Market Farming

[marc AT aculink.net]

Concerns from rural and agricultural areas voiced

Legislators wasted no time tackling the issues at hand for
their second special session of the year.  Gov. Bill Owens
brought lawmakers back for another session, which
started September 20 to address four specific issues: 
congressional redistricting, growth management,
transportation funding and breast and cervical cancer
treatment
funding for uninsured women.  

The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee
considered bills that would have impacted land use planning
in rural areas.  On a bipartisan vote, House
members voted to postpone indefinitely a bill that would
have mandated counties designate open space in their master
plan - without mandating that local governments
compensate landowners for the economic loss that could
result.

"When agricultural land is designated open space, it can
significantly impact the value of our land and have a
devastating effect on the state's agricultural industry,"
Jeani
Frickey Saito, state affairs director for the Colorado Farm
Bureau, told committee members when she testified in
opposition to HB 1008, sponsored by Rep. Kelly Daniel
(D-Lakewood).  "Designating privately-owned agricultural
land, without compensation, will severely restrict our
producers' ability to secure operating loans." 

HB 1008 would have required more than 35 counties, including
counties such as Logan and Crowley, and cities within those
counties, to include an open space element in
their master plan.  There was no requirement that landowners
receive compensation when their land was designated as
conservation and open space.

The Colorado Cattleman's Association, the Colorado
Woolgrowers Association, the Colorado Horse Council and the
Colorado Livestock Association also joined the
Colorado Farm Bureau in opposing HB 1008.


AFBF files brief in Supreme Court property rights case

The American Farm Bureau Federation has filed a
friend-of-the-court brief supporting the rights of
landowners in a United States Supreme Court property case -
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency. Implications stemming from the case hold potential
to impact restrictions and compensation
issues being discussed in Colorado's growth debates. 

Joined in the brief by state Farm Bureaus from California
and Nevada, AFBF is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a
decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court that
ruled landowners near Lake Tahoe, Calif., were ineligible
for compensation after "temporary and rolling" restrictions
stripped their ability to use their property. The circuit
court decision in question reversed a district court ruling
that the landowners were entitled to compensation.