Print đź–¨

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs met on June 4 to hear public and invited testimony regarding interim charges related to the regulatory framework of groundwater conservation districts and river authorities, and agricultural fees.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. This report is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing; it is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

Regulatory Framework of Groundwater Conservation Districts and River Authorities: Study and make recommendations on the regulatory framework for managing groundwater in Texas to ensure that private property rights are being sufficiently protected. Study the role of river authorities and groundwater conservation districts including the state’s oversight role of their operations and fees imposed.

Ty Embrey, Lloyd Gosselink Attorneys at Law

  • SB 1392 – the groundwater districts have taken the message very seriously
    • Worked to create uniformity and consistency in rules across the state
  • Groundwater Management Authority (GMA) 8- having meeting June 27th to discuss regulatory program and work to create uniformity
    • Will look at inconsistencies and why those exist
  • If rules are different, there needs to be good reasons for that
  • This is seen as the next step in the evolution of groundwater management in Texas
  • Rodriguez – is there a common characteristic in differences in rules that are hard to reconcile? Urban v rural?
    • Districts are not in place to put people out of business
    • There are some geographic limitations as well as hydrogeologic factors in the regulatory systems
  • Rodriguez – what happen if there is a big difference that is unreconcilable?
    • Have not seen that so far
    • Hearing that districts are working really well to find those middle grounds
  • Perry – have seen that districts have taken this very seriously. Best practices need to come up as an industry opposed to by each district. SB 1392 will be coming back up and need to work out statutory changes for those items that are unreconcilable. Still interested during the interim regarding water supply.

 

Sarah Rountree, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts (TAG)

  • Described TAG
  • Reasons why regulatory frameworks may be different
    • Local conditions – hydrological and climate variances
    • Local needs – how and when ground water needs to be used
    • Enabling legislation
  • Found that most of the differences in governance are from the enabling legislation
  • Regulatory framework is often considered as the permitting rules
  • Interim efforts: held 6 public information panels with regional GCDs, formed 5 legislative subcommittees
  • Identified ways to increase consistency: sharing administrative templates and standardize definitions
  • Perry – as you are going through the enabling legislation, would be interested in knowing why it is still relevant. Would also like to know how many GCDs require a vote to be started
  • Kolkhorst – the enabling legislation does vary, and there are options to retroactively change some of the differences in the enabling legislation
    • Embrey – some issues that may arise are local situations like cities being exempted or O&G being treated differently
  • Kolkhorst – if there were enough changes a vote should be required. As we try to normalize this, we do need to be aware of local nuances.
  • Perry – there are certainly valid reasons for some things to be different, but we need to eliminate those reasons that are not valid

 

Witness not identified

  • Streamlining water permitting
    • There are options to get permitted online
    • Has management goal to improve the operating efficiency in customer service
    • Has ways to allow people to operate pending final approval
  • Regulatory framework
    • Described several local oversight mechanisms as well as state oversight
    • Believes that there is a lot of oversight already in place
  • Similar rules issue
    • Created 100 question survey to determine how similar or different rules between districts are
    • Initial results show at least 90% consistent results with surveyed districts in the area
  • District’s enabling legislation goes back to the 1950s
  • Believes getting 100% consistency would be very difficult to do
  • Believes that local management is the most difficult and most appropriate form of management
  • Perry – similar rules doesn’t mean that everybody is the same, but that the underlying rules were designed with the same intent, and the approach has to be similar
  • Rodriguez – there may be logical differences, but are looking to ensure that the states water policy is consistent state wide
  • Perry – our water policies have to be updated to keep up with population and development growth without ending up in the courts
  • Kolkhorst – that is a good point, there will be increased pressure on all-natural resources
  • Hall – agrees with Sen. Kolkhorst. Wants to emphasize a need to increase transparency in general but especially in water regulations and rules
  • Discussion of policies that ensure that the areas that resources are giving up resources will get something back for those resources
  • In Wellfield and Roberts county there was a concerted effort to ensure win-win deals to help local ranchers and local economies
  • Roundtree – mentioned that the groundwater rules are written to ensure the producers are treated fairly

 

Ronnie Minnick, Texas Farm Bureau

  • Described current law’s recognition of land owner’s property rights over the water under their land
  • Chapter 37 must be updated to protect land owner’s rights
    • Repealing the attorney fee language regulation
  • Groundwater rights are based on owning the land or obtaining the rights to that land, utilities have attempted to create legislation to allow them to use private property in many ways
  • Need to empower the land owners by legislation like SB 862 which needs to be refiled

