Senators call for investigation into the state of rural child care—and how Trump administration policies are undermining it

Head Start offices in Toledo, WA.
Photo by Joe Mabel, distributed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

On January 26, six senators led by Elizabeth Warren and Raphael Warnock announced an investigation into how the Trump administration's childcare policies affect rural families. The letter, addressed to Todd Lindsey, Acting Under Secretary for Rural Development at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Alex Adams, Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, requests "information regarding ACF and USDA's current capacity to support child care, particularly in rural communities." The senators highlight the national childcare crisis, emphasizing the high costs and lack of access many families face. 

Child Care Funding in Rural Areas

This letter follows a January 6, 2026, Trump administration attempt to freeze federal funding for child care and family assistance in five states. The administration said it was taking this action due to allegations of fraud in the use of federal funding. Courts restored the funding within three days, allowing child care centers to continue receiving federal funds. The freeze temporarily affected the Child Care Development Fund Block Grant (CCDFBG), a federal funding stream that helps make child care more affordable. It also affected Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provides block grants to states. It has been historically known as cash assistance to families, but it also provides direct childcare assistance, as well as state-wide funding. States can choose to transfer up to 30% of their TANF funds to their CCDFBG funds and funnel them towards childcare subsidies and Head Start programs.

The Senators' statement also follows H.R. 1 (the "One Big Beautiful Bill"), which you can read more about here. The bill expanded the Child Tax Credit and increased the amount that employees can set aside pre-tax for childcare. These changes mostly benefit middle- and upper-income families. On February 3, 2026, the House passed a new spending package, and President Trump signed it. That bill increased the Child Care Development Block Grant and Head Start by $85 million each. 

Head Start provides critical resources to children up to age 5. Its programs include providing breakfast and lunch, mental health care, and school readiness. Almost half of all Head Start slots are in rural districts. In a survey of 10 states, Head Start programs comprised about one-third of childcare centers in rural communities. This program supports children and families. Expanding Head Start has drawn bipartisan support, and  78% of rural Americans support it. 

The Rural Childcare Gap 

The senators cited a September 2025 poll by the First Five Years Fund, which found that rural families experience child care challenges across the board. 

Overall, 4 out of 5 [r]ural Americans say the ability of working parents to find and afford quality child care is either in a “state of crisis” or “a major problem,” including 81% of Rural Parents and 80% of Rural Nonparents.

Further, one in five rural parents report having trouble finding or keeping a job because of the cost or access to child care.  

Data collected by the Buffett Early Childhood Institute at the University of Nebraska further illustrates the gap. 31.5 percent of rural children who may need childcare do not have access to a childcare facility within 10 miles of their home. This data assumes that parents drive, but aproximately six percent of rural households do not have a car. Lack of access to transportation can make finding childcare even more difficult in rural areas, especially when transporting multiple children. 

Kickapoo Community Childcare Center in Lincoln County, OK. Photo by Rebecca South, distributed under a CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Effect on Families

The lack of access and high costs of childcare drive parents out of the workforce. A 2021 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that 86 percent of parents in rural areas who do not work cited child care responsibilities as a reason they stay home. Child care centers face significant economic difficulties, driven by high turnover rates and low wages. Closures have led to parents, often mothers, leaving the workforce at higher rates than ever over the last two years. 

These funds also provide child care to parents pursuing higher education. Congress did not reauthorize the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools, pausing the program. Programs at rural colleges make child care affordable for student parents and provide other support to help them pursue higher education. 

One administrator at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater said she expects that this will make it more difficult for student-parents to graduate. Cutting this program means student-parents will either need to work while pursuing their degree or leave their program to stay home with their child. 

The Future of Rural Child Care

Recent federal legislation surrounding rural children and families has proven to be a mixed bag. While bolstering Head Start programs might expand child care resources in rural areas, other funding cuts could undermine those gains. This administration has shown its willingness to use child care funding as a political football. ACF and the USDA, which work together on child care in rural communities, have had their funding withheld, field offices closed, and major workforce reductions. 

The senators concluded their letter with six questions about the future of rural child care, with a response requested by February 16, 2026. As of today, neither ACF nor USDA has responded. Their response—if and when it comes—will inform the debate around the future of childcare funding in rural communities through the remainder of the Trump Administration. 

NYS Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program: Is it enough to support the dairy and specialty crop sectors in New York?

On January 13, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul proposed the Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program, a $30 million initiative aimed at supporting farmers and agricultural businesses in New York hit by the ongoing effects of federal tariffs. The program is designed to provide direct payments to specialty crop growers, livestock producers, and dairy farmers—sectors that have often been left out of federal assistance programs.

According to the press release, these payments are intended to provide financial support that the USDA’s national relief programs fail to deliver, especially for specialty crops and dairy farms, which the announcement notes receive “no meaningful support.”

This statement likely references the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program, a one-time federal relief program announced on December 8, 2025. While the FBA provides $12 billion in one-time direct payments to farmers nationwide, assistance is not available to dairy farms and merely $1 billion is available to specialty crops and sugar nationwide. Additionally, the FBA payments are capped at $155,000 per producer, limiting assistance for mid-size and large farms. With this context, Governor Hochul’s program attempts to fill a noticeable gap for New York farmers…but is $30 million enough to make a meaningful difference?

