A Newsletter
Surveying National Events
Affecting Rural America. |
Center for Rural Affairs
PO Box 406 Walthill NE
68067
(402) 846-5428
www.cfra.org
info@cfra.org |
July 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
EQIP Program Rules
Released
Two major provisions will make it harder for
family farms and ranches to compete.
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service unveiled the final rules and
regulations that will dictate how the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
will be put into practice. The rule contains a number of disappointing
provisions, but two major ones will weaken the ability of small and mid-size
farms to compete for a contract.
Although EQIP witnessed major legislative changes under the 2002 farm bill that
favor large over small, some improvements stood to benefit small and medium-size
farms and ranches. One in particular – the elimination of competitive bidding by
applicants – would place smaller farms on an even playing field with larger,
wealthier farms who historically have been awarded contracts solely because they
offered to bid down their cost-share level.
In the final rule, NRCS continues to mischaracterize elimination of the bidding
down provision. They contend that if the State Conservationist determines the
environmental values for cost-share payments or incentive payments of two or
more applications are comparable, the State Conservationist will not assign a
higher priority to the application solely because it would present the least
cost to the program. This is a clear strike against small and mid-size farms
that typically employ more sustainable farming practices that cost less. |
|
Niman Ranch Pork Company is looking for new family
farmers to join their fast-growing company that produces free range all
natural pork not grown in confinements, not fed animal by-products, and
not given any antibiotics.
For more information about Niman Ranch Pork Company, contact Philip Kramer
at 641.998.2683 or
philipk@nimanranch.com
The 2003 Nebraska Grazing Conference will be held
August 11-12, 2003 at the Holiday Inn in Kearney. The conference will
feature low-cost grazing strategies; building local, producer-based
coalitions; stewardship and biodiversity; drought; and more.
Register online at
www.grassland.unl.edu/grazeconf.htm or contact Buffalo County
Extension, 308.236.1235 for information.
Sustaining Food and Environment: An Australian and U.S.
Gathering will be held August 11 at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
East Campus Union. Dr. Frederick Kirschenmann, Director of the Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University will be the
keynote speaker. The focus is collectively facilitating sustainable
agriculture.
The Center is taking nominations for the National
Seventh Generation Research Award for farmers, ranchers, or research
scientists who have performed outstanding sustainable and systems-oriented
agriculture research. The nomination deadline is August 31.
Learn more about how to submit nominations on our website at
www.cfra.org/award_application.htm or contact Kim Leval,
kimleval@qwest.net or
541.687.1490.
Center for Rural Affairs free yard signs are still
available. Just for the asking we will send you one or more of our heavy
duty, vinyl-coated outdoor signs. These attractive, durable signs are
lightweight and can be quickly mounted by folding them over any post or
fence. To request a sign call 402.846.5428 or contact Brad Redlin,
bradr@cfra.org . |
Secondly, ranking priorities that favor large, capital-intensive approaches
over lower cost management-intensive approaches also work against smaller
farms and ranches. NRCS created these priorities based on their assumption
that EQIP can treat the waste from the largest number of animal units for the
least cost by allowing funding for large facilities.
NRCS, however, believes that because they purposely fail to mention size
within the ranking criteria, they are not discriminating against small and
medium farms. This severely limits the ability of the program to provide real
environmental benefits through proven sustainable approaches.
Contact: Traci Bruckner,
tracib@cfra.org or
402.846.5428, ext. 21 for more information.
Family
Farm Pork Production Falls Dramatically Farms with fewer than
5,000 sows now produce less than one-quarter of the nation’s pig crop – a
dramatic decline from 1994 when such farms accounted for nearly three-fourths of
the pig crop. There are lessons to be learned from that.
First, there is high price for inaction at critical junctures in history. The
National Pork Producers Council and USDA both utterly failed to lead.
USDA had the authority to level the playing field for family hog production by
enforcing the prohibition on price discrimination in the 1921 Packers and
Stockyards Act. It could have also redirected USDA research programs to focus on
mid-size farms. But neither Secretary Veneman nor her predecessor Dan Glickman
had the will or courage to take the necessary steps. The U.S. House Agriculture
Committee likewise refused to act on a packer-feeding ban.
