The U.S. Department of Agriculture touts its conservation programs for farmers, but a new study from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy found last year, three of four applications for the programs were denied.
The Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program help farmers handle flooding and drought.
Michael Happ, program associate for climate and rural communities at the institute, said the programs received more than $19 million as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which his group thinks should be made permanent.
"In a lot of cases, there are farmers who would like to be doing more conservation practices on their farm, would like to grow their food in a more agro-ecological way, but just feel like financially that's not an option," Happ observed. "These programs help open financial options for them."
The report's recommendations include doubling current Farm Bill spending on conservation and improving access to credit and land for farmers of color, as well as for small, medium-sized and beginning farmers.
Doug Doughty, a row crop farmer and cattle rancher from Livingston County, called the agriculture industry "off balance," with farm programs tilted toward large farms and industrial agriculture. He also called talk about eliminating the conservation compliance requirements for crop insurance "alarming," saying it is an important incentive for the crop insurance program.
"In return for these subsidies, here's what we are going to give the general public: cleaner water, less erosion, less erosion of nutrients," Doughty outlined.
Doughty has participated in both the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. He contended they introduce farmers to new practices and technology, and provide support for healthy practices already in place.
Doughty added one of the Farm Bill's long-standing themes is stabilization. He pointed to the number of rural business, school and hospital closures and ongoing environmental degradation as evidence ag consolidation hasn't helped stabilize rural communities or the environment.
"We're stabilizing income and food, should we not be stabilizing our natural resources and our climate also?" Doughty asked. "Soil loss is still greater than soil production. And obviously, nutrient pollution continues to increase in agriculture."
get more stories like this via email
Indiana farm leaders are pushing back against a bill that would increase inspections at large livestock farms.
Senate Bill 193, sponsored by Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, would require the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to double inspections at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations for permits.
Josh Trenary, executive director of the Indiana Pork Producers Association, said the department said it will not need more staff but a study suggested otherwise.
"The agency's ability to balance inspecting where the needs are, or the risks are, while still making sure they get around to enough operations every year to receive their grant funding from the federal government," Trenary contended.
Supporters said the bill strengthens oversight and protects water quality, while opponents argued it adds costs and unnecessary burdens on farmers. A Senate committee moved the bill to the full chamber despite concerns from industry leaders and no public testimony in favor of it.
Trenary stated livestock farmers carefully manage manure because they use it as fertilizer instead of costly commercial products. He wants the regulatory program to be efficient.
"We want the regulatory program to run well -- it makes our environmental record look good if IDEM is quickly responding and solving problems before they happen -- that's what we want," Trenary emphasized. "We want them to make those discretionary risk based inspections instead of a blanket statutory requirement."
Trenary argued the proposal creates more regulation without addressing a real problem. He wants lawmakers to focus on better environmental solutions.
get more stories like this via email
North Dakota lawmakers are still sorting out a thorny agricultural issue getting to the heart of local zoning restrictions for animal feedlot operations.
The state is looking to revise standards capping setbacks a county or township puts in place when figuring out how close feedlots can sit near a community.
State agricultural leaders want more livestock production in North Dakota. The recommendations call for reducing distance caps involving smaller sites but to extend allowed setbacks for larger ones, known as concentrated animal feeding operations.
Sen. Paul Thomas, R-Velva, at a committee hearing Friday, acknowledged the growing debate.
"There's a lot of communication from constituents, from agriculture organizations on all sides of this," Thomas observed.
Thomas proposed an amendment to do away with the longer setbacks for the larger feedlots. He argued the current limit of one mile is sufficient. It is unclear what a final bill would look like but Thomas' proposal is likely to anger local residents and environmentalists opposed to concentrated animal feeding operations, which are under increased scrutiny in the U.S. over concerns about air and water pollution.
Opponents had already spoken out against elements of the bill during earlier testimony this session, noting the push chips away at local control.
Jeff Kenner, a farmer from the Devils Lake area, was among those who expressed frustration with the broader pressure applied to townships to welcome feedlots with large animal herds.
"Why try to bully your way and get as close to a town, residence, lake or business (as possible) when there are miles and miles of open land to put animal feeding operations on?" Kenner asked.
Opponents of factory farms said not only are air and water quality affected, local road infrastructure is burdened with increased truck traffic. Backers of boosting livestock output in North Dakota said the state is falling behind its neighbors, while arguing the modern large-scale approach to producing food is needed to meet global demand. They said the bill in its original form strikes a balance between community needs and helping farmers. The amendment was tabled, for now.
get more stories like this via email
Groups working to protect Iowa's air and water rally at the State Capitol this afternoon, against a bill they say would protect pesticide companies from lawsuits if their products make people sick.
Iowa Senate Study Bill 1051, the so-called Cancer Gag Act, "provides defense from civil liability tied to the use of pesticides," as long as their labeling meets Environmental Protection Agency standards - which can be 15 years old.
Iowa Food and Water Watch Central Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel said the measure would essentially change the law to protect pesticide companies from accountability, in a state that's already seeing a "public health crisis."
"We have rising cancer rates," said Mankel. "We're the only state in the nation where incidents of cancer are increasing, and we rank second in the nation for rates of cancer."
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has said that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans," but the EPA says there's no evidence to supports that.
Pesticide makers - including Bayer, which has four lobbyists in Iowa alone - have said they're following current law and need protection from what they deem frivolous lawsuits, and this bill would provide that.
But Mankel said the measure would further erode Iowans' ability to take legal action if they think these products caused health problems.
"This is not a matter of stopping frivolous lawsuits," said Mankel. "It's a matter of not robbing Iowans of the only avenue we have to hold the pesticide industry accountable at a time where we're really suffering."
The rally at the Capitol will begin with an altar ceremony to memorialize Iowans who have died from cancer, many of whom advocates say were deaths related to pesticides.
get more stories like this via email