North Dakota

New Survey Shows Labor is Serious Challenge for Ag Industry

Thu, 28 Dec 2023 18:00:19 GMT

A new survey from the Minneapolis Fed found ag bankers rank labor availability as a top concern for their farm clients.

The survey, which was conducted with ag bankers from the ninth district (Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin), found the issue is viewed as a “serious challenge” for 63% of respondents and a minor challenge for the majority of the remaining 37%.

“It’s becoming more and more difficult to obtain the labor needed to operate,” a Minnesota-based banker told the Minneapolis Fed.

The availability of livestock workers was seen as more limited than crop workers and those surveyed also shared that finding long-term help is more difficult than temporary help due to the seasonal nature of the ag industry.

As far as how this compares to past conditions, 39% of respondents said labor availability has gotten “much worse” over the past five years and 44% said it’s “a little worse”.

The Minneapolis Fed attributes this challenge to the region’s low influx of migrant workers and aging workforce.

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, 10% of animal production employees in the area are foreign born, compared to 18% nationally. The number is even lower for crop production with just 5% of workers being foreign born, compared to 32% nationally.

The region also has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S.

(Farm Journal)

At the same time, the median age of workers in the region rose from 51 to 56 in 2021. The number of workers between 45 to 54 has declined over the past decade with a small increase of those between the ages of 25 to 44 and a large increase of those over 55.

(Farm Journal)

US Treasury Dept. Moves to Limit Foreign Land Purchases Near Military Bases

Mon, 08 May 2023 20:20:32 GMT

By now, you’ve likely heard of the Chinese balloons that made their way across the U.S. in late January and early February and were eventually shot down. The spy balloons, coupled with a Chinese-owned company purchasing land 12 miles from a U.S. Air Force base in North Dakota, have sounded alarms on both state and federal levels.

To limit further foreign activity on U.S. lands, particularly the sale of land, the Treasury Department’s Office of Investment Security proposed a rule on Friday that would require foreign entities to garner U.S. government approval before they are able to purchase land within 100 miles of eight military bases.

Related story: Out-of-Country Farmland Investors: Here’s What The Numbers Show

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) welcomed news of the proposed rule, which could have blocked the North Dakota land sale to the Fufeng Group.

“This is a good first step to bolster reviews and mitigate threats similar to what we saw with Fufeng,” Cramer said in a statement on Thursday.

The Office of Investment Security is responsible for screening foreign business dealings in the U.S. and has the authority to block or force term changes in sales in order to protect national security.

Backstory on Fufeng Group’s North Dakota Purchase

Fufeng Group says it plans to use the land to build a $700 million corn milling plant, which would create at least 200 jobs, as well as residual opportunities for logistics, trucking and other services.

Many North Dakotans made their sentiments on the sale known, which led to a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. However, the committee’s review found no issue with the sale.

Related story: China’s Latest Land Purchase Could Pose Major U.S. Security Risk

“More needs to be done to ensure the U.S. food supply chain is secure and independent,” says Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.). “If we do not prevent these land grabs, we are failing to protect our farmers, our families and our country.”

In September, Newhouse, along with 50 other members of Congress, asked USDA and other agencies to take effective action in addressing the potential national security risks that appear to arise from this transaction.

Instead of waiting on the government, some states are taking legislative action on their own.

Missouri Puts Up a Foreign Land Ownership Wall

The Missouri Senate made moves on the issue in April when it backed a plan to amend the state’s foreign land ownership threshold from 1% to 0.5%. The bill also includes a provision that would limit foreign countries — including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea — from acquiring farmland in Missouri by Sept. 1.

“We’re not going to allow for foreign ownership in the state of Missouri,” said Sen. Rick Brattin (R-31). “We have to draw a line in the sand today. It protects our sovereignty as a nation.”

Related story: Missouri Moves to Tighten Reins On Foreign Land Ownership

According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, foreign land ownership in Missouri accounts for 0.36%, just shy of the 0.5% proposed limit. In total, the department says China owns roughly 42,596 acres in Missouri.