The destruction of family farm pork production did not stem from an inevitable
trend but rather the refusal by those entrusted with leadership positions to act
for the common good instead of protecting the powerful few. It is up to all of
us to prevent similar inaction from exacting a comparable toll on the rest of
agriculture.
Second, history may be on our side, but we don’t have forever. Most farmers,
most rural people, and most Americans favor family farms. Nationwide, concern is
growing with the excessive concentration of business, wealth, and power.
Throughout history, when people have decided they do not like the direction
their nation is moving, they’ve changed it. We can do that too, if we find the
key to unlock the pent up desire for change in America and all do our part. But
we cannot wait forever if there is to be enough left of family farming and rural
communities to rebuild.
Third, the battle is never done. But it does shift to different fields.
Commodity pork production has largely been taken from family farms, but there
are bright opportunities in natural and specialty livestock.
We must build new cooperatives of small and mid-size farmers to reach the
consumers willing to pay a premium for food raised in ways they support – in a
more natural, humane, and environmentally responsible manner. We must intensify
the fight for payment limitations, to retain our small and mid-size crop
farmers.
And we must think beyond farming and ranching to create a broader set of
opportunities for rural people to control their work and own the fruits of their
labor through small business development and public policies that support it.
Agree or Disagree? Contact Chuck Hassebrook
with your comments or questions at
chuckh@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 28.
USDA’s
Conservation Compliance Effort Flawed
The General Accounting Office reports that
conservation provisions of 1985 farm bill were often unenforced or ignored by
USDA.
On May 21, the U.S. General Accounting Office released a report entitled
Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly
Erodible Cropland and Wetlands.
The report from the non-partisan agency examined USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service’s implementation of the 1985 Food Security Act’s provisions
requiring federal farm program payment recipients to apply conservation
practices. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) requested the report in response to concerns
expressed around the country regarding continuing soil erosion and wetland
conversions.
The GAO’s findings showed serious problems in the implementation of the 1985
farm bill’s provisions.
Nearly half (48 percent) of all Conservation Service field offices do not
implement the conservation provisions as required. In selecting sample cropland
tracts to test for proper implementation, the Conservation Service predominately
chooses tracts such as permanent rangeland that have little chance of
noncompliance.
Field offices also often don’t check for violations, or if violations are
discovered, don’t check to see if they are corrected. They further have no
automated system for recording the tracts or for submitting reports on them and
maintaining a record of those reviews. Finally, when violations are actually
sent to the Farm Service Agency, FSA regularly waives the noncompliance
determinations without justification and continues payments to the violators.
In response to the many shortcomings within USDA, GAO offered a list of
recommendations to better insure the law’s requirements are met.
- Increase oversight of field offices’ compliance reviews to improve their
accuracy and completeness.
- Develop a more representative sample of tracts for review.
- Develop an automated system to manage the data needed for reviews.
- Ensure that noncompliance waivers are supported.
The report and its recommendations provide a real service to not only the
effort to protect our nation’s agricultural land, but to bring some fairness to
those conscientious producers who adhere to swampbuster, sodbuster, and all
conservation compliance requirements.
When outlawed conduct does not result in the penalty of losing federal farm
payments, outlaws gain at the expense of the land, the taxpayer, and their
responsible neighbors. Just as has been identified in other areas of federal
agricultural policy, even the most positive and beneficial provisions can have
no impact without complete and cohesive enforcement.
The report can be found on the General Accounting Office website,
www.gao.gov by clicking on “today’s reports”
for May 21, 2003. The report is recorded as GAO-03-418.
Contact: Brad Redlin,
bradr@cfra.org or 402.846.5428,
extension 24.
People First in Tupelo
Model of Development
During the past several months we have looked at several different models of
community development and their strengths and weaknesses. These include such
recognized efforts as Enterprise Facilitation, Economic Renewal, and Asset Based
Community Development.
