INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — The Indiana State Senate soon will consider a resolution proposing an amendment to the state Constitution that would protect the "right to farm and ranch." The Senate is expected to vote this week; as of Farm World’s deadline, the outcome was undetermined.
The proposed amendment would give added protections against unreasonable regulations on farmers, said its author, State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford. "The regulation would have to meet a reasonable test. Government would balance the needs of society. The amendment doesn’t pick winners and losers," Sen. Steele told Farm World last week.
"With 83 percent of all land in Indiana devoted to farms and forests, we all know a farmer. If we don’t know a farmer, we all eat. We want to make sure that farmers can continue to farm," Steele said.
Steele is "comfortable" with Senate Joint Resolution No. 12’s chances in both the Senate and House. Two years ago, a similar amendment proposed by Steele passed the Senate by a large majority, but he did not push it the following year because he didn’t have support from pork producers, he said.
In Indiana an amendment must pass two consecutive General Assemblies and be ratified by voters. To view the proposal, visit iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/resolutions/senate/joint/12#
On Feb. 16, though facing opposition, the agriculture committee voted for the measure 6-2. The only ag group that spoke up for the bill was Protect the Harvest, founded by Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil, to promote and protect agriculture.
The proposed amendment wouldn’t just protect farmers’ rights but those of any property owner, said Craig Curry, Indiana public policy liaison with Protect the Harvest. Such state issues as eminent domain, excessive property tax hikes and questionable zoning ordinances indicate the need for a stable structure like an amendment, Curry said.
"Farmers don’t want a separate class. We just want to make sure we can continue to farm and guarantee property rights," he added.
Other ag leaders remained neutral on the issue, including Indiana Farm Bureau (IFB) and the Indiana Pork Producers Assoc. (IPPA).
Opposing the amendment is Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC), The Humane Society of the United States and the Indiana Farmers Union.
"Some people don’t have the guts to fight. Guess what, I do. I’m willing to take the hits, the arrows. My constituents tell me I’m doing the right thing," Steele said.
Both IFB and IPPA said that they are satisfied with Indiana’s current "right to farm" laws and that a constitutional amendment is not needed.
"We appreciate the senator’s passion and strong support, but last year the state passed two laws that protect farm property through the expansion of the trespass law and protection for a range of standard farm practices," said Megan Ritter, director of public policy for IFB. "We felt at this time that these are good pieces of legislation to stand on. I wouldn’t say that we’d never support an amendment ... We want to talk about legislation that is critical for ag success.
"We’re taking the long view and are looking at different components that would provide a policy framework for Indiana farmers," Ritter said. "We want to show adequate appreciation for their effort and not ask for too much from our legislators."
Ritter said few IFB members have voiced support for a constitutional amendment for a variety of issues because they like to "reserve the use of that tool for things that rise to that level."
Indiana Pork also said that a Constitutional amendment was not needed at this time with the current laws on the books. "It’s up to the pork industry folks to communicate our needs to the General Assembly and keep working with the legislature to keep a level playing field," said Josh Trenary, executive director of Indiana Pork.
Steele said that though he helped to get the state statutes passed, they are not sufficient protection. "A right-to-farm bill is only as good as the next legislature," said Steele, a veteran lawmaker, lawyer and small-scale farmer. "Mine goes further and protects property rights. It is more than a two-year process with an election in between."
Referring to a ballot vote, Curry said, "Why not let the people have a say in what happens?"
Opposition leader, HEC, explained its stand in a statement which reads in part: "Senate Joint Resolution 12 … would create a guaranteed right to ‘employ effective agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices’ which include the industry’s widespread use of millions of gallons of untreated animal waste (stored in multi-acre, unlined lagoons) as well as several hundred thousand tons of fertilizers and pesticides – industry practices that are leading causes of water contamination in Indiana."
HEC further said that agribusinesses would have enhanced legal immunity and protection not enjoyed by any other industry in the state.
Steele said that the amendment to Indiana’s Bill of Rights would not remove agriculture from the authority of the Indiana Board of Animal Health, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the Department of Natural Resources or the zoning laws of local government.
All 50 states have passed "right to farm" laws; fewer than 20 states have passed or proposed "right to farm" amendments. Kentucky, Nebraska and Oklahoma are proposing similar amendments this year.
Last August Missouri narrowly passed an amendment that pit small-scale farmers against large-scale farmers, which worries some ag leaders in Indiana, Curry said.
Whatever their stand, most state ag leaders agree that Indiana’s proposal is worded differently from Missouri’s and does not contain any reference to size of farm. "The opposition wants to make it about size, but there’s nothing in the language that would indicate size or type of agriculture. All farms are included," IFB’s Ritter said.
