The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges (take away)
the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ
agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching
practices without a compelling state interest

If for no other reason:  SQ 777 has absolutely nothing to do with casinos.

But in all seriousness:

Why is this a bad thing?

Why is this a bad thing?

They are counting on ignorance and people saying, "gee, that sounds nice."

What'd you just call me?

Its a darling proposition from the Tpartiers. Might have been Kansas that started it. My understanding is that it was designed to keep green people at bay and allow farmers to not have to use responsible practices. They fear restraint of corporations in any way. And they don't want any interference from tree huggers.

I can't tell if you are sarcastic, my sarcast-o-meter sucks. But I didn't mean to call you anything.

ya, I was being sarcastic..   accusing you of calling me ignorant.   I'm one of those who read the question and though "that sounds like a good thing"  ;D

777 is one issue- 

You must mean is the issue of this thread

The vote "no" on  776 is being pushed by the anti-cap-punishment  crowd

777 is one issue-  the one I care most about is number  776 about cap. punishment. We need that to insure Oklahoma can keep it's DP. The vote "no" on  776 is being pushed by the anti-cap-punishment  crowd to get a foot in the door to ban it. I favor a "yes" vote, we need alternative ways to execute killers in case injection is found to be cruel & un-usual in some future  court case.

777 is one issue-  the one I care most about is number  776 about cap. punishment. We need that to insure Oklahoma can keep it's DP. The vote "no" on  776 is being pushed by the anti-cap-punishment  crowd to get a foot in the door to ban it. I favor a "yes" vote, we need alternative ways to execute killers in case injection is found to be cruel & un-usual in some future  court case.

Where's that squirrel meme again.....

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/03/03e01f798f2efa1044645c9860bd7ea38adba7f929a7a5a3a57496e006b0d874.jpg)

I am not anti-cap. I just have a big head and wearing a hat too tight is real punishment. There is one of me in every crowd.

Oh I don’t know why 776 is a bad thing.  Might be due to my fear of how many millions upon millions Oklahoma is going to spend defending this measure as well as endless appeals and challenges this will add onto the usual appeals process for death row inmates.

For someone who claims to be an arch conservative like yourself, you don’t seem to comprehend that capital punishment wastes billions in tax dollars every year.  

The death penalty has never been and never will be a deterrent to murder.  If it were, death row would look like a ghost town and our murder rate would be nil.

Just another example of single issue obliviousness.  777 has the very real potential to affect your life, and that of any descendants you may have, orders of magnitude more than 776!  776 passing will only keep us spending 3 or 4 times what it costs over a lifetime for the same inmate with life, no parole sentence.  777 passing will eliminate all possibility of keeping the Illinois River usable for future generations, as well as allowing whatever corporate excesses big AG wants to do here in Oklahoma.   Yeah, I can see you not caring about any of that....

Whatever happened to your so-called "conservative" interests in keeping government costs down?  Situational morality.

I went to the fair the opening night and was very surprised to see almost all of the livestock cages had 777Yes signs on them. So many I was hesitant to even ask why. They didn't look like corporate farmers. No button down shirts, ties, coats. Looked like stock men to me! But it must be divisive even in their industry.

It makes Tyson's ability to dump chicken litter, guts, and industrial solvents wherever they want rise to the same level as your First Amendment rights. Just like it is nearly impossible to justify restricting a First Amendment right, it would be nearly impossible to come up with a justification to prevent Tyson's "right" of polluting the land, using unsafe practices, being a nuisance to their neighbors, etc.

It makes the owner of a 100,000 acres wheat farm's ability to spread raw pig manure as protected as your ability to carry a firearm.

Raising cocks or dogs for fighting? Arguably protected as "livestock." Want to try to enforce runoff, pesticide usage, carcass removal, or other standard environment laws? This is a blow. Need to take steps to stop an outbreak of something, protect the food supply, or otherwise protect other agricultural interests? Just made nearly impossible. Want to regulate antibiotics to livestock? Nope.  What if farmers were requesting a ban on a particular chemical that is killing off all their pollinators at the cost of ranchers having to use a different chemical... well, the state would effectively be barred from weighing those competing interests and making a decision about what is best for Oklahoma.

Want to require seat belts in tractors? Too bad. Safety features on grain elevators? Nope. This law also applies to safety laws.

All this... to gain nothing. Oklahomans already have a "right to farm." They are counting on ignorance and people saying, "gee, that sounds nice."