This month we’re focusing on the Tupelo Model, a successful economic and
community development example emphasizing strategic development of people. The
Tupelo Model presumes that economic development cannot be achieved without
community development.
Before a community can build or attract economic development, it is critical to
work at developing local people. Developing the community – connecting its
people and its institutions – lays a base for balanced and sustainable economic
development.
From the case study Hand in Hand: Community and Economic Development in
Tupelo, authors Vaughn Grisham and Rob Gurwitt describe the guiding
principles of this model’s success.
- Local people must address local problems.
- Each person should be treated as a resource.
- The goal of community development is to help people help themselves.
- Meet the needs of the whole community by starting with its poorest members
as partners.
- Leadership is a prime ingredient.
- Community development must be done both locally and regionally.
- Never turn the community development process over to an agency that does
not involve the people of the community.
- Expenditures for community development are an investment – not a subsidy.
The process can best be illustrated as a pyramid. The base of the process is
human deve lopment.
Much like the core of the Center’s community revitalization work, social capital
is the target for the Tupelo Model.
Capital campaigns and industrial sites cost communities millions of dollars.
According to the Tupelo Model, what makes more sense is to invest some time,
money, and energy into people first before recruiting business. Broad ownership
of the community’s economic development will have long-term rewards.
Contact: Michael L. Holton,
michaellh@cfra.org for information.
New Homestead Act
is Introduced in House of Representatives
Bill seeking to revitalize depopulated counties
now in both houses of U.S. Congress
A companion bill to the New Homestead Act (S. 602) already introduced in the
U.S. Senate, has now been introduced in the U. S. House. Sponsored by Rep. Tom
Osborne (R-NE) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), the legislation (H.R. 2194)
includes the same language as the earlier Senate bill.
The New Homestead Act specifically targets counties suffering significant
population loss. It takes a development approach customized to rural communities
rather than trying to transplant urban business incentive models to the country.
The bill recognizes that individual entrepreneurship and microenterprise are the
job creators for rural areas and provides appropriate provisions.
Sponsors of the Senate bill are Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chuck Hagel (R-NE),
Sam Brownback (R-KS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Richard Durbin
(D-IL), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Zell Miller (D-GA), Conrad Burns (R-MT), Kent Conrad
(D-ND), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and John Rockefeller (D-WV).
|
|
Corporate Farming Notes
Indiana requires federal permits for CAFOs; Pork
Board gets new members; Iowa Senator Grassley criticizes USDA’s COOL approach.
An Indiana court order that took effect May 14 requires confined animal
feeding operations that house 2,500 or more hogs in the state to begin applying
for federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The
ruling forces the state to issue NPDES permits to make permitted CAFOs
“federally enforceable” – meaning the Environmental Protection Agency could
enforce the rules and citizens could file a lawsuit if they feel no one is
addressing problems.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s ruling came from a 1999 lawsuit by the
environmental group Save the Valley that claimed the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management and EPA allowed CAFOs to violate the Clean Water Act by
not requiring NPDES permits.
The Indiana Water Pollution Control Board developed rules requiring most of the
state’s largest CAFOs to apply for a federal permit by mid-July and estimated
about 500 operations would have to apply. Source:
Feedstuffs
Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman announced six appointments to the 15
member National Pork Board. Five of the appointees will serve 3 year terms and
one will serve a 2 year term.
The six were chosen from among nine pork producers nominated by the National
Pork Producers Delegate Body during its meeting in Dallas, Texas, in March.
The appointees are: David S. Culbertson, Geneseo, Ill.; Craig E. Christensen,
Bouten, Iowa; A. Mark Reding, Howardstown, Ky.; Dianne L. Bettin, Truman, Minn.;
Dennis O. Michael, Yankton, S.D.; and Wayne R. Peugh (2 year term), Edelstein,
Ill. Source: USDA News Service
At a public forum organized by the Center for Rural Affairs, U.S. Sen. Chuck
Grassley, said that federal agriculture officials are “carrying water” for the
meatpacking industry.