In New York, the dairy industry is the largest single segment of the agriculture industry. The nearly 3,000 dairy farms in New York produce the largest quantity of yogurt and cottage cheese in the United States and New York is the fifth largest dairy state. The dairy industry has seen significant change in New York over the past ten years, with the number of dairy farmers dropping from 4,955 in 2014 to 2,864 in 2024. However, over the same 10-year span, the average number of cows in the state has increased from 615,000 to 630,000. These statistics indicate that small farms are closing, and larger farms are increasing in capacity. This trend, known as farm consolidation, reflects broader pressures on family farms that are struggling to survive in a rapidly changing agricultural economy.

According to the New York State Tariff Disruptions Report, over 20% of a farmer’s income typically depends on exports. The report also highlights that more than 80% of agrochemical imports and 70% of farm machinery are imported from countries subject to the administration’s tariffs. Farmers income reliance on exports may lead to heightened revenue volatility and retaliatory tariffs may raise production costs through raising the price of importing machinery, seeds, fertilizer, and other necessary equipment. Smaller farms that operate on thin margins often with less access to capital are left particularly vulnerable. If tariffs persist, these pressures could accelerate consolidation even further, leaving fewer, larger farms controlling even more of the state’s dairy sector.

To provide context for the Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program, currently approximately 2,800 dairy farms operate in New York state, excluding specialty crop growers. When the proposed $30 million in direct payments is divided amongst just the dairy farms, each operation would receive roughly $10,000. Once specialty crop growers are factored in, the assistance will be significantly lower per farm. While the assistance will likely be welcomed by farmers, will it be enough to make a meaningful impact? It may provide temporary relief in the industry, but any long-term benefits seem unlikely, especially with no end in sight of the tariff war.

 

Beyond immediate financial relief, the Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program demonstrates tension between state-level intervention and federal trade policy. Negative impacts from tariffs, such as increased input costs, are often disproportionately felt on individual producer or small producer levels. While direct payments from the government can temporarily offset losses caused by retaliatory tariffs or increased import costs, they do not address underlying structural pressures. Smaller farms continue to face rising input costs, labor shortages, and operational challenges that may not be alleviated by one-time or short-term payments.

The central policy question is not merely whether $30 million is sufficient in the short term to bolster the dairy, livestock, and specialty crops sectors in New York, but also whether state-level relief can bolster industry resilience without broad reforms. Ultimately, state-level measures to support farms can mitigate, but not fully counteract, the effects of federal trade decisions.

On the USDA Economic Research Service website right now: a reference to the "Radical Left Democrats"

 
A banner at the top of the USDA Economic Research Service website reads:  

Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse. 

President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep government open and support those who feed, fuel and clothe the American people. 

Frank Morris reported yesterday for NPR on how the government shutdown is impacting farmers. 

The USDA pulls back from rural communities

The Trump administration's efforts to reduce the size of government now include reducing investment in rural America. The administration recently fired hundreds of staffers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development program, part of a broader firing of 6,000 staff at USDA. Many staff are now being reinstated following court challenges to the layoffs, but their futures remain uncertain.

Alongside the layoffs and uncertainty, the Trump administration ordered staff not to perform community outreach, which Carrie Decker, a West Virginia employee of USDA Rural Development, said was "90% of what we do." 

All of this looks like it will have a profound effect on rural communities across the U.S. Frank Morris at KCUR reports, 

[t]he U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development is Washington’s chief tool to promote economic growth in rural counties — providing funding for everything from renovating old hospitals to providing faster internet service.

Previous bloggers have highlighted some of the many benefits provided by Rural Development. The agency 

does things that local governments can't afford - building water supply systems for small, shrinking towns, for instance, shoring up hospitals, buying police cars. It's an economic lifeline to places without a lot of options. 

Rural Development has a long history of bringing needed investment to rural areas. 

USDA Rural Development is rooted in the Great Depression, when the Rural Electrification Administration brought power lines to hundreds of remote communities. The agency has sustained thousands of towns over the decades, often by supporting the businesses and farms that bring money into the local economy. 

Now, government upheaval under the new administration is draining the resources that could go to rural people and towns. Former Missouri head of USDA Rural Development Kyle Wilkens noted that the current process of firing and rehiring is highly inefficient:

Think of the time that you're taken away from these folks doing their actual job and that is money. It's all it is. It's money.

Many of the grants already cut are relatively small, but provide important support for small-scale programs in rural communities.

One of the most notable examples is the Mancos Conservation District in Colorado, which had its $630,000 grant for the Equity in Conservation Outreach Program canceled. This grant was intended to support small farmers, tribal communities, and local outreach efforts in the region.

The Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council in Kansas City also faced a setback when its $165,000 Farmers Market Promotion Program grant was canceled. Director Alana Henry explained that, despite the cancellation, the community is working hard to keep their farmers market going and continue supporting local growers.

