A small Pennsylvania community is hoping Congress will remember the needs of rural areas as lawmakers negotiate the final, contentious debt ceiling deal.

Jaime Kinder, mayor of Meadville, said larger cities tend to get more attention and funding from federal and state governments, and small rural areas like hers are more likely to be left out. She added her town has benefited from Bipartisan Infrastructure Act dollars, which have funded projects and programs in the community.

Kinder contends federal funding for small, rural areas must continue.

"We have used that federal money; we bought a fire truck," Kinder pointed out. "That's what helped us be able to bring the EMS service into Meadville. We don't have a lot of money, we have no way of bringing in revenue for a city, right? They tie your hands at the state level. So, the only way you get money in a city is through property tax."

As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Pennsylvania is expected to receive about $13.2 billion over five years in federal funding for highways and bridges. In Meadville, road resurfacing on one major street is part of more than $12.5 million in state work scheduled this year by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

Kinder emphasized Meadville relies on funding from the federal government, noting her town's economic needs are just as great as those in larger cities and suburban areas.

"We are a small community of 13,000," Kinder said. "And just because we are small doesn't mean that our citizens aren't worth as much, right? So, we want to make sure that we're giving the same opportunities to rural places as we are big cities and urban places."

Kinder added the town has also received grants to purchase ambulances and equip the fire station and historic Market House with solar energy. Meadville has also created a climate action plan focusing on its future.

The Environmental Protection Agency has upheld Montana farmers' right to repair their own equipment, and says doing so does not violate the Clean Air Act.

Montana farmers and ranchers joined with the National Farmers Union in writing to the EPA to oppose equipment manufacturers and dealers, who claimed farmers shouldn't be working on the emission-control systems on their high-dollar machinery. The farmers union said the dealers cited the Clean Air Act as justification for limiting the right to repair their own gear.

The EPA has sided with the farmers.

Montana Farmers Union President Walter Schweitzer said the last thing a farmer or rancher wants to do is run afoul of the Clean Air Act.

"It's quite frankly the opposite," he said. "What EPA wants and requires is the equipment manufacturers to give the farmers and ranchers, and the equipment owners, the tools so that they can maintain their emissions."

The "right to repair" movement isn't limited to farm machinery. Many states have legislation pending or have taken action on a person's right to have access to the tools they'd need to repair anything from smartphones and wheelchairs to e-tablets and heavy equipment.

Schweitzer added that when it comes to farming in Montana, waiting for an authorized tractor dealer to come to his farm and fix a piece of equipment can mean the difference between harvesting a crop before bad weather hits and losing it.

"Well, that happened to me," he said. "I was haying, had a tractor hooked to my baler, and I had a fuel sensor that was failing, and so it was shutting my tractor down randomly. So, here I am - I've got hay in a windrow ready to bale, rain could wreck it, and I don't have a tractor to bale."

The ruling by the EPA requires dealers to provide necessary software to farmers, allowing them to diagnose and fix their own farm equipment emissions issues. In this case, Schweitzer said, being able to do that would have saved him a $5,000 fuel-sensor repair bill.




get more stories like this via email

North Dakota farmers and fellow producers from around the country are in Washington, D.C., this week, calling on Congress to prioritize the soon-to-expire Farm Bill.

The sweeping policy, which carves out funding for agriculture programs as well as SNAP benefits, is updated every five years, and parts of the current version expire at the end of the month. The looming deadline is overshadowed by another fiscal fight: Lawmakers must agree on a broader spending plan by Oct. 1 to avoid a government shutdown.

Christopher Lundeby, a fifth-generation farmer from northeastern North Dakota, is among those meeting with members of Congress, asking them to kick-start efforts on the Farm Bill.

"You hope that they are truly feeling the same way that you are and are taking it to heart," Lundeby explained. "But at the same time, in the end, do they really agree with you or are they just trying to make you feel better?"

Lundeby is also with the North Dakota Farmers Union, which wants provisions like a stronger farm safety net, better and permanent disaster programs, and farmer-friendly climate provisions. But some House Republicans, namely the Freedom Caucus, have said they want reductions. Policy experts have said with an agreement out of reach for now, the current Farm Bill could see a temporary extension.

Even if a temporary extension happens, Lundeby pointed out there is real concern some aspects of the Farm Bill will be cut. He stressed with market concentration still a problem within agriculture, now is not the time to lose sight of protecting smaller farmers from corporate influence.

"Corporations and packers and other entities find the loopholes," Lundeby emphasized. "It needs work. It's getting better but it's still a struggle when it comes to some of the issues."

Labor organizations representing farmers also want federal policymakers to enact a competition title. They say it would increase fairness in the marketplace and address corporate consolidation in food and ag markets. Those who traveled to Washington to demand action are expected to wrap up their meetings today.

Rural advocates are calling on the state to tighten the rules governing Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - or CAFOs - in rural Montana.

They claim current Department of Environmental Quality standards leave drinking water and other resources unprotected.

CAFOs have been well-known polluters for years in rural Montana - discharging nitrogen and phosphorus into the state's waterways, as well as pathogens, heavy metals and pharmaceuticals that threaten wildlife and public health in addition to water quality.

The state is due to release new rules governing CAFOs later this year - and Guy Altsenzer, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper executive director, said they need to start with an overhaul of water quality monitoring regulations.

"Federal Clean Water Act has said we need to do a good job of protecting the quality," said Altsenzer. "The problem in Montana is that we've never made good on that promise. So, I would argue we don't have any monitoring and likewise, we're not doing a good job of ensuring we're not going to harm local water quality."

Large livestock operations argue CAFOs are efficient and do not pose direct threats to the environment when properly managed.

The DEQ has released a new draft CAFO permit. A final one - with public input considered - is scheduled to be released in December.

In addition to tightening manure storage rules, advocates are also calling on the DEQ to tighten criteria that govern manure containment structures on Montana farms and ranches, outlaw the construction of new CAFOs adjacent to streams that are highly sensitive to pollution or near waterways that are already polluted - and, Altsenzer said, ban the application of manure during wet weather and winter months.

"Montana gets cold and it gets pretty snowy for at least six months of the year," said Altsenzer. "And, likewise, we know indisputably there is a proven risk of runoff and water contamination when you dispose of manure during the wintertime."

Montana is currently working with a CAFO permit last updated a decade ago. The current permit expires in December.