Wednesday, June 22, 2016
And Coal Gassification bites the dust in Carbon County.
Not that this is really news, DKRW's project to build a plant in Carbon County had been in trouble for quite some time. The economics of it, however, just weren't working out.
That coal can be a starting point for the processing of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel, is hardly news of any kind. It's been well known for a long time. As is often pointed out in the discussion of this topic, the Germans relied extensively on synthetic, i.e., coal based, fuels during World War Two. And they aren't the only ones to have relied upon it at one point or another either. South Africa, in its later embargoed period, and Rhodesia (from South Africa) relied upon synthetic fuel well after the Germans had. But that should say something about the economics of it. The Germans relied upon it as they had to. Outside of Romania and southern Russia, they had no other petroleum fuel sources and couldn't import anything. Likewise, South Africa and Rhodesia, by the 1970s, were in the same situation. In other words, economically, converting coal into motor fuel has tended to only make sense if petroleum was basically unavailable. It has always been cheaper to simply start with petroleum oil, which of course is well on its way to being gasoline, diesel fuel, or jet fuel. Indeed, in rare instances, such as in Indonesia, some of the stuff is so far advanced towards being fuel oil it doesn't need to be refined at all.
DKRW's problem in Wyoming was that in order for the Carbon County effort to make sense, petroleum had to be sufficiently high, while coal was sufficiently low, that they could undertake the effort and make money at it. Well, coal's pretty cheap, but the price of oil has just been too darned low. So the plans have been shelved.
It should be noted, however, that the coal isn't going anywhere and this might conceivably be the future of coal in the state, at some point.
Mid Week at Work: Jose de Sousa Magano
Caption from Library of Congress: Jose de Sousa Magano, 35 Aetna St., Fall River, Mass. Born in Fall River, June 2, 1901. Left for the Azores at 8 years of age because family moved back. Cannot read or write in his own language or in English. Never been to school. Returned to Fall River in May 1916. Applied for employment certificate June 17, 1916. Refused on account of not being able to read or write. Will have to attend school until he is 16 years of age. Presented baptism certificate from Santo Christo Church, Fall River, as evidence of his age. Sister had to talk for him. Could not understand or speak English. See 4192. Location: Fall River, Massachusetts / L.W. Hine.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
And another one I missed. Passage of the National Defense Act of 1916
And, again, another one I missed, the passage of the National Defense Act of 1916. The act, coming in the context of the crisis with Mexico, laid the groundwork for the expansion of the Armed Forces, call up of the National Guard, and the creation of the Reserve Officers Training Corps.
Lots of stuff going on in June, 1916.
Lots of stuff going on in June, 1916.
An event I missed. Mexican forces, of some kind, attack San Ygnacio, Texas on June 15, 1916
I managed to miss this, but this is the even that lead to the National Guard being called up almost immediately thereafter.
In spite, of perhaps because of, the Punitive Expedition, about 100 men of undetermined Mexican loyalties, perhaps Constitutionalist or perhaps Seditionist, attacked the town which was defended successfully by the 14th Cavalry. Casualties were generally light on both sides during the battle, although four Americans and six Mexicans were killed.
The raid served to heighten already high tensions, which would be further inflamed by the events at Carrizal a few days later.
In spite, of perhaps because of, the Punitive Expedition, about 100 men of undetermined Mexican loyalties, perhaps Constitutionalist or perhaps Seditionist, attacked the town which was defended successfully by the 14th Cavalry. Casualties were generally light on both sides during the battle, although four Americans and six Mexicans were killed.
The raid served to heighten already high tensions, which would be further inflamed by the events at Carrizal a few days later.
Cuts in government budgets, Wyoming's economic woes.
Governor Mead today announced that the state will cut its budget by $248,000,000. The Department of Health's share of that is $90,000,000, which will result in the loss of 677 private sector jobs. Mead cited the legislator's failure to enact Medicaid expansion as a factor in that loss. The University of Wyoming will lose $35,000,000 by way of cuts, community colleges $20,000,000 and the Department of Corrections $17,000,000.