While much of the Trump administration's efforts at "government efficiency" seem to be aimed at reducing red tape and allowing greater private investment, there does not appear to be private capital ready to fill the void caused by cuts to Rural Development programs. Owen Hart, from the National Association of Counties, pointed out that

[i]n a lot of these communities, USDA Rural Development is the most important partner. You can’t rely on private investment coming in. The market’s just not there for it. You can't rely on philanthropy, like you can in a lot of urban areas to meet some of these needs. It is a really, really crucial partner to a lot of these folks.

Without any clear benefits from slashing this vital economic lifeline besides nominal budgetary relief, the administration appears to be primarily sending a political message. USDA recently announced that it was allowing applicants for Rural Development's energy programs to update their applications by removing DEIA and climate-related content, which it framed as an 

opportunity to refocus their projects on expanding American energy production while eliminating Biden-era DEIA and climate mandates embedded in previous proposals.

Ignoring the inefficiency of resubmitting already-submitted applications, this announcement shows that the political messaging of these changes is the point. USDA's emphasis on "energy independence" also indicates that the administration is ignoring or downplaying the many beneficial programs overseen by Rural Development that do not involve energy, such as grants and business support for small farmers. 

Punching down at rural areas by the Trump administration is not limited to USDA. The Department of Health and Human Services is trying to eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps low-income households, many in more rural areas of the country, offset the cost of high energy bills. Much like the Rural Development cuts, the obvious impact of cutting the 25 staff at LIHEAP is that 6.2 million Americans who relied on those funds will struggle to make ends meet.

The frustratingly narrow focus on "energy independence" at USDA under the Trump administration seems particularly backwards when considering the strong support Trump received from many rural parts of this country - and his efforts to cast his campaign as advocating for rural people. One can more easily imagine a Republican administration wanting to promote its investments in rural farms and communities than risking the backlash associated with cutting those programs. 

One reason for these cuts is to reduce citizens' faith in, and reliance on, the federal government to provide benefits to the public. The administration's directive to reduce community outreach at Rural Development, even while outreach staff remain employed, reduces visibility for agency programming without saving any money. Instead, making communities less aware of the possible benefits of working with federal agencies is the point. In The Fifth Risk, Michael Lewis recounts an illustrative scene in which a local official requested that USDA staff not show up to the ribbon-cutting for a new grocery store in his town that was built with Rural Development funds, because he said that people in town did not think highly of the federal government. 

(I highly recommend The Fifth Risk for further reading on USDA Rural Development, as well as other vital and under-appreciated areas of the federal government.)

Even if this administration succeeds in further reducing communities' faith in government, that success will not create more jobs or bring better internet access or hospitals to rural communities. Hopefully, in the same way that farmers are lobbying for relief from Trump's tariffs, there can be some political will to push back against these cuts. But unlike Big Ag, the people served by Rural Development are not already wealthy and politically influential. They need government support just to get by, or in the hopes of improving areas that have historically suffered from under-investment. Are these cuts truly worth the pain?

Country roads, I’m coming back home

After almost a decade of losing population, rural America has seen renewed population growth. Between 2010 and 2020, the article “Rural America Lost Population Over the Past Decade for the First Time in History” describes how rural areas lost population compared to previous decades. The decline did not occur only in remote rural areas but also in rural areas adjacent to metropolitan counties. John Cromartie, a geographer from USDA in the Rural Economy Branch, Resource and Rural Economics Division, found a negative rural net migration rate between 2010 to 2016 and a near-zero rate between 2017 and 2020.

However, since 2020, rural net migration rates have increased. The 2023 USDA Economic Research Report, “Rural America at a Glance,” discusses how more than 480 rural counties saw a growth rate of two percent or more. Typically, these counties were near large metropolitan areas such as the southern Appalachians and Ozarks, the northern Great Lakes, and the Rocky Mountains. Population migration to these recreation and retirement destinations is often referred to as “amenity migration.”

One reason for the major shift in migration patterns was fear of exposure to COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, the USDA Economic Research Service reported that the presence of COVID-19 cases was higher in metropolitan areas until October 2021. This likely caused urban residents to seek shelter in rural places. However, soon after, nonmetropolitan areas started to experience a greater prevalence of cumulative COVID-19 cases than metropolitan areas.

Another reason for the big shift in migration patterns was an increase in remote job opportunities. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that telework increased among all industries between 2019 and 2021. When social distancing policies were removed in 2022, remote work participation fell slightly but was still higher in most industries compared to participation in 2019. “Rural America at a Glance describes how remote jobs have provided the working-age population with more flexibility and locational freedom. In addition to attracting new residents, employment opportunities have encouraged people to stay within these rural areas. In 2022, rural America reached record-low unemployment rates. Federal legislation, notably the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, provided new jobs for rural Americans in the clean energy industry.

Although rural America has been slowly growing its population, both current and future rural Americans are still facing problems. For example, “Rural America at a Glance” reports that housing insecurity remains a persistent issue for low-income nonmetropolitan renters, particularly among Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Natives. Also, high poverty rates have been an ongoing problem for particular rural counties. Generally, though, poverty has been on a downward trend over the past fifteen years.

