A Pennsylvania Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC v. West Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board, 351 A.3d 383, addressing an important question: Is an agrivoltaic operation considered “agriculture” under the law?

Background

Gerald and Jewel Garber own a 55-acre farm in Pennsylvania that was first purchased by Mr. Garber’s father in the 1970s.  The farm was used as pastureland or for growing crops since that time.  Mr. Garber testified he would like to pass the farm to his children, but he would like it to continue generating income after he retires. 

With this goal in mind, the Garbers entered into a lease with West Lampeter Solar (“Solar Company”). The proposed solar farm would occupy 25-30 acres and would be surrounded by a 7-foot-tall fence.  Below the solar panels, a custom seed mix of grasses would be planted, and the vegetation would be managed by sheep grazing. The solar panels would have a 25-year expected lifespan, and at the conclusion of their productive life, they would be decommissioned, removed, and the land would become a “pasture again.”

Dotterer Farms, LLC would be contracted to provide the sheep for the project, and its owner testified that sheep were ideal to manage vegetation on solar farms. Goats, he testified, are prone to curiosity, climbing, and chewing.  Cattle have the potential to break panels.  He testified that he intends to graze 160 Katahdin sheep on the farm from April – November.

The farm is located in an agricultural district.  The Township’s zoning ordinance limits non-agricultural uses in an agricultural district to 5-acres.  The ordinance does not define “solar,” “solar farm,” or “agrivoltaic.”

Litigation

The Solar Company applied to the local Zoning Board for a special exemption to use the land as an agrivoltaics solar farm.

The County Zoning Board held a hearing.  The Board concluded that the proposed use is not agricultural, relying on the fact that the principal use of the land would be solar energy generation, with the accessory use of sheep grazing.  Because the primary use was non-agricultural, and the project would use more than the 5-acre limit, the exemption was denied.

The Solar Company appealed to the trial court.

The trial court affirmed the Zoning Board’s decision finding the use to be non-agricultural and noting that the project would undermine the town’s effort to “protect and stabilize the Township’s viable agricultural economy by eliminating uses that are incompatible with farming but permitting limited agricultural support businesses.”

The Solar Company appealed again.

Court of Appeals Decision

The court of appeals affirmed and addressed three questions.

Is “Agrivoltaics” Agriculture?

First, the court addressed the key question of whether agrivoltaics was agriculture.  It noted that according to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, a solar farm does not meet the definition of “agriculture” under the State’s Right to Farm Act. The court also considered the fact that the power generated by solar panels would not be used to prepare or market any crop of livestock products. 

The Solar Company argued that agrivoltaics is a “technological development within the agricultural industry,” which the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code includes in the definition of an agricultural operation.  The court, however, disagreed holding that a technological development in the ag industry must be read in context of dealing with the production of crops, livestock, or commodities. Here, there was no tie between the technological advance and agricultural products—the generation of electricity did not advance the sheep grazing enterprise. Thus, the trial court did not err in its ruling that agrivoltaics was not an agricultural use.

Is Agrivoltaics Prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance?

The Solar Company argued that only “nonagricultural uses” were limited to five acres, but this project was a dual use project which should not be so limited.  The court disagreed, holding that under the ordinance, photovoltaic energy generation was a “non-agricultural use” that could not exceed five acres.

Do Agrivoltaics Constitute a Dual Use Permitted by the Zoning Ordinance?

The Company argued that in a dual use situation, the Zoning Board should opt for the classification that permits the broadest use of the land.  The Township responded that there is no authority that a Zoning Board must treat two separate, albeit mutually beneficial uses, as a distinct, combined use. The Township argued that to interpret the proposed project solely as agriculture simply because there is an agricultural component “would lead to an absurd result.” 

The court noted that the proposed solar farm would have solar panels on the property for 12 months out of the year, while sheep would only bet here from April – November. During periods of drought, that sheep may have to be removed.  The sheep are not a necessity to the solar farm, which could manage vegetation with a lawnmower.  In light of this, the trial court did not err in finding the primary use to be solar energy generation, a non-agricultural use, with an incidental sheep grazing enterprise.

Conclusion

The court held that agrivoltaics was a non-agricultural use that may not exceed five acres per the Township ordinance.  The trial court (and the Zoning Board) was affirmed.

Key Takeaways

Though this case is not decided under Texas law, I think it raises a couple of important considerations for Texas rural landowners and agricultural producers, nonetheless.

First, the discussion of Mr. Garber having a family farm that he wants to pass to the next generation, but needing to have continued income after he retires from farming is an issue that many farmers across the country are facing.  Many rural ag producers are looking at alternative options including farm or grazing leases, solar or wind production, or agritourism to find a way to retire from farming but continue receiving an income stream.