I understand the desperate financial situation, but I've noted that I think the cuts in education is ill advised. Still, this is pretty good evidence of how strained the state's economy is right now.
More evidence, as if any was needed, was provided by the City of Casper the day before, which announced that it was cutting its budget by 37%, which will be accomplished partially by early retirements but which will not feature any layoffs.
The Gathering Storm: The Wyoming Tribune for June 21, 1916
The almost certain war with Mexico loomed large. Locally, the problem was that the Wyoming National Guard was under strength and couldn't be mobilized until recruiting solved the problem. Interestingly, this edition reported that the European Allies were seeking to keep a war from breaking out, which certainly would have been in their interest, and that they suspected Germany wanted war to erupt, which was in fact true.
The Judge Mentzer mentioned in this article was either the Cheyenne lawyer or his father who was a National Gaurdsmen and who died of a stroke or severe heart attack some years later during a long ride during a Guard Annual Training.
The Punitive Expedition: The Battle of Carrizal. June 21, 1916
Following the Battle of Parral, American forces did not advance further into Mexico but scouted out from locations that they were encamped in. On June 20 the 10th Cavalry went out on such an expedition from Colonia Dublan and received reports of a Mexican Constitutionalist force in the vicinity. They proceeded to encounter the force at Carrizal. The Mexican forces was deployed to block their further advance to the west and informed the American unit of the same, which in turn informed the Mexican force that it was to proceed through the town. The Mexican force agreed to let a portion of the American one advance, ultimately, but fired upon it once it entered the town.
A battle ultimately ensued which resulted in the loss of ten enlisted men and two officers. Unit cohesion was lost in the battle on both sides and the cavalry did not advance past the town. Several enlisted men were taken prisoner by Mexican forces but were repatriated at El Paso Texas ten days later. Mexican losses were heavier, including the loss of their commanding officer in the unit. Nonetheless, the battle may be taken as an indicator as to how the US expedition had bogged down into a type of stalemate whose character was changing.
US troops being repatriated at El Paso.
The engagement was the costliest action that the US engaged in during the Punitive Expedition and it was correctly judged to be a defeat at the time. The battle came at a point in time in which the US and Mexico were teetering on the brink of war and Pershing was sufficiently angered by it so that he sought permission to advance on Chihuahua City. President Wilson denied him that permission which likely adverted full scale war breaking out.
Blog Mirror: Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and adoptive mom Orlando…
The Punitive Expedtion: Mgr. Lavelle Reviewing the 69th, New York, June 21,1916
Monsignor Lavelle reviews the New York National Guard's "Fighting" 69th Infantry Regiment. The unit, which had Civil War fame, would go on to World War One fame. It is particularly associated with Irish immigrants and shares Garryowen, the Irish tune, with the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Blog Mirror: Painted Bricks: The Clyfford Still Museum, Denver Colorado
Painted Bricks: The Clyfford Still Museum, Denver Colorado:
Most of the signs up here are of older painted brick signs, of course. There are exceptions, and this is one, but this is particularly an exception as I'm going to comment.
Commentary from me isn't unusual, but usually it's on our Lex Anteinternet blog and not here. But I cannot resist.
This is a very large sign skillfully rendering a photo of Clyfford Still into a sign. The big streaks on the end of the sign is a late example of Still's allegedly artistic work, better regarded as junk.
Still was a 20th Century artist who, starting off in the 1920s, had a public art career. Early on he actually painted figures but, starting in the 1930s, his work began to somewhat resemble that of other period modern artists and following that it was reduced to colored blotches such as we see Still, smoking a cigarette, contemplating here. It's ironic that, in order to represent Still to the public, the museum hasto use a photograph, rather than one of his crappy pointless blotched up canvasses.
On the side of the photo the following is set out:
But then, a lot of "modern" art is.
Well, in that war the guerilla of public indifference is probably the victor, as the big result of stuff like this is the separation of humanity from its artists. So, if any meaning was intended to be conveyed, it's conveyed to a pretty self contained little crowd.
