[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Rural Revitalization or deeper distress?

Monday, November 12 at 10:46 AM

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Jon Bailey

For 131 years Colorado has seen both boom and bust. The explosive population and economic growth of Denver and the Front Range, in contrast to the depopulation and chronic economic decline of Colorado’s farm and ranch communities is but the current iteration of an old theme.

The more interesting story is how entrepreneurs and innovative rural communities have persevered and developed strategies to revitalize their Main Streets and create a better future for small towns as well as family farms and ranches. But local initiative must be matched by public policies that empower rural people rather than undermine them. Sadly, the federal government is not meeting the challenge.

In a recent analysis, we found the U.S. Department of Agriculture spent three times as much in farm program payments to Colorado’s 20 biggest farm subsidy recipients as it spent supporting rural development in the 20 Colorado counties suffering the greatest population loss or slowest population gain. The 20 largest farm subsidy recipients received over $18 million in farm program payments over three years. Meanwhile, 20 counties with over 153,000 residents in 66 municipalities received only $6 million over a comparable period for business assistance, community facilities, community and regional development, housing and community infrastructure. Top farm program recipients received an average of over $900,000 over three years while residents of the greatest depopulation counties received about $14 per person per year in federal rural development support.

In other words, our federal tax dollars supported the 20 biggest farmers in Colorado at nearly three times the level of support for the rural development needs of over 153,000 residents in rural communities suffering Colorado’s greatest depopulation and economic distress. And the House Farm Bill would only make matters worse.

The House Farm Bill raised the limits on some payments and retains huge loopholes that allow mega-farms to receive unlimited farm payments. It hides behind a means test that purportedly denies payments to millionaires. But it is riddled with loopholes that the nation’s largest farms and wealthiest real estate investors can slide right through.

Meanwhile, the House Farm Bill provided virtually no funding for rural development initiatives that would assist rural areas in developing their economies and their communities.

Actions such as those risk continuing the depopulation spiral being witnessed in much of rural Colorado, a spiral that begins with a troubled economy, more migration out of a community, economic and institutional consolidation and eventually little in the way of economic opportunity for remaining residents. The result is a lower tax base, leaving small towns hamstrung by an inability to invest in development or repair vital infrastructure - a key to keeping and attracting people and businesses. Recent events in New York and Minnesota demonstrate how fragile the nation’s core infrastructure is. It is no different in rural communities; aging infrastructure in nearly every community harms the quality of life of current residents and limits future development.

But there is hope. Senator Ken Salazar has cosponsored a Rural Entrepreneur and Microenterprise Assistance Act to support rural small business development. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) has proposed investing substantially more in rural development.

And Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have proposed legislation to close loopholes and make the limitations on mega farm payments real limits.

Colorado and the nation are well-served with strong and equitable farm programs. But farm programs can and should be reformed to benefit rural communities and all of society. Farm program payments should be strictly limited to benefit small and mid-sized farmers and beginning farmers and their ability to access land. That would make farm programs fairer and save money to invest in the future of rural communities.

Should the federal government provide bigger subsidies to the nation’s biggest farms to drive their neighbors out of business? Or, should the Farm Bill focus on supporting family-scale agriculture and investing in the future of rural communities? The answer to this central issue of the 2007 Farm Bill will determine the future path of many rural communities - revitalization or deeper distress.

Jon Bailey is director of the Rural Research and Analysis Program at the Center for Rural Affairs of Lyons, Neb., a private, nonprofit organization working to strengthen family-scale agriculture and rural communities. More information on the report mentioned here can be found at www.cfra.org.

READER COMMENTS