ST. PAUL, Minn. – Farmers who are interested in helping with land conservation could soon have a new tool – and it isn't a new piece of hardware.
The tool is individually tailored software, designed to help farmers add up the costs and possible financial benefits of converting from traditional crops, including corn and soybeans, to perennial grasses or cover crops, such as oats and turnips.
Robin Moore, coordinator of the Land Stewardship Project's Chippewa 10 Percent Project, says her group will be testing the software with several Minnesota farmers starting this month.
"It just really helps them line up the financial differences between corn and soybean, and a different practice on that land,” she explains. “I would say 80 percent of the time, that more complex system is very clearly showing to be much more profitable than simply a corn-and-beans rotation."
This comes as parts of the Chippewa River watershed in western Minnesota face serious challenges from farmland pollution.
Moore says targeting just 10 percent of one of these trouble spots can help reverse damage to the water system.
Some farmers are concerned that switching from traditional crops could hurt their profits and risk losing some federal subsidies for growing corn and soybeans.
Moore says those concerns are valid, but argues that if farmers start with small changes now, they could see multiple benefits down the line.
"If you can get a three-to-four-year rotation in a farm versus just a two-year rotation, meaning corn and beans, that really increases the soil health and the water quality in that area," she stresses.
Moore adds growing perennial grasses for rotational livestock grazing can help farmers save money because they won't have to mechanically harvest and store feed.
Once it is done testing the new cost-projection tool, Moore says the Land Stewardship Project hopes to have the software publicly available by March. For now, she says her group is focused on helping farmers understand the long-term plans for curbing farmland pollution.
"Water is kind of the canary in the coal mine,” she states. “The problems with water indicate problems with soil health – and if our soil is being depleted, then not only are we going to have dirty water, but we're also going to have crop failures."
get more stories like this via email
A recent report revealed the Shell petrochemical plant in Beaver County has failed to deliver the promised economic benefits since its announcement more than a decade ago.
New findings from the Ohio River Valley Institute showed the plastics plant has not brought and economic boom, and promised jobs have not materialized.
Eric de Place, research fellow for the Ohio River Valley Institute, said Beaver County's economy has performed worse than Pennsylvania as a whole, as well as the nation and even its own past benchmarks.
"Its economic performance is actually declining over time," de Place reported. "Since Shell announced that plant, what's happened is they've lost population, they've lost GDP, they've lost jobs, they've lost businesses."
De Place pointed out local residents were promised an economic renaissance with thousands of jobs and increased tax revenue when Shell built its petrochemical plant, leading Pennsylvania to give the company $1.6 billion in subsidies. He stressed it is important for community members to demand accountability and question why Shell continues to receive taxpayer support.
Shell contends its complex has created nearly 500 jobs. De Place countered Beaver County saw a short-term boost during the Shell plant's construction, with thousands of workers on-site. But since operations began, the promised economic gains have not happened.
"Clearly in the data, Shell is employing a few hundred people at the plant now. Those are real jobs, but what we're looking at is the net effect," de Place explained. "Sure, you add a few hundred jobs in one place but what happens to the rest of the economy during that time? And what happens is, it's actually declining."
De Place noted the plant produces tiny plastic pellets called nurdles, which are the building blocks for many plastic products, including disposable items such as grocery bags. Essentially, it transforms fracked gas into the raw material for plastics.
Disclosure: The Ohio River Valley Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Environmentalists said a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives meant to curtail forest fires in New Mexico and elsewhere will do no such thing, and are encouraging Senators to vote against it.
The "Fix Our Forests Act" would reform the National Environmental Policy Act. The 55-year-old law requires environmental reviews and public input for major federal actions such as new logging, which supporters argued could mitigate wildfire risks.
Dan Ritzman, lands, water and wildlife director of the Our Wild America campaign for the Sierra Club, believes the deceptively-named bill would undermine environmental protections.
"The Sierra Club has long supported science-based, responsible forest management," Ritzman pointed out. "We echo the experts who support prescribed burns, responsible forest management, and we support home and community hardening to make neighborhoods and cities more resilient in the face of fires."
New Mexico's largest utility company recently warned customers in several fire-risk areas, including Santa Fe, high wind events often increase in the spring, and reminded residents to be prepared for potential power shut-offs to ensure power lines are not a source of wildfires.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said to combat climate change, the U.S. needs more renewable energy including solar, wind and battery storage technology. Instead, he noted the focus is on DEI, the acronym for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
"They keep invoking DEI but we know that DEI to Donald Trump just means 'Defending Elon's Interests,'"Markey contended. "It's just such an incredible power and money grab."
President Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax" and recently suggested he might end the Federal Emergency Management Agency's role in responding to local climate disasters. Many state leaders already have said they do not have the resources to tackle such events on their own.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Rural communities in the U.S. remain at the center of debate about the growing presence of large livestock operations.
South Dakota lawmakers are considering boosting fees that help regulate these sites.
A bill making its way through the Legislature would update the fee structure for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. These fees have stayed the same since the late 1990s.
State agricultural leaders say as CAFOs expand, increasing permit revenue would help address gaps in paying for the oversight program.
Angela Ehlers, executive director of the South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts, said funds are greatly needed for technical assistance.
"Are the soils capable of handling the amount of fertilizer being applied?" asked Ehlers. "Is it being applied in the proper manner? So, it's that type of technical assistance. And if we're gonna provide a program, we need to provide the staff to carry it out properly."
The measure comes amid proposed budget cuts for the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Ehlers said without this program, regulatory work might have to shift back to a regional federal office. Some farm lobbyists say they don't like fee hikes but recognize the need.
CAFOs have become a sore subject in smaller communities, as residents push back over air and water pollution issues.
The tension surrounding CAFOs mostly involves operations with big animal herds. But Ehlers said they also need to regulate smaller sites, which can sometimes avoid regulation.
"One could have 50 head of cattle. Those cattle are standing in the creek all summer long, doing what cows do naturally," said Ehlers. "And smaller CAFOs need the permit fee so that they can guarantee they're not polluting a very special stream that may be the water source for the town just down the road."
South Dakota's secretary of agriculture says there are now nearly 430 CAFOs permitted within the state.
The bill, which has cleared the House and now awaits Senate action, saw a compromise added to ease concerns from farming interests.
get more stories like this via email