Grassley (R-IA) said officials with USDA have tried to muddy the issue to make
rules for country-of-origin labeling more complicated for farmers and ranchers.
Source: OWH, May 29, 2003
Contact: Brad Redlin,
bradr@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 24 for
more information.
|
|
Feature article:
Swept Away: Chronic Hardship and Fresh Promise
on the Rural Great Plains
A poor man’s field may produce abundant food, but injustice
sweeps it away.
Proverbs 13:23 (New International Version)
Swept Away: Chronic Hardship and Fresh Promise on the Rural Great Plains
describes the economic conditions of agriculturally-based communities in the
six-state region of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. It is the update to our 2000 publication Trampled Dreams: The Neglected
Economy of the Rural Great Plains.
Swept Away examines data on population, income, job creation, and other
demographic and economic indicators from 1990 to 2000 for all 503 counties of
the six-state region.
Though we examined data for all counties in the region, our primary focus is on
agriculturally-based counties and communities. These are the smallest
communities of the region and those that have received the most marginal
benefits from state and federal economic development policy. These communities
have unique needs that, we believe, are being neglected by traditional economic
development policy.
We identified 182 counties throughout this region as having an
agriculturally-based economy (20 percent or more of county income from
agriculture). Of these counties, 149 are classified as the most rural counties
of the region – small in population, with no population center of 2,500 or more.
We dubbed these counties “Rural Farm” counties. Another 33 counties are
classified as “Urban Farm” counties, agriculturally-based with a population
center of between 2,500 and 19,999.
Together, these agriculturally-based counties comprise over 36 percent of the
counties in this six-state region and about 7 percent of the region’s
population.
The Findings: Chronic Hardship
In general, we found that agriculturally-based counties of the region still
significantly lag behind more urban areas of the region – higher rates of
poverty, significantly lower amounts of income and earnings, and continued
depopulation. Data was obtained from the Census Bureau and the United States
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Population Decline. Together, the two classifications of
agriculturally-based counties lost nearly 9 percent of their population from
1990 to 2000. Conversely, the region gained over 7 percent in population during
that period, with nearly all the population gain in the 50 metropolitan counties
of the region. Population decline was most acute in the smallest counties, which
lost over 6 percent of their population during the period.
Greater Poverty. The percentage of people living below the poverty level
in the smallest agriculturally-based counties is over 60 percent greater than in
metropolitan counties (13 percent vs. 8 percent). Poverty rates in the larger
agriculturally-based counties are also greater than in metropolitan counties.
Widespread Poverty. Poverty in the agriculturally-based counties of the
region is not in isolated groups within these counties. Rather, it represents
the tail end of a large group of low-income households. Over one-fifth of
households in agriculturally-based counties have annual incomes less than
$15,000 (21 percent in rural farm counties, 17 percent in urban farm counties).
About one-in-eight metropolitan households have such low household incomes.
Meanwhile, nearly twice as many metropolitan households as rural households have
annual incomes of $50,000 or more.
Low Income and Earnings. Income and earnings in agriculturally-based
counties are significantly lower than in metropolitan counties. The annual per
capita income in rural farm counties is 73 percent of that in metropolitan
counties. The gap increases when only earned income is considered. Annual per
capita earnings in rural farm counties are barely half that in metropolitan
counties; for the larger agriculturally-based counties, earnings are 60 percent
of those in metropolitan counties.
Reliance on Unearned Income. Agriculturally-based counties have a
significant dependence upon unearned income (e.g., Social Security). Over 40
percent of annual per capita income is from unearned sources (45 percent in
rural farm counties, 41 percent in urban farm counties). In general, we found
that as county population size increased, the dependence on unearned sources of
income decreased.
Persistent Low Earnings and Income. Despite volatility in the
agricultural sector of the economy, earnings in agriculturally-based counties
were persistently low. In every year from 1990 to 2000, earnings in rural farm
and urban farm counties trailed those of other classifications of counties,
while annual per capita incomes of rural farm, urban farm, and nonfarm counties
significantly trailed metropolitan incomes in every year. Agriculturally-based
counties also did not follow the trend of steady upward earnings found in
metropolitan counties and the less pronounced upward trend in nonfarm counties.
