Texas Administrative Code Title 4 - AGRICULTURE
What is the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 4
The Texas Administrative Code is the compilation of rules adopted by Texas state agencies under delegated legislative authority. Legal Information Institute+1
Title 4 is the part that deals with Agriculture. Legal Information Institute+1
Inside Title 4 there are Parts, Chapters, Subchapters, Sections etc., each dealing with specific areas like pests/quarantines, seed quality, animal health, weights & measures, etc. Justia+2Legal Information Institute+2
Structure of Title 4 – Key Parts & Subjects
Here are some of the main parts of Title 4 and what they cover:
| Part / Agency | Key Chapters & Topics |
|---|---|
| Part 1 — Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) | General procedures, licensing, seed certification & labeling, pesticides, weights & measures, organic standards, produce safety, marketing & promotion, etc. Justia+2Legal Information Institute+2 |
| Part 2 — Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) | Rules about animal health: quarantines, rules for moving animals, control of diseases, exhibitions/shows, etc. Texas Secretary of State+2Texas Animal Health Commission+2 |
| Other Parts | Feed & fertilizer control, apiarist inspection (bees), state seed and plant board, forestry (via Texas A&M Forest Service), prescribed burning, etc. Legal Information Institute+2Texas Animal Health Commission+2 |
Powers, Enabling Statutes, and Legal Operation
The rules in Title 4 are promulgated under various Chapters of the Texas Agriculture Code, which is a statute passed by the Texas Legislature. That statute delegates authority to the agencies to adopt rules to enforce/implement the statute. For example:
The Texas Department of Agriculture is given rulemaking authority under sections like Section 12.016 of the Agriculture Code. Texas Secretary of State+1
For quarantines of plants, pests, etc., TDA uses authority from Chapter 71 of the Agriculture Code. Texas Secretary of State+1
Administrative rules must comply with procedural requirements (notice, comment, etc.), and must be consistent with the statutory law. Rules that exceed their statutory authority may be challenged.
Contested cases: Many enforcement actions or licensing denials etc. can become contested cases under the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Government Code Chapter 2001). In those instances, impacted parties have rights to hearing, appeal, due process etc. Legal Information Institute+1
Key Themes & Areas of Enforcement
Some of the big themes in Title 4 include:
Quarantines & Pest Control — e.g. rules controlling movement of plants, plant material, animals subject to disease; quarantined areas; restrictions on transport of certain species. Texas Secretary of State+2texreg.sos.state.tx.us+2
Seed labeling, quality, certification — rules require seeds (vegetable or agricultural) to have certain labeling, purity, germination, variety information etc. Texas.Public.Law+2Texas.Public.Law+2
Animal health regulation — moving animals, disease control, health certificates, etc. Texas Animal Health Commission+1
Licensing & regulatory compliance — license for seed producers, pesticide applicators, etc. Texas Secretary of State+1
Enforcement / penalties / judicial or administrative remedies — seizure of non-complying seed, fines/penalties, possibility of judicial review, etc. Texas.Public.Law+2Justia+2
Case Law & Judicial Interpretation
Here are some important cases that show how Title 4 rules (or the statutes behind them) have been interpreted, enforced, or challenged. These illustrate things like authority of agencies, due process, scope of rulemaking, etc.
| Case | Main Facts / Issue | What the Court Held / Why It Matters for Title 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Nunley v. Texas Animal Health Commission, 471 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. Civ. App. — San Antonio 1971) | The plaintiff challenged the Commission’s quarantine program (for bovine brucellosis) and related rules/regulations, including orders quarantining his herd and destroying animals. Casetext | The court upheld the statute and rules: it found the legislative and regulatory framework for the quarantine program constitutional, the agency had sufficient authority under statutes to act. Thus, cases like this show that disease control rules/quarantines under Title 4 are likely to withstand constitutional and legal challenge if properly grounded in statute. Casetext |
| Texas Animal Health Commission v. Miller, 850 S.W.2d 254 (1993) | Whistleblower-type situation: Miller claimed he was discriminated/retaliated against for reporting violations. vLex | The court affirmed protections under the Whistleblower statute. While not directly a rules‑interpretation case of quarantines or seeds, it shows the Commission’s (TAHC’s) obligations under other laws, including being subject to statutory duties beyond just rulemaking. It emphasizes legal accountability of agencies under multiple statutes. vLex |
| D. Priest & Van Zandt Commission Company v. Texas Animal Health Commission, 780 S.W.2d 874 (1989) | Dispute involved whether the Commission had authority, in the enforcement of brucellosis rules, to inspect records, enjoin sales, etc., and whether there was abuse of discretion in enforcing the Agriculture Code, rules, etc. Justia | The court looked at whether sufficient proofs were made, whether agency acted within statutory bounds. Also, that rules and records under agency supervision must comply with notice, proper procedure, etc. This demonstrates that agencies under Title 4 must follow both substance and process. Justia |
| Texas Animal Health Commission v. Garza, No. 04‑97‑00793‑CV, 1998 | Part of TAHC’s authority to enforce rules, and procedural questions (e.g. which court tried the case). CaseLaw | The case, among other things, deals with questions of jurisdiction and proper procedure — reminding that even when rules are valid, the way they are enforced must comply with court structure and legal norms. CaseLaw |
| RW’s lawsuit (2022‑2024) regarding TAHC authority over white‑tailed deer | A litigant argued TAHC overstepped by applying herd plan/quarantine rules to wildlife, and claimed right to contested case hearing etc. Texas A&M AgriLife | The appellate court held TAHC does have statutory authority to control diseases affecting livestock etc., even if wild animals may be involved as vectors (“agent of transmission”), under Agriculture Code § 161.041. So rule‑making and disease control powers are broad in that regard. Also the case underscores that affected parties may demand contested case rights and that agencies must have proper rule authority. Texas A&M AgriLife |
Legal Principles / Lessons
From the structure of Title 4, statutes, and case law, some general legal principles become clear:
Statutory authority is essential — Agencies must always have statute empowering them to adopt rules in the area in question. Rules that go beyond the statute can be struck down.
Due process & contested case rights — If a rule affects legal rights or duties, the party may be entitled to a hearing under the APA. Procedures (hearing, notice, records) matter.
Substantial evidence standard on review — Courts often require agency rule or factual determinations to be supported by substantial evidence in the record (especially in contested cases). Agencies can’t just assert claims without evidence. (Seen in Priest case, etc.)
Labeling / seed standards are strictly enforced — The Agriculture Code has detailed requirements for what seed labels must say: % germination, noxious weed content, inert matter, lot number, name of labeler etc. Non‑compliance can lead to seizure or condemnation. Texas.Public.Law+2Texas.Public.Law+2
Quarantine and disease control power is broad — For both plants and animals. Agencies are able to establish geographic quarantines, restrict movement (of animals, animal products, plants), and impose control measures. These powers have been upheld in multiple cases (e.g., Nunley).
Enforcement must adhere to process — Even when the substance of a rule is valid, enforcement actions must follow procedural requirements: inspections, notices, opportunity to comply, perhaps chance to contest. Courts look at whether the agency followed statutory mandates.
RELATED Blog
0 comments