Thursday, December 15, 2011

Texas Tax Exemptions for Agriculture and Timber Industries

Now Available
Texas Agricultural and Timber Exemption Number Online Application
Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, a person claiming an exemption from sales tax on the purchase of certain items used in the production of agricultural and timber products is required to have a Texas Agriculture and Timber Exemption Registration Number (Ag/Timber Number).
The Comptroller's office is pleased to announce the availability of the new online application for a registration number at www.getreadytexas.org. When you apply online, you will get your number at the completion of the application. You will be able to print your confirmation letter and a copy of your application. A copy of your confirmation letter will be mailed to you for your records.
Along with the online application there is an online search available on www.getreadytexas.org. With this search you will be able to check the status of your Ag/Timber number. Please allow one day processing time before you search for your Ag/Timber number to allow our system to update.
The site also provides links to other valuable Ag/Timber resources.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Will My Tree Make It? Assessing Pine and Shade Tree Damage From Drought Date: December 9th, 2011

Texas remains mired in one of the worst droughts in state history and it’s creating disastrous effects on trees and forests across the state.

After one of the driest years on record, many shade trees went into dormancy as early as August, dropping their leaves and branches in a desperate act of self-preservation. Meanwhile, pine trees with normally thick, green crowns ended up cloaked in red, dead needles while foliage on cedar trees turned completely brown.

The sight has created a dramatic effect on the Texas landscape and left many landowners wondering whether or not their tree is dead — or if it might recover and produce new leaves next spring.

Assessing trees damaged or killed by drought can be tricky, according to Dr. Ronald Billings, Texas Forest Service Forest Health Manager. He suggests grouping the trees into three different categories — definitely dead, likely to live and questionable — to help with the task.
Definitely Dead
It is easier to make this call for pines, Ashe junipers (cedars) and other needle-bearing, conifer trees. The determination can be more difficult for hardwoods, which are more commonly thought of as shade trees. In most cases, a red pine is a dead pine, Billings said, explaining that the same can be said for cedars with red needles. Once all or most of the foliage of a pine or cedar tree turns red or brown, the tree is incapable of recovering.

Pine trees in this stage probably are already infested with tree-killing bark beetles and will eventually harbor wood-boring insects, termites and other critters. Such trees should be cut down and removed, particularly if they are likely to fall on homes, buildings or power lines.

Shade trees — like water oaks, for example — that have lost all their foliage and are beginning to drop limbs or lose large patches of bark are most likely already dead and should be removed. Hypoxylon canker, a fungus that appears as gray or brown patches on the trunk of the tree, is another sign of a dead shade tree.

Likely to Live
This category includes shade trees with at least some green or yellow leaves still attached to the limbs. In fact, even those that have dropped all their leaves may still be alive. Some native shade trees, such as post oaks and live oaks, are more drought resistant than others like water oaks or elms.

You can use a scratch test to determine if the tree is dead or just dormant. If you scrape the bark off a small branch or limb and find green, moist tissue underneath, the tree is still hanging on, waiting for the next rain. That means you may need to wait until spring to see if the tree makes a recovery — unless the tree starts to drop large branches and patches of bark, which is a sign of death. If there is no green, moist tissue, the tree is likely dead.

An exception is the baldcypress, which also is known as a cypress tree. The tree is a conifer, but unlike pines and cedars, its foliage generally turns red and drops from the tree in the fall or during periods of drought stress. Cypress trees usually will re-sprout in the spring. If in doubt, apply the scratch test or wait until spring to be sure.

Equine Reproductive Management Short Course Planned

Description: This short course is designed for owners and breeding managers who want to learn the most efficient methods for ensuring the success of their breeding programs. Each 3-day course will include classroom sessions on anatomy and physiology of the mare and stallion, control of the estrous cycle, gestation and foaling, feeding the broodmare and young horse, and estrous cycle manipulation of mares. Hands-on laboratory activities are scheduled each day and will include semen collection and evaluation, estrous detection, artificial insemination, body condition scoring, perineal conformation evaluation of the mare and foaling management. The course content includes a broad range of topics that are useful for horse owners in any segment of the breeding industry. Previous attendees have indicated that the knowledge they gained from similar workshops has strengthened their confidence level and improved the relationship with their veterinarian concerning horse breeding activities.