Entrepreneurial Character. We found agriculturally-based counties to be
extraordinarily entrepreneurial in character. In rural farm counties, 42 percent
of the jobs are proprietorships (34 percent in urban farm counties; only 14
percent in metropolitan counties). Of course, that is to be expected in counties
where there are still a significant number of farmers and ranchers.
Yet, it is important to note that nonfarm proprietors outnumber agricultural
proprietors in both types of agriculturally-based counties. Nonfarm
proprietorships are where much of the job growth is occurring in
agriculturally-based counties. Despite population declines in
agriculturally-based counties, nonfarm proprietorships grew at the same or
greater rates in those counties as in metropolitan counties.
What To Do: Fresh Promise
Several implications and recommendations for pubic policy are apparent from our
work in agriculturally-based communities and from the data presented in the
report.
- States should develop comprehensive development policy for their rural and
agriculturally-based communities.
- Increased support, particularly by states, of “New Generation
Agriculture,” a model of agriculture rooted in family-scale farming and
ranching that includes strategies and activities to re-establish the link
between farmers and ranchers and consumers.
- Cultivation of a new generation of farmers and ranchers through federal
and state initiatives.
- Increased support, particularly by states, of programs that provide
lending capital and technical assistance to microenterprises and small
businesses.
- Integration of conservation programs and community development.
- Provide incentives to private investment in rural communities.
- Federal rural development policy should be regionally based rather than
nationally based.
- Build community human and organizational resources to accompany economic
development.
Within the next year we will provide a report on the “best practices” that
illustrate each of these strategies.
Will We Be Swept Away?
This report and its findings represent a modern day illustration of the passage
from Proverbs – the people of the rural Great Plains are hard-working and
abundant producers, but their livelihoods and communities are being swept away
by the failures of public policy and a widening economic gulf between rural and
urban areas of the region.
Swept Away is the third in a series of reports by the Center for Rural
Affairs detailing the socio-economic conditions of the rural Great Plains
covering the period from 1970 to 2000.
In this period – roughly a generation – we have found the region’s rural
communities, particularly its agriculturally-based communities, beset by poverty
rates chronically higher than the metropolitan rates; incomes and earnings
significantly less than those in metropolitan areas; and continued depopulation
that has resulted in a return to the “frontier” in many areas.
The most disheartening aspect of these findings is that they have changed little
over the 30 years encompassed by our reports – in general, the economic position
of agriculturally-based communities of the region have remained the same in
comparison to more urban areas of the region.
State and federal policy toward these communities has been either indifferent or
ineffectual, or in some cases, primarily in agriculture, harmful. To some the
future of these communities is very much in doubt.
We think the future of these communities holds abundant promise if a new rural
development paradigm is swept in. Policymakers and communities in the region
must recognize the character of the region is based in entrepreneurial activity
and must build rural development strategies around that character.
Any rural development model for the region must recognize that cookie-cutter
policies and strategies that work in metropolitan areas have not and will not
work in most rural communities. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the
region and its people must make the status of their agriculturally-based
communities a priority and focus thought, strategies, initiatives, and resources
upon it.
Such a new model of rural development will prevent the agriculturally-based
communities of the region from being swept off the map in another 30 years. Then
we can write a modern day Proverb – The field produces abundantly, and we value
it justly.
Contact: Jon Bailey,
jonb@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 26 for
more information. The report was co-authored by Kim Preston.
Swept Away is available from the Center
for $10.00 or may be downloaded from the Center’s website.
See the full report (pdf file, 456KB)
See a summary report
(text file)
|
|
|
Nebraska Legislative Wrap-Up
Legislature enacts spending cuts, tax changes,
and reductions in school aid to produce a balanced budget for the 2003-05
biennium.
The 2003 Nebraska Legislature faced the difficult task of overcoming a $759
million deficit. The two-year spending package they came up with includes $436
million in reductions, while the tax package is expected to raise $344.7 million
in revenue for the state.
