But as some 200 members of the group gathered for their annual meeting at the Ramkota on Friday and Saturday, members of the organization also discussed Farm Bureau positions on non-ag issues, including Obamacare. Farm Bureau members raised the topic with Republican Sen. Mike Rounds when he addressed the gathering.

South Dakota Farm Bureau President Scott VanderWal, in an interview with the Capital Journal a short time after Rounds fielded questions on that topic from the audience, said it’s not surprising that Farm Bureau members are concerned about the federal government’s Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

“It’s a family organization so we’re not limited to just strictly ag policy, and that’s the way we’ve looked at it over the years,” VanderWal said, adding that this is an issue that clearly has repercussions for Farm Bureau families. “We believe that having a government-controlled system like that is not in our best interests.”

But a good part of the policy discussions within the organization are about agriculture. Here’s a look at some of the issues:

Crop insurance cuts: The Farm Bureau opposes an effort to include $3 billion in budget cuts to crop insurance in a recent budget deal reached in Congress, and it is finding allies in South Dakota’s congressional delegation in trying to get the $3 billion restored.

“The cuts are targeted toward the profit margins of insurance providers. But they make it more likely that we will see more mergers in the industry and cuts in the services which insurance companies provide to farmers,” Sen. Mike Rounds said.

Rounds said he is working with Senate Republican leaders, including Sen. John Thune, to try to see the cuts restored.

“We want this thing fixed. When we left on Thursday it was not fixed yet, but they were still in negotiations on it,” Rounds, a Pierre native, said to the gathering in his hometown.

Rounds said crop insurance is a good deal for the public because farmers pay 40 percent of the premium cost for insuring themselves against disaster under the taxpayer-subsidized program. In contrast, Rounds said, if there is a presidential disaster declaration, the federal government — with tax dollars — pays 75 percent of the cost of a disaster, while the state and local cost is 25 percent.

VanderWal agreed with Rounds that it’s good that “farmers have some skin in the game” in crop insurance. “We pay part of the premium, and the delivery system to make that happen is very important. It’s a private industry, which is a lot better than having government control.”

VanderWal said the $3 billion budget cut could push some insurance providers “below break-even” if it goes through. “It doesn’t cut down on the program, the actual crop insurance that’s available, but it cuts down on the mechanism that’s available to get it to the farmers, and that’s what concerns us,” VanderWal said. “It’s a national security issue when you look at our ability to feed ourselves. If we allow our agricultural system to become in economic peril, we end up importing our food to a greater extent. That cuts down on our ability to take care of ourselves.”

Permanent conservation easements: “We have some heartburn with permanent easements. Permanent is forever. We don’t believe that a certain generation should be able to tie the hands of future generations,” VanderWal said.

VanderWal agreed with the position Rounds put forward a short time earlier, saying things such as the character of the land, economic conditions and family situations change over time and there should be some option less permanent, perhaps for a generation but not forever.

“That gives future generations the option to do something different with it. It used to be farming was moldboard plowing and the dust blew all winter long, and so they took some of those marginal lands out of production. Now we’ve got no-till and strip-till and methods that we can use to hold the soil in place and do a responsible job of farming that land. There’s no reason those lands should be in permanent, non-agricultural easements.”

Waters of the United States, or WOTUS: The Farm Bureau is deeply opposed to the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to expand regulatory control over waters that previously have not been under federal jurisdiction.

“We do not feel the EPA has the authority to do what they’re trying to do. They used some deceptive measures to go about trying to convince the public that they were right. They used tax money to campaign in favor of what they are trying to do. We did not think that was appropriate. The methods that they’re using to try to expand the reach of regulatory authority are very questionable. A normal, rational purpose wouldn’t come up with the idea that some of the things they’re calling ‘waters of the U.S.’ would ever be called that.”

VanderWal said federal oversight was intended to be limited to navigable waters. Farmers are concerned that “dry creek beds and little depressions out in the fields” could end up being under federal regulatory jurisdiction under WOTUS.

Rounds, speaking to Farm Bureau members, called WOTUS “one of the largest federal land grabs in the history of this country,” saying it would give the EPA control of nearly all water, including man-made water management systems, farm ponds, drains and ditches.

Centennial: South Dakota Farm Bureau was formed in 1917 when the first county Farm Bureaus banded together to create the state organization, and the group now has 16,000 member families — more than any other ag group in the state. The state group is part of the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents 6.1 million member families, and which was formed in 1919. VanderWal said the organization’s centennial year in 2017 will be cause for taking stock of its history. Source - http://www.capjournal.com