 15 years," she said. "Our goal is to develop legal strategies to change the law in agriculture's favor."

Potts, who was appointed AFBF's general counsel last year, talked at an OFBF Committee Chair and Ohio Rural Development Partnership luncheon held Nov. 30 during Farm Bureau's annual meeting. During her speech, she talked about how AFBF has ramped up its legal efforts, including holding legal news conference calls with state Farm Bureaus and posting its legal briefs on the AFBF Intranet site.

Potts talked at length about three cases that AFBF has been working on over the last couple of years. The case that she said caused the biggest stir was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this summer that local governments could seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development projects. The case involved a homeowner who refused to sell her property to the city of New London, Conn. The city wanted the property so a private developer could build a hotel, shopping and housing complex.

"I've never seen such a reaction to a Supreme Court decision. People were just outraged," she said.

AFBF has been working at helping state Farm Bureaus counter eminent domain laws being used to confiscate private property for increased tax revenue. Potts praised OFBF for being active in getting an Ohio law passed that establishes a moratorium until Dec. 31, 2006 on the use of eminent domain by any entity if the primary purpose is economic development.

"It's up to you to stay on top of this issue," she said. "We'll be providing as much assistance to state Farm Bureaus as we can."

A large legal victory for AFBF this year was a federal appeals court's ruling that livestock producers have to apply for a Clean Water Act discharge permit only if they actually discharge into U.S. waters. An U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule said producers had to apply for the permit if they had the "potential" to discharge into water.

"We took the EPA to court and said they overstepped their authority," Potts said. "We're very proud of that victory."

The last case that Potts talked about also deals with the Clean Water Act. AFBF filed a brief Dec. 1 in support of two Michigan landowners who have wetlands on their properties. They were denied the right to develop their property or were charged with altering wetlands.

AFBF said the Clean Water Act does not authorize the U.S. Corps of Engineers to regulate waters unless they are or could be navigable. Neither of the landowners' property drains directly into navigable waterways.

"It's huge for Farm Bureau that the court decided to hear this case," Potts said, noting that the high court is expected to hear oral arguments in February.