Fee: $600

Dates: January 11-13, 2012

Download your Registration Form

Instructors: Dr. Martha Vogelsang, Dr. Clay Cavinder, Dr. Josie Coverdale, Mr. Dave Golden, Ms. Krissy Johnson-Schroeder, and graduate students in Equine Reproduction

Location: Lecture sessions will be held in the Kleberg Animal and Food Sciences Center on the Texas A&M University campus with parking at the West Campus Parking Garage (fee). Laboratory sessions will be conducted at the Texas A&M University Horse Center on George Bush Drive approximately 4 blocks from Kleberg Center. A map of the campus along with a list of hotels and motels in Bryan-College Station will be included with your registration confirmation.

General Information: Each short course will have limited enrollment to ensure adequate time and animals to allow every participant to develop the skill they desire. Enrollment will be confirmed on a first-come, first serve basis as registration forms with fee payment are received. In addition to the lectures and laboratory sessions, the registration fee includes a handbook of the lecture material, information from suppliers of equipment and supplies, lunches and snacks and a certificate of completion of the course.

Cancellations: Courses are subject to cancellation when registration is inadequate to cover program costs. Registrants will be refunded in full if the course is cancelled. By sending the registration form early, there is less chance of cancellation. If a registrant requests cancellation 15 days prior to the short course, the refund will be 75% ($450) of the original fee; cancellations less than 15 days in advance will not be refunded.

For more information, please contact Dr. Martha Vogelsang at 979-845-7731 or by e-mail at m-vogelsang@tamu.edu.

Horse Meat Inspection Ban Lifted In The U.S. By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS

TULSA, Okla. -- Horses could soon be butchered in the U.S. for human consumption after Congress quietly lifted a 5-year-old ban on funding horse meat inspections, and activists say slaughterhouses could be up and running in as little as a month.
Slaughter opponents pushed a measure cutting off funding for horse meat inspections through Congress in 2006 after other efforts to pass outright bans on horse slaughter failed in previous years. Congress lifted the ban in a spending bill President Barack Obama signed into law Nov. 18 to keep the government afloat until mid-December.
It did not, however, allocate any new money to pay for horse meat inspections, which opponents claim could cost taxpayers $3 million to $5 million a year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would have to find the money in its existing budget, which is expected to see more cuts this year as Congress and the White House aim to trim federal spending.
The USDA issued a statement Tuesday saying there are no slaughterhouses in the U.S. that butcher horses for human consumption now, but if one were to open, it would conduct inspections to make sure federal laws were being followed. USDA spokesman Neil Gaffney declined to answer questions beyond what was in the statement.
The last U.S. slaughterhouse that butchered horses closed in 2007 in Illinois, and animal welfare activists warned of massive public outcry in any town where a slaughterhouse may open.
"If plants open up in Oklahoma or Nebraska, you'll see controversy, litigation, legislative action and basically a very inhospitable environment to operate," predicted Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of The Humane Society of the United States. "Local opposition will emerge and you'll have tremendous controversy over slaughtering Trigger and Mr. Ed."
But pro-slaughter activists say the ban had unintended consequences, including an increase in neglect and the abandonment of horses, and that they are scrambling to get a plant going – possibly in Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska or Missouri. They estimate a slaughterhouse could open in 30 to 90 days with state approval and eventually as many as 200,000 horses a year could be slaughtered for human consumption. Most of the meat would be shipped to countries in Europe and Asia, including France and Japan.
Dave Duquette, president of the nonprofit, pro-slaughter group United Horsemen, said no state or site has been picked yet but he's lined up plenty of investors who have expressed interest in financing a processing plant. While the last three slaughterhouses in the U.S. were owned by foreign companies, he said a new plant would be American-owned.
"I have personally probably five to 10 investors that I could call right now if I had a plant ready to go," said Duquette, who lives in Hermiston, Ore. He added, "If one plant came open in two weeks, I'd have enough money to fund it. I've got people who will put up $100,000."
Sue Wallis, a Wyoming state lawmaker who's the group's vice president, said ranchers used to be able to sell horses that were too old or unfit for work to slaughterhouses but now they have to ship them to butchers in Canada and Mexico, where they fetch less than half the price.
The federal ban devastated "an entire sector of animal agriculture for purely sentimental and romantic notions," she said.
Although there are reports of Americans dining on horse meat a recently as the 1940s, the practice is virtually non-existent in this country, where the animals are treated as beloved pets and iconic symbols of the West.
Lawmakers in California and Illinois have banned the slaughter of horses for human consumption, and more than a dozen states tightly regulate the sale of horse meat.
Federal lawmakers' lifting of the ban on funding for horse meat inspections came about in part because of the recession, which struck just as slaughtering stopped. A federal report issued in June found that local animal welfare organizations reported a spike in investigations for horse neglect and abandonment since 2007. In Colorado, for example, data showed that investigations for horse neglect and abuse increased more than 60 percent – from 975 in 2005 to almost 1,600 in 2009.
The report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office also determined that about 138,000 horses were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010, nearly the same number that were killed in the U.S. before the ban took effect in 2007. The U.S. has an estimated 9 million horses.
Cheri White Owl, founder of the nonprofit Horse Feathers Equine Rescue in Guthrie, Okla., said she's seen more horse neglect during the recession. Her group is caring for 33 horses now and can't accept more.
"A lot of the situation is due to the economy," she said, "People deciding to pay their mortgage or keep their horse."
But White Owl worries that if slaughterhouses open, owners will dump their unwanted animals there instead of looking for alternatives, such as animal sanctuaries.
Animal rights groups also argue that slaughtering is a messy, cruel process, and some say it would be kinder for owners to have their horses put to sleep by a veterinarian.
"Euthanasia has always been an option," Pacelle said. But "if you acquire a horse, you should be a responsible owner and provide lifetime care."
The fight over horse slaughtering has pitted lawmakers of the same party against each other.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the poor economy has resulted in "sad cases" of horse abandonment and neglect and lifting the ban will give Americans a shot at regaining lost jobs and making sure sick horses aren't abandoned or mistreated.
But U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., is lobbying colleagues to permanently ban horse slaughter because he believes the process is inhumane.
"I am committed to doing everything in my power to prevent the resumption of horse slaughter and will force Congress to debate this important policy in an open, democratic manner at every opportunity," he said in a statement.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Texas drought could be extended by rare third year of La Niña

