COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Climate change may be hurting rural communities in Ohio and other states, but new research says federal investments could help turn things around.

At the Center for American Progress, senior policy analyst Ryan Richards said rural areas face unique challenges -- from flooding and droughts that reduce crop yields to conversion of farmland for development and oil and gas expansion. The research showed that federal programs that improve soil health and trap carbon can help safeguard rural areas against climate volatility, but Richards noted there isn't enough money to go around.

"Agriculture programs, for example, have way more people who are interested who cannot participate," he said. "Really, we're not talking about reinventing the wheel here. We have these tools that are underfunded, and we need to give them a boost to help folks who want to do good go out there and take action."

Richards said doubling the investment in four federal conservation programs could drive $3.5 billion in annual revenue to farms, and about $1.4 billion in cost savings. The study also recommended setting a national goal of protecting 30% of U.S. lands by 2030.

Also in the research, a shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources, such as solar and wind, would benefit rural communities. Fadhel Kaboub, an associate professor of economics at Denison University, agreed, and said the environmental and quality-of-life costs associated with oil and gas drilling are unsustainable.

"These create temporary bursts of job creation and income creation," he said, "but as soon as those oil and gas wells are dry, they shut down and the jobs are gone, and the communities are left behind in a much worse situation than they originally were."

Richards said rural Ohio has what it takes to protect its way of life, and contended that federal climate policy needs to take rural voices into account.

"You really see broader economic challenges that communities are facing, combined with these increasingly common climate challenges," he said, "and a lot of these solutions give communities a chance to really use their resources to take charge of their own future -- and, in doing so, help society."

The report also recommended that federal leaders improve investments in rural broadband and encourage smart growth in rural towns and cities.

The report is online at americanprogress.org.


get more stories like this via email

From North Dakota to Texas, the beef raised on farms goes through a production process controlled by four major companies and independent ranchers hope a proposed federal rule gives them more power to act if they feel they have been ripped off.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the plan it unveiled last week would provide clarity regarding unfair market practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Aaron Shier, government relations director for the National Farmers Union, said in the past, some courts have said there needs to be proof the broader market is harmed. He noted the update addresses the problem within the long-standing law.

"It has many producer protection elements," Shier explained. "Over the long history of this law, that has gotten confused and muddled. And so, this proposed rule is meant to set the record straight on that issue."

Supporters said not only does it help prevent smaller farmers from going out of business but potentially gives consumers a fair shake on the prices they pay for meat and poultry. Industry groups like the Meat Institute are criticizing the move, saying it would set meat production back decades by encouraging litigation while actually hurting consumers.

The Institute also questioned such efforts when cattle prices are at record levels. Shier suggested there are specific examples of questionable tactics beyond current market dynamics.

"Failure to pay," Shier emphasized. "If a meatpacker, someone in the market fails to pay a producer, that is something USDA has consistently taken action on."

With more clarity under the law, policy analysts said there might be more consistency regarding court decisions when individual farmers push back against an industry giant. Shier pointed out the ultimate goal is to avoid lawsuits with this action and similar steps recently taken by the USDA setting a tone to foster market competition. A public comment period is the next step ahead of the rule becoming final.


get more stories like this via email

Family farm advocates are calling for cuts in federal subsidies to large animal feeding operations - technically known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - in the Farm Bill being debated in Congress.

Iowa family farmers want more support for conservation programs that benefit smaller agriculture operations.

Right now, CAFOs can qualify for as much as $100 million every year to reduce some of the environmental damage they can cause.

That's taxpayer money that Barb Kalbach - a fourth-generation family farmer in Adair County, Iowa - said could be put to much better use by small family farmers on their land.

"Things like filter strips along streams and rivers," said Kalbach, "which helps with erosion, and it also helps with nitrates and other pollutants entering the water."

CAFO operators contend they use the federal money to defend against environmental damage and that they're always looking for cleaner, safer ways to raise high-quality meats while responding to increased consumer demand.

As a board member for the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, Kalbach said she is calling for more support of conservation programs that would help family farmers. But she said she is just as adamant that the long-standing rules governing CAFOs are changed.

"Industrial-scale factory farms, even though they are industrial scale, they do not have to go by industrial standards," said Kalbach. "They go by ag standards. And that's why we have the problem with pollution that we have. That should be addressed in the Farm Bill."

The Farm Bill saw its first action in the House Agriculture Committee May 23.

The House version of the measure also proposes $30 billion in cuts to SNAP benefits over the next decade, including $170 million in Iowa.

For 15 years, U.S. restaurant chains have pledged to stop using gestation crates for pregnant pigs but a new report from an animal welfare group showed many are still dragging their feet.

Devon Dear, institutional outreach manager for the group Animal Equality, said too many restaurants still source their pork from suppliers who lock pregnant pigs in cages so small they cannot turn around. Eleven states, not including New Mexico, have already made the practice illegal, for good reason, Dear emphasized.

"Pigs are under lots of stress in crates," Dear explained. "More stress means more antibiotics; more and more antibiotics means higher chances of antibiotic resistance, and stressed animals are less healthy."

Hog production is not a major contributor to New Mexico's ag statistics, but the state does have its fair share of fast food restaurants. Dear pointed out some big chains have moved away from crates including McDonald's, Wendy's and Chipotle. The report lists Denny's, Chick-fil-A, Dunkin and KFC among 13 companies it contends have not been aggressive enough in reducing their use of crates.

The report comes as Congress is debating an update to the Farm Bill. As proposed, Animal Equality's analysis shows it would have negative effects for animals across the board. She hopes the report will put the inhumane treatment of pregnant pigs in the spotlight.

"One thing we do want to emphasize is that these corporate commitments predate any version of this Farm Bill," Dear noted. "Many are back from 2009, 2012, so irrespective of what happens with the Farm Bill, consumers expect companies to do better for animals."

U.S. pork production is highest in Iowa, while New Mexico is better known for crops such as chili peppers, corn, pecans and onions.