Most of the signs up here are of older painted brick signs, of course. There are exceptions, and this is one, but this is particularly an exception as I'm going to comment.
Commentary from me isn't unusual, but usually it's on our Lex Anteinternet blog and not here. But I cannot resist.
This is a very large sign skillfully rendering a photo of Clyfford Still into a sign. The big streaks on the end of the sign is a late example of Still's allegedly artistic work, better regarded as junk.
Still was a 20th Century artist who, starting off in the 1920s, had a public art career. Early on he actually painted figures but, starting in the 1930s, his work began to somewhat resemble that of other period modern artists and following that it was reduced to colored blotches such as we see Still, smoking a cigarette, contemplating here. It's ironic that, in order to represent Still to the public, the museum hasto use a photograph, rather than one of his crappy pointless blotched up canvasses.
On the side of the photo the following is set out:
The canvas was his ally.Apparently art itself, at least in an intelligible fashion capable of conveying some meaning to 99.9999% of humanity, was also his enemy as the result of the use of his weapons was the slaying of intelligibility. It's complete junk.
The paint and trowel were
his weapons. And the
art world was his enemy.
But then, a lot of "modern" art is.
Well, in that war the guerilla of public indifference is probably the victor, as the big result of stuff like this is the separation of humanity from its artists. So, if any meaning was intended to be conveyed, it's conveyed to a pretty self contained little crowd.
The Casper Record for June 20, 1916. War with Mexico inevitable
Compared to many other newspapers, the Casper Record always had a calm appearance. Nonetheless, on this day, Casper Record readers learned that we were almost certainly on the brink of war with Mexico.
More Monday At The Bar. U.S. Supreme Court: The Bill of Rights still doesn't apply to Indians on the Reservation.
One of the most shocking features of US Constitutional law is that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply, at all, to Indians on the Reservation. It fully applies off the reservation, but not on.
This is so shocking that people will often refuse to believe it. Even skilled legal practitioners will scoff at the thought.
Well, this past week the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion with no dissents, confirmed that this remains the law, overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Bryant.
I understand the basis of this line of legal thought, but frankly, I think it's appalling and that this old doctrine is long obsolete. I can think of solid legal arguments for changing it that do not do violence to the Constitution, and which would certainly be less novel than Obergefell.
So, in the name of protecting tribal sovereignty, a laudable goal, the population that's been within the geography of the nation the longest, remains the one with the fewest rights, on the land where they are sovereign. That's just wrong. I realize that the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the ability to do what they will with the sovereign entities of the Tribes, and I realize that a less than stout Indian Bill of Rights is supposed to do something for Indians on their own lands, but in 2016, depriving Indians of their full rights on tribal lands is wrong, even if that means somewhat diminishing the sweeping authority that the tribes themselves have, as sovereign entities, within the reservations.
Additional Monday at the Bar. Lex Anteinternet: The ghost of the Crow Treaty of 1868 appears in a Wyoming Court (and soon in the Wyoming Supreme Court)
As we earlier reported on this item:
Suggesting that it was not, in fact, fully accurate we learn today in the Casper Start Tribune that the warden is appealing his conviction and asserting his rights under the 1868 Treaty as a basis for it. The article is somewhat confusing, however, in that it states he's appealing it to Wyoming's 4th Judicial District, which can't be accurate as that's the trial level court. He'd have to appeal it to the Wyoming Supreme Court. His lawyer indicates that they'll take it all the way up to the United States Supreme Court if they can and must, although getting a case up there isn't easy as it isn't by right. Additionally, based upon last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bryant I wouldn't be terribly optimistic about that effort as the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clearly telegraphing that while it may have abandoned the traditional reading of the law in various things, in this area, Indian law, it apparently has not.