Second, the concept of whether agrivoltaics is agriculture may be relevant in a number of contexts under Texas law.  Though there are few zoning ordinances in rural Texas given the lack of county zoning authority, the application of many other laws could hinge on the question of whether agrivoltaics constitutes an agricultural use.  For example, is a solar farm utilizing agrivoltaics an “agricultural operation” under the Texas Right to Farm statute?  This answer would be critical in determining whether city-level requirements like zoning ordinances could apply and whether solar farms would have a defense against nuisance actions filed by neighbors.  Would agrivoltaics be considered “agricultural land” under the Agritourism or Recreational Use Statutes? This answer could impact the potential liability if someone were to be injured on the land during a recreational or educational activity.  From a property tax perspective, can agrivoltaics qualify for open space valuation as an agricultural use?  The answer to this question could have a significant financial impact on an operation.  These questions are, at this point, unanswered under Texas law but important for landowners and project developers to keep in mind.

As technology advances and more agricultural operations consider alternative land uses, these types of issues will continue to arise across the country.

Additional Information

For additional information on agrivoltaics, listen to our podcast episode with Hannes Zetzsche. For more information on solar leasing, check out our podcast episodes on solar lease agreements and key considerations for renewable energy leases, and a handbook authored by our friend, Shannon Ferrell.

The post Is an Agrivoltaic Operation Agriculture? appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

Fall has arrived and brought a number of agricultural law developments along with it.

*Federal appellate court dismisses challenge to removal of lesser prairie-chicken from Endangered Species List.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently issued an order dismissing a challenge to a lower court order removing the lesser prairie-chicken from the list of covered species under the Endangered Species Act.  The court held that the trial court erred in now allowing two conservation groups to intervene in the lawsuit, but then held that because the groups lacked standing to challenge the vacatur of the listing, it would not reach the merits of the case. 

*Public Utility Commission files suit against Attorney General to stop data center records release.  The Public Utility Commission has filed suit against Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office seeking to block the release of information related to the locations of data centers and virtual currency mines.  The PUC claims that details on the counties and regional water planning areas where the facilities are located are “privileged” exempt from disclosure under the Texas Homeland Security Act. A Texas Tribune article describes the lawsuit.

*Changes to dyed diesel regulations.  There have recently been changes to the current regulations on using dyed diesel on highways at both the federal and state level here in Texas.  The National Agricultural Law Center published a great article walking through the current status of these laws.

*USDA announces $8 billion in harvest fuel relief for farmers.  The USDA issued a press release announcing an $8 billion Harvest Fuel Relief program that will provide one-time payments to American farmers during the 2026 harvest season. Payments will be calculated based on FSA reported planted acres, ERS cost-of-production estimates, and World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates yields and prices.  The program will be administered by the FSA.

*Federal judge dismisses challenge to Michigan’s cage-free egg law.  A federal judge in Michigan dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice challenging a Michigan law prohibiting the sale of eggs produced by hens not meeting the state’s cage-free requirements.  The DOJ claimed that the state law was preempted by the federal Egg Products Inspection Act.  The court did not reach the merits of the claim, holding, instead, that the DOJ lacked standing to bring the case because it failed to identify a concrete injury to a federal operation, interest or property. 

*Ag data changes in the past decade.  Todd Janzen wrote an interesting article looking at the changes (or lack thereof) to ag data issues over the last decade of working in this space.

*Two estate planning mistakes for homeowners to stop making.  I enjoyed this article from Community Impact looking at two estate planning mistakes an Austin-area attorney wishes homeowners would stop making.  These are good points for farm and ranch owners to consider as well.

*Pasture leasing versus buying article.  I recently did an interview with DTN Progressive Farmer magazine for an article about the decision of whether it is best to lease or purchase pasture for a livestock operation.

Upcoming Presentations

November is kicking off with a bang.  On the first, I will be headed to Washington, D.C. to be sworn in as a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar.  From there, I will head to Dallas where, after a year of planning, it is finally time for the 47^th Annual American Agricultural Law Association Symposium!  I will be co-presenting the Land Use Update with my friend, Jesse Richardson, as well as completing my duties as President-elect of the organization.

You can always view my complete list of upcoming presentations.

The post October Monthly Round Up appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

As of July 2026, the Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) adopted a new form requiring disclosure of certain water information in many land sales transactions.  This is a significant change, and it is critical issue of which landowners, potential  land purchasers, real estate agents, and attorneys must be aware. This development highlights something we have discussed on this blog many times: water can be one of the most valuable and complicated assets associated with Texas land.

Center pivot sprinkler / Photo by Leslie Cross on Unsplash

What Is It?

TREC’s new Seller’s Disclosure about Groundwater and Surface Water Rights (Form 61-0) became effective on July 1, 2026.  This form will require the Seller to make the water-related disclosures in many real estate transactions across the state.   As the name suggests, this form is a disclosure to be completed by the Seller in transactions where it is required.  It is a two-page document where the Seller essentially provides information about the groundwater rights and surface water rights associated with the property.   Importantly, a Seller must complete the form to the best of their knowledge.