What’s Wrong with the Current Waters of the U.S. Rule?

Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:26:01 GMT

The latest Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) definition—put into motion by the Biden administration on March 20—was met with a wave of backlash from the ag industry for its “overreaching” jurisdiction.

That opposition was validated on Wednesday when a U.S. District Court Judge, Daniel Hovland, granted an injunction that blocks enforcement of the WOTUS rule in 24 states.

“An injunction at this early stage can avoid the massive waste of resources and delayed projects in pursuit of permits that may soon be legally irrelevant,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote in his ruling.

Related story: What Bodies of Water are Considered WOTUS?

Hovland’s decision follows a similar injunction that was filed in Texas on March 20, which effectively blocked WOTUS enforcement in Texas and Idaho. He says the EPA’s final WOTUS rule was premature, as the pending U.S. Supreme Court WOTUS case will settle the dispute in all affected states.

So, what makes EPA’s final WOTUS rule “unlawful” and worthy of an injunction? Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs at NCBA, says it comes down to bureaucracy.

What’s Wrong with WOTUS?

Under the current rule, the following bodies of water are considered WOTUS and therefore subject to federal regulation:

• Traditional navigable waters
• Tributaries that contribute perennial or intermittent flow to such waters
• Certain ditches that meet specific criteria related to flow and function
• Certain lakes and ponds
• Impoundments of otherwise jurisdictional waters
• Wetlands that are adjacent to jurisdictional waters

Lane says the EPA’s WOTUS “patchwork” in words like “certain lakes and ponds” has carved-out room for discretion. He says this discretion will rob policymakers and landowners of time and money.

“As I understand it, this rule says EPA is going to determine jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis—that just blows me away,” Lane says. “This is never the way you want a bureaucracy to interact with your private businesses.”

Richard Gupton, senior vice president of public policy and counsel at the Ag Retailers Association, echoed Lane.

“Rushing the new rule out only served to increase uncertainty for the ag retail industry while eroding [landowners] trust in the EPA’s deliberations and stakeholder consultations.”

The remedy, according to Lane, is for EPA to define exactly what the land and water “safe harbors” are and remove any room for opinion. And Lane isn’t alone in that thought.

“This isn’t just a philosophical dispute: farmers and ranchers in the remaining states are left with no clear way to determine where federal jurisdiction begins and ends on their own property,” said Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president, in a press release . “With the rule now on hold in more than half the country, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps should do the right thing by listening to our legitimate concerns and rewriting the rule to draw a bright line of jurisdiction.”

$9-Million Loss In 45 Packing Plant Thefts Uncovered, Three Suspects Arrested

Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:46:15 GMT

Uncovering approximately 45 thefts totaling over $9 million in loss, three Florida men have been arrested for stealing semi-loads of frozen beef and pork from packing plants across the Midwest.

Starting June 27, the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office began investigating the events occurring in Nebrask a.

Soon realizing the case reached further than Nebraska, the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office, along with Homeland Security Investigation (HIS) Omaha identified approximately 45 thefts totaling $9 million in loss beginning in June 2021. Investigators described the theft ring as a “sophisticated and ‘highly organized criminal enterprise,’” reports a local news source .

Additionally, the investigators determined the criminal enterprise to be based in Miami and targets beef and pork packing plants specifically in Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

While investigation began in June, thefts continued to occur across the region. In September, more than $100,000 in pork products were reported stolen from the JBS plant in Ottumwa, Iowa .

Utilizing cell phone records and GPS tracking devices, on Oct. 20, investigators identified and arrested three targets in the enterprise, recovering three semi-trailers with stolen merchandise valued at $550,000, says the news source. Yoslany Leyva Del Sol, Ledier Machin Andino and Delvis L. Fuentes were charged with the transportation of stolen goods and money laundering in Florida’s federal court.

A Minnesota news source reports each of the men possesses a valid Class A commercial driver’s license.