Lex Anteinternet: The ghost of the Crow Treaty of 1868 appears in a ...: Crow Indians, 1908. These men may have been living at the time the Ft. Laramie Treaty came into being. The Casper Star Tribune rep...the Crow game warden convicted in a Wyoming court of poaching just over the Wyoming border was, as noted, convicted. Based on the reporting of the trial, the 1868 treaty wasn't asserted much, rather mistake of geography seems to have been. However, we need to keep in mind that reporting on legal matters is usually not completely accurate.
Suggesting that it was not, in fact, fully accurate we learn today in the Casper Start Tribune that the warden is appealing his conviction and asserting his rights under the 1868 Treaty as a basis for it. The article is somewhat confusing, however, in that it states he's appealing it to Wyoming's 4th Judicial District, which can't be accurate as that's the trial level court. He'd have to appeal it to the Wyoming Supreme Court. His lawyer indicates that they'll take it all the way up to the United States Supreme Court if they can and must, although getting a case up there isn't easy as it isn't by right. Additionally, based upon last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bryant I wouldn't be terribly optimistic about that effort as the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clearly telegraphing that while it may have abandoned the traditional reading of the law in various things, in this area, Indian law, it apparently has not.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Cuts in higher education? Is this a good time? And a comment on UW football
And an emergency it surely is.
And its an emergency for the University of Wyoming because the funding isn't there, but that is, in part, a man made emergency.
It makes me sound like a follower of John Maynard Keynes, which I am not, but this is a very poor time for the state to be cutting our colleges and university in terms of funding. The worst possible time, in fact. Young men and women who were working in the energy sector will not be enrolling in college and university in droves, hoping that education will give them a second chance. And for many of them it will. Law school gave me a second chance when the energy industry collapsed in the early 1980s. And I'm not the only one who was in that situation, and law wasn't the only route taken. But the educational opportunities were there.
This state makes a lot of noise about "learning" from our past mistakes. But we don't. We don't diversify our economy. We don't seem to learn that limiting education means exporting our young population. And we don't grasp that trying to grab the Federal domain, which we attempted in an earlier Sagebrush Rebellion that we're trying again, comes back to haunt us.
Cutting education now is a terrible idea. If we are really going to diversify our local economy, the generation entering college now is the generation that's going to do it. This guts their chances, and ours by extension.
Before I leave U.W., I'll additionally comment, although I probably shouldn't, on the pablum in today's paper about UW football.
There's a column in the paper today just gushing about how "we" all love "our" football team. It's just flowing with gushing admiration and praise about how this institution pulls the state together.
Well, bull.
I've lived in Wyoming my entire life and I haven't ever seen a UW football game. Never. I attended UW twice, starting off in 1983 and finishing up in 1990, and not once did I go to a game while I lived there. When I lived there I mostly noted the home games by the influx of alumni and football attendees flooding Laramie, which after all isn't that big.
And I'm not a lone in that. Yes, while I attended UW students went to the games, but I don't recall there being a fanatic devotion to the team while I was there. Indeed, the basketball team seemed to have a bigger following, perhaps because it was really good in that time period.
Now, I'm fine with people having a fanatic level of devotion to UW football, but how is it that that the same week I'm reading about education, which is the real, and only, purpose of a university, being cut, while still reading about a program, football, that's entirely surplus to that purpose? Something is amiss in that.
Wyoming Tribune for June 19, 1916. The Guard Mobilized
Cheyenne residents were waking up this morning with news of the Punitive Expedition back on the front page.
We haven't run the 1916 local newspapers for awhile, but it's pretty clear that things were really heating up in regards to Mexico. World War One had tended to push our expedition south off the front page for awhile, but it was back on in strength today.
While the Punitive Expedition was back on in strength, the huge battles occurring in the East were also making front page news.
Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Helen's Episcopal Church, Crowheart Community, Wyoming
Churches of the West: St. Helen's Episcopal Church, Crowheart Community, Wyoming
This church is located in Crowheart, Wyoming and, according to the sign out in front, it serves two denominations. It is, as the photos show, a small rural church.
This church is located in Crowheart, Wyoming and, according to the sign out in front, it serves two denominations. It is, as the photos show, a small rural church.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
The Crisis on the Border in 1916: The National Guard Mobilized
New York National Guardsmen in Texas, 1916.
