State Question 777: A Constitutional Amendment 2016 OCES Professional Development For Faculty & Field Staff Program developed with assistance from Larry D. Sanders and Shannon Ferrell, Department of Agricultural Economics, and Lyndall Stout, Director of Agricultural Communications, DASNR, Oklahoma State University.

State Question 777 1:45Intro/Overview Sanders15 min 2:00Legal Issues Ferrell15 min 2:15Extension Communication Stout15 min 2:30Wrap Up

Key points 1.SQ 777 is on the Nov 2016 ballot to change the OK Constitution to guarantee agriculture can engage in farming and ranching practices without abridgement from the Legislature or public through court cases. 2.There is a caveat that allows public intervention if there is a compelling state interest. 3.A state law currently exists that says agricultural activities conducted on farm or ranch land, if consistent with good agricultural practices and established prior to nearby nonagricultural activities, are presumed to be reasonable and do not constitute a nuisance unless the activity has a substantial adverse affect on the public health and safety. 4.DASNR faculty and staff will not advocate for either side with respect to SQ777 while performing professional OCES-OSU duties. 1

Framing the Issue There has been a growing concern on the part of some in Oklahoma agriculture/agribusiness that some interest groups have an agenda to destroy modern industrial agriculture. The question is part of a longer list of concerns about government and a non-sympathetic public attacking farmers/ranchers and reducing profitability. About this, there is much debate. 2

“Right to Farm” State Question 777 Ballot measure November 2016 Constitutional provision to protect farmers from private/public intervention “… would establish a constitutional guarantee for farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices. It would prohibit the Oklahoma Legislature from passing laws abridging the right of farmers and ranchers ‘to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices’ without a compelling state interest.” 3

Guidance for DASNR faculty/field staff Be informed Base public statements on scientific research Engage in non-advocacy on the job Be objective Be neutral 4

Key Players Proponents (focus on protecting OK agriculture) Oklahoma Farmers Care SQ 777 – farm groups (OFB, AFR) – commodity groups (OCA, OPP, OACC, OFGA) – agribusiness/corp. ag Opponents (focus on protecting small farms & “public”, & concerns about difficulty to stop harm) Oklahoma Stewardship Council (Drew Edmonson/Paul Muegge) – small farms – Oklahoma Conference of Churches – Other selected interest groups (HSUS—”right to harm”) 5

8 ALTERNATIVEPOTENTIAL BENEFITSPOTENTIAL COSTS Status quo: existing legislation to protect right to farm those with grievance continue to have right to sue/ seek changes in farming practices at own expense and state agencies’ expense; public confidence in production standards & knowledge of agency oversight & grievance process protected by legislation farmers face cost of litigation and potential limitations on practices that reduce profitability; large farms and corporate ag face likelihood of regulatory/legal challenges to some practices that often have economies of scale; high cost to those w/”frivolous” suits SQ 777: Constitutional provision to protect farmers from private/public intervention unless a “compelling state interest” relieves farmers of initial burden/cost of fighting attacks on their attempts to introduce new technologies; provides more certainty in investment/experimentation to improve farm profitability; food costs may decline; corporate ag may expand with less regulatory/legal expense shifts burden to those with grievance; may increase their costs & shift process to courts; public may be less confident in oversight and grievance process; small farms and those concerned w/corporate ag likely to be frustrated in burden of proof and intervention; unintended consequences Other: some states have seen attempts to place major restrictions on selected agricultural practices Public and selected interest groups have easier time challenging ag production actions they find onerous increases burden on farmers; likely increases their costs of production and may reduce productivity; unless nationwide, will put OK producers at competitive disadvantage 6

Conclusion One year to public vote OCES has a limited role in education OCES will not advocate The education challenge: – By its nature, research/Extension at DASNR are generally supportive of safe, profitable technology – This reality could suggest to some that OCES and OSU are pro- SQ 777 – In fact, OCES and DASNR do not select size-specific agriculture for favorable technology; there is a history of being size-neutral in support of agriculture and in protecting the environment 7

Facts & Values & Science “… modern science is grounded in a sharp distinction between fact and value; it can only tell us how to do something, not what to do or whether we should do it.” --Morris Berman 8

