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
Wisconsin's agriculture industry could see both wins and losses under the new federal budget.
Climate change isn't a priority for the Trump administration, so the new budget redirects funds for farm conservation initiatives. Chuck Anderas, policy director for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said it lacks investments in key areas, such as technical assistance, to help farmers implement conservation measures.
Anderas predicted the gutted support - and incentives that will go to large farms that need it least - will weaken conservation efforts and could have long-term implications.
"And so, you're having more runoff and more nitrates in the drinking water," he said. "But then you're also having birth defects in babies from the nitrates in the drinking water, and you're having huge medical costs beyond the devastating effects to human health from that."
Wisconsin's new state budget does include some funding for programs that incentivize farmers to use conservation practices and reduce nitrogen pollution. Anderas said this kind of investment will help prevent flood damage, improve water quality and make agricultural systems more resilient - all of which affect public health.
As part of its agenda to curb government fraud and waste, the Trump administration has slashed staffing at agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service. The new budget proposes cutting nearly one-third of additional staff.
Anderas says that agency provides critical technical assistance to farmers - and the lack of support will create barriers for farmers who rely on its guidance.
"Everybody downstream from a farmer doing conservation practices benefits from that, because there's less water running off their fields, there's less nitrates in the drinking water, there's less phosphorus in our streams and rivers," he said. "And the very best people helping people to do that have been NRCS staff."
Anderas said the new federal ag budget appears to mostly benefit large farms through commodity payments and crop insurance, while small and midsize farms primarily rely on conservation programs.
"And a lot of that's been paid for at the expense of SNAP benefits," he said. "And so, that's basically the choice that's been made in this budget bill is, continue investing more and more in the largest farms, and invest less in people and in small and medium-sized farms."
He added that the new federal budget also redirects Biden-era conservation funds that hadn't yet been used away from practices that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions on farms.
Disclosure: Michael Fields Agricultural Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Hunger/Food/Nutrition, Rural/Farming, Sustainable Agriculture. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Hoosier businesses across the state are feeling the ripple effects of rising tariffs and shifting trade policies, especially in farming, manufacturing and retail.
Aaron Lehman is president of the Iowa Farmers Union, but his concerns extend across state lines.
"We put off buying machinery and making other farm improvements," he said. "We're less likely to support our local suppliers and manufacturers. Sometimes we even put off bringing the next generation onto the farm."
Indiana ranks in the top 10 nationally for corn and soybean production, two markets directly hit by trade volatility. Supporters of tariffs say they protect U.S. jobs and fight unfair trade. However, small business owners in other states say rising costs and unpredictability are hindering their growth.
Americans voiced concerns during a call organized by Farmers for Free Trade and Tariffs Cost US.
Indiana distillers and retailers that rely on exports and imported materials could face similar risks. Nick Colombo, co-founder of Switchgrass Spirits in Missouri, said uncertainty from tariffs is impacting the way he does business.
"We are no longer trying to sell our goods outside of this country," he said. "That's a huge mess not only for us but also for the people we buy grain from and the people we buy barrels from."
Business owners nationwide say they need trade stability to hire, invest and grow.
get more stories like this via email
Iowa is the nation's number one corn and soybean producer and federal polices are designed to keep it that way but more farmers are moving away from traditional crops to protect the state's waterways.
Corn and soybeans both require a lot of fertilizer, which eventually seeps into groundwater.
Lee Tesdell, owner and operator of the 80-acre Tesdell Century Farm, in rural Slater, about 30 miles north of Des Moines, has adopted conservation methods. Instead of relying on the "big two" crops, he has gone to a four-crop rotation to reduce the amount of fertilizer he needs.
"Soybeans, corn, oats and alfalfa would be just as profitable," Tesdell pointed out. "Yields would be similar (to) a corn-soy, corn-soy, corn-soy, or corn-on-corn."
Some farmers have pushed back on moving away from corn and soybeans because they have been so reliable and profitable for generations. Adding new crops also means adding new costs.
Tesdell noted pollution from fertilizer runoff has become so bad in Iowa, the state's largest utility company has banned lawn watering to reduce nitrates in groundwater.
"Central Iowa Water Works cannot produce enough potable water every day to both send us good drinking water and enough water to water our lawns that's below 10 milligrams per liter, which is the EPA standard for drinking water," Tesdell explained.
Gov. Kim Reynolds recently vetoed a bill which would have banned companies from using eminent domain to construct CO2 pipelines on Iowa farmland, further promoting fertilizer-hungry corn and soybean production which can threaten Iowa's waterways.
get more stories like this via email