When Is It Necessary?

The disclosure is required to be completed for sales using TREC contracts.  For most property sales utilizing TREC contracts, the seller will need to make the disclosure.  There is, however, a five-part exception to the disclosure requirement. If a Seller can answer “yes” to all five of these questions, no disclosure is required:  (1) There are no active, capped, or abandoned water wells on the property; (2) there are no ponds, lakes, or tanks on the property; (3) The seller does not hold any surface water rights or permits from the TCEQ to divert or use surface water; (4) There have been no prior severances, sales, or leases of groundwater rights; and (5) The property receives its water exclusively from a named city, Municipal Utility District, Water Supply Corporation, or private water company.

What Information Is Required to be Disclosed?

If the seller is required to complete a disclosure, there are sections for both groundwater and surface water.

Groundwater

For groundwater, the form requires the Seller to disclose whether the property is located within a Groundwater Conservation District.  If so, the Seller must identify the name and website of the Groundwater Conservation District.  The Texas Water Development Board has a map of the current Texas Groundwater Conservation Districts that might be helpful in completing this section.  Another resource is the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts has an interactive map.

Next, the Seller must state whether they are aware of any water wells on the property and, if so, they must state the total number of wells, how many  are currently in use, how many are not in use that have been capped, covered, plugged or abandoned,  and identify any applicable Groundwater Conservation District permit or registration numbers.  Additionally, for any identified water wells, the Seller must state whether they are owned and operated by the Seller for the sole benefit of the property, or if they are owned or operated by another person or governed by any other agreements.

The Seller must state whether the property receives water from a water well located on another property and whether a water well on the property relies on groundwater rights owned or leased from land outside the bounds of the property.

Lastly, the Seller must state whether they are aware of the property’s groundwater rights being severed, sold, or leased.

Surface water

For surface water, a Seller must disclose if they have a permit, filing, or certificate of adjudication from the TCEQ for surface water rights associated with the the property.  If they do, they must identify the permit, filing or certification of adjudication number, and anyone else who may have an interest in said water rights.

Additionally, the Seller must disclose if there are any ponds, lakes, or water tanks on the property, whether or not they currently hold water.

What Penalties Exist for Failure to Disclose?

If a Seller does not deliver a disclosure when it is required, the Buyer may terminate the contract and likely get their earnest money back.  If the Seller makes material misrepresentations on the disclosure form, that could result in legal claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or other causes of action related to failure to disclose.

Key Takeaways for Landowners

It is important for any landowner looking to buy or sell land to be aware of these new required disclosures.  In addition, these disclosures give landowners a good idea of the various issues related to water rights in Texas.  Understanding Texas water law and the rights associated with landownership are extremely important.  Even if a landowner is not planning to sell their property, taking the time to research the questions included in the disclosure form can be a good way to learn more about the water sources on the property.

All landowners–whether buyers or sellers–should carefully review all portions of any real estate sales contract, including this disclosure.  I recommend working with an attorney to help understand or negotiate any contracts, including contracts related to the sale or purchase or real estate.

More Information

To learn more about Texas water law, check out Chapter 4 of our Owning Your Piece of Texas handbook.  To learn more about this Disclosure, listen to our podcast episode with Dr. Charles Porter.

The post New Water Disclosure Form Important for Landowners Buying or Selling Property appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

I recently did a presentation for a great webinar series called Water Wednesdays, hosted by John O’Connell, a Coastal and Marine County Extension Agent.

We did a basic overview of Texas water laws–certainly a hot topic around the state right now!

Irrigation sprinkler / Photo by Michael Miller/Texas A&M AgriLife

You can watch the recording of the presentation.

Additionally, we do have a handbook chapter on Texas Water Law available in our Owning Your Piece of Texas handbook.   We also have a podcast water law playlist.

The post Basics of Texas Water Law appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

September is National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, a time to raise awareness, reduce stigma, and share resources that can make a difference. The need for mental health support continues to grow, particularly within agricultural communities and rural areas where unique challenges can often feel overwhelming. Suicide and mental health struggles impact countless individuals, families, and communities.  This is a particularly important conversation to me this year, after losing a dear friend to suicide over the summer. 

One meaningful way we can support one another is by sharing resources and encouraging conversations about mental health. Most importantly, remember: you are not alone, and help is available.

The sunsets on farmland along 20939 Ranch to Market Road on Wednesday, Apr 24, 2024, outside of Uvalde, Texas. (Sam Craft/Texas A&M AgriLife)

Resources 

Ag Law in the Field Podcast
The Ag Law in the Field Podcast features a dedicated collection of episodes focused on mental health. These conversations include personal stories, insights from industry experts, and valuable resources for those facing challenges or supporting loved ones who may be struggling. 

Listen to the mental health episodes here. 