 

Russell Johnson, McGinnis Lochridge Law Firm

  • Provided written testimony
  • Planning process needs to be reconfigured
  • The Panhandle gets it right in terms of land owner rights
  • Permitting process has been very difficult to come to agreement with the district to export water (from lost pines district)
  • Discussed issues with protestants that are not within the district
  • Written testimony includes recommendations to groundwater rules
    • Attorney fees are an impediment to groundwater use
    • Standing issue regarding protestants
    • Desired future conditions – need to take a hard look at management goals for the state
    • Regulation should be by aquafer or regions not by district boundaries
    • Requirements for export permits should be eliminated
    • Land owner should always have the right to produce their fare share of water – setting caps limits ability to use conserved resources
    • Utility service area should be equal to authorization by acreage
    • Groundwater districts should be authorized to collect mitigation fees
  • Perry – the standing issue is still in litigation but willing to have a conversation regarding that and expecting legislation related to that next session

 

Victoria Whitehead, High Plains Water District

  • Provided written testimony
  • Created in 1950s to include 13 counties, described the current district
  • Local economy plays into the role of the service area
  • Major aquafer is the Ogallala Aquafer and two minor aquafers
  • Board has recognized private ownership of groundwater for decades
  • Have 91 committeemen helping to determine the governing of the district
  • Notable changes since 1950s:
    • Maximum allowable production added in 2012
    • Exempt well production has been lowered to statutory limit of 25,000 gallons
  • Emphasis on aquafer monitoring, and make the science a priority
    • Have monitoring well network of roughly 1 well per 9 square miles
    • Networks help working collaboratively with land owners
  • Permits go out in less that 24 hours, and have not had litigation regarding a permit in almost 20 years
  • Perry – what is the interaction with other districts along the Ogallala aquafer?
    • Are part of GMA 1 and 2 and have interactions that require frequent communications

 

Public Testimony

Dee Vaughan, Texas Corn Producers Association

  • Irrigation accounts for almost 70% of ground water production in 2017
  • Two principals of groundwater management
    • Landowners own the groundwater on their property
    • Elected conservation districts are required to maintain responsible use of the groundwater
  • Districts that are not property regulating water, state mandates should be very narrowly focused to fix those specific issues
  • Groundwater districts should regulate with the lighted hand possible
  • Rules passed by groundwater districts should be fully justified

 

Steve Clouse, San Antonio Water System

  • Groundwater ownership has been resolved
  • Regulation should not invade rights of property owners and historic users
  • Noted common pool regulation is the corner stone of addressing fare share, which should take historic use into consideration
  • Unlike oil and gas, groundwater usage has been determined by the rule of capture
  • Perry – discussed desal facility in west Texas. 95% of inputs are being reused.

 

Curtis Chubb, Central Texas Aquifers Coalition

  • Worried about percentage of water in aquafers left, and what should be left off-limits
  • Over-permitting of groundwater pumping exists north of Austin
  • Groundwater district manager should have some training associated with groundwater usage, they do not have any requirement at present
  • Recommends adding training and continuing education to Chapter 36
  • Kolkhorst – agrees with a need for education, but the details would have to be worked out
  • Perry – agrees, but if the district is based on science it shouldn’t require that much additional education

 

Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

  • Does not agree with determination that anybody can have standing as a protestant
    • People who have water under their land should be a part of the decision on usage
  • Discussed selling of water rights and its affect on surface value

 

Greg Ellis, Ground Water Districts Attorney

  • Districts must protect all property rights
  • Discussed potential effects of lowered aquafers on properties
  • Districts must restrict historic use in certain instances as well as allow new well to be drilled for each land owner to have a fair share
  • Perry – requested a list of emerging issues relayed in testimony
    • Will provide that to the committee

 