On the reduction side, lawmakers voted 37-11 to pass LB 407 and override the
Governor’s veto by the same margin. Education took a big hit. The University
will have $29.7 million less than FY 2002-03. The public schools of the state
saw their state aid reduced by $63 million over the biennium. The minimum tax
levy for schools has been increased from $1.00 per $100 of valuation to $1.05
per $100 of valuation for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05.
Legislators voted 36-13 to pass LB 759, which is estimated to generate a total
of $344.7 million in additional revenue for the state during the 2003-05
biennium to help close the state’s fiscal gap. The governor vetoed LB 759, but
the veto was overridden by a 37-12 vote.
The existing state sales tax rate of 5.5 percent and the income tax rates
enacted in 2002 will not sunset this fall, as originally proposed. They will
remain in effect indefinitely. The state’s sales tax base is expanded to include
recreational vehicle park charges, newspaper advertising supplements, detective
services, animal specialty services, some remodeling construction labor, and
repair labor.
At the beginning of the session, the Rural Development Commission sacrificed
itself for elimination as a state agency to pursue a non-profit status. LB 92
eliminated the agency from the state books.
Since then, the Commission and the Governor’s office applied for the same USDA
funding. Since USDA asked for one proposal from each state, funding was denied
to both agencies. LB 48, introduced by Senator Ernie Chambers of Omaha, restored
state agency status to the Commission, allowing USDA funding to come through. In
the compromise, the Governor will appoint nearly all members of the Commission’s
board.
As the session ended, the Legislature set its homework for the interim session.
Visit the Legislature’s website, www.unicam.state.ne.us to view a complete list
of Interim Study Resolutions and their respective hearing schedule. Any public
hearings for these Interim Study Resolutions will likely begin in late summer
and continue through the fall.
Contact: Kim Preston,
kimp@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, extension 31
for more information.
|
|
Producer vs. Farmer or Rancher: What’s in a Word?
Today the word producer is commonly used instead of farmer or rancher. I’m
not sure when this change happened, but even the dictionary defines producer as
one who grows agricultural products.
To me, the word focuses too much on production or output. It likens farmers and
ranchers to machines that spit out products but fails to consider the planning,
managing, investments, and labor they contribute on their farm or ranch.
The term “producer” also hints that a farmer or rancher has no greater mission
in life than to produce. It implies that the measure of their success is
measured best by quantity rather than the quality they “produce.”
To me farmers and ranchers have much greater responsibilities than mere
production goals. Goals are important, but they must be matched with the
resources available and balanced to meet tomorrow’s needs while satisfying
today’s demands. When I think of a farmer or rancher I think of the land, the
animals, and the lives of real people, not just products and production levels.
Next time you are tempted to use the word producer, I hope you give it some
thought. Who would you rather have growing your vegetables, fruits, meat, and
milk products, farmers and ranchers, or producers? It’s only one syllable more,
but it does make a difference.
Contact: Martin Kleinschmit at the Center’s
Hartington, Neb. office with your comments, 402.254.6893 or
martink@cfra.org
|
|
Zoning and
Livestock Issues Tackled across Heartland
A review of state regulations on confined animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) and “Livestock Friendly” county designations.
Large livestock operations wanting to locate in some Midwest states may be
waiting until the cows come home. Legislation that would promote large
facilities has been introduced in several agricultural states in the Midwest and
is meeting resistance on the local level.
The issue at the heart of the discussion is economic growth for rural areas. Are
counties in the Midwest trying to prevent economic opportunity by blocking the
likes of Tyson and Smithfield? Opponents argue the root of rural economic woes
is not in the lack of large livestock facilities but rather in current market
conditions.
Local residents are also concerned about the environmental effects of such
operations. Iowa proposed new emissions rules for hog confinements and Minnesota
introduced legislation exempting small (less than 1,000 head) feedlots from the
environmental review process.
