I am commonly asked for information regarding political activities such as candidates and state questions.  Seeing as there are lots of state questions and some really important ones at that, I figured it might be a good idea to share my thoughts in this format.  These are solely my opinions based on the information I have been provided or researched.

State Question 777 is known as the Right to Farm.  This is a simply worded state question with a lot to like.  There is one aspect that gives me pause, which I will deal with in a second, but first, the good stuff. I have included the link to the website in favor of state question 777, which contains lots of good information including the exact language.

http://www.oklahomarighttofarm.com/ 

One major positive in my opinion is that this bill is proactive.  Rarely is anything done in the realm of politics proactively.  Things are typically reactive, after something bad has happened or at the last possible moment.  This state question is an attempt to prevent adverse legislation and regulation of the farming and ranching industry in Oklahoma.  Many groups across the U.S. have been encouraging and passing legislation that puts undue burden on the industry.  Granted none of that legislation has yet passed in Oklahoma and may not in the near future, but many of these bills do get filed.  This measure would increase the hurdle for these items, making them harder to pass in the future.

This state question protects an industry vital to Oklahoma.  Agriculture is vital to both our economy and our culture.  It is hard to imagine an Oklahoma without a strong agricultural presence that makes rural Oklahoma a special place.  Plus, we have been so dependent upon the oil and gas industry for economic prosperity, we need to protect the economic diversity we already have.

Food is considered a vital need, which is a significant argument for providing protection for the industry.

One of the authors of the legislation is Scott Biggs.  Representative Biggs is a legislator I greatly respect and agree with often.  A State Question authored by a legislator I respect and admire is an element that encourages my support.

The state question does not remove any current regulation, just freezes regulation where it is.  The actual date of the freeze is December 31, 2014, so anything on the books prior to that date will be retained as is.  Anything after that would be subject to meeting the new burden established by this state question.

That brings up the only aspect of this particular state question that gives me pause.  The state question provides that any new regulation would be allowed only if it is of “compelling state interest.”  This is the highest burden allowable.  This burden is similar to that set aside for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other things we typically consider fundamental rights.  This means that if a particular regulation is needed, it may be extremely difficult to pass it.  Things such as pesticides that may be detrimental to our water supply, or a practice that might be considered innovative agriculture by some and animal cruelty by others, would be exceedingly difficult justify or experience a slow journey to passage as regulation.

The website advocating against this state question is linked below.

https://www.okfoodfarmfamily.com

The burden of proof is set high to create greater protection from bad regulation.  Unfortunately, it provides a similarly high burden for good regulation.  If you believe the agricultural industry is adequately regulated now and for the foreseeable future, then this is not a reason for concern.

Most of the opposition to SQ777 stems from concerns over water supply.  Most of the major endorsements against the measure have significant interest in water rights such as tribes and municipalities.  The impact to water is unclear.  Water quality is still controlled by DEQ and the EPA.

The most difficult part of this question is that it is impossible to predict the future.  Impossible to predict if bad legislation might sneak through.  Impossible to predict if additional good regulation may be needed in the future.

I am planning to vote YES on this state question.  I believe there is more to support with the benefit provided being greater than the risks it would introduce.