Rural America has seen an increase in population after losing a decade of negative and near-zero rural net migration rate. Despite this growth, there are still issues persisting in these areas. If rural America hopes to accommodate these future populations, there needs to be an emphasis on helping to increase resources and opportunities.

For more articles on rural population loss and its consequences, see Aging and population loss in small-town Pennsylvania and California rural schools facing teacher shortages.

On the rural-urban divide in food insecurity and the role of federal aid

That is not the primary point of Annie Gowen's Washington Post story out of Elk City, Oklahoma, population 12,000, but it is a point that ultimately gets made in the story headlined, "A mom struggles to feed her kids after GOP states reject federal funds."   One of the consequences of Oklahoma's decision to turn away federal food aid is a burgeoning reliance on the local food pantry.  Here's that part of the story, which explicitly highlights rural disadavntage: 

Inside the Elk City Help Inc. Food Resource Center, volunteers assemble grocery carts full of U.S. Department of Agriculture-branded peas, applesauce and pork patties as well as donated items for residents who meet income guidelines. On Fridays, Executive Director Meghan Palmer puts out a call on Facebook that they’ll be offering perishable leftovers for anyone in town. The hopeful begin arriving two hours early.

There is a growing number of families among the 1,900 people Palmer feeds every month — a distressing though not surprising development given the city’s poverty rate of 26 percent, more than double the national average. Donations fund the center’s $98,000 annual budget. She’s tried for federal grants in the past, but those often require a recipient to be located near a larger city to capitalize on existing infrastructure and maximize impact.

Here's a direct quote from Palmer: 

One of the biggest issues we have is that all of the organizations and programs are tailored for larger cities and larger communities.  In rural America, we often get forgotten. It’s really powerful and extremely frustrating.

* * *  

We were pretty beside ourselves.  The ball has been dropped for Oklahomans. We’re constantly on the bottom — in mental health, poverty, food insecurity, education. It was just another slap in our face.

The story continues: 

The town’s rural location hampers its ability to respond to needy residents in other ways, too. In the eastern part of the state, two Native American tribes — the Cherokee and the Chickasaw — are administering the summer card program on their own and reaching 250,000 children, according to federal officials.

The tribes, nonprofits and local school districts expanded the spots where kids can get free meals or pick up a sack lunch. Yet a large swath of Oklahoma remains unserved. The closest location to Elk City is 25 miles away.

Here's a post from a decade ago detailing the struggle to effectively distribute food aid in rural locales.  

NYT op-ed on Biden's investments in rural America: Why they matter and how to make them happen

Tony Pipa of the Brookings Institution wrote in the New York Times opinion section this weekend under the headline, "Biden Wants to Send Billions to Rural America, but This Must Happen First."  

President Biden regularly emphasizes how the major pieces of legislation he has signed — the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act — expand opportunities for Americans.

This is especially true for rural Americans. Those three laws appropriated billions of dollars — about $464 billion — for many projects that could be particularly relevant to rural communities, allowing them to dream of a different economic future.

I am often asked if rural voters will give Mr. Biden credit for all that money and the changes it could bring and will show their appreciation at the ballot box. My answer is that it is unrealistic to expect place-specific investments to have an immediate impact on elections.

Rural places remain skeptical that federal policymakers have their best interests at heart. Proving otherwise will take intention and time.

Pipa goes on to explain how important implementation is, by which he refers to the lack of bandwidth many rural local governments have to plan, develop projects, and write grants.   This is because many of these local governments are run by officials who are elected but unpaid.   Here's some data he uses to illustrate the point:   

Only 15 percent of Michigan’s smallest jurisdictions, for example, express confidence in their ability to get access to federal grants, whereas the rate for jurisdictions over 30,000 people is close to 40 percent. A national survey published in 2019 found more than half of rural counties experienced moderate or significant fiscal stress, so for programs where local governments must match the federal funding, those counties face an additional challenge.

This, Pipa predicts, portends likely inequitable distribution of these federal monies.  He also gives a nod to the recent debate over whether rural places are worthy of investment.  

These human capital issues and the impact they have on garnering federal dollars, as well as charitable grant funding, have been addressed in prior posts here, here, and here.  

Pipa's X (formerly Twitter) thread about the op-ed is here.  

I discuss some of the issues Pipa raises--in particular the challenge of showing rural folks that the federal government is working for them, too--in my recent commentary in the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy, and Society:  "Mustering the political will to help left-behind places in a polarized USA." 

Brookings recommendations for this year's Farm Bill

Tony Pipa wrote this week on a Brookings Institute blog under the headline, "5 recommendations from Reimagine Rural for the 2023 Farm Bill and federal implementation."  "Reimagine Rural" is Brookings' rural podcast, which was new this year.  Here's an excerpt from Pipa's post, the second in a two-part series of takeaways from the podcast: 

The stories captured in the first season of the Reimagine Rural podcast offer important lessons at a pivotal policy moment for equitable rural development in the U.S. The current Congress is negotiating a new Farm Bill, the legislation agreed upon every five years that sets agricultural subsidies and authorizes the rural development programs managed by USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Implementation is also underway for some of the most consequential place-based federal resources approved this century through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPs and Science Act (CHIPS), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). All these pieces of legislation implicate rural places to a significant degree, either through programs exclusively focused on rural—or through programs that will necessarily include rural to a large degree.