Home Safe Home: Grant Heinrich YouTube Video
In this powerful conversation, Grant Heinrich shares his personal experiences with the impact of suicide on farm and ranch families and highlights the importance of reaching out to those around us. His story offers an honest perspective on mental health in agriculture and serves as a powerful reminder that hope, support, and help are available. 

Watch the video here. 

Free FarmHope Counseling Services
If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available. FarmHope provides educational training and free mental health counseling services for Texas agricultural producers, farm workers, and their families.  Dr. Mikaela Spooner is a licensed counselor and has both a background and training in agriculture, making her someone who can understand and help her clients. 

No one should have to face life’s challenges alone, and FarmHope is committed to connecting individuals with the care and support they need. 

Visit their website here. 

Farm State of Mind
Farm State of Mind, an initiative of the American Farm Bureau Federation, is dedicated to supporting the mental health and well-being of farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. The program offers mental health resources, crisis support information, and educational tools designed to help individuals recognize signs of stress and seek assistance when needed. 

Visit their website here. 

988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing free and confidential support for anyone experiencing emotional distress, a mental health crisis, or thoughts of suicide. 

Remember, reaching out for help is a sign of strength, not weakness. 

National Agricultural Law Center Resource Guide
Our friends at the National Agricultural Law Center have compiled a comprehensive state-by-state guide to mental health resources available across the country. This resource can help individuals and families find support services specific to their location. 

Access the guide here. 

Oklahoma State University Extension Farm Stress Program
Oklahoma State University Extension offers an extensive collection of resources, educational programs, fact sheets, and support materials focused on farm stress and mental health challenges facing agricultural producers and rural communities. 

Visit their website here. 

QPR and Mental Health First Aid Training
If this topic is important to you, consider participating in a training program that equips individuals to recognize warning signs and confidently support someone who may be struggling. 

QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) and Mental Health First Aid provide practical tools, guidance, and education to help participants identify concerns, start meaningful conversations, and connect people with appropriate support resources. 

Learn more about QPR and Mental Health First Aid here. 

Mental health matters every month of the year, but National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month serves as an important reminder to check in with family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. A simple conversation can make a meaningful difference. If you are struggling, know that support is available and that you do not have to navigate difficult times alone. 

The post Suicide Prevention Awareness Month  appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

The ag law news continues to keep us busy during the month of September!

Corn harvest / Photo by Hannah Shedrow on Unsplash 

* State of Texas takes action on data center projects.  Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of major developments regarding the State of Texas and data centers.

• In August, Governor Abbott ordered the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to audit all data centers undergoing ERCOT’s interconnection process to ensure that the data center development does not jeopardize the reliability of Texas’ electric grid or put natural resources at risk.
• On September 14, Governor Abbott ordered the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to compel data centers to comply with water-use reporting requirements, to impose penalties for failure to do so, and to partner with ERCOT to obtain additional water-use information.
• Last week, Governor Abbott ordered the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to halt all data center permits until ERCOT completes its ongoing audit of data centers.
• This week, Attorney General, Ken Paxton, said he was launching an investigation into data centers that have failed to respond to the TWDV’s water use survey.

  Data centers are under initial investigation in counties across Texas, including Harris, Montgomery, Travis, Dallas, Tarrant, Smith, Bexar, Tom Green, Potter, Randall, Lubbock, Midland, Ector, Wichita, Victoria, Brazos, Nueces, and El Paso.  

*WOTUS strikes…again.  The Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers recently announced a supplemental proposed rule to define “waters of the United States” pursuant to the Clean Water Act.   The agencies say that supplemental rule will further their “commitment to radical transparency” to develop a “durable, final definition of WOTUS that adheres to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, cuts bureaucratic red tape, and protects water quality while recognizing that States and Tribes know their water resources best.”  Specifically, the rule will seek comment on definitions for “relatively permanent” waters and “continuous surface connection.” [Read FAQ document here.]

*Senate Ag Committee votes to advance Farm Bill.  The Senate Ag Committee voted 12-11 to advance the Senate version of the Farm Bill out of committee.  The bill will now make its way to a vote of the full Senate.  If passed, it will be reconciled with the Farm Bill language previously passed by the US House of Representatives.

*President signs executive order regarding livestock producers.  On September 4, President Trump signed Executive Orders 14424 and 14425 directing the USDA to strengthen its enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, to expand interstate market access for meat producers, and to support small and regional meat processors.  [Read Orders here and here.]  To read a great article summarizing these actions, click here.

* FinCEN permanently ends beneficial ownership reporting requirements for US persons and businesses; will delete previously provided data.  This marks the end for one of the more controversial federal rules we have written about over the past few years.  The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) will issue a rule permanently removing the Corporate Transparency Act requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. individuals have to report beneficial ownership information.  The final rule will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register. If someone already reported their information, FinCEN has stated that it will delete previously reported information from United States citizens.  [Read press release here.]

