Hello and welcome to another Friday!  Here are some of the ag law stories in the news this week.  For those of you in the Panhandle, my last program of 2017 will be this Tuesday in Miami talking transition planning and agricultural leases.  Seating is limited, so if you are interested, RSVP to Michael at (806) 868-3191.

* Colorado moves to dismiss lawsuit seeking rights for Colorado River, seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs’ attorney.  You may recall from this prior blog post that an environmental group filed suit in Colorado seeking to have the Colorado River Ecosystem recognized as having certain rights under the law.  The State of Colorado has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and will be seeking sanctions against the attorney who filed the claims.  [Read article here.]

* Summary of Senate Tax Reform Bill. The Center for Ag Law and Taxation at Iowa State has put together a great summary of the tax reform bill that passed the Senate last week.  Kristine and her crew there do a fantastic job keeping folks up to date on what is happening with tax reform in DC!  [Read blog post here.]  NOTE:  This link was wrong in the initial post but has now been corrected.  Sorry for the confusion.

* Dicamba battle continues in Arkansas.  Monsanto has sought an injunction from a judge to prevent the state from banning dicamba’s use while Monsanto’s lawsuit against the Arkansas Plant Board is pending.  Next week, the Arkansas Legislative Council Administrative Rules and Regulations Subcommittee will review the proposed April 15 cut-off for application of dicamba over-the-top of crops in Arkansas for 2018.  Keep in mind, currently, the Monsanto XtendiMax herbicide has not been approved for use in Arkansas at any time, even prior to the proposed cut-off date.  [Read article here.]

* Count dismisses claims of false advertising against Dannon.  A New York federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a consumer against Dannon claiming that reasonable consumers would not expect yogurt labeled as “all-natural” to use milk from cows whose diet could contain genetically modified corn or soy.  The judge held that “There is no legal support for the idea that a cow eats GMO feed or is subjected to hormones or various animal husbandry practices produces “unnatural” products; furthermore Dannon does not specifically represent that its products are either GMO-free or not given hormones or antibiotics.”  Based on this, the court found the claims “too speculative” and granted the motion to dismiss.  [Read article here.]