Dec. 1, 2011 
Two consecutive years of La Niña events in the Southern Hemisphere, an unusual development, are credited with causing the worst drought in Texas history. But NOAA forecasters are saying there is a 40-percent chance for an even rarer third round of the Pacific Ocean phenomenon next year and that could add to the devastating $5.2 billion in loses to state agriculture.
Klaus Wolter, a research associate with the Earth Research Laboratory at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), says a La Niña event causes colder-than-normal water in the lower Pacific Ocean and warmer-than-normal conditions in the Atlantic. The result for Texas farmers and cattle raisers is unusually dry conditions.
“La Niña generally brings drier conditions to Texas, like what we are seeing now. Two or three consecutive years of dry conditions can have a devastating impact not only on agriculture but on the recharging of aquifers and reservoirs. This could spell real disaster for an industry that is already suffering and would cause widespread water shortages that would be hard to overcome,” Wolter said.
If there is any positive news it is that often an El Niño follows a La Niña event, and traditionally this brings exceptionally wet weather to the region.
“If we were to get an El Niño event this next year instead of a La Niña, we would be more worried about flooding of cropland than we are about the drought. But statistically we are more likely to see a third year of drought,” he added.
Back-to-back La Niña events are unusual, having happened only ten times in the last 100 years, according to Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, and only five of those developed into a third year La Niña, the last time happening in the 1950s.
Nielson-Gammon says climate experts are collecting data now and are expected to publish their findings by next summer, which will indicate whether the drought will see a third consecutive year of drought or if El Niño will bring much needed rain to a parched Southwest.
But even if a third consecutive year La Niña develops, forecasters say another active year of heightened tropical weather, which often results from La Niña years, could possibly bring rain relief to Texas, much the same as it did for South Texas in the summer of 2010.
“In that year extreme South Texas received substantial rains that replenished reservoirs and groundwater,” says Dr. Robert Mace, deputy executive administrator of the Texas Water Development Board. “And in spite of another year of drought, the forecast is calling for less extreme heat next summer, which will also help to curtail drought conditions in spite of a lack of beneficial rains.”
Nielson-Gammon warns, however, that Texas temperatures have been increasing over recent decades, which contributes to evaporation and soil dryness and other factors that exacerbate drought.
“It’s going to be a wait-and-see summer regardless the forecast because of all the variables. We can offer our best forecast based upon the scientific evidence we collect, but in the end it’s anyone’s guess what will develop,” Mace added.
 