*Lawsuits challenge amendments to the Endangered Species Act.  We have previously mentioned major changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the Trump administration.  Now, two of these changes are being challenged in federal court.  A number of states filed suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the recission of the definition of “take” under the ESA and the decision to eliminate a rule that has been used in the past to automatically extend full ESA protections to species categorized as “threatened.”  [See Complaints here and here.]

*Article on options for distressed agricultural borrowers.  The National Agricultural Law Center published an article discussing options for distressed agricultural borrowers.

*New Mexico adds a state-inspected meat program.  New Mexico has joined the list of states with approved state meat and poultry inspection program.  Meat inspected under this program will be allowed to be sold intrastate–within New Mexico–only. [Read press release here.]

*Nebraska ranchers file lawsuit for fire damage.  A Nebraska ranch family has filed suit against the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and a neighboring rancher after a prescribed burn escaped containment killing 46 cows, burning over 3,500 acres, and causing over $270,000 in damages.  The State of Nebraska has filed counterclaims against the neighboring rancher, claiming he served as the burn boss on the day of the fire, and that he took responsibility to decide whether it was safe to burn. [Read article here.]

*Article on farm succession conversations.  Farm Progress recently published an article on farm and ranch estate planning.  They focused on the importance of getting the conversation going between generations.  [Read article here.]

* Tri-State Fair report.  I know (and appreciate!) many of you follow along with my kids and their 4-H project journey.  This week, we are busy at the Tri-State Fair in Amarillo.  My son was crowned the Grand Champion Junior Public Speaker earlier this week.  Both kids won breed champion and reserve breed champion honors in the sheep show last weekend.  Today, we will continue the fun in the livestock judging contest, and they will show steers tomorrow.

Upcoming Programs

October has us hitting the ground running! On October 1, I will be in Plainview for a Texas Farm Bureau Young Farmers event.  Then, I will be headed to the Hill Country for the Bennett Trust Women’s Land Stewardship Conference in Fredericksburg October 5-6.  On October 14, apparently everyone needed a guest lecturer, as I’ll be teaching water law at West Virginia University School of Law, Texas laws for cattle producers at Texas A&M University, and Key Laws for Texas Landowners at Ranch Management University in College Station.  To see my complete schedule, click here.

The post September Monthly Round Up appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

The Eastland Court of Appeals recently ruled in Surrento v. Cactus Growers, Inc., a vehicle-versus-cow case involving a number of defendants.  This case illustrates a number of important considerations when it comes to Texas fence law.

Cow walking on paved roadway / Photo by Karin Kim on Unsplash

Background

Brianna Surrento was killed when her vehicle hit a cow on the highway near the Doss Ranch.

The Doss Ranch is owned by the Doss Foundation.  At the time of the accident, the ranch was leased to Jackie Warren.  Warren had entered into a grazing lease agreement with Jeffrey Carlisle, who kept about 250 head of cattle on the land pursuant to an agreement with Cactus Growers, who owned the cattle herd.

Relevant here are two pastures, the West and East Pastures, which are divided by County Road 135.  South of the two pastures is State  Highway 180.  Jeffrey Carlisle testified that cattle were kept only in the West Pasture.

Between 4:00 and 6:00 pm on the day of the accident, the Gaines County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to a location near the Doss ranch for a cow outside the fence.  She had a green ear tag.  The Sergeant on scene called Jeffrey Carlisle to ask about the cow.  Jeffrey said his cattle had yellow and blue tags but admitted there may be a few with green tags.  The Sergeant herded the cow to a gate leading to the East pasture, let her in, and secured the gate.  After receiving the call from the Sheriff’s deputy, Jeffrey Carlisle sent one of his ranch hands to investigate the property, fences, and cattle.  The hand said the fences showed no breaches, gates were closed, and he did not see cattle outside of the fenced area.

At 8:19 pm, dispatch received another call that two black cows were spotted on Highway 180 just west of County Road 135.  The dispatcher called the ranch hand to let him know.  Shortly after that, the accident that killed Brianna occurred.

Jeffrey Carlisle said he could not identify the cow involved in the accident.  However, a Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper testified that while at the scene, Carlisle told her the cow was owned by Cactus Feeders and was part of the herd he was taking care of for Cactus.

Litigation

Brianna’s father, Michael, brought suit against Cactus Growers, the Doss Foundation, Jeffrey Carlisle, and Jackie Warren claiming gross negligence and statutory liability under the Texas Agriculture Code Section 143.102.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted those motions and dismissed the case.

Brianna’s father appealed.

Eastland Court of Appeals Opinion

The Eastland Court of Appeals affirmed.  [Read order here.]

The court addressed a number of issues on appeal.

Procedural Issues

Michael raised several procedural issues.

Expert report exclusion:  The court excluded two expert reports that Michael offered as summary judgment evidence, finding that he failed to properly disclose these experts, and the reports were not provided in discovery. Michael provided the expert names and reports after the deadline and offered no effort to demonstrate good cause for the late designation.   The appellate court held the trial court did not err in excluding these reports.