To enable policy solutions that maximize the public benefit of these federal resources, the lessons from Reimagine Rural suggest a multi-pronged strategy that could be effective in the immediate term.

Here are the five items listed.  You'll have to look to the blog itself to learn more of the details on each.

1. Shift the mindset from decline to opportunity

2. Invest in readiness

3. Improve coherence

4. Invest at a meaningful scale

5. Increase transparency

The first post in this two-part series on takeaways from the Reimagine Rural podcast is here. 

Latina Deputy USDA Secretary sworn in

NPR reported yesterday here on Xochitl Torres Small's swearing in as the first Latina Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Torres Small is from New Mexico, where she served one term as a congresswoman from the sparsely populated district that includes Las Cruces and vast portions of the southern part of the Land of Enchantment.  Here's an excerpt from the NPR story about Torres Small, with Ximena Bustillo reporting: 

The former New Mexico congresswoman was tapped in by President Biden in 2021 to serve as undersecretary for rural development at USDA, the branch of the department that oversees infrastructure, utilities and healthcare across rural communities. Now in a higher ranking position, she takes on the role as the administration and Democrats are looking to strengthen their footprints in rural areas.

* * *  

Torres Small has been promoted at a time when the department is undergoing changes to address historical discrimination across its lending and other programs. Late last year the department began making payments on loan cancellations for some farmers and providing $2.2 billion for farmers who experienced discrimination prior to Jan. 2021.

As for new challenges facing Torres Small, they include "looming department staffing shortages. Torres Small has previously raised concerns that nearly half of the employees she oversaw in rural development were eligible to retire, even as demands for the agency have increased."   

The story includes several long quotes from Torres Small: 

To get to be deputy secretary and in charge of the backend of the shop is really exciting because we impact people's lives in so many ways.  I'm the granddaughter of farm workers, and of course, that's a way that it has impacted my life. But my parents were educators. And when it comes to thinking about the kids that they're teaching, making sure that those kids have healthy, nutritious food to help them learn is crucial.

And here's an excerpt where Torres Small highlights the racial and ethnic diversity of rural America, a reality often overlooked (but highlighted in my recent article here and recently on several occasions on this blog):   

One of my favorite things about serving as undersecretary at rural development was that rural America is a lot of different things and a lot of different places, and it's incredibly diverse. Yes, it's a farmer on a tractor, and it's also a rural [fishing village] in Alaska and it's also Indian country.

While cast in a negative light here, an aging USDA staff can also be seen as a positive--opening opportunities for younger rural sociologists and economists in government service. 

Rural people among most disadvantaged when it comes to food security

Ximena Bustillo reported a few days ago on negotiation of the Farm Bill and its implications for SNAP--that's the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, a major safety net program aimed at preventing families from going hungry.  SNAP, which is re-authorized and re-negotiated every five years as part of the so-called Farm Bill, has become a political football.  One of the issues is that of work requirements, which Bustillo reports was resolved earlier this year when legislators agreed to changes in those requirements.  Bustillo does not specify what those changes are. 

Here's the part that surprised me in its recognition of the particular burden rural residents face in relation to

Perhaps at most disadvantage are people in rural areas. Parts of the state lack jobs, transportation, broadband and grocery stories, Kraft said, which increases reliance on SNAP and food banks.

Now lawmakers and advocates have a new vehicle for expanded benefits: the 2023 farm bill.

Though it is not linked explicitly to rural populations, Bustillo also reports a "move[ ] to reform the way personal vehicles are taken into consideration for the purposes of SNAP eligibility."

Bipartisan group of U.S. Senators and Representatives supports rural childcare

Here's much of the press release issued by the offices of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), along with Tina Smith (D-Minnesota) and a number of female congresspersons from both sides of the aisle:  

Today, U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Tina Smith (D-MN) and U.S. Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA-3) Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR-5), Tracey Mann (R-KS-1), and Yadira Caraveo (D-CO-8) introduced the bipartisan, bicameral Expanding Childcare in Rural America (ECRA) Act of 2023 to improve the availability and quality, and lower the cost, of childcare in agricultural and rural communities.

The press release then includes quotes from a number of the sponsors, leading with Senator Brown (Ohio): 

Child care is far too expensive and too hard to find for Ohio families, and parents in rural Ohio face unique challenges. Farm communities often lack enough transportation infrastructure and don’t have enough high-quality child care providers, and rural parents are more likely to work non-traditional hours.  These are commonsense, bipartisan steps to make child care more affordable and accessible in rural communities, so that more Ohio parents can support their families.

Senator Marshall (Kansas) is next:  

Access to childcare is a top priority for both families and employers in every corner of Kansas.  With a few changes to the USDA’s Rural Development programs, which benefit our rural communities, we can build the necessary childcare infrastructure that puts our children on the right educational path and provides them with a strong foundation for the future.

