Nebraska Hearings on Initiative 300
States can still place tough restrictions on corporate farming as long as they don’t discriminate against farmers from other states.
That was the Center’s message to Nebraska legislators at a recent hearing on corporate farming. Federal courts have struck down corporate farm laws in Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Now the North Dakota law is under attack.
The courts overturned the laws by holding they were designed to favor in-state farmers and investors over those from other states. We disagree, but believe there is a way to write effective restrictions to meet the court’s standard.
First, we must write purpose statements into legislation favoring owner-operated farms over corporate farms that are not owner operated, regardless of where either is based. Second, it is critical to ensure that every exception to the prohibition can be reasonably met by out-of-state corporations.
For example, the Nebraska law allows family farm corporations in which most stock is held by a family with at least one member living or working on the operation. The court said that requirement can be practically met only by Nebraska residents.
To address that, we have proposed clarifying that a Minnesota family farm corporation, for example, with owners living and working on the farm in Minnesota, would be eligible to buy land or feed livestock in Nebraska. That would make it clear that the law allows family farm corporations from other states to farm in Nebraska.
Such language could also be used in other states.
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018.
That was the Center’s message to Nebraska legislators at a recent hearing on corporate farming. Federal courts have struck down corporate farm laws in Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Now the North Dakota law is under attack.
The courts overturned the laws by holding they were designed to favor in-state farmers and investors over those from other states. We disagree, but believe there is a way to write effective restrictions to meet the court’s standard.
First, we must write purpose statements into legislation favoring owner-operated farms over corporate farms that are not owner operated, regardless of where either is based. Second, it is critical to ensure that every exception to the prohibition can be reasonably met by out-of-state corporations.
For example, the Nebraska law allows family farm corporations in which most stock is held by a family with at least one member living or working on the operation. The court said that requirement can be practically met only by Nebraska residents.
To address that, we have proposed clarifying that a Minnesota family farm corporation, for example, with owners living and working on the farm in Minnesota, would be eligible to buy land or feed livestock in Nebraska. That would make it clear that the law allows family farm corporations from other states to farm in Nebraska.
Such language could also be used in other states.
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
nebraska hearing on initiative 300
Post new comment