Excluded exhibits: The court also excluded a number of additional exhibits Michael sought to offer such as depositions, the lease agreement between the Doss Foundation and Warren, and a DPS crash investigation report.  The court took each of these exhibits into consideration during their review of the appeal, and held that even if they were properly admitted, they would not have changed the result of the trial court’s rulings, so any error in the court’s striking them was harmless.

Adequate discovery time: Michael argued that the trial court granted summary judgment before allowing adequate time for discovery on whether Cactus “knowingly permitted” the cow to run at large.  Michael, however, did not file a verified motion for continuance or an affidavit seeking more time for discovery on the issue of “knowingly permitted” as required by Texas law to extend discovery time.  Additionally, the appellate court found that Michael did not exercise due diligence in obtaining the requested discovery. He delayed the deposition of Cactus Growers for 17 months after the filing of the lawsuit and only sought to take it 15 days before the discovery deadline.   The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael’s motion for further discovery.

Merits

The court turned next to Michael’s merits arguments.

Texas fence law:  The court set forth a detailed description of recent Texas case law regarding animals hit on a state highway. Pursuant to Texas Agriculture Code 143.102, a state and US highways are closed range, and a livestock owner may not “knowingly permit” animals from running at large. Texas courts have explained that it is not enough that a livestock owner should have known but does not actually know their livestock have been permitted to roam at large on the highway. Likewise, courts have held “the mere fact an animal escapes and makes its way onto a highway does not support a finding of culpability.” To satisfy the “knowingly permit” standard, there must be evidence that a livestock owner was reasonably certain a cow could escape and roam at large.  The most probative evidence is the actual knowledge of the livestock owner in the current situation.  Additional circumstantial evidence can include the condition of the fences and the history of the owner’s animals escaping. This requires more than a “temporary escape,” but instead must show the animal was allowed as a matter of course to graze and move freely in an unconfined area.

Jeffrey Carlisle:  Carlisle filed a summary judgment motion claiming there was no evidence that he permitted a cow to roam at large on Highway 180. Michael argued a combination of inadequate fencing and prior escapes was sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact on this question.  The appellate court disagreed, finding that he failed to offer sufficient evidence that the West Pasture fences (where the cattle were kept) were inadequate, focusing instead only on the East Pasture fencing. Additionally, the fencing evidence was offered by the expert that the court property excluded from trial.  Thus, it could not be considered. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence to show that there were cattle allowed to be in the East Pasture. When there was the earlier report of cattle out, Carlisle sent his ranch hand to inspect the fences, gates, and cows.  He did not see any breach in the fencing. The court did not err in holding there was no evidence to show that Carlisle knowingly permitted the cow to run at large.

Cactus Growers:  Michael claimed that Cactus was liable as the owner of the cow.  Cactus argued that even if it was the owner, it did not have control of the cow because the responsibility for care and control was delegated to Carlisle. Importantly, the court refused to answer the question of whether an owner who delegates control of an animal to another can remain liable under Section 143.102, because regardless, there was no evidence that Cactus Growers knowingly permitted the cow to run at large. For the same reason that Michael’s circumstantial evidence regarding knowledge failed against Carlisle, it fails against Cactus Growers. There was simply no evidence of inadequate fencing or subsequent patterns of escapes. In light of this, summary judgment was properly granted.

Warren and the Doss Foundation: Both Warren and the Doss Foundation moved for summary judgement arguing there was no evidence that they had any ownership or responsibility for the cow and that there was no evidence they knowingly permitted the cow to run at large. Looking at the statutory language, the court notes the distinction of those who may be liable under the statute–those who own or have responsibility for the livestock animal–versus those who own the property. The applicability of Section 143.102 is to the person who owns or is responsible for the animals, not the land.  Further, there was nothing in the lease agreements between the parties that gave Warren or the Doss Foundation control over the cattle.  A clause stating that Warren would prorate the cost of fence repairs against the lease price did not create the necessary type of responsibility for the cattle.   Regardless, the court noted, there was no evidence that Warren or the Doss Foundation acted knowingly to permit the cow to run at large.  Summary judgment was proper against these defendants.

Gross Negligence:  Because the court found no evidence to support Michael’s claims under Section 143.102, they needed not reach the question of gross negligence.

Amended Petitions

The court rejected an argument that the trial court improperly struck Michaels’ fifth amended petition.  The appellate court held that this was harmless error because the summary judgement motion was sufficiently broad to respond to any differences between the fourth and fifth amended complaints.

Conclusion

The trial court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed.  (Do note that the deadline for filing a Petition for Review at the Texas Supreme Court has not yet passed.)

Key Takeaways

This case highlights many key points regarding fence law.