Calvin Whiteley, Central Texas Aquifers Coalition

  • Discussed permitting issues and their impact on future use
  • Conservation districts should be able to restrict limits and number of permits
  • Need to go slow with changing limits and issuing permits
  • Kolkhorst – more or less saying that you aren’t being protected, but imagine where you’d be without conservation districts
    • Absolutely support the conservation districts but it needs to be able to protect property rights better
  • Kolkhorst – Water is now moving, will need the science to watch that aquifer
    • Rumors going around about an off-channel reservoir, would lose over 4,000 acres of taxation if this happens
  • Perry – Asks for info on DFC violation by over-permitting, there is already a system in place currently to take care of violators of existing rules
  • Rodriguez – Have you challenged the decisions being made regarding permits?
    • We go to some of the posted meetings, new to this process
    • McGeary – Many permits were active before we came on, there was a challenge that ran into some badly-written rules regarding contested case hearing standing
    • Talking with the district right now trying to get them to clean up their rules
  • Kolkhorst – I know the people in the Post Oak Savannah GCD, good people and we can stay out of the courts and work this out; might be over-permitted, but there are things in law currently

 

Bob Harden, Texas Association of Groundwater Owners and Producers

  • Has been some positive movement regarding legislation, but there needs to be more work to educate on a complicated problem
  • Issue exists on common pool, How DFCs are defined, how we can create regulation that is enforceable without discrimination
  • Incumbent upon the legislature to guide regulators in how they can regulate
  • Panhandle GCD created effective regulation with the cooperation of stakeholders, can be done
  • Highlights Justice Nathan Hecht video remarks on GCDs and regulation
  • Perry – Encourages stakeholders to get ideas together and find solutions before January 9
  • Hall – There is a lake in Fannin County, dispute exists with North Texas Municipal Water District; District unilaterally named the lake after itself without involvement of the county
  • Hall – Something wrong with a system that does not allow the residents a say in what the lake is called
  • Kolkhorst – If you have an agreement, is it written?
    • Yes
  • Kolkhorst – There will be a lake in Waller to help prevent Houston from flooding, can we not name the lakes within these counties? If we lose the acreage we should at least name the lake
  • Hall – I think we’re already working on that with a bill, dealing with a more systemic problem in that we allow Districts to operate in a very arrogant way
  • Kolkhorst – Thinks that there could be a very simple bill that allows the county to name the lake
  • Perry – Point taken, if they are an elected board, would hope that the citizens take the recourse available
  • Hall – Still have issues in that the rural community does not have the power

 

Agricultural Fees: Review licensing, permitting, or registration requirements and fees imposed on the agriculture industry by licensing agencies within the committee’s jurisdiction. Make recommendations for state licenses and fees that should be reduced, repealed or transitioned to private-sector enforcement.

TR Lansford, Texas Animal Health Commission Region 8 Director

  • Mission of TAHC is to protect the poultry and livestock industries, 16-17 had a $27.5 million appropriation, $922k in fees
  • TAHC is authorized to retain all fees for the 18-19 biennium, dedicated to fleet maintenance and specified that it cannot be used for salaries, etc.
  • Fee highlights
    • Foul Registration – Some participants are required to register with TAHC
    • Inspections – TAHC may charge a fee for inspections, CWD herd inspection expenses @$124k
    • Certificates of Veterinary Inspection – 88% of fee revenue from 2018, TAHC required to charge a fee for each CIV @$7, with expenses @155k
  • Fees used to support disease control measures and support livestock health
  • Texas is the only state charging for electronic CVIs on top of the third-party cost
  • Perry – So generally speaking, you guys aren’t a cost recovery agency, 84% of funding is GR
  • Perry – Are any of these fees or processes duplicative with regards to federal requirements? Or is there no duplication and if the state doesn’t do it, it doesn’t get done?
    • Correct, no duplication; CVI work is largely to respond to other state’s regulations
  • Perry – What is the cost for electronic CVI and what is the fee currently?
    • Fee is $7, not recovering cost of service currently

 