Then comes this from Senator Smith (Minnesota), a member of the Senate Education Committee:  

Access to childcare is essential, but for too many families living in rural places, it is out of reach.  I’ve heard from Minnesotans who have to drive 50 miles to take their kids to childcare and from providers who are struggling to find and keep staff. This bill will help improve the quality, availability and affordability of childcare in rural communities to help ensure that parents have the ability to pursue their careers.

Representative Gluesenkamp Perez, one of few parents of young children in the House, states: 

Child care in rural communities like mine is next to impossible to find and afford. Before coming to Congress, my husband and I brought our son to our auto repair shop most days because there were no other child care options available.  Our bipartisan bill will make child care more accessible and affordable in rural communities so families can get the support they need no matter where they live.

Representative Caraveo invokes her profession: 

As a pediatrician, I’ve seen the toll it takes on families when they don’t have affordable, reliable childcare. That burden is even more present in rural communities, where there are fewer providers, and families may have to travel a great distance for childcare. I’m proud to join this bipartisan effort to ensure rural families have access to the low-cost, high-quality childcare they need and deserve.

The press release continues:  

The Expanding Childcare in Rural America Act would direct U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development to authorize and prioritize projects that address the availability, quality, and cost of childcare in agricultural and rural communities through the following programs:

• The Community Facilities Program offers direct loans, loan guarantees and grants to develop or improve essential public services and facilities in communities across rural America.
• Community Facilities Technical Assistance and Training Grant offers grants to eligible public bodies and private, nonprofit organizations (such as states, counties, cities, townships, incorporated towns, villages, boroughs, authorities, districts, and Tribes located on Federal or state reservations) to provide technical assistance and/or training in support of the essential community facilities program.
• The Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program provides loan guarantees to commercial lenders for loans to eligible rural businesses.The Rural Business Development Grant Program is a competitive grant designed to support targeted technical assistance, training, and other activities leading to the development or expansion of small and emerging private businesses in rural areas that have fewer than 50 employees and less than $1 million in gross revenues.
• The Rural Innovation Strong Economy Grant Program offers grant assistance to create and augment high-wage jobs, accelerate the formation of new businesses, support industry clusters and maximize the use of local productive assets in eligible low-income rural areas.
• The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program provides loans and grants to Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDOs) to provide microloans for microenterprise startups and growth through a Rural Microloan Revolving Fund; and provide training and technical assistance to microloan borrowers and micro entrepreneurs.

The bill would also allow USDA to make awards through intermediaries such as, childcare resource and referral organizations, staffed family childcare networks, and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) with demonstrated expertise in the childcare sector.

The press release also lists a number of organizations supporting the bill and quotes representatives of several of them: 

“If it was feasible to make a living providing quality childcare in rural communities, there would not be a supply problem. The Expanding Childcare in Rural America Act addresses barriers to entry and offers support and resources to potential micropreneurs - thereby enabling America’s workforce to go to work. The Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development appreciates this effort to expand childcare access for working families and commends Senator Brown for making this issue a priority,” said Megan Riddlebarger COAD Executive Director.

* * * 

“The Expanding Childcare in Rural America Act paves the way for high-quality child care to exist in rural and agricultural communities that have long struggled with severe gaps in supply. This bill opens up existing funding streams to localities that identify child care as a barrier to attracting and retaining a robust and qualified workforce. The Early Care and Education Consortium is proud to endorse this bill, and our members are excited to work with rural and agricultural communities across America to develop scalable solutions that support the needs of working families,” said Sage Schaftel, Acting Executive Director, Early Care and Education Consortium (ECEC).

“Rural communities face unique challenges in increasing access to quality child care for families,” said Linda Smith, Director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Early Childhood Initiative. “Not only does limited access to care have long-term impacts on child development, but it also has an immediate impact on economic loss in rural communities. The Expanding Childcare in Rural America Act of 2023 establishes a pathway for rural communities to access capital, increase access to care, and connect families to critical child care resources. We applaud the Senators’ bipartisan work championing this issue and look forward to working with members of both parties on continued efforts.”

Postscript:  On June 11, 2023, Senator Tina Smith had this to say about Senator Roger Marshall, with whom she is co-sponsored this legislation, in relation to an entirely different topic:  Pride month and how it is appropriately commemorated: 

Smith wrote: "I won't be lectured on patriotism by someone who voted to overturn an election.  Pride is patriotic."

Smith was responding to Marshall's tweet, accompanied by a photo of the Pride Flag flying amidst U.S. Flags on the White House:  "This is a disgrace.  Not only is this a breach of the U.S. Flag Code, but it's a glaring example of the White Houses' [sic] incompetence and their insistence on putting a social agenda ahead of patriotism."   

Neglecting infrastructure that protects rural and farmworker communities (or, the curse of government's cost-benefit analysis)

Last week, the levee protecting the town of Pajaro, California from the Pajaro River failed amidst the tenth atmospheric river of the 2022-23 winter season.  The levee was built in 1949, and the Army Corps of Engineers knew it did not provide the level of protection it was initially designed to provide.  