The National Guard is mobilized due to the ongoing crisis on the Mexican border caused by the Villista raid of Columbus New Mexico. This included, of course, the somewhat short handed Wyoming National Guard.
Mobilized New York National Guardsman.
National Guard Camp, Camp Ordway Virginia, 1916.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Corporate farming. Why?
Nebraska prohibits corporate farming in its constitution:
North Dakota prohibits corporate farming by statute:XII-8.
Corporation acquiring an interest in real estate used for farming or ranching or engaging in farming or ranching; restrictions; Secretary of State, Attorney General; duties; Legislature; powers.
That Article XII of the Constitution of the State of Nebraska be amended by adding a new section numbered 8 and subsections as numbered, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Constitution.Sec. 8(1) No corporation or syndicate shall acquire, or otherwise obtain an interest, whether legal, beneficial, or otherwise, in any title to real estate used for farming or ranching in this state, or engage in farming or ranching.Corporation shall mean any corporation organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country or any partnership of which such corporation is a partner.Farming or ranching shall mean (i) the cultivation of land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit, or other horticultural products, or (ii) the ownership, keeping or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products.Syndicate shall mean any limited partnership organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country, other than limited partnerships in which the partners are members of a family, or a trust created for the benefit of a member of that family, related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law, or their spouses, at least one of whom is a person residing on or actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm or ranch, and none of whom are nonresident aliens. This shall not include general partnerships.These restrictions shall not apply to:(A) A family farm or ranch corporation. Family farm or ranch corporation shall mean a corporation engaged in farming or ranching or the ownership of agricultural land, in which the majority of the voting stock is held by members of a family, or a trust created for the benefit of a member of that family, related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law, or their spouses, at least one of whom is a person residing on or actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm or ranch and none of whose stockholders are non-resident aliens and none of whose stockholders are corporations or partnerships, unless all of the stockholders or partners of such entities are persons related within the fourth degree of kindred to the majority of stockholders in the family farm corporation.These restrictions shall not apply to:(B) Non-profit corporations.These restrictions shall not apply to:(C) Nebraska Indian tribal corporations.These restrictions shall not apply to:(D) Agricultural land, which, as of the effective date of this Act, is being farmed or ranched, or which is owned or leased, or in which there is a legal or beneficial interest in title directly or indirectly owned, acquired, or obtained by a corporation or syndicate, so long as such land or other interest in title shall be held in continuous ownership or under continuous lease by the same such corporation or syndicate, and including such additional ownership or leasehold as is reasonably necessary to meet the requirements of pollution control regulations. For the purposes of this exemption, land purchased on a contract signed as of the effective date of this amendment, shall be considered as owned on the effective date of this amendment.These restrictions shall not apply to:(E) A farm or ranch operated for research or experimental purposes, if any commercial sales from such farm or ranch are only incidental to the research or experimental objectives of the corporation or syndicate.These restrictions shall not apply to:(F) Agricultural land operated by a corporation for the purpose of raising poultry.These restrictions shall not apply to:(G) Land leased by alfalfa processors for the production of alfalfa.These restrictions shall not apply to:(H) Agricultural land operated for the purpose of growing seed, nursery plants, or sod.These restrictions shall not apply to:(I) Mineral rights on agricultural land.These restrictions shall not apply to:(J) Agricultural land acquired or leased by a corporation or syndicate for immediate or potential use for nonfarming or nonranching purposes. A corporation or syndicate may hold such agricultural land in such acreage as may be necessary to its nonfarm or nonranch business operation, but pending the development of such agricultural land for nonfarm or nonranch purposes, not to exceed a period of five years, such land may not be used for farming or ranching except