Prop. 1 is overkill

Re: “Proposition 1 protects the people who feed Texas,” Another View, Tuesday:

I’ve read with wonder the Oct. 22 editorial supporting Proposition 1, as well as the supportive commentary by Russell Boening.

Certainly, Boening’s commentary presents some ludicrous examples of local overreach for which he proposes the cure is a constitutional amendment giving super rights to those who use the land to make their living.

Is that solution proportional to the instances of poor judgment Boening points out? To amend our Texas Constitution because of local complaints of dust is like using an atom bomb to kill ants.

Proposition 1 is shorthand for the text of HJR 126, which outlaws all regulation of “generally accepted practices” on farms and also includes ranches, timber farms, horticulture and wildlife management — with three exceptions. The primary exception affecting all of us is if “there is clear and convincing evidence that the law or regulation is necessary to protect the public health and safety from imminent danger.”

Doesn’t that require that the rest of us Texans submit to imminent danger for any state regulatory protection at all? Is it acceptable to live with less than imminent danger because of widespread acceptable land use?

Does that mean pesticides that take years to injure our health can no longer be regulated?

Does it mean that cruel and unhealthy raising of poultry that at present is “generally accepted” can continue until there is an actual flare-up of bird flu?

Do you know of widespread land-use practices that should be regulated for the general welfare? Surely there are lesser measures available than giving land users this very special, constitutional protection.

What if lawyers had that kind of protection?

Barbara Baruch

Patrick