Clayton Wolf, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department

  • TPWD issues roughly 180 licenses/permits to landowners and hunters
  • TPWD took a broad view on this charge, hunting lease licenses are some of the most used permits issues by TPWD
  • Within the suite of 33 permits TPWD considers ag-related, bulk of revenue comes from hunting lease licenses
  • Aerial Wildlife Management permit and Depredation permits are likely the most ag-related, Aerial permits designed to monitor wildlife with partially a view to safeguarding crops
  • Cannot take, capture, etc. animals with just the Aerial permit, also need a landowner permit
  • Feral hogs and coyotes are the most targeted species by these efforts
  • Depredation permit allows landowner to take protected life if it affects agricultural, aquicultural, etc. activity, also for human safety; involves things like taking deer
  • TPWD doesn’t have any concerns with these particular permits, only have a few fee changes
  • Double-Crested Cormorant permit cannot be issued due to Fish & Wildlife being sued over issuance, working with them to get back to where we were
  • Also looking for fee structure changes in Grass Carp Stocking permit
  • Managed Lands Deer Program is a very popular program at WPD, contemplating asking for a fee for running this program
  • Perry – So the MLDP in voluntary?
    • Correct
  • Perry – So you’re asking for a fee proportional to the service you provide
    • Yes
  • Perry – Asks for some language to correct troublesome duck stamp requirement
  • Kolkhorst – You charge nothing on the MLDP, level of service has dropped due to popularity of the program & many of the important tracking info has dropped away
  • Kolkhorst – Would like to work on something through the interim, service used to be very good; many cannot hire a wildlife biologist to perform similar functions
  • Kolkhorst – How much do we charge on the deer breeder permit?
    • $200
  • Kolkhorst – That’s it?
    • There is some history, previously it was $400, and $200 if you did them online; when we switched to all-online transactions essentially everyone qualified
  • Kolkhorst – Not sure $200 is in-line with what the market will bear and the responsibility; many other fees are much higher
  • Kolkhorst – It is my understanding that if you have a gift shop, anything sold goes into the general fund; just in a market sense, we should incentivize great gift shops and ability to keep revenue at each park
  • Kolkhorst – I want to know if this is statutory or something else
  • Rodriguez – What is the 6% of the Sporting Goods Sales Tax used for at the Historical Commission?
    • Cannot speculate
  • Kolkhorst – We transferred some of the historical sites from TPWD and gave them to THC, but the problem is THC has never gotten the full appropriation for these sites ever
  • Rodriguez – I noticed it said “subject to appropriation”
  • Kolkhorst – We should probably codify this and ensure revenue goes to parks like public thinks
  • Hall – You show $28 million for debt service payments, what debt is this?
    • I believe this is on construction bonds
  • Hall – That’s a lot of debt service
  • Perry – As an example Pala Duro Canyon has a lot of infrastructure needs, would imagine it is similar around much of the state
    • Yes, park infrastructure, construction, etc.
  • Hall – Need to dig into this, because using bonds to fund maintenance operation is debatable
  • Perry – How long has it been since we opened a new park in Texas?
    • Has been some time, not entirely sure
  • Kolkhorst – I love these questions, we have starved parks on the infrastructure portion; neglecting upkeep can increase cost, bond issuance was voter approved
  • Kolkhorst – We do have 2 new parks, Powder Horn and one up in North Texas; trying to get roads up North
  • Kolkhorst – Parks are an important part of the public water supply discussion, important to keep purchasing these areas and provide access to fishing, etc.
    • Increased use is quite a strain on the infrastructure and there are increased maintenance needs
  • Hall – I agree we need to do these things, but if it’s essential state spending and if it’s money we don’t have, we might should look at other areas to prioritize funding
  • Rodriguez – Concurs that we have not supported maintenance and infrastructure
    • Full appropriation of Sporting Goods Sales tax would be helpful
  • Kolkhorst – Not sure which part of your organization oyster harvesting comes under?
    • Unsure
  • Kolkhorst – Senator Hinojosa sponsored a bill last session

 

John Helenberg, Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

  • Ag-related licenses bring in about $1.6 million in revenue, appropriated back about $1.4 million for operations
  • Presents written testimony on agency operations, fees, and license info
  • Have made several changes recently, promoted stakeholder communication with regional meetings
  • Hinojosa – Recalls testimony on issues with time period for inspections of veterinary offices
    • Correct that there were concerns on time, have new field investigators and increasing pace
  • Hinojosa – You’ve also made changes to the complaints process?
    • Yes, changes so far have been well-received
    • Still working through FY17 numbers, lost quorum after Sunset and this delayed response some
  • Hall – Asks for those called to bring an update on CWD to Hall’s office

 

Lance Robinson, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department

  • Kolkhorst – Asks where the oyster fee is located, is that the tag?
    • Oyster tag is a $.20 per tag fee that must be fixed to the sack, goes to returning substrate materials to public waters
  • Kolkhorst – I see the various boat fees
    • License fees for vessel and harvester goes back into managing and monitoring the resources, as well as regulation enforcement
  • Kolkhorst – How is HB 51 working? There is still a loophole?
    • Bill addressed issues with harvesting undersized oysters
    • This season, have had issues with boats illegally moving into zones closed to promote oyster growth; almost like it was a cost of doing business due to the profit involved
  • Kolkhorst – Resource needs to be protected new bill should be explored

