By Julie Tomascik
Editor
As Texas grows increasingly urban, the state’s “right to farm” statute needs to be strengthened, according to the state’s largest general farm and ranch organization.
The current law only protects agricultural operations annexed after Aug. 31, 1981. But urban sprawl and local government regulations could jeopardize the future of some farms and ranches.
The Texas House Committee on Agriculture and Livestock is studying the issue this interim to determine the impact of governmental and regulatory requirements and practices on farms and ranches. This includes those that prevent or prohibit an activity that is a normally-accepted agricultural practice.
Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) District 4 State Director John Paul Dineen III, who farms and ranches in an urban area, testified before the House committee on the need for increased protections under the right to farm law.
“Texas Farm Bureau has become aware of instances where farmers’ land within city boundaries has become overregulated by municipal ordinances that prohibit many, if not all, normal agricultural operations, such as raising and keeping livestock, hay production and cultivating certain row crops,” Dineen said.
There are several examples in the Dallas-Fort Worth area where cities are using their public nuisance ordinances to prohibit agricultural activities. In one city, grass grown for hay is not allowed to grow taller than 12 inches without the city mowing the property and sending the bill to the farmer.
Hay bales in some cases must be removed from properties within a short period of time, usually 24-48 hours, to avoid penalties—all in order to comply with city health ordinances.
Some cities are arbitrarily requiring buffer zones of up to 250 feet around the property to be mowed short. That takes significant acreage out of production.
Dineen has encountered similar experiences with his farming operation in Ellis County. For many years, Dineen had a verbal agreement with a local municipality to continue to farm a piece of property that was scheduled for future development.
“I had planted a field of sudan for harvest in the summer and before the crop could fully mature, which would be a height of about four or five feet, adjacent homeowners complained so much to the city that city employees destroyed the whole crop by mowing it,” Dineen said. “When I complained to the city manager and asked for restitution, I was denied because our agreement had only been ‘verbal.’”
That wasn’t Dineen’s only experience, though.
“Another instance on the same property, as I was preparing to plant corn, an adjacent landowner stopped and inquired what I was up to,” he said. “I informed him that I was planting corn for harvest. He quickly let me know that he treasured his view from his home and would not appreciate corn growth, which would eventually be a seven-foot-high corn field at maturity. He felt entitled to his view and informed me that he would be broadcasting wildflower seeds on this property—property he had no surface rights to.”
Dineen has also received complaints about storing hay bales because adjacent landowners did not like how they looked.
“With more and more of Texas’ agricultural lands being developed, it is imperative that we work together to make sure that today’s farmers are given every opportunity to keep agricultural lands that are now inside the boundaries of cities due to urban sprawl in production of commodities we use to feed and clothe the world,” Dineen told the committee.
Common-sense changes to the state’s agriculture code are needed to preserve current right to farm statutory protections, he added.
TFB is advocating for all agricultural operations to be protected, not just those annexed after Aug. 31, 1981.
The farm and ranch organization also believes a city should have to prove an agricultural practice is truly a threat to public health and that cities should be required to consult expert agricultural information on generally-accepted agricultural practices that are not a threat to public health. This would be similar to Central Appraisal Districts being required to consult the comptroller’s agricultural use manual in assessing whether or not property should qualify for agricultural valuation.
State lawmakers could take action on the issue next year during the legislative session.
The city came to the farmers not the farmer coming to them. If the people have a problem with the farmers farming they should’ve stayed inside the city. What I d tell them is Welcome to the Country
These city people need to decide if they want to look at a beautiful green hay field or 300 roof tops. I know what I’d choose!
More concrete! Its getting out of hand!!! So tired of seeing old trees being torn down for ugly cookie cutter homes and shopping centers!! Enough is enough!!!!!
Agree that the law should be strengthened. This echoes issues I saw when I was in the Air Force. A base had been in a location many years, flying aircraft all days/times to meet the mission. The land owners sold to developers, people bought the houses and then proceeded to complain about the noise/times. Most of the time the new home owners “won”. I see this going the same way, as more people in political offices are products of urban environments. This is just like the high speed rail eminent domain issue that’s going to take land from a century farm. High speed rail for the urban areas trumps a family operated century farm, so a small operation that has been surrounded by urban development doesn’t stand much of a chance. I think the law should be expanded to say that if an operation was agricultural prior to annexation, they have zero authority/jurisdiction over the land as long as it stays agricultural. No city rules apply. However, reality is going to be sell the family farm to the developers and take the money and try to buy another bit of land and start again. Because even if they change the law, you’ll get neighbors like the one mentioned that will do things to sabotage the operation and you won’t win there either.
We better stand up for all our rights, before they are all gone!