SQ777

[Oil Capital]

Excellent point. It is another reason to be opposed to 777. There will be regulations and there will be violations. Sometimes through no fault.

But when that happens, do you want the guy regulating you to be a guy from your state, even your county, or do you want that guy to be out of Washington D.C.? As of now, Oklahoma state environmental regulators have primacy on most environmental rules. When a problem occurs, they have a better relationship with the land or business owner. If that fix ain't good enough for the feds, then they step in.

This bill kills that. As rules change, Oklahoma won't and we will all suffer. I fear the feds can never do it all and do it all correctly.

Does this bill really kill that?  Have the North Dakota state ag environmental regulators been put out of business?  Missouri?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Does this bill really kill that?  Have the North Dakota state ag environmental regulators been put out of business?  Missouri?

Yes.  Unintended consequences...   


Think in terms of the bill vetoed and overridden last week regarding suing Saudi Arabia....

[Oil Capital]

Yes.  Unintended consequences...   


Think in terms of the bill vetoed and overridden last week regarding suing Saudi Arabia....

So you're seriously telling us that North Dakota is out of the business of regulation of agriculture activities?  I think that would come as a surprise to North Dakotans.

[erfalf]

I think (based on discussions with actual farmers) the original intent started out to be that farmers were getting pushed out by urban sprawl so to speak. Think places like Owasso and Bixby, Skiatook. Brand new NIMBYs who 6 months after moving in don't want a hog farm in there back yard. A hog farm that had been there for 80 years prior to said NIMBYs arrival. I think that was the genesis of the whole thing. I dint know that this addresses that well at all.

I know my father who still farms 1,500 acres in north central Oklahoma seems pretty wishy washy about it. He told me it just doesn't pass the smell test for him. Doesn't really seems like it address any problem really.

[Conan71]

So you're seriously telling us that North Dakota is out of the business of regulation of agriculture activities?  I think that would come as a surprise to North Dakotans.

What is it about 777 that you believe is beneficial to Oklahoma farmers that makes you support it?

According to everything I've read on the matter, the ND Farm Bureau was firmly behind their right to farm bill and now they are behind the reversal of ND's 1932 law banning corporate owned farms which has proven to be pretty unpopular.  It also appears Oklahoma's RTF amendment goes further than the one in ND.  I can't claim to all the ins and outs of it but it appears to be apples and oranges between the Oklahoma and ND amendments.

[AquaMan]

Erf, the law is pretty settled in that instance. The hog farm has to go.

I thought it was push back from the actions of environmentalists, vegetarians, organics and tree huggers that prompted the move. Corporates don't like people telling them what they want. They spend a lot of money to tell the people what they want.

[erfalf]

Erf, the law is pretty settled in that instance. The hog farm has to go.

I thought it was push back from the actions of environmentalists, vegetarians, organics and tree huggers that prompted the move. Corporates don't like people telling them what they want. They spend a lot of money to tell the people what they want.

Like I said, what I believe the push to get it going in the first place was that farmers didn't want the laws changed on them through because somebody moves in next door that wasn't there for a hundred years.

What it ended up being is a poor attempt at it, if that truly was the case. Modern day farmers are a lot more environmentally friendly than you think. Think about it, what commodity do farmers really own? Land. How is it in their best interest to destroy the land they need to survive quite literally.

That being said, farming practices over generations change. People learn more. What they do today is likely not perfect, but it is the best we know at this point in time. Consider farmers have been producing more on less land year over year over year. The push for this I believe was initiated knowing that there is a finite amount of land available to MAKE FOOD. The more people keep moving out in the country next door and taking it out of production, the more difficult it is for the farmer to make a buck.

Again, this by no means is support for 777, which I personally believe to be misguided.

[Oil Capital]

What is it about 777 that you believe is beneficial to Oklahoma farmers that makes you support it?

According to everything I've read on the matter, the ND Farm Bureau was firmly behind their right to farm bill and now they are behind the reversal of ND's 1932 law banning corporate owned farms which has proven to be pretty unpopular.  It also appears Oklahoma's RTF amendment goes further than the one in ND.  I can't claim to all the ins and outs of it but it appears to be apples and oranges between the Oklahoma and ND amendments.

I am honestly undecided about 777.  I'm not convinced its benefits are sufficient to justify another constitutional amendment. But the sky-is-falling opposition is also far from convincing. Hence my questions.

How do you think the Oklahoma amendment goes further than the ND amendment? I think it's exactly the opposite. In my reading, the ND amendment allows "no law", full stop.  The Oklahoma amendment allows laws that further a compelling state interest.

The ND amendment:

The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.