At this time, it is unknown what the men did with the stolen meat, however, the investigation remains ongoing.

Corporate Farming Lawsuit will Pit 2 Largest Farm Groups

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:00:07 GMT

A federal judge is allowing the North Dakota Farmers Union to enter the legal battle over the constitutionality of the state’s Depression-era anti-corporate farming law.

That means Farmers Union will side with the state against North Dakota Farm Bureau, which sued last summer to do away with the law. The two organizations are the state’s largest general farm groups.

Farm Bureau contends the law passed by voters in 1932 to protect the state’s family farming heritage actually hurts the agriculture industry by limiting farmers’ business options.

Farmers Union maintains that family farming is the backbone of North Dakota agriculture.

Judge Daniel Hovland says Farmers Union has a legitimate interest in the case, and should be heard.

Hovland also is letting the Dakota Resource Council environmental group help defend the law.

Plaintiffs Join Suit Challenging N.D. Anti-Corporate Farming Law

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:30:00 GMT

The number of plaintiffs suing to abolish North Dakota’s anti-corporate farming law has expanded and now includes people and companies with ties to four U.S. states and a former Soviet republic.

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, who is defending the law, said the addition of plaintiffs only exacerbates problems with what he considers an overly vague lawsuit.

The North Dakota Farm Bureau, a Wisconsin dairy farmer and a Wisconsin dairy company that wants to expand into North Dakota sued in federal court in June. They want a judge to declare unconstitutional the nearly century-old law that aims to protect the state’s family farming heritage by barring large corporations from owning agricultural operations.

The original plaintiffs were recently joined by: a North Dakota hog farmer who is a member of the North Dakota Sow Center, which owns and operates several hog facilities and has partners in North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa; the North Dakota Pork Council; a North Dakota cattle rancher who wants to expand; and Global Beef Consultants, which provides cattle consulting and export services and also owns two ranches in Kazakhstan.

The new plaintiffs either didn’t respond to messages seeking comment this week or referred calls to attorneys. Attorney Claire Smith did not respond to questions other than to say the additional plaintiffs help “demonstrate the negative impacts of the challenged legislation.”

The lawsuit asserts that North Dakota’s anti-corporate farming law hurts the agriculture industry by restricting business tools available to farmers, lowering the value of their operations, discriminating against residents of other states and interfering with interstate commerce. It asks a judge to declare the law unconstitutional and bar the state attorney general from enforcing it.

Stenehjem has said the lawsuit is too vague for him to even respond, and he’s asked U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland to order the plaintiffs to more specifically detail why they believe the law is unconstitutional. Stenehjem has said in court filings that the state is “requesting reasonably” that the plaintiffs identify what specific problems they allege in a chapter of law that “consists of over 6,500 words and comprises over 100 individually numbered provisions in the North Dakota Century Code.”

Stenehjem said in court documents filed Wednesday that the addition of four more plaintiffs “exponentially exacerbates the ambiguities and vagueness” of the lawsuit.

“Farm Bureau’s amended complaint fails to separate which specific constitutional claims and counts are attributed to what individual plaintiff, as well as which allegations of fact are intended to support which count or constitutional claim by what plaintiff,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have said Stenehjem has demonstrated that he understands why the lawsuit is being challenged and that he has enough information to file an initial response.

Hovland has not yet ruled on Stenehjem’s request.

Opponents of Corporate Farm Ban Exemption Raise $1.1 Million

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:29:44 GMT

A group that wants to block a law that relaxes North Dakota’s Depression-era ban against corporate farming has raised more than $1.1 million.

The North Dakota Farmers Union is leading the campaign to overturn the Legislature’s decision last year to exempt pork and dairy operations from the state’s anti-corporate farming law. The group submitted enough valid signatures last year to put the measure on the June 14 ballot.

Campaign disclosure filings show the Farmers Union has funded almost all of the campaign to overturn the law. The group has more than 40,000 members.