under lease to a family farm or ranch corporation or a non-syndicate and non-corporate farm or ranch.These restrictions shall not apply to:(K) Agricultural lands or livestock acquired by a corporation or syndicate by process of law in the collection of debts, or by any procedures for the enforcement of a lien, encumbrance, or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise. Any lands so acquired shall be disposed of within a period of five years and shall not be used for farming or ranching prior to being disposed of, except under a lease to a family farm or ranch corporation or a non-syndicate and non-corporate farm or ranch.These restrictions shall not apply to:(L) A bona fide encumbrance taken for purposes of security.These restrictions shall not apply to:(M) Custom spraying, fertilizing, or harvesting.These restrictions shall not apply to:(N) Livestock futures contracts, livestock purchased for slaughter, or livestock purchased and resold within two weeks.If a family farm corporation, which has qualified under all the requirements of a family farm or ranch corporation, ceases to meet the defined criteria, it shall have fifty years, if the ownership of the majority of the stock of such corporation continues to be held by persons related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred or their spouses, and their landholdings are not increased, to either re-qualify as a family farm corporation or dissolve and return to personal ownership.The Secretary of State shall monitor corporate and syndicate agricultural land purchases and corporate and syndicate farming and ranching operations, and notify the Attorney General of any possible violations. If the Attorney General has reason to believe that a corporation or syndicate is violating this amendment, he or she shall commence an action in district court to enjoin any pending illegal land purchase, or livestock operation, or to force divestiture of land held in violation of this amendment. The court shall order any land held in violation of this amendment to be divested within two years. If land so ordered by the court has not been divested within two years, the court shall declare the land escheated to the State of Nebraska.If the Secretary of State or Attorney General fails to perform his or her duties as directed by this amendment, Nebraska citizens and entities shall have standing in district court to seek enforcement.The Nebraska Legislature may enact, by general law, further restrictions prohibiting certain agricultural operations that the legislature deems contrary to the intent of this section.
South Dakota also prohibits its statutorily:10-06.1-02. Farming or ranching by corporations and limited liability companies prohibited.All corporations and limited liability companies, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, are prohibited from owning or leasing land used for farming or ranching and from engaging in the business of farming or ranching. A corporation or a limited liability company may be a partner in a partnership that is in the business of farming or ranching only if that corporation or limited liability company complies with this chapter.10-06.1-3. Retention of mineral interests prohibited.For land and minerals acquired after July 1, 1985, any corporation or limited liability company that acquires mineral interests through foreclosure or in lieu of foreclosure which were not specifically valued at the time the security interest in the minerals was acquired, and which prohibited from owning or leasing land used in farming or ranching, is prohibited from retaining mineral interests in land used for farming or ranching when the corporation or limited liability company divests itself of the land, and the mineral interests must be passed with the surface estate of the land when the corporation or limited liability company divests itself of the land under this chapter.
So does Kansas:47-9A-1. Agriculture prohibited as corporate or limited liability company purpose. The Legislature of the State of South Dakota recognizes the importance of the family farm to the economic and moral stability of the state, and the Legislature recognizes that the existence of the family farm is threatened by conglomerates in farming. Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state, and shall be the provision of this chapter, that, notwithstanding the provisions of § 47-1A-301, no foreign or domestic corporation, except as provided herein, shall be formed or licensed under the South Dakota Business Corporation Act for the purpose of owning, leasing, holding or otherwise controlling agricultural land to be used in the business of agriculture.
It is further declared that no foreign or domestic limited liability company, except as provided herein, shall be formed or licensed under the South Dakota Limited Liability Company Act for the purpose of owning, leasing, holding or otherwise controlling agricultural land to be used in the business of agriculture.