Here's the lede from a March 12, 2023 Los Angeles Times story about the Pajaro disaster:  

Officials had known for decades that the Pajaro River levee that failed this weekend — flooding an entire migrant town and trapping scores of residents — was vulnerable but never prioritized repairs in part because they believed it did not make financial sense to protect the low-income area, interviews and records show.

“It was pretty much recognized by the early ‘60s that the levees were probably not adequate for the water that that system gets,” Stu Townsley, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ deputy district engineer for project management for the San Francisco region, told The Times on Sunday.

And despite having studied it on and off for years, in terms of “benefit-cost ratios,” it never penciled out, he said.

“It’s a low-income area. It’s largely farmworkers that live in the town of Pajaro,” Townsley said. “Therefore, you get basically Bay Area construction costs but the value of property isn’t all that high.”

This cost-benefit analysis is a recurring theme of spending on infrastructure, and it's one that disserves communities like Pajaro, an unincorporated community of just about 3000 residents that sits south of the river in Monterey County, while the city of Watsonville, population 50,000, sits north of the river in Santa Cruz County.   Indeed, some coverage of the Pajaro disaster has observed that Pajaro has effectively been sacrificed to help save Watsonville.  Though both are relatively poor and home to many farmworkers, Watsonville is home to a larger population and more commercial enterprises.  In other words, a Watsonville flood would be even more costly than the Pajaro flood is proving to be. 

Luis Alejo, chair of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors (and an alum of UC Davis Law), commented for the Los Angeles Times on why Pajaro had been neglected:

Low-income neighborhoods and communities have always historically been ignored by state and federal governments.

The story of Pajaro is exactly that. There was a lack of commitment by our federal and state governments. The residents have never felt they had that kind of support, knowing that the danger, the risk, has always been there.

Alejo further noted local communities like Pajaro and Watsonville are unable to pay their part of the millions it costs to improve levees, funds that are required to match the Army Corps' federal funding.  In fact, state funding had recently been secured to bolster the Pajaro levee, but it didn't come in time. 

In 2021, Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) authored a bill requiring the state to completely fund the [Pajaro River] project. This past fall, Laird and others held a ceremony celebrating the funding of the levee project.

“I said some version of ‘I hope to God it doesn’t rain before this gets done,’” he said.

Laird has worked for years to get funding to repair the system. He said he was a county staffer in 1995 when the river flooded and spent several nights at the fairgrounds “where many of the same families that are being evacuated this time.”

Today, several days after the Pajaro levee breach came this from KQED (the NPR affiliate in San Francisco), adding insult to injury for those impacted by the Pajaro flooding.  The report by Jeremiah Oetting reveals yet another betrayal of Pajaro:   

At a press conference in the flood-stricken Monterey County town of Pajaro on Wednesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom talked up a plan, paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and managed by United Way, to provide financial aid to farmworkers affected by floods and recent winter storms.

“There's not a state in America, not one state, no other state that does more for farmworkers than the state of California,” Newsom said. “I want folks to know … it's important to reinforce today, March 15th, the United Way was able to get $42 million from USDA, and they're starting to send out $600 checks for farmworkers, regardless of their immigration status.”

Newsom was not referring to a new program for farmworkers who are in financial straits due to recent flooding and severe weather. Rather, as KAZU, KQED and The California Newsroom have learned, Newsom was referring to a $42 million farmworker grant managed by United Way that was announced in October of 2022, and has nothing to do with economic hardships due to recent storms.

The existing $42 million grant was created to provide “a one-time direct relief payment of $600 … to qualifying frontline farm, grocery, and meatpacking workers for expenses incurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” according to the USDA’s website.

Newsom’s office confirmed the $42 million he referred to in the press conference was in fact from the Farm and Food Workers Relief Grant Program, which is funded under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.

When asked whether waivers would be granted to flood-stricken farmworkers who do not meet the pandemic hardship requirements, USDA spokesperson Marissa Perry reiterated that the FFWR program was specific to those suffering COVID-related economic hardship.

You can read (or listen to) the rest of the story for more details, but the bottom line is that no new state or federal funds have been set aside to assist the victims of the Pajaro flood, who have not only lost their homes but will lose access to work in the coming months as fields must lie fallow for a period following the flood.  Further, the pandemic-related funds will not be distributed immediately, and they will not provide relief to all who need them.  

Postscript:  The San Jose Mercury News explains in this March 19 story how levees get funded.  The feature by Lisa M. Krieger and Harriett Blair Rowan features Hamilton City, population 1759, in Glenn County, an hour or so north of Sacramento.  

Like Pajaro, Hamilton City lives on the edge of a volatile river. Like Pajaro, its residents are largely low-income Latinos. Like Pajaro, it repeatedly sought federal funds to fix its levee, and was repeatedly rebuffed.

But there are differences, and that’s what saved Hamilton City. A group of six farmers, most of them now dead, started the construction campaign decades ago. It stayed unified and relentless in its focus. Volunteers, supported by homespun “Levee Festivals,” made 15 trips to Washington, D.C., knocking on doors in Congress to win the hearts of political heavyweights such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, former Sen. Barbara Boxer and others.