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Korea-U.S. International Summit: Focus on future beef demand, enhancing production


COLLEGE STATION – Producing high-quality beef and meeting future global demand was the focus of the 4th Korea-U.S. International Joint Symposium held recently at Texas A&M University in College Station.
The two-day symposium featured a number of experts from the beef industry and abroad.
Korea-U.S. Beef Summit
Dr. Stephen Smith, Texas AgriLife Research meat scientist, receives a commemorative plaque from Dr. Won-Kyong Chang, director general of the Rural Development Administration-Republic of Korea National Institute of Animal Science, at the 4th Korea-U.S. International Beef Summit. (Texas AgriLife Research photo by Blair Fannin)

“The beef industry is going to have to meet demands of a growing global population and expanding economies in the Asian markets,” said Dr. Stephen Smith, Texas AgriLife Research meat scientist and summit organizer. “This summit brought together several experts both domestically and internationally to discuss the future of breeding and production systems used to produce high-quality beef.”
The symposium was held as part of a partnership between AgriLife Research and the Rural Development Administration-Republic of Korea National Institute of Animal Science.
In 2010, the partners signed an agreement to extend a joint exchange in beef-production research, specifically examining the healthful traits of oleic acid found in Hanwoo cattle of Korea.
Presenters showed data indicating the Asian markets have high potential for more beef consumption and demand for U.S. beef.
“We can predict some economic and population growth,” said Tae-Gyu Kim, director of research and technology of Cargill’s animal nutrition business in South Korea. “Total meat consumption per capita in Asia is a lot less than U.S. or Latin America, but there is room to grow, forecasting an increase of 22 percent for beef consumption by 2015 and 44 percent by 2030.
“To meet increasing demand, we predict annual meat production growth increasing by 1.8 percent each year and annual meat consumption will grow by 3.4 percent annually. This production can’t meet demand, resulting in higher prices for animal protein.”
Korea-U.S. Beef Summit
Dr. Craig Nessler, Texas AgriLife Research director, said during a meeting with the Korean delegation, “The research that you are doing has a positive impact on the beef industry in Texas and Korea.” (Texas AgriLife Research photo by Blair Fannin)

Kim said large urban growth in expected in China, as cities gain 182 million consumers in the next 10 years.
“There’s very large urban growth expected,” he said. “Rural China income is expected to be increasing by 8 percent every year. We have a huge number of potential consumers for high-quality beef.”
Frank Rabe, who represents JBS export sales, said the company can load 39,000 pounds of chilled container beef a day at the port and ship to China.
“We are exporting more beef every year,” Rabe said. “Higher beef prices are also changing the value of beef exports. In July 2011, we added $236 more per head as a result of higher cattle prices.”
However, Rabe said there is concern that if retail beef prices remain high for too long, it will lead to “demand erosion.” He also emphasized the importance of carcass traceability in the international market.
The summit included speakers from Korea, Japan and Brazil, as well as experts from U.S. companies such as Merck Animal Health and Elanco Animal Health, who shared the most recent industry innovations.
“This is a critical discussion for the industry,” said Dr. Mark Hussey, vice chancellor and dean for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M, during his opening remarks.
Earlier in the week, Dr. Craig Nessler, director of AgriLife Research, and Smith met with the Korean delegation to discuss the merits of the joint beef project, its accomplishments and future goals.
“The research that you are doing has a positive impact on the beef industry in Texas and Korea,” Nessler told the group. “It’s an opportunity for both to fit individual markets. There are many opportunities for marketing and exchange of materials.”
The focus of research efforts have been producing high-quality beef and feeding of cattle. Smith said future work will focus on animal physiology and breeding traits to enhance production.
Part of Smith’s research program has specifically involved studying the effects of oleic acid in cattle production. Smith and a graduate student have found there are healthful levels of oleic acid in brisket – a cut of beef used commonly among barbecue restaurants.
“Everything that I’ve learned about oleic acid in the past few years is a result of my foreign travels,” Smith said. “More people could benefit from collaborations with other countries. The cultural aspects have supported my science.”
Korea-U.S. Beef Summit
Dr. Stephen Smith, Texas AgriLife Research meat scientist and summit organizer, said the Korea-U.S. International Beef Summit "brought together several experts both domestically and internationally to discuss the future of breeding and production systems used to produce high-quality beef.” (Texas AgriLife Research photo by Blair Fannin)

