A dozen rural Oregon counties have voted to leave the state over the past three years. It's a signal that large parts of the state don't feel like they belong.

Wallowa County was the latest to vote in favor of moving Idaho's border to include their residents, with the measure passing by eight votes.

A native of rural Oregon, Rozalyn Mock recently graduated from Harvard with a master's in public policy and is moving back to work in Roseburg.

She said people in these communities want to be part of the decision making process on the future of rural Oregon.

"They have really valuable perspective to provide but there's really no way to capture it," said Mock. "And I think there's been some work where we 'engage' with rural communities, but really we want a seat at the table. "

All twelve counties that have voted to join Idaho are in eastern Oregon, although the movement isn't likely to succeed because the move would need approval from the two states and Congress.

Mock also noted that while these counties are all east of the Cascades, rural Oregon is not a monolith.

She said there are ways to reach rural Oregonians, such as reviving the Office of Rural Policy, which was created in 2004 but got cut four years later during the Great Recession.

"What it would do," said Mock, "is it would increase rural capacity and improve the way our communities work with state and local government while also rebuilding trust in our state government."

Mock said urban Oregonians can help heal the state's divides.

"Knowing that understanding, respecting one another doesn't always mean we have to agree with each other," said Mock, "but knowing our rural and urban neighbors makes it really hard to divide us."




get more stories like this via email

North Dakota's farming landscape is seeing policy shifts dealing with corporate ownership of agricultural interests. Now, there's fresh debate at the federal level.

Earlier this year, the Legislature loosened restrictions under the state's longstanding anti-corporate-farming law. The changes, which followed lengthy debate, focus on livestock operations.

In Congress, the National Family Farm Coalition is among the groups calling for passage of the Farmland for Farmers Act, which would restrict the amount of farmland large corporations can own.

Ben Vig, who farms small grains in east-central North Dakota, said he's happy to see the federal proposal, noting the broader corporate influence within agriculture these days.

"The idea that we have checks and balances when we purchase our food -- well, sometimes, the corporations own everything and we're subjected to what they put as a price," Vig observed.

He's referring to corporate dominance in such areas as meat processing. And foreign ownership of U.S. ag property also has emerged as a concern; the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports foreign investors hold about 40 million acres of American farmland.

The North Dakota Farmers Union has said it doesn't think the federal bill would overlap with the state-level changes, but it does support the Congressional efforts.

Groups representing large ag firms have criticized recent federal attempts to establish market fairness, warning they would harm consumers. But Vig said giving the little guy more "wiggle room" to operate keeps farming communities thriving.

"And we still have people taking care of the land or taking care of small-town infrastructure," Vig pointed out. "Whether we're serving on a township board, or serving on a church board and a school board, we still know who the neighbors are."

Corporate influence within agriculture also has led to concerns about the impact on land prices.

The Farmland for Farmers Act was introduced by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey. And separate bipartisan efforts are focused on foreign investors.

At the state level, North Dakota got attention for the livestock-related ownership changes, but lawmakers also advanced legislation to restrict foreign governments from acquiring farmland.

If you live in a flood prone community, soil health from nearby farmland may have something to do with it. Ag voices in Wisconsin say government-funded conservation programs are effective in mitigating risks and disaster expenses.

Congress will soon renew debate over long-term Farm Bill funding, including incentives for producers to adopt practices like no-till farming, which allow the soil to hold more water after heavy rain.

Juli Obudzinski, sustainable agriculture policy consultant for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said it is not only an issue for farmers and policymakers. She emphasized taxpayer dollars come into play when programs are underfunded.

"Some of the costs that they pay because of the lack of investment in soil health practices, especially municipalities, rural communities, even state budgets when they're looking at costs to repair flooding damages," Obudzinski outlined.

Her research showed between 2009 and 2019, Wisconsin suffered nearly $36 million in flood damage. On the other side, she acknowledged soil health investment and improved water quality pay off for communities, such as boosting home values along watersheds. The discussions also follow recent conservation funding boosts from the Inflation Reduction Act, with advocates noting they are poised to help more rural areas.

Ron Schoepp, a farmer from south-central Wisconsin, is among those who have tapped into Inflation Reduction Act incentives this year through the federal Conservation Stewardship Program. He is adding to the soil health practices he has carried out over the years, providing benefits reaching beyond his property.

"We farm right on Lake Wisconsin and so there's less runoff," Schoepp explained. "That definitely helps neighbors by keeping a cleaner Lake Wisconsin."

He also contended making incentives more accessible could place less stress on disaster aid programs for farmers. Congress has until next fall to adopt a new Farm Bill after extending the recent version for another year. While many programs have bipartisan support, it is unclear how funding disagreements and the 2024 election will influence reauthorization.

Women, LGBTQ, and minority farmers in Ohio face compounding stressors, according to a study from Ohio State University.

Researchers surveyed and interviewed a group of nontraditional, mostly first-generation organic farmers. Results showed 58% of survey respondents reported mild to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Fiona Doherty, doctoral candidate in the College of Social Work at Ohio State University and the study's lead author, said the survey was done in 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. She said many farmers expressed disappointment at the financial reality of farming, including not making ends meet and having to pick up a second or even third job.

"Part of what inspired us to do this particular research study was really acknowledging the generations, the decades of structural discrimination in the U.S. agricultural industry," Doherty explained. "That's led to unequal access to land, unequal access to farm resources."

Some study participants also identified climate change and unpredictable weather as sources of stress.

Doherty pointed out the research is a step toward creating structural support such as policies to improve equity, accessibility, and representation for beginning, women, racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ farmers, especially as traditional farmers age out of the field.

"Really thinking about those cumulative impacts and what that does to someone's well-being, to their success as a farmer, as a beginning farmer," Doherty outlined. "That's one main take-away, is just thinking about those cumulative stressors."

According to census data, in 2017, the U.S. had around 321,000 farmers age 35 or younger, accounting for just 9% of the country's roughly 3 million producers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said as legacy producers retire, the nation will need a new generation of farmers to grow food and feed.