No state constitution can give anyone a right that rises to the level of the first amendment, second amendment or any other federal constitutional right.  There's a little thing called the Supremacy Clause.   Further, state laws, even state constitutions, do not override federal law. So all federal environmental and other regulations will still apply in Oklahoma.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...?

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?

“4. What does “compelling state interest” mean?
This is one of the most important questions involved in the debate over 777, for several reasons. First, this language was not included in either the North Dakota or Missouri amendments, so Oklahoma would be embarking on untested ground. Second, the phrase “compelling state interest” is basically a legal code word that tells courts to analyze challenges to laws at the highest level of scrutiny, and the least deference to the democratic outcome.”

12. How did SQ 777 get to Oklahoma?
In 1996, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC,
a group that brings together corporations and state lawmakers to write pro-business bills, came up with model legislation that would expand existing right-to-farm laws to grant wide-ranging legal rights to farms of all sizes. ALEC’s bill, intended as a template for state politicians, voided local farm ordinances and made it harder to lodge complaints about animal mistreatment, pollution, and noise. The model was later adjusted to call for amending state constitutions in lieu of state legislation.
Ahead of the 2012 elections, the North Dakota Farm Bureau asked a local lawyer to prepare the basic language contained in SQ 777, and an organization called the North Dakota Feeding Families Committee pursued a signature-petition drive to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that said, “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.” Opponents of the measure included the North Dakota Farmers Union, the state ’s largest general farm organization, whose ranks include over 40,000 member families. The amendment passed with 66.89% support.
Ahead of the 2014 elections, Missouri State Representative Bill Reiboldt, a Republican, sponsored a version of SQ 777, and it was placed on the August 5 primary ballot rather than the November 4 general election ballot by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat. The measure said, “That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and
4

stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.” The state Farm Bureau once again supported the measure, and the state’s Farmers Union once again opposed it. The measure passed, with 50.12% support, triggering a rare statewide recount (this was only the fourth such recount in twenty years).
In April 2015, Oklahoma State Representative Scott Biggs, a Republican, sponsored a resolution to place SQ 777 on the ballot. The resolution received support from a majority of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Senate, and was placed on the 2016 general election ballot. An identical measure is also pending in Nebraska.

This is on the first page, rather hard to miss:

“SQ777, if passed, would provide the most far reaching constitutional protections for agricultural operations of any state in the Nation;”

Here’s another reference about the differences between Oklahoma, Missouri, and North Dakota’s wording:
From the same analysis, it claims the genesis of this measure started well outside Oklahoma and attempts to illustrate this is meant to benefit big business, not small farmers:


http://kirkpatrickfoundation.com/assets/docs/777_FAQs_Kirkpatrick_Foundation.pdf

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.

What problem is it that this bill corrects? What kinds of problems are we having that a constitutional change would require?

The cattle feed lots upstream of OKC on the Oklahoma river, sickened the rowing crew and they didn't seem to pay any penalty. I wish someone who defends 777 would tell us just why this is so important as to need a constitutional change. Maybe, Failin' or her local surrogate, rotting Cabbage, could enlighten us? Has she shown any support?

The cattle feed lots upstream of OKC on the Oklahoma river, sickened the rowing crew and they didn't seem to pay any penalty. I wish someone who defends 777 would tell us just why this is so important as to need a constitutional change. Maybe, Failin' or her local surrogate, rotting Cabbage, could enlighten us?

I don’t know if it was ever proven where the e-coli came from in that case, or if that was just a guess as to where it came from.  People train in the water all the time, I believe the issue was a team from outside the US jumped in to celebrate a win and some members ended up with the runs for a few days.

The feed lots in the Panhandle apparently forgot about the dust bowl a long time ago.  I drove through a white out dust storm coming off a feed lot out near Boise City on Monday coming back from NM.

There are lots of sewer, and petrochemical lines that cross that river as well as the Arkansas. But I have spent a lot of time in our river and never had any problems, nor heard any from our local rowing teams. We flow a lot more water through ours however and that tends to dilute and wash it on a regular basis.

They are no longer raw. SS upgraded their system more than a decade ago. If we could just keep water in that river in some way other than expensive dams we would rule. It can be done imo but not in a way that rewards local companies. Doesn't matter, we'd still find a way to screw it up. With that climate change thing our state doesn't believe in, I think we can expect higher than average flows along this river for the future.

We flow a lot more water through ours however and that tends to dilute and wash it on a regular basis.