Consumers in Korea are interested in safety and high-quality meat, said Dr. Won-Kyong Chang, director general of the Rural Development Administration-Republic of Korea National Institute of Animal Science.
“In Korea, we are interested in many functions of livestock production and safety is very important,” he said, speaking through a translator.
Chang said beef is a staple food and roasting the meat is a popular cooking method in Korea. Marbling is also an important production trait, he said.
The symposium was developed through a mutual interest by the department of animal science at Texas A&M, AgriLife Research, and the Rural Development Administration-Republic of Korea National Institute of Animal Science.
-30-

Fewer Cows and Calves Will Lead to Strong Cattle Market in 2012

December 7, 2011 By:
Print Friendly
BRYAN – A classic case of supply and demand is predicted for the cattle market in 2012, according to a Texas AgriLife Extension Service economist.
Declining cow numbers due to drought will lead to fewer calves, causing tighter supplies across the U.S., said Dr. David Anderson, AgriLife Extension livestock economist.
Dr. David Anderson
Dr. David Anderson, Texas AgriLife Extension Service livestock economist, forecasts strong cattle prices for 2012. The historic drought in Texas has caused a decline of more than 600,000 cows, which will lead to fewer calves marketed next year. (Texas AgriLife Extension Service photo by Blair Fannin)
“I think we will continue to maintain historically high prices,” Anderson said recently at the Brock Faulkner-Brazos Valley Fall Cattleman’s Clinic in Bryan.
Anderson said his 2012 target prices for 600 pound steers are $131-$138 per hundredweight during the first quarter, $136-$144 in the second quarter, $137-$147 in the third quarter and $133-$143 in the fourth quarter.
The historic drought this year marked the biggest one-year decline in Texas cow numbers ever with more than 600,000 sold by cattle producers, Anderson said.
“What does this mean? We’ve got fewer cows and calves, which means higher prices,” Anderson said.
Cattle on feed numbers are high, which is consistent with a drought, Anderson said. Feedlots have been “staying current,” he said, selling animals to packing operations at a steady clip.
Meanwhile, slaughter steer prices hit a high of $125 per hundredweight in April and a low of $105 in June, Anderson said.
“They went back up to $119 per hundredweight in October,” he said.
That’s likely the result of buyers making sure enough beef is in grocery stores to satisfy first-of-the-month specials, Anderson said. “Prices shoot forward, then back off as grocery outlets buy what they need, then pull back due to the economy.”
Nationally, a 12 percent decline in 2011 in beef cow inventory is the second largest decline in history since 1934-1935 (18 percent), as 550,000 head of cows were sold off during that time. In 1996, a decline of approximately 400,000 cows was recorded during that drought year, Anderson said.
“In 2012, beef production is predicted to be down 4 percent,” he said.
The choice-select spread has choice beef selling for “huge amounts” more than select because exports are booming, Anderson said.
“We have growing demand for choice beef,” he said.
Wal-Mart, the largest grocery retail outlet in the U.S., is also selling more choice beef, Anderson added.
Trends of consumer buying patterns indicate during the beginning of the recession in 2008 consumers were trying to “stretch their dollar by buying more hamburger,” he said. “As a result, hamburger, chuck and rounds have reached record prices.”
However, there’s been growing demand for steaks, Anderson said, so “perhaps the economy is not as bad as some might think since there is some willingness to buy more steaks.”
Editor’s note: The following can be used in a breakout box:
- Tight supplies of calves will lead to higher prices in 2012.
- The Texas drought has led to a reduction of more than 600,000 cows in the state (12 percent), the second largest decline in history since 1934-1935 (18 percent).
- The economic recession in 2008 caused consumers to stretch their dollar by purchasing more ground hamburger.
Source: Texas AgriLife Extension Service.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Propostition 8 Information

Below is information on Senate Bill 449

SB 449

SB 449 would create an incentive – based on one that is already in law and in use – to encourage landowners to partner with the state to protect water quality and quantity without impacting the state's finances.
Background: Under current law, landowners can qualify for two specific property tax valuation options based on their land management practices.  These are commonly referred to as either the “agricultural exemption” or the “wildlife exemption”.  While called an exemption, neither option actually exempts property from taxation.  Instead, a method of appraisal called income capitalization is used to value the land under both options.  This methodology, as opposed to appraising the land at highest and best use, allows the property to be valued based on its productive capacity and more often than not results in a much lower property tax bill for the landowner.