 

Audrey O’Neill, Texas State Auditor’s Office

  • Oversaw audit of fees at the Texas Department of Agriculture
  • Department of Agriculture completed a cost analysis in 2015, identified total operations cost of $27.5 million, proposed increases to >100 fees & proposed elimination of 3 fees
  • Changes were the subject of SAO audit in 2017, focused on fees and whether changes accounted for cost of operations

 

Tessa Mlynar, Texas State Auditor’s Office

  • TDA set fees at level that exceeded need to recover costs, ~$6.5 million over
  • TDA also did not have a system to check if fees were set correctly to recover costs
  • TDA did not follow proper methodology for parts of costs estimation, may not be able to assess cost and need moving forward
  • Also identified errors in some estimates, some estimates did not represent actual or projected costs
  • TDA was monitoring revenues for cost reporting programs, when fees were in place for a full year, the TDA had still not put proper monitoring into place
  • In rate analysis,
  • Highlights issues identified in operating costs
    • $4.6 million contingency estimate not based on actual expenditures or projected costs, TDA did not need to actually collect this amount
    • TDA did not consistently maintain support for other operating costs (quantity, unit price issues, total costs issues, etc.)
    • Identified errors in some estimates, e.g. total cost of several-year pay down was included as annual cost
  • Unable to determine if indirect costs numbers included on indirect costs, had some mismatch in FTE numbers used to calculate indirect costs
  • Department also did not prepare an indirect cost recovery plan, as required by state law
  • Perry – Was this a normal scheduled audit?
    • O’Neill, SAO – Identified through risk-assessment process, also knew there was legislative interest
  • Perry – Regarding prepaid fees,
  • Perry – Do you think it is fairly representative to look at a given calendar year and expect to get a full view of fee revenue, given that some fluctuations can occur with prepayment, etc.
    • There are many different schedules on which fees are collected, SAO looked at a calendar year because we wanted a full 12 months of data and these 12 months where the only data points available
  • Perry – Do you think you had a scope limitation then if you only had the 2016 calendar year for data?
    • I don’t think we had a scope limitation, certainly there were some concerns from TDA
  • Perry – You hit throughout this “no documentation” and “no monitoring,” is it safe to say there is not a good internal control process to develop direct and indirect costs
    • Accurate to say there were not strong internal controls to develop rates, also not a monitoring control in place at time of audit
  • Perry – Is this unique in cost recovery agencies or is this normal?
    • Other agencies might be more qualified to speak
  • Kolkhorst – There are times when collected fees are supposed to amortized across a year, was there any distortion in fee collected and used?
    • In their analysis TDA performed, it did not look at timing; TDA had expressed concerns over timing of revenue collection vs. costs
  • Kolkhorst – It was a very aggressive schedule increase, but your material suggests there was not effective methodology for setting fees; So maybe we collected $6.5 million more than was being used for the purpose
  • Kolkhorst – Do we know where this additional $6.5 million ended up
    • Additional funds were collected intentionally because TDA determined that they needed existing capital
    • Anything unspent at the end of the year would return to GR
  • Kolkhorst – Concerned about spending down budgets before these funds would be returned

 

Dan Hunter, Assistant Commissioner of Agriculture, and Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner

  • Reviewed audit
  • Cost recovery is being monitored very closely
  • Working to lower fees that were adjusted upward
  • Working to transition from fee-based system to cost-based system
  • Without GR fees were necessary to achieve cost recovery
  • Working to cut costs, but determining actual cost of various programs has been difficult and little historical empirical data has been available
    • Building a database for that purpose
  • Consolidations and buyouts effect the number of times a fee is payed
  • Perry – does not accept there was now historical reference of costs, at a minimum there were people payed to get started from an expenditure perspective. How much does an applicators license cost?
    • Miller – About $125
  • Perry – that should represent the cost. At the end of the day we did not do a good job managing the cash balance and a healthy reserve. Do you have consistency in cash flow regardless of the permitting time or any specific month that is more active than another? When you can’t support your cost recovery with evidence, there is an issue.
  • Perry – Discussed lack of necessary agency accounting for the legislature to act on according to the audit report.
  • Perry – are there fees that are duplicative with the feds?
    • Miller – there are fees that has a dual option with either the feds or the state, would not say it’s duplicative.
    • Miller – noted that there were a few unforeseen issues both in costs and revenues including industry expansion. At the start of the 85th there were 4 revenue streams and now there is only 1 – fees.
    • Hunter – discussed that licensure costs do fluctuate. Working to get better at the things that the audit report highlighted
    • Miller – fees could be limited if there was a dedicated revenue source
  • Perry – challenge the Dept. of Ag. to get the accounting process correct. Will help instill confidence and trust.

