OCR Text |
Show October 1975 Utah Farm Bureau News Page S- -l Dear Farm Bureau Members: What you think is important! The real strength of Farm Bureau is its grassroots process of finding out what the majority of our members think about the issues before us. This is your opportunity to be You can heard. This special section of the Utah Farm Bureau News has been prepared to give you background on some of these issues facing our nation and the agricultural industry. Much of the information came from our policy research committees study of issues. the We have tried to bring you up to date on these issues and prompt your thinking on any changes that might be needed in our present policy. While voting on the issues at county, state and national level is limited to voting members, we invite any Farm Bureau member to give us views on the issues. I personally urge you to take advantage of this opportunity to have your say in making the six-mon- th help make Farm Bureau policies policy of Americas greatest organization of farmers and ranchers. Contact your county president to find out when your county policy development meeting will be held. Sincerely, Elmo W. Hamilton, President Utah Farm Bureau Federation MJ MSM Water For Agriculture Water is Utahs most critical natural resource. Water rights and the method of allocating water continue to be one of the most talked-abosubjects in the state. Energy development in Utah creates a new competing use for the states water supply. Some analysts say water should be supplied for industrial and energy development by dewatering farms. They advocate open market purchases of water rights from farmers by energy companies. Others say careful allocation of the remaining unallocated water, together with wise use, makes it possible to have energy development and still continue a strong agriculture. To date, with few exceptions, energy companies have chosen to apply for and develop unallocated water rather than buy agricultural water. Within agriculture there is concern over the law which does not allow a farmer to become more efficient in the use of his water by using sprinklers, then apply his surplus water to more land. The law is designed to protect other downstream users who depend on irrigation overflow for their water supply. Underground water supplies in Utah ut are very substantial. However, mining these underground storage basins faster than they are recharged will reduce pressure and make underground water more costly. Besides these challenges, the federal government, under the Reserve Doctrine of 1906, claims water rights for enough water to supply all the foreseeable needs of public lands (reserves). Legislation is now being considered to inventory what amount of water this might be. This will be a very lengthy and costly program but it does, to some degree, cloud existing water rights and use patterns. Farm Bureau members should give consideration to these questions as well as policy others that arise out of these situations: 1. Should the state engineer (water allocator) be allowed to allocate water to uses for a fixed period of time so that when the use is ended the water reverts back for another allocation? 2. How much water should the public lands be entitled to? Should foreseeable needs be limited to a specific date so that federal uses beyond that date would have to be met through open market purchase of water from other users? 3. What should Farm Bureaus policy be toward water for energy development? 4. What should our policy be toward the use of underground water supplies? Under Utah law, all water belongs to the state but is allocated for use through dedicated water rights and use permits. Should this traditional system be maintained? What additional protections, if any, are necessary to protect agricultural water rights? 6. Should users be allowed to apply conserved water to more land? How should downstream users rights be protected? non-agricul-tu- ral Special Policy Issue Section Packer Bonding Weaknesses in the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, dealing with transactions involving producers and handlers such as commission houses, auctioneers and packers, have come into sharp focus recently. About 900 cattle feeders stand to lose some $20 million as a result of the recent collapse on one packing house. Both the House and Senate are pondering amendment of the P & S bill to insure producers of payment in case of financial problems. The amendment would require packers to secure bonds large enough to cover checks paid for livestock bought in a two-da- y period before financial collapse. It would also permit the Secretary of Agriculture to seek a temporary injunction or restraining order against any packer operating while insolvent, forcing him to cease and desist from doing business under such conditions. Changes in the bill would also boost the producers priority in claiming payment in case of a bankruptcy. How do Utah, farmers feel about the need for such changes in the Packer and Stockyards Act? And should the Act be further amended to cover marketing of poultry and eggs as it now covers livestock? Do the proposed amendments go far enough in protecting farmers and ranchers upon the sale of their animals? Are Utahs laws on produce dealer bonding adequate? Property Reappraisal Although Utah Tax Commission officials claim that every one of the 750,000 parcels of land in the state is visually inspected by a tax appraiser, farmers are raising questions about the accuracy of such inspections. Many landowners feel that, in light of constantly increasing valuations, their property should have an accurate personal inspection. State officials counter that the cost would be prohibitive for the tax appraiser to spend the same amount of time on an inspection that a private appraiser would take. Other questions are being asked about property taxes. One is whether all property transfers should be reported to the State Tax Commission as a means of updating market value. Another is whether a computerized system of annual reappraisal should be put into effect in Utah. What stance should the Utah Farm Bureau eration take on these vital questions? Fed- |