Indiana considered the Environmental Protection Agency as the sole grantor of
permits for large livestock facilities, allowing producers to eliminate
paperwork and focus on implementing practices that meet the environmental
requirements (see Corporate Farming Notes, for more on Indiana’s ruling).
After a successful block of Tyson’s plans to locate a large livestock facility
in rural South Dakota, lawmakers introduced and passed legislation that would
limit voters’ say on siting animal feeding operations. Elections may be held on
zoning rules, but residents would not be able to prevent the construction of a
livestock facility. That decision would be left to local zoning officials and
current zoning policies. An effort to refer this to a vote of the people is
underway.
Nebraska faced a similar situation by trying to create “livestock friendly”
counties. Local zoning boards are to be more accountable when making decisions
on the future of livestock facilities in their counties.
The idea is to match feedlot operators with counties that will admit them. If an
application is denied by the zoning board, a “statement of factual findings”
must accompany the denial.
Minnesota initiated the “livestock friendly” counties campaign. The factors
include proof of support from county commissioners, certification that a
county’s land-use laws are “conducive to a viable animal agricultural sector,”
and the lack of disqualifying factors such as moratoriums on the construction of
new facilities.
An effort to repeal the law because no county has yet to enter the program was
delayed by the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Contact: Kim Preston,
kimp@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 31 for
more information.
|
|
|
New Farm Bill
Initiative Promises Real Rural Benefits
Protecting natural resources while stimulating
cooperation and flexible planning is goal of Partnerships and Cooperation
Initiative.
Partnerships and Cooperation under the Conservation Title of the 2002 farm bill
is one of the bright spots that could provide some real benefits to farmers and
ranchers and communities alike.
This initiative is designed to provide flexibility so that it can be easily
applied at the local level, reflecting unique circumstances. The goal is to
promote natural resource protection across multiple agricultural operations.
Therefore, it calls for farmers and ranchers to work together to realize
cumulative benefits. In return, financial assistance will be provided to help
make it happen.
One of the flexible elements of this initiative is that it allows the State
Conservationist to draw down funds from any of the conservation programs to
carry out designated special projects. This allows for innovative conservation
planning rather than solely designing a plan to fit within a program.
To expand the opportunities to capitalize on this initiative, partnerships
between farmers and ranchers and between agencies and non-governmental
organizations are encouraged. Thus communities can facilitate partnerships with
farmers and ranchers, enabling the initiative to serve double-duty and spark
economic development as well as conservation.
Farmers and ranchers could employ conservation initiatives to restore the land’s
natural beauty and agree to provide public access to their land. This would draw
visitors and increase demand for goods and services, further expanding community
economic development.
The key to success for this initiative will be the quality of the rules and
regulations that will put it into operation. This program should roll out
sometime in 2004. We will keep you posted.
Contact: Traci Bruckner,
tracib@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 21
for information. |
|
|
Groundbreaking
Held in Lyons, Neb. for New Center Office
Special guests and townspeople made event a real
celebration.
The Center for Rural Affairs celebrated breaking ground on our new Lyons,
Neb. office building on Friday, June 6, 2003.
Joining in the ceremony was our board of directors’ President Karen Tikalsky,
Lyons Mayor Duane Slaughter, and State Senator Matt Connealy among others.
Executive Director Chuck Hassebrook explained how we are proud of what this
groundbreaking represents.
“Construction of a new building demonstrates that we are committed to our work
for the long haul,” said Hassebrook. “Rural America faces profound challenges.
But if we are persistent we can create a better future for our communities,
ourselves, and our children and grandchildren.”
The community of Lyons gave a great welcome to the Center, with many
community-proud people in attendance. Along with Mayor Slaughter, they are eager
for the building’s completion, which is expected in January 2004.
We want to once more thank our special guests and the community of Lyons for
making the celebration a memorable and proud event for the Center for Rural
Affairs.
Contact: Greg Finzen,
gregf@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 25 for
more information about the building project. See photos of the
new building on our website.
|
|
|
Revised:
March 21, 2007
|
Editor: Marie
Powell
|