Supporters of the so-called ham-and-cheese law say it will revitalize dairy and swine farms after years of decline.

Opponents say the law is an invitation for big, out-of-state corporations to set up operations in North Dakota.

North Dakota Ballot Measure Pits Family vs. Corporate Farms

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:29:44 GMT

North Dakota’s hog and dairy industries are hoping voters will bless state lawmakers’ decision to allow non-family corporations to own operations, but it could be a tough sell in a state that has safeguarded its family farming heritage for nearly a century.

Up for vote in the June 14 election is whether to uphold the 2015 Legislature’s move to loosen North Dakota’s corporate farming ban, which has tried to keep crop and pasture in the hands of small-operation farmers and away from large out-of-state businesses that some believe might have little regard for the land.

“Family farming agriculture has delivered in this state forever,” said Mark Watne, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, which is leading the fight against the exemptions. “This would be a senseless change.”

Supporters of the change point out that the ban has not stemmed a steady loss of family farms, especially for hogs and dairy cattle. Those two industries have declined precipitously in the state while crop farming has flourished — North Dakota is first or second in the nation in the production of 17 types of crops, from wheat to honey, and is third in acres of cropland.

“We get this portrayal (from opponents) of a boogeyman lurking in the shadows,” said Daryl Lies, a lifelong hog farmer and president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau, which would like the corporate farming change to apply to all agricultural sectors.

The main debate is whether exemptions would give small family owned farms more opportunity to remain economically viable or run out the small operations. The latter is a concern for many because the bill, passed with mostly Republican support, would allow corporations to own or lease up to a square mile of agricultural land to sustain hundreds of pigs or cows — often called concentrated animal feeding operations — that many see as an environmental threat.

Only nine states have restrictions on corporate farming, and most allow exemptions for some livestock operations. But protecting family farms has always been important in North Dakota, where nearly two-thirds of farms have less than $100,000 in annual sales. The anti-corporate farming law has been in effect since 1932 and the state in 2012 became the first in the nation to enshrine the right to farm in the state constitution, mainly meant to ensure out-of-state groups — including animal rights organizations — don’t keep family farmers from making a living.

Supporters of blocking the corporate farming exemptions seem to have an upper hand. The latest campaign disclosure filings show they’ve raised more than $1.2 million, while a coalition aimed at keeping the exemptions reported raising less than $6,000.

Those in favor of the exemptions see it as a way to save two industries, as the number of hogs and the amount of milk produced in North Dakota are less than one-third of what they were half a century ago, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Allowing corporate dairy farming would give farmers more access to capital and options when it comes to expanding operations, said Mandan dairyman Kenton Holle, a member of the Milk Producers Association of North Dakota. The attitude that “this kind of structure is going to kill the family farm — now you’re just putting emotion into it, putting ideas into consumers’ heads that aren’t real,” he said.

Other legal options for expansions exist, such as limited liability partnerships, Lies said, but “those types of structures do not provide the same security ... as a corporation does.”

But many North Dakota residents are wary of opening the barn door to corporations that might be less environmentally responsible — and tougher to be held accountable, said House Minority Leader Kenton Onstad, D-Parshall, a vocal opponent of relaxing the law. The bill, however, requires corporations to set up a farming operation as a safeguard against big companies buying up land just to be held as an asset.

North Dakota State University livestock economist Tim Petry did not offer an opinion on the ballot measure but said he believes corporate farming and family farming can co-exist under the right rules. Gov. Jack Dalrymple has said the Legislature’s action is “not a threat to the farm sector.”

Republican Sen. Joe Miller, who farms crops near Park River and was a main sponsor of the legislative bill, said the dairy and hog industries in North Dakota are at the point where “all we can do is go up.”

“I think it’s really important that we look beyond the idea of the American Gothic — everybody has a couple dairy cows and couple beef cows, and they have some chickens and they farm 40 acres,” he said. “We’re well beyond that point, and we have been for years.

“We need to accept this as a reality of agriculture now. Farmers are businessmen.”