 

Public Testimony

Ronnie Muennink, Texas Farm Bureau

  • Concern regarding the process to determine fees
  • Need to ensure the fees imposed on producers does not exceed the costs of administration
  • Recommends any changes to fees be approved by the legislature
  • Any additional revenue gained should directly support the cost recovery program without a significant surplus of funds

 

 

Gary Holcomb, Texas Ag Producers Co-op

  • Described primary business of the Ag. Producers Coop
  • Prior to fee increase, cost of licensing was similar between the state and USDA
    • TDA is significantly more expensive
  • Highlighted multiple areas that TDA fees have risen many times over
  • Important to maintain a strong rural infrastructure, and companies must be profitable to maintain this
  • Hinojosa – you are not opposed to fees to cover the cost of a particular program?
    • No
  • Hinojosa – did the Ag. Commission let you have input on the fees?
    • Not aware of any opportunity
  • Hinojosa – what is the specific complaint?
    • The percentage increase of fees
  • Hinojosa – were the fees raised higher than needed to cover the cost?
    • Can not speak to that
  • Hinojosa – how do you think we should solve the issue?
    • If its all going to be put on user fees, that is a huge burden, and believe that consumers should share in that cost
  • Perry – it is your opinion hat many companies will move over to licensure by USDA?
    • That is correct
  • Perry – Would you lose any voice at the state level if you do that? That is something to at least be aware of.

 

Elizabeth Choate, Texas Veterinary Medical Association

  • Members are moving toward digital CVIs and speaking with the commission to lower costs as a result
  • Would like to the state fully fund the animal health through GR
  • Hinojosa – what is the format of the electronic CVIs?
    • There are many formats from totally digital to paper copy, etc.
  • Hinojosa – it seems like email could save a lot of money
    • That is certainly an option but there are a number of folks that are not in a position to be totally digital

 

Chris Wimmer, Texas Seed Trade Association

  • TDA maintains two control programs for seed
    • Every seed provider has to comply with certification program to satisfy international requirements to export product
  • TDA fees continue to rise
  • Seen fees raised over 350% over the last 6 years
  • 4500 samples seem to be overly extensive – noted Kansas maintains seed quality standards with fewer than 300 samples
  • Perry – so the cost benefit is not there. What happens if you sell a seed that does not germinate?
    • We make it right
  • Perry – how does Texas compare to Kansas on grain tonnage? May indicate that we are or are not over testing

 

Keith Walters, Pogue Agri Partners

  • Fees for certification have gone beyond where they need to be
  • Described specific fee increases
  • Would prefer to have the state credential a private certification tester

 

Mary Hamilton, Flatland Grain

  • Fees drastically rose in 2016
  • Discussed specific examples of increased fees
  • TDA fees are taking advantage of small elevator operations
  • TDA field agents are doing a very good job, but have to go to USDA
  • Perry – does USDA send out local agents and the same rate as TDA?
    • USDA agent is local but really wanted to stay with TDA
  • Hinojosa – perhaps TDA fee should not be able to be any higher than the USDA fee

 

Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

  • Specific issues with egg grading reports in statute, should be fixed
  • Very confusing on egg grading, who needs to have eggs graded – ag code says producers can sell ungraded eggs, but health code says restaurants cannot buy ungraded eggs
  • Nursery floral license – TDA set this up for full time nurseries, but many producers also plant flowers and have to pay the same fees as full-time nurseries
  • Kolkhorst – how much is that fee?
    • Best understanding is $290 for 6 months of fees
  • Kolkhorst – could do something like the baker’s bill where if producing under a certain amount there would be no fees

 

David Gibson, Texas Corn Producers Association

  • The fees are ultimately paid by the producers not the grain elevators, etc.