A constitutional amendment was introduced in Texas protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production and wildlife management on owned or leased real property.
House Joint Resolution (HJR) 126 would amend the Texas Constitution to not only protect the right to farm and ranch but also allow the legislature to authorize a state agency or political subdivision to regulate agricultural operations when there is a clear danger to public health and safety and to prevent danger to animal health and crop production.
Rep. DeWayne Burns (R-TX-35), the bill’s sponsor, told the House Committee on Agriculture and Livestock at a public hearing on March 22 the amendment seeks to clarify some of the confusion with the current “right-to-farm” statute passed in 1981.
The current law preserves the production of food and other agricultural products by limiting the circumstances in which an agricultural operation may be considered a nuisance. Agriculture operations must be in operation for a year before the nuisance complaint, so long as the conditions have stayed the same since the established operation date.
Burns pointed out that Texas ranks No. 1 for many crops and livestock production, and the state relies on farms and ranches to feed and clothe the state. Burns said the amendment protects agriculture as the population increases and urban boundaries encroach onto farmland.
Texas Farm Bureau President Russell Boening testified in support of HJR 126 to the committee, stating that 97% of Texas farms and ranches are family-owned. Boening said his operation, located just 35 miles outside of San Antonio and started by his father, farms 5,000 acres and has 450 head of cattle and 500 head of dairy cows.
“As development comes our way, how will it affect our operation?” Boening asked. “Will our new neighbors appreciate the fact that we are a typical ag operation providing the beef, milk and other products they consume every day? Or will they complain and ask the county or state to place restrictions on our operation? We don’t know. That’s why we need HJR 126. We can’t count on a future legislature to be as friendly to Texas farmers and ranchers as you are. We could lose our right to farm protections in statute.”
Judith McGeary, executive director of Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, testified in opposition of HJR 126, stating it goes too far. McGeary said the alliance supports reining in cities and governments over the regulation of farms and ranches based on unfound biases of aesthetics as farmers and ranchers face regulations over vegetation and round bale height.
However, McGeary said the law’s wording regarding the regulation to protect public health and safety from imminent danger is short. She cited the agriculture industry’s fight against regulations on antibiotic use and the claims that there was no immediate danger. Now there are regulations requiring a veterinarian to administer the pharmaceuticals.
McGeary also said the problem with HJR 126 is the burden of proof: “This requires such relevant evidence as a reasonable man’s mind might be accepted as adequate to support a conclusion. That’s a pretty low bar; it would be good to have that changed.”
Burns defended the amendment and said the right-to-farm law says cities and the state can act to protect public health and safety, but HJR 126 will put the burden of proof on the municipalities.
Burns also introduced House Bill (HB) 1750, a companion to HJR 126. The bill would impose limits on governmental regulations within city limits on agricultural operations unless there is clear evidence there is a danger to persons within the vicinity of the operation.
Some of these dangers include the likelihood of an explosion, flooding, an infestation of vermin or insects, contamination of a water supply or crops that cause traffic hazards. The city must obtain a report from the city health officer or consultant and show evidence of a health and safety hazard. The bill authorizes a city to impose a maximum height for vegetation that applies to agricultural operations only if the maximum vegetation height is at least 12 inches and no more than 10 feet from a property boundary adjacent to a sidewalk, street or highway.
Cities would not be allowed to prohibit “generally accepted agricultural practices,” except to address a danger listed in the bill. The bill directs Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service to prepare a manual detailing generally accepted agricultural practices.
HB 1750 and HJR 126 received a favorable report from the Agriculture and Livestock Committee and were sent to the House Calendar Committee for floor vote scheduling. Dalton Moore, chief of staff for Burns, told WLJ their office has been in talks with the Calendar Committee, and the bills will be moved to the House for a floor vote on April 10.
If HJR 126 passes the Texas House and Senate, the proposed constitutional amendment will be submitted to the voters at an election on Nov. 7. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