The agricultural option obviously promotes the use of land for agricultural production, while the wildlife option, which was added to statute in 1995, promotes land management practices that benefit both game animals and endangered species.  Both of these property tax valuation options share a common theme: the protection of open space and the desire of this state to provide incentives for good land management practices.
 
Purpose:  The purpose of SB 449 is to model a private-sector incentive on the options described above, through which the state would encourage landowners to engage in good water stewardship practices on private lands and benefit Texas’ water supply in a way that is revenue neutral to the state.  Both the agricultural and wildlife valuation options have provided major benefits to this state in their respective areas.  However, neither option focuses directly on one of the state’s most vital resources: water.  Since Texas is a private lands state, and most of the water in this state either flows through or sits under land that is held by private individuals, one of the best ways for Texas to protect water is to encourage landowners to be good stewards of the resource.

SB 449 would add a new water stewardship property tax valuation option to statute that would be very similar to the wildlife valuation option.  Like the wildlife option, the water stewardship option would include a list of land management activities, of which a landowner must actively engage three to obtain the valuation.  These activities would include:
A.      erosion control;
B.       habitat stewardship benefiting water quality or conservation;
C.      restoration of native aquatic and riparian animal and plant species;
D.      implementation of water efficient irrigation practices
E.       riparian and wetland habitat and buffer restoration and protection
F.       allowance of groundwater and surface water monitoring for data collection purposes in accordance with state water planning or groundwater management area planning; and
G.      invasive aquatic plant and animal control
H.      donation of all or part of a water right to the Texas Water Trust
I.        amendment of a water right to be used for environmental purposes

The creation of the water stewardship valuation option in SB 449 will:
·         give landowners another tool in the toolbox in terms of land management that is both incentive-based and cost-effective
·         help protect valuable open space land and fight fragmentation
·         promote water conservation, and help the state meet its overall water conservation goals
·         advance the state water plan and protect water quality in rivers, streams, and aquifers

Impact on State Water Plan: The 2007 Texas State Water Plan predicts that 23% of our state’s future water supply will come from some form of active water conservation.  However, currently no framework exists to make sure this happens, and there is no dedicated funding source in place for implementation of the water plan.  As a result, incentives like those offered in SB 449 are critical.  The water plan recognizes this in a section highlighting the nexus between protecting land and conserving water.  This particular water management section, titled Strategies Using Land Conservation, states the following:
“One of the suggested water management strat­egies emerging in this round of water supply planning is voluntary land stewardship. There is a relationship between the condition of a water­shed and the quality and quantity of water that percolates to aquifers or runs off to streams and rivers. In some parts of the state, it is thought that improving the condition of the watershed’s vegetative cover can help clean and increase the amount of water for human use and the environment. Land stew­ardship practices that help control nuisance vegetation, maintain and restore suitable vegetation in ri­parian areas, reseed with native plants, maintain open space land and wildlife habitat, conserve wet­lands, and control erosion through reduction of overgrazing will pro­mote the health and efficiency of the state’s watersheds and should be encouraged.”
SB 449 and the practices promoted within the bill lay the groundwork for this important strategy to be implemented and do so without the need for an extensive regulatory framework or, most importantly, any state funding.

Revenue Neutrality:  As mentioned above, one of the goals of SB 449 is to not only provide an incentive for good water management but also do so in a way that is cost-neutral to the state.  SB 449 does this by mandating that any property that would qualify for the water stewardship option first qualify for the agricultural valuation option.  This same process was required for the wildlife option when it was added to statute.  This was done as a compromise with appraisal districts and as a way to ensure there would be no fiscal impact on the state.  The following language from the Comptroller’s website describes the revenue neutrality of the wildlife valuation:
“The wildlife management use is a revenue-neutral use of land. The owner who switches from another agricultural use to wildlife management use must pay the same amount of property taxes that would have been paid if the land had remained in its former agricultural use.”

The water stewardship valuation would work in the exact same way.  Landowners who would qualify under the water stewardship option would already be eligible for – and taking advantage of – another type of agricultural valuation.  SB 449 allows the legislature to advance sound, incentive-based water stewardship and conservation policy during a tough fiscal climate at no cost to the state.


The above information is to be provided to inform readers, not persuade or otherwise.  Information is presented to assist landowners in making informed decisions.