• For collisions on State and US highways, it is the “knowingly  permit” standard that applies.  This standard required more than just that the livestock owner should have known–but evidence that they were “reasonably certain” that the livestock would be out.  Actual knowledge of the current situation is the best evidence, though evidence of poor fence quality or past escapes is also relevant.
• Any time a livestock owner receives information that they have livestock out, they should act as quickly as possible to contain the animals to avoid potential liability.
• In lease situations, the court has drawn a distinction between the person who owns and is responsible for the livestock (who may be held liable under the fence law statute) and the person who owns and is responsible for the land (who generally is not liable.)  This can be changed, however, if there is a lease provision imposing such responsibility on the landowner.
• It is interesting to note that the court did not answer the question of whether a person caring for animals owned by another person could be liable for livestock on the roadway.  The safe approach for anyone caring for livestock would be to behave as though there could be liability and to act accordingly.

The post Texas Appellate Court Rules on Vehicle-Versus-Cow Collision appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

Understanding current cash rental rates is important for both landowners and agricultural producers. One of the most widely used sources of rental rate information is the annual USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cash rent survey, which compiles data from respondents across the country. The rates reported in this survey reflect average cash rents and are shown on a per-acre, per-year basis. 

Thomas Ranch on August 18, 2026 in Anderson, Texas. (Anna Haley/Texas A&M Agrilife)

To view the database with the data for each state, click here.  To view the database with data for each county in the US, click here.

Pastureland

• The statewide average for pastureland was $8.60/acre, which is up $1.10 from last year.

• The highest pastureland rental rates were reported in Wharton County at $30.50/acre. Falls County reported $24.50/acre, and Titus County reported $24.00/acre.

• Conversely, the lowest reported pastureland lease average was in the Southern High Plains with Midland County at $1.10, and Trans-Pecos District with Terrell at $1.70/acre.

Irrigated Cropland

• The Texas average lease rate for irrigated cropland was $125/acre, up $11 from 2025.

• For 2026, the highest average reported lease rates were in Hartley County ($205/acre) and Gaines County ($190/acre).

• The lowest reported rates for irrigated cropland came from Childress County at $26.

Non-Irrigated Cropland

• Statewide non-irrigated cropland lease rates averaged $35.50/acre, which is a $1/acre decrease from the prior year.

• The highest reported rental for non-irrigated cropland was found in San Patricio County at $83.50/acre and in Nueces County at $70/acre.

• On the other hand, the lowest rates came from Kendall County ($9.50), and Llano County ($9.90).

District Summary

Dr. Greg Kaase pulled together the following table showing the average cash lease rates for 2025 and 2026 for each of Texas’ regions.

County-level estimates are accessible online at the following web address:
https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/E0F5EB36-3313-3D7B-9E7F-E56A3365CF2B#9A9F55D7-E267-38C6-ACB9-DF106291B5A7

More Information

For those looking to learn more about agricultural leases, we offer a number of helpful resources. Chapter 11 of the Owning Your Piece of Texas Handbook provides an overview of key agricultural leasing concepts, while the Ranchers Agricultural Leasing Handbook takes a deeper look at issues commonly faced by landowners and tenants. Both publications offer practical guidance on topics ranging from lease terms and liability concerns to termination and dispute resolution.

In addition, our podcast library includes episodes focused on grazing, farming, and hunting leases, featuring discussions on common legal issues, best practices, and real-world considerations for lease agreements.

For those interested in a more hands-on learning experience, our Ranchers Leasing Workshop covers important topics related to grazing and hunting leases, including drafting provisions, liability protection, and risk management. The workshop is offered both in person and online. Our next live course will be held in Bryan, Texas, on December 8, and the online version is available on demand for participants who prefer to learn at their own pace.

The post 2026 USDA NASS Cash Rent Rates Published  appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

John Deere recently settled a lawsuit brought by farmers who argued that John Deere improperly withheld certain repair tools needed to fix their large agricultural equipment like tractors and combines.  This “right to repair” settlement has important implications for farmers around the country who own Deere equipment and may provide compensation for certain repair costs incurred over the last several years.

John Deere Tractor / Photo by Chris Robert on Unsplash

Background

Farmers sued John Deere in Illinois federal court claiming the company restricted access to the software and digital tools required to diagnose and repair newer John Deere equipment.  Without those tools, farmers were forced to rely exclusively on Deere-authorized dealers and repair shops, often resulting in higher repair costs and delays.

Settlement Agreement

Although Deere did not admit wrongdoing, the company agreed to:

• Pay $99 million into a settlement fund for class members who used Deere dealer repair services between January 10, 2018, and May 18, 2026.
• Provide repair tools and digital diagnostic information to farmers and independent repair shops for at least the next 10 years.

Separately, Deere also recently settled a related case with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that included the same requirement regarding providing tools and diagnostic information for the next 10 years.  This will solve one of the central concerns raised by farmers in the right to repair debate: access to the tools and information necessary to diagnose and repair their own equipment.  The FTC will oversee Deere’s compliance with the tool and information-access requirements over the next decade.

