Happy Friday!  I was able to have some time in the office this week and have scheduled several great blog posts over the coming months.  Be sure you subscribe so you don’t miss them!  Last night, I was able to do a presentation via internet for landowner in Brazoria County.  Welcome to those of you joining from that meeting.

Here are some of the ag law stories in the news this week:

*Article highlights dispute among neighbors on San Saba.  Naveena Sadasivam has written another really interesting article looking at water issues in Texas.  This piece focuses on the San Saba River and a dispute going on between neighbors in the Menard and Brady area.  Questions have arisen as to whether irrigation wells drilled nearby are draining the river, and whether Texas law, as currently written, can address this issue.  [Read article here.]

* California producers vote to join Federal Milk Marketing Order.  Earlier this week, the USDA announced that California producers have voted to approve a Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) for the state.  A FMMO is a legal structure regulating the sale of milk between farmers and the initial buyer.  The order will go into effect in October 2018.  Currently, the state is under a state milk marketing order administered by the California Department of Agriculture.  [Read press release here and article here.]

*Federal judge blocks WOTUS rule in 11 states.  A federal judge has issued an injunction prohibiting the 2015 WOTUS rule from going into effect in a number of states including GA, AL, FL, KS, KY, NC, SC, UT, WV, and WI.  Meanwhile, the EPA has suspended the implementation of the rule through 2020 while it is drafting a new definition.  [Read article here and Order here.]

*Appellate Court revives lawsuit against North Carolina’s “Ag Gag” law.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed a lower court decision dismissing animal rights groups challenge to the North Carolina Property Protection Act, also referred to as an “ag gag” law.  The trial court dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that the groups, including PETA and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, failed to allege the required injury-in-fact to pursue the case.  The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs did allege a credible threat that the Act would be enforced against them, and that they refrained from taking planned action due to fear of the Act’s provisions.  Thus, the lawsuit will be allowed to go forward and has been remanded back to the trial court.   [Read Order here.]

*Irrigating on the Family Farm.  After I shared an article written about my family’s operation, several of you commented on how you wish I would share more of that type of story.  Today, I thought I’d share a link to a blog post I did talking about teaching my toddler to irrigate on the farm where he is the 4th generation.  [Read blog post here.]