One view… “We do not have to read between the lines to understand this history lesson, in Oklahoma big pig and big chicken came bolting out of the blue and intended to take charge of animal agriculture. An outcry from the public, yes rural folks stated that controls and regulations were necessary to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods. Oklahoma was able to answer the half truths and out and out false propaganda of corporate agriculture with some of the first laws regulating production systems that came to our state in early 1990's. The 1998 laws made a difference in what was to come in the future. It has been disconcerting to witness present day public officials refuse to question the end game that corporate agriculture continues to lobby for with bags of money to control who wins elections. Please keep in the mind the 2016 constitutional amendment, state question 777, the so called Right to Farm issue. This is the real face of corporate agriculture that demands, no one shall question how our food is produced and what it contains. Yes, these are the same interest that rail against labeling of food products….” -Sen. Paul Muegge (personal correspondence) 10

Another view… Why should anyone who doesn't farm or ranch care about Question 777, the Right To Farm amendment? Simple, because each and every one of us relies on agriculture to feed us, clothe us, and drive our economy. In Oklahoma, there are 80,000 farms and ranches, 98% of which are family owned and operated. That may seem like a lot, but they're responsible for helping to feed the nearly 4 Million people in Oklahoma, and hundreds of millions across our nation and the globe. With an exploding population, comes increasing demand. Today, food prices are steadily rising and as many as 26% of Oklahoma's children struggle with food insecurity. The burden on our farmers has never been higher. It's a job that gets harder everyday. A smaller percentage of our population is farming than ever before, and they're being forced to produce more food on less land, using fewer resources. Constant interference from government bureaucrats and anti-agriculture activists drive farmers out of business and severely limit the productivity of others. The issue goes well beyond just food. Oklahoma's farmers contribute more than $8 billion to the state's economy and support tens of thousands of jobs. Now is the time to stand up, and defend those hard-working family farmers and ranchers that do so much for us. Right To Farm will shield them from needless red-tape, and attacks from out of state special interests. That way, they can do what they do best: Grow great tasting, nutritious food we can all enjoy...and afford. 11

Shannon Ferrell

Right to farm laws All 50 states have at least some form of right to farm statute Generally provide protection against nuisance claims – “Grandfathering” – Adherence to generally accepted farming practices and applicable laws 12

The actual amendment language 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 rights of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. 13

The actual amendment language 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. 14

The actual amendment language 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. 14

The actual amendment language 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,

The actual amendment language 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,

That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and 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. Missouri Amendment 1 16

North Dakota Measure 3 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. 17

Legal questions on SQ 777 Potential for unintended consequences? Potential for little to no impact (do exemptions swallow the rule)? Potential for significant increase in litigation – “Compelling state interest” – Litigation pushed to exemption areas Problems with federally delegated programs? Federal primacy issues? 18

Lyndall Stout

DASNR Position  Neutral, low-key stance  Mindful of state, land-grant obligations  1st Amendment Freedom of Speech as state employee  Qualify opinion before proceeding 19

 Oklahomans getting tidbits of information  Issue will evolve & ramp up in fall  Friends, contacts may turn to you  Both sides well funded  Likely controversial Conversations Starting 20

Private vs. Public Comments  OSU events = always public Remain neutral, low-key Provide research-based materials, if needed  Private events = qualify private citizen opinion first My thoughts as private citizen Opinion does not represent views of OSU, DASNR or OCES 21

What Do I Say? Suggested response: “As with most public policy issues, OSU is not taking a stand on this issue. As appropriate research based on sound science becomes available, it will be shared with the public.” 22

OCES Meetings & Events  Avoid OCES public forums specifically on issue  If questioned at unrelated meeting, remain neutral  Form responses based on educational materials created by Sanders/Ferrell 23

 Consider source & ask about deadline  Refer to educational materials  No comment = never  Everything is on the record  Your okstate.edu address & s are subject to open records requests via Freedom of Information Act  Contact Ag Comm or state specialists for support Media Requests & Tips 24

 Consider audience of OCES county Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, etc.  If needed, links to educational material  Monitor comments; remove vulgar, slang or insensitive language  Instant communications, often cited by reporters as official source, unconfirmed  Personal accounts = mindful approach  Keep in mind potential consequences Social Media 25

 Finalize educational materials and resources for toolbox  Develop FAQs & talking points for consistency across OSU, DASNR, OCES  Evaluate plan as issue evolves What’s Next? 26

Wrap Up

SOURCES Morris Berman, The Reenchantment of the World, Bantam Books, 1984, p. 39 Gratto, Charles P. “Policy Education: A Model With Emphasis on How.” Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, Ill House, Verne W. Shaping Public Policy: The Educator’s Role. Westridge Publishing., Oklahoma Statutes. Sanders, Larry D. & S. Williams, various publications