Jan. 14–A state lawmaker framed his legislation as a simple declaration of Indiana’s support for agriculture: A right to farm.
But one clause in Senate Bill 186 could have implications that favor farmers’ rights over other property owners’ rights, environmentalists say — and allow for easy expansions of controversial factory farms that pose food safety and pollution concerns.
It’s a legislative fight being waged in farm states across the country, with some going so far as considering constitutional amendments to protect the right to farm.
North Dakota recently passed such a constitutional amendment, Missouri voters will decide on one this year and Oklahoma will consider one next legislative session, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
Indiana lawmakers gave initial approval to a similar constitutional amendment in 2011.
The issue could go to Indiana voters in November if the General Assembly approves an identical constitutional amendment this year. That appears unlikely because the amendment’s sponsor — Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford — has limited it to providing protections to hunting and fishing.
This year the “right to farm” protections have been put in Senate Bill 186, sponsored by Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury.
And while the Senate bill may have less clout than a constitutional amendment, environmentalists argue that it would have much the same effect.
The bill unanimously passed its first Senate committee hearing on Monday and would re-affirm existing Indiana code that establishes state policy to “conserve, protect, and encourage” agriculture.
“It just, I think, solidifies it a little bit more and makes it a little more clear as far as the direction we want Indiana to go,” Yoder said. “And if future issues come up, I think this will help ensure that Indiana farmers and ag producers have rights that won’t be trampled on.”
The measure is supported by the Indiana Farm Bureau, Indiana Soybean Alliance and national group Protect the Harvest.
The clause in Senate Bill 186 that concerns environmentalists would protect farmers’ rights to use any “generally accepted” practices or new technologies.
Hoosier Environmental Council attorney Kim Ferraro told the Senate agriculture panel Monday that the bill would give freedom to hog farms and large industrial farming complexes to grow and pollute unfettered while promoting the interests of large corporations.
“There is no need to create special and enhanced rights for one industry,” she said, arguing that the bill was unnecessary when farmers already garner federal and state support.
Yoder said he didn’t think the bill took away from others’ rights. He said that local governments would still set their own ordinances to control farming operations.
Dan Cole, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said the bill’s language is ambiguous and could potentially result in a “tremendous expansion of the property rights of farmers, at the expense of property rights of non-farming neighbors and communities.”
More than a decade ago, the Iowa Supreme Court decided that the state trying to give “blanket immunity” to farmers against nuisance suits was usurping the rights of others, said Indiana Maurer School of Law professor Dan Cole.
Indiana could face that same situation, he said, if Yoder’s Senate bill passes.
“The legitimate question,” he said, “is “why should farmers have more and better protected rights than other landowners?”
Call Star reporter Stephanie Wang at (317) 444-6184. Follow her on Twitter: @stephaniewang.