Next Steps and Decisions for Farmers

Farmers who fall within the definition of a class member have several important decisions to make–and critical deadlines approaching before the end of the year.

Are you a member of the class?

A farmer is included in the class if they meet each of the following requirements:

• Purchased repair services for John Deere large agricultural equipment;
• Obtained those services from John Deere or an authorized dealer; and
• Received the services in the United States between January 10, 2018, and May 18, 2026.

The following people are not part of the class:

• Deere or any of its parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates
• Deere officers, directors, employees and/or their immediate family members
• Any judicial officer presiding over the lawsuit, their immediate family members and their staff
• Governmental entities.

What are options for class members?

Class members must choose one of four options:

1. Submit a claim form.  Class members can decide to complete a claim form to remain part of the class and to qualify for payment from the settlement funds.  The claim form is being mailed to all class members for whom Deere has the appropriate information and also may be found online.  The form asks for basic contact information, information about all equipment and the qualifying repairs (this will be pre-filled based on John Deere records but may be supplemented to include additional repairs for which farmers have records), and warranty information, if any.  Payments will be based on the number of labor hours billed during the class time period. Critically, all claim forms must be submitted by December 31, 2026.
2. Opt out of the class.  Class members can decide to opt out of the class.  This essentially means that they do not want to be a part of the settlement.  They will give up their right to the settlement proceeds and will not be bound by the settlement terms.  Oftentimes, when people make this decision in the class action context, it is because they want to preserve their individual claims with an intent to individually sue.  Importantly, the opt out deadline is December 4, 2026.
3. Object to the settlement.  Class members may object to the settlement.  This allows an objector to tell the court that they disagree with the settlement terms.  Importantly, the objector remains a member of the class and may still receive payment.
4. Do nothing.  Class members could choose to do nothing.  People choosing this option will not receive any settlement funds and will forfeit their right to individually file suit against Deere for these claims in the future.

What happens next?

Notices are being mailed to all identifiable class members based on John Deere’s repair records.  Farmers who believe they qualify should watch their mailbox for the claim form.  Once the notice arrives, farmers can make one of the four choices listed above.

Those who do plan to submit a claim must do so no later than December 31, 2026.  Any farmer who does not receive a notice but believes they should be included as a class member can find additional information, including a claim form here.

This settlement is not final at this point.  The court will hold a fairness hearing scheduled on January 19, 2027.

More Information

For more information on this settlement and to see the claim form, click here.

We also have podcast episodes available on the Right to Repair and on class action litigation generally.

The post Deere Right to Repair Settlement Approved – What Does that Mean for You? appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

In July, the USDA released its annual Land Values Summary for 2026, providing a snapshot of how agricultural real estate values have changed across the country over the past year. View the full report here. 

The 2026 report continues to show strong growth in agricultural land values nationwide, with the value of farm real estate, cropland, and pastureland all increasing over the past year. The average U.S. farm real estate value, which includes the value of all land and buildings on farms, reached $4,500 per acre, an increase of 3.4% from 2025. The average value of cropland also increased, rising 3.3% to $6,020 per acre. Meanwhile, pastureland saw the largest increase, with the nationwide average value reaching $2,000 per acre, up 4.2% from last year. 

The report also looks at various regional measurements. 

Farm Real Estate Averages 

• Farm real estate average value is the highest in the Corn Belt region (IL, IN, IA, MO, OH) at $8,540/acre.  

• The highest state value is found in Rhode Island at $23,600/acre.  

• The lowest regional average was $1,710 for the Mountain region (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY).  

• The lowest state value is New Mexico at $735. By comparison, Texas and Oklahoma make up the Southern Plains region, which has an average of $3,000. 

Cropland Averages 

• For cropland values, Rhode Island reports the highest at $34,300/acre, while regionally the Pacific region shows the highest values at an average of $10,080/acre.  

• The Southern Plains region (OK, TX) reported the lowest cropland average value at $2,730/acre, a 3.4% increase from the prior year.  

• The state with the lowest cropland value is Montana at $1,350/acre. 

Pasture Averages 

• Pasture average value per acre was highest in Rhode Island at $17,500 and lowest in New Mexico at $650/acre.  

• Regionally, values were the highest in the Southeast (AL, FL, GA, SC) at $5,920 and the lowest in the Mountain region at $973.  

• For the Southern Plains region, pastureland value came in at an average of $2,380. 

Looking specifically at Texas: 

• Farm real estate average value: $3,100/acre, a 4.4% increase from 2025. 

• Cropland average value: $2,790/acre. This is up 3% from a year ago.  This includes an irrigated average of $3,500 and non-irrigated average of $2,700. 

• Pastureland average value: $2,420/acre, up 5.2%. 

To view the entire report and see complete information for each state and region,  

click here. 

For additional information regarding land values in Texas, be sure you check out the Texas Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers report titled Texas Rural Land Value Trends here. 

The post USDA Land Values 2026 Summary Published appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.