Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Debates Amendments to Agricultural Cooperative Law, Asks Whether Water Co‑ops Are Covered
Summary
Lawmakers discussed Senate Bill 142, which adds provisions for one‑member agricultural cooperatives, proportionate patronage voting and preferred nonvoting stock to raise capital; lawmakers asked whether private water cooperatives fall under the bill and cited code section 70A‑8‑409.
Lawmakers on the Utah House floor reviewed Senate Bill 142, a package of amendments to agricultural cooperative law intended to give co‑ops more options to raise capital and to clarify governance. The bill author explained it would allow certain agricultural cooperatives to form one‑member associations, permit proportionate voting based on patronage, and allow issuing preferred nonvoting stock yielding dividends above 8 percent for capital raising; it also includes judicial‑dissolution procedures in certain circumstances.
A proponent on the floor said the changes would help co‑ops raise capital while preserving protections for existing organizations. “This will open the door going forward for new co‑ops to come online … At the same time, the existing co‑ops can protect their organizations and change them according to their bylaws,” Representative Ferri said.
Representative Farren asked whether private cooperative water companies that deliver secondary irrigation would fall under the bill’s judicial‑dissolution provisions. The sponsor pointed to existing provisions of state law and cited code section 70A‑8‑409, saying shares in many water companies are treated under different code sections and the bill was intended to apply to agricultural cooperatives specifically. The sponsor said he knew of no agricultural water cooperative and warned that bringing water companies into the bill might be incompatible with its intent.
Floor discussion also included examples of how one‑member cooperatives might operate (for example, a local cooperative retaining a valuable brand after another member withdraws) and an explanation that the bill’s changes were meant to preserve local boards’ roles while clarifying campus naming and appointment language in related UCAT provisions (as amended in the Senate).
Lawmakers voiced support for balancing flexibility for new co‑op structures with protections for existing co‑ops and raised technical questions about whether specific water entities belong under the bill’s scope. The record in the captured segments shows substantive Q&A but does not record a final roll‑call tally for this item in the excerpts provided.
