March 1997
Legislative Watch
LibraryHome
E-Mail
Back
Prairie Grains is the
official publication of
the Minnesota
Association of
Wheat Growers,
North Dakota Grain
Growers Association,
South Dakota Wheat,
Inc., and the
Minnesota Barley
Growers Association.
What to do with the $1.4 billion surplus in Minnesota’s budget forecast continues to be one of the priorities for Minnesota lawmakers during this year’s legislative session.
The Governor and legislative leaders have tentatively agreed to use part of the surplus to restore education funding. What to do with the rest will likely be the subject of spirited debate.
This year marks the beginning of a two-year budget cycle in which legislators will fund Minnesota government operations for the 1997-98 fiscal year. Doing so is no easy task; the Governor’s proposed budget is $20.3 billion (up from the state’s budget of about $18 billion in the last biennium) and includes hundreds of individual budget items.
One specific budget item is funding for continued wheat and barley scab research at the University of Minnesota. Minnesota wheat and barley leaders are working with U of M personnel and other state ag leaders to track this bill closely.
Property tax reform is an issue that is again being discussed, with different proposals coming from a variety of property owners and coalitions. The previously-mentioned budget surplus provides legislators at least the option of throwing a few dollars at the property tax issue, instead of passing outright reform. Other issues to watch include ethanol funding, transportation funding, and possible changes to state feedlot regulations.
Also, the legislature will have to decide by session’s end whether the state of Minnesota should get involved in the construction of a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins baseball team. Several public/private funding proposals have been tossed about, and while there is some resistance from metro legislators, it is not surprising to note the majority of opponents are from the rural areas. But state involvement may not leave rural folks out in the cold: horse trading is needed to pull off the vote; thus, rural legislators are positioned to get things for their districts in exchange for supporting the stadium.
Corporate farming on SD legislative agenda
Funding for higher education, a review of the prison system, managing federal changes in welfare programs and revenue-generating sources are among the top priorities for the 1997 South Dakota Legislature. Among the issues at the top of the state’s list for agriculture are corporate farming, environmental issues, taxes (inheritance, property and ag exemptions) and value-added agriculture.
Corporate farming, especially for livestock producers, has become a highly publicized issue. There already are state laws dealing with corporate farming, but the issues of zoning, contracts, and environmental safety continue to add new wrinkles.
Checkoff increases top ND ag legislative agenda
The biggest issue that the NDGGA is following in the Legislature this year is proposed checkoff increases for several crops. The ND Wheat Commission is proposing an increase in the wheat checkoff from 5/10 of a cent per bu. to 8/10 of a cent. The ND Barley Council is seeking a checkoff increase to 1 cent per bushel. The NDGGA has endorsed both increases and is working to secure their passage.
The ND Oilseed Council is also seeking to increase the assessment on the crops within its administration, except flax. And, there is a proposal to create a checkoff on the sale of dry peas and lentils, a new crop alternative for ND growers.
Agricultural research is also a priority; the NDGGA along with the ND Ag Coalition is working to secure additional funding for NDSU’s budget.
The NDGGA is seeking property tax and school finance reform, but does not advocate an increase in income or sales tax to offset it.
There is also a proposal, supported by the NDGGA, that would create a statute allowing ND commodity groups and food marketers to sue for damages if false or disparaging information is willfully disseminated to the public by activist groups. If this false information leads to a loss of revenue, producers could seek an injunctive stop to the dissemination of false information, and sue for damage as well as punitive relief.