The Oklahoma amendment:

To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the right so citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I am honestly undecided about 777.  I'm not convinced its benefits are sufficient to justify another constitutional amendment. But the sky-is-falling opposition is also far from convincing. Hence my questions.

How do you think the Oklahoma amendment goes further than the ND amendment? I think it's exactly the opposite. In my reading, the ND amendment allows "no law", full stop.  The Oklahoma amendment allows laws that further a compelling state interest.

The ND amendment:

The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.


The Oklahoma amendment:

To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the right so citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014.

It is written by "Tyson and Friends, Inc" to allow them to continue to engage in practices that have dramatically changed the Illinois River.  If you haven't been there in 1975 and then again in 2015, you wouldn't appreciate what has been done to that watershed.  This will prevent any rules that would make clean up possible.

And Tyson is the most visible, but it also applies to any corporate agriculture participant doing anything that fears future efforts to make them stop bad practices that harm the land/water.   Farmers worked under a "Freedom to Farm" framework" in the early 1900's - which brought us the Dust Bowl.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think (based on discussions with actual farmers) the original intent started out to be that farmers were getting pushed out by urban sprawl so to speak. Think places like Owasso and Bixby, Skiatook. Brand new NIMBYs who 6 months after moving in don't want a hog farm in there back yard. A hog farm that had been there for 80 years prior to said NIMBYs arrival. I think that was the genesis of the whole thing. I dint know that this addresses that well at all.

I know my father who still farms 1,500 acres in north central Oklahoma seems pretty wishy washy about it. He told me it just doesn't pass the smell test for him. Doesn't really seems like it address any problem really.

That's what I have harped on for years around here - outsiders coming into an area and bringing their particular brand of BS to the area and ruin what drew them in the first place.  And Owasso, Bixby, Skiatook, and Broken Arrow are very specific good examples of the concept. 

What is there about Owasso that is so great now - as compared to say, 1968 when I last lived there for a while?   Nothing.  Except there is more urban sprawl and all it's associated problems with traffic, pollution, infrastructure, etc.  It is just more Tulsa.  And the roads and other infrastructure build in the last 25 years is now to the point where much of it needs fixing, since it was done poorly to start.    See the highway 169 mess up there past 56th street north?   The have that section open now - upgraded to handle the traffic levels of 1995!   So, I expect it to be further "improved" to handle today's traffic levels in 2035.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So you're seriously telling us that North Dakota is out of the business of regulation of agriculture activities?  I think that would come as a surprise to North Dakotans.

This bill makes it impossible for Oklahoma to regulate it's land.   Your first question.  No reply about ND, since I don't have any information about that yet.  I do know that the recent oil boom has created a massive "cluster" mess from the drilling/production activities.  I am wondering if it is due to that law...?

[Conan71]

Drew Edmondson, who brought the lawsuit to clean up the Illinois River watershed as Oklahoma's AG, is very worried about this measure and I don't consider that he's approaching it with a knee-jerk reaction.  More than anyone else, he's been my barometer on this question.

I'm also very loathe to support anything which appears to be funded and directed by larger powers outside the state, and this appears to be one of those measures which is slowly going state-by-state.  Much like open carry and other misguided measures our legislature is so eager to be willing enablers for.

[Conan71]

This is a pretty good tract which does try to explain why this goes further than the ND amendment and also describes the pitfalls of this should it be passed in Oklahoma.  One part which jumps out at me is that defining what a "compelling state interest is" is very difficult to define or even enforce legally, if I am reading the author's points correctly.  By not defining what a compelling state interest would be in the measure, that in itself creates all sort of potential legal pitfalls, as I understand.

https://www.okfoodfarmfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/OFFF-State-Question-777-BriefFinal_7-20-16.pdf

[Oil Capital]

This bill makes it impossible for Oklahoma to regulate it's land.   Your first question.  No reply about ND, since I don't have any information about that yet.  I do know that the recent oil boom has created a massive "cluster" mess from the drilling/production activities.  I am wondering if it is due to that law...?

No.  It clearly does not make it impossible for Oklahoma to regulate its land.  It is still possible for Oklahoma to pass any laws and regulations it pleases, so long as the law or regulation serves a compelling state interest.  Water quality, for example, would seem to easily qualify.

[Oil Capital]

This is a pretty good tract which does try to explain why this goes further than the ND amendment and also describes the pitfalls of this should it be passed in Oklahoma.  One part which jumps out at me is that defining what a "compelling state interest is" is very difficult to define or even enforce legally, if I am reading the author's points correctly.  By not defining what a compelling state interest would be in the measure, that in itself creates all sort of potential legal pitfalls, as I understand.

https://www.okfoodfarmfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/OFFF-State-Question-777-BriefFinal_7-20-16.pdf

Where in that article do they suggest the the Oklahoma amendment goes further than ND's?