company could continue to operate during drought without having to purchase additional water rights. Rural Texas landowners were forced to subsidize
someone else, with no compensation and no benefi t to themselves. We would prefer to see the power company, or any
other junior water-right holder, exercise their free mar- ket prerogative, get out there in the open market and buy what they need to operate.
Edwards Aquifer Authority, et al. v. Glenn and Jolynn Bragg In most cases, businesspeople buy agricultural land
with the intent to conduct agriculture. In the case of Glenn and Jolynn Bragg, they bought 2 properties to produce pecans. They bought this land knowing they could rely on the groundwater beneath it to irrigate their orchards. Shortly after their purchase, they were told by the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) that their water permits were being denied. They were told by the EAA that the water was needed at the San Marcos and Comal springs to protect threatened and endangered species. In addition, the EAA did not offer to compen- sate the Braggs for the use of the water beneath their pecan orchards. Protecting endangered species is a laudable pursuit
and is something that is enjoyed by the public at large. Therefore, we think the Bragg family deserves fair compensation for the water that was taken from them. In this case, it appears the EAA stepped over the line from regulating the use of water to taking the water away from its owners. Sensible regulation is necessary, but when an agency goes too far, it is a taking. This particular case was 10 years in the settling and
the rights of the Braggs were upheld. I hope this case sets a strong enough precedent that the next landowner facing this issue will not have to fi ght for a decade for a rightful settlement.
Foot and mouth disease hearing In February, the House Committee on Agriculture
Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture held a public hearing on foot and mouth disease (FMD). One of the reasons this disease is the topic of hearings is the possible importation of fresh/frozen beef from Argentina and Brazil, countries where FMD is found in the cattle herds. TSCRA members have developed specifi c and de-
tailed policy on the inspection of beef and live cattle from other countries. You can read that policy below. It
88 The Cattleman April 2016
has been the tradition of our association to encourage free and open international trade. However, it was clear from the subcommittee hearing that there are many more questions than answers when it comes to keeping this devastating disease out of our FMD-free country. Free and open international trade strengthens our
beef economy, but it would be unwise to risk our na- tional cattle herd’s well-being for a relatively small amount of gain. I hope these brief descriptions of the issues illus-
trate the type of work TSCRA members do to protect the interests of their colleagues. We will continue to watch out for each other. I encourage you to continue to support TSCRA with your membership, and to in- vite your non-member friends to add their support by joining our association.
Resolution
Inspection of Live Cattle and Beef from Foreign Countries (AH-43) WHEREAS, foreign animal diseases could cause a
widespread quarantine and possible massive depopula- tion of the U.S. cattle herd, thus compromising national security and jeopardizing the U.S. beef supply; and WHEREAS, protecting the U.S. cattle industry is
a major priority for TSCRA and other industry part- ners; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Agri-
culture (USDA) is responsible for regulating the im- portation of live cattle, beef, and beef products from foreign countries into the U.S.; and WHEREAS, the effectiveness and quality of USDA
inspection of live cattle, beef, and beef product imports is imperative to the health and economic success of the U.S. cattle industry; and WHEREAS, some foreign countries with histories of
signifi cant chronic animal diseases, such as foot and mouth disease, have petitioned the USDA to import live cattle, beef, and/or beef products into the U.S.; and WHEREAS, the USDA’s ability to accurately evaluate
the risk of animal diseases in these foreign countries can be uncertain and inconclusive; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that TSCRA oppose the importation of
live cattle, beef, and/or beef products into the U.S. from foreign countries with histories of signifi cant chronic animal diseases and lack of strict animal disease control and eradication measures; and, be it further RESOLVED, that TSCRA supports independent scien- tifi c and legal analyses of USDA proposals, risk assess-
thecattlemanmagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108