TheFirstFurrow

Last week, North Carolina Farm Bureau held its annual Policy Review Day. No, we’re not talking about insurance policies, but rather policies that address emerging issues and areas of concern to North Carolina farmers. Things like labor, transportation, property rights, taxes, regulatory reform, and more. It’s a day for NCFB’s farmer members to come together to talk about what’s going on at their farm, and to start figuring out how to solve tomorrow’s problems.

Just a quick bit of background: North Carolina Farm Bureau is the state’s largest general agriculture organization. We have more than 500,000 member families, of which more than 40,000 are farm families. We have members in all 100 counties representing all of agriculture – row crops, animal agriculture, tree farmers, fishermen, beekeepers, small farms and big farms, conventional and organic. We’re not a government agency, we’re a non-profit. Our mission is to advocate for farm and rural families.

We’re a true grassroots organization. We have thousands of farmers from all over the state who actively participate in the policy development process to tell us what they need. Those farmers and the policies they enact guide the organization. NCFB’s policies and programs seek to preserve, support and improve agriculture in our state. These policies protect farmers and rural families and help ensure that our nation’s supply of food, fiber, and other commodities is safe and abundant, now and in the future.

Every year, this process of developing ideas into policy kicks off with Policy Review Day, continues through the fall, and concludes at NCFB’s Annual Convention. During the fall, thousands of farmers weigh in on policy resolutions at meetings in all 100 counties. Before any of these resolutions can become official policy, they must be vetted by a 100-person committee and approved by 600 voting delegates. Both the committee and the delegate body are comprised of North Carolina farmers representing all 100 counties in the state.

This process is grassroots in action. It provides the foundation for every decision, program, and activity we undertake as an organization. And frankly, it’s something we’re proud of. And it’s why elected officials and decision makers turn to Farm Bureau as “The Voice of Agriculture™”.

What is a drone? Where can I fly one? Do I need a license? Can I shoot one down if it flies over my house? These are all frequent questions people ask about Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. (If you don’t read any further, no, you should not shoot them down.)

Basically, a drone is a remote controlled aircraft, usually equipped with a camera and/or other sensors. The technology has become increasingly popular over the past few years and more people are beginning to utilize drones for things like data collection, photography, videography, and monitoring personal property.

But this is an agriculture blog, right? So why are we talking about drones?

About two months ago we reported on a case being argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case was US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., and it dealt with landowners’ rights to judicial review when they are told by the Corps that their land contains waters subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. For more background on the case you can read our April 6 blog post here.

Last Tuesday the Supreme Court issued a unanimous but narrow decision in favor of the landowners in Hawkes.

The North Carolina General Assembly opens its 2016 “short” session in five days. We’re going to look ahead to the session in a moment, but first it’s important to establish some background by reviewing some of the legislature’s recent work to benefit North Carolina farmers.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. The case is significant for a number of reasons: it could have major implications on how landowners are allowed to use their property; it could strike a blow to regulatory overreach by government bureaucrats; and it could provide insight into how the Court will view environmental regulation in future cases.