17-5904. Restrictions; exceptions; penalties. (a) No corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership, other than a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, limited liability agricultural company, family farm limited liability agricultural company, limited agricultural partnership, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust shall, either directly or indirectly, own, acquire or otherwise obtain or lease any agricultural land in this state. The restrictions provided in this section do not apply to the following:
Food for thought for Wyoming?(1) A bona fide encumbrance taken for purposes of security.(2) Agricultural land when acquired as a gift, either by grant or devise, by a bona fide educational, religious or charitable nonprofit corporation.(3) Agricultural land acquired by a corporation or a limited liability company in such acreage as is necessary for the operation of a nonfarming business. Such land may not be used for farming except under lease to one or more natural persons, a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust. The corporation shall not engage, either directly or indirectly, in the farming operation and shall not receive any financial benefit, other than rent, from the farming operation.(4) Agricultural land acquired by a corporation or a limited liability company by process of law in the collection of debts, or pursuant to a contract for deed executed prior to the effective date of this act, or by any procedure for the enforcement of a lien or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise, if such corporation divests itself of any such agricultural land within 10 years after such process of law, contract or procedure, except that provisions of K.S.A. 9-1102, and amendments thereto, shall apply to any bank which acquires agricultural land.(5) A municipal corporation.(6) Agricultural land which is acquired by a trust company or bank in a fiduciary capacity or as a trustee for a nonprofit corporation.(7) Agricultural land owned or leased or held under a lease purchase agreement as described in K.S.A. 12-1741, and amendments thereto, by a corporation, corporate partnership, limited corporate partnership or trust on the effective date of this act if: (A) Any such entity owned or leased such agricultural land prior to July 1, 1965, provided such entity shall not own or lease any greater acreage of agricultural land than it owned or leased prior to the effective date of this act unless it is in compliance with the provisions of this act; (B) any such entity was in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal by this act, provided such entity shall not own or lease any greater acreage of agricultural land than it owned or leased prior to the effective date of this act unless it is in compliance with the provisions of this act, and absence of evidence in the records of the county where such land is located of a judicial determination that such entity violated the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal shall constitute proof that the provisions of this act do not apply to such agricultural land, and that such entity was in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal; or (C) any such entity was not in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal by this act, but is in compliance with the provisions of this act by July 1, 1991.(8) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company for use as a feedlot, a poultry confinement facility or rabbit confinement facility.(9) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation for the purpose of the production of timber, forest products, nursery products or sod.(10) Agricultural land used for bona fide educational research or scientific or experimental farming.(11) Agricultural land used for the commercial production and conditioning of seed for sale or resale as seed or for the growing of alfalfa by an alfalfa processing entity if such land is located within 30 miles of such entity's plant site.(12) Agricultural land owned or leased by a corporate partnership or limited corporate partnership in which the partners associated therein are either natural persons, family farm corporations, authorized farm corporations, limited liability agricultural companies, family trusts, authorized trusts or testamentary trusts.(13) Any corporation, either domestic or foreign, or any limited liability company, organized for coal mining purposes which engages in farming on any tract of land owned by it which has been strip mined for coal.(14) Agricultural land owned or leased by a limited partnership prior to the effective date of this act.(15) Except as provided by K.S.A. 17-5908, as it existed before the effective date of this act, and K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-5909, agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company for use as a swine production facility in any county which, before the effective date of this act, has voted favorably pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5908, as it existed before the effective date of this act, either by county resolution or by the electorate.(16) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership for use as a swine production facility in any county where the voters, after the effective date of this act, have voted pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5908, and amendments thereto, to allow establishment of swine production facilities within the county.(17) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership for use as a dairy production facility in any county which has voted favorably pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5907, and amendments thereto, either by county resolution or by the electorate.(18) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company used in a hydroponics setting.(b) Production contracts entered into by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership and a person engaged in farming for the production of agricultural products shall not be construed to mean the ownership, acquisition, obtainment or lease, either directly or indirectly, of any agricultural land in this state.(c) Any corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership, other than a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, limited liability agricultural company, family farm limited liability agricultural company, limited agricultural partnership, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust, violating the provisions of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 and shall divest itself of any land acquired in violation of this section within one year after judgment is entered in the action. The district courts of this state may prevent and restrain violations of this section through the issuance of an injunction. The attorney general or district or county attorney shall institute suits on behalf of the state to enforce the provisions of this section.(d) Civil penalties sued for and recovered by the attorney general shall be paid into the state general fund. Civil penalties sued for and recovered by the county attorney or district attorney shall be paid into the general fund of the county where the proceedings were instigated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)