*.* * 

But who deserves protection? While the responsibility to prevent floods lies with local communities, the funds to replace levees come largely from state and federal budgets. The government can’t afford to replace every levee. With fierce competition for money, projects must be prioritized.

To win funding, a town must prove that for every dollar spent on the project, there is at least a dollar of benefit. While the impacts of six factors — healthy and resilient ecosystems; sustainable economic development; floodplains; public safety; environmental justice; and watershed — are weighed, a community’s economic value weighs heavily, because it is easy to measure and compare projects, he said.

“The methodology measures: ‘How much is it going to cost? And how much are we going to save?’ ” said flood expert Scott Shapiro of the Sacramento law firm Downey Brand, who serves as general counsel for the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.

This cost-benefit approach is much more equitable than the historic tradition of “earmarking” funds, where powerful members of Congress steered money to their pet projects, he said. But it favors more prosperous areas.

All of this is helpful context for a news story from December 2022 when the first atmospheric river of the season hit California, striking the Central Valley particularly hard and flooding Wilton, an agricultural community south and southeast of Sacramento:   the standards for levees in rural areas like Wilton, where the Cosumnes River flooded, are lower than for those in urban places.  

Postscript:  Here is an LA Times story out of Allensworth, another disadvantaged California community facing flooding in light of the unseasonably rainy winter.  

Tony Pipa of Brookings writes of need for "policy renaissance for rural America"

The New York Times published the guest essay, which follows on the first episode of Brooking's "Reimagine Rural" podcast, out of Shamokin, Pennsylvania.  Here's an excerpt from Pipa's essay: 

Shamokin is a cautionary tale for what happens when we lack policy solutions that can truly help places cope and adapt to major economic and social shifts. Despite widespread acknowledgment since 2008 that rural places have generally been left behind, our nation still lacks a coherent federal rural policy.

Almost a century ago, federal policy like the Rural Electrification Act, Title V of the Housing Act and other national-scale development programs helped bring rural America into the modern era, and its contributions helped make the American economy the envy of the world. But today’s federal programs were built for a different era. We need a renaissance of rural policy to enable a renaissance of rural America.

What we have are lots of programs — over 400 available for community and economic development spread across every nook and cranny of the federal government. But navigating that maze and the peculiarities of their applications, reporting and matching requirements is a high bar for anybody, let alone the part-time volunteer elected officials and the bare-bones staffs that make up many local rural governments.

That leaves most rural communities starved for investment. Very few can get the type and level of resources necessary to reinvent their economy or unleash the full potential of their human, intellectual and natural capital as they face rapid change.

Too often policymakers mistake agricultural policy for rural policy. Farming now accounts for just 7 percent of rural employment. Service jobs, retailing, manufacturing and government employment all outweigh agriculture. And while $163 million of the relief the Trump administration distributed during the peak of the trade war with China went to high-income farmers making more than $900,000 annually, small-scale and family farmers are increasingly taking off-farm jobs just to get by.

Other posts about how rural communities struggle to compete for federal funds--and even apply for them--are plentiful on this blog, including one here.  

Rural policy is one issue where Republicans and Democrats should be able to find common ground to work together. The new Congress will present a concrete opportunity as it takes up work to pass a new Farm Bill in 2023, a major piece of legislation renewed roughly every five years that — among other things — authorizes rural development programs at the Department of Agriculture.

Yet early indications signal high-profile fights over food stamps, agricultural subsidies and conservation investments — and limited attention to rural development.

Reauthorizing the Economic Development Administration presents another opportunity. Its authorization expired in 2008, and conversations to renew it began in the current Congress but never made it to the finish line. The new Congress can reopen that process to seriously consider the federal role in promoting economic revitalization in left-behind communities.

One thing is clear: Tweaking around the edges will remain ineffective. A serious policy discussion should be dominating the airwaves. Rural America is listening for how public leadership and resources can better support the economic and social renewal of rural communities, but it hears mostly silence.

Don't miss the rest of this important essay.  

A week at a rural food delivery site

A few weeks ago, I spent several days in Crescent City, California (population 6,673) as part of a service project with an organization called Sierra Service Project.  

My assignment (and that of the Sacramento youth I was working with) was to help paint the exterior of the Family Resource Center of the Redwoods, which is centrally located in the small, coastal city.  

The school district truck arrived at about 9:45 each morning to 
drop off several coolers full of bagged, single-serve meals

When we arrived late morning on Tuesday August 9, the building was thrumming with activity, mostly thanks to it being a summer food distribution center.  Cars were pulling up, kids or parents jumping out, and coming to collect individual bags of food--typically some milk, an apple or some apple sauce, some source of protein like a PBJ sandwich or a slider-size sandwich with ham and cheese.  

That morning, I watched as a pair of kids showed up on foot asking, "can we have ten?"  Another, hopping out of his parent's car asked, "Do you have six?"  No one was turned away, and all, including adults who came to the table, were given as many as they requested.  Indeed, we were there on the last day of the summer meal program, August 12, when the man delivering the lunches (apparently prepared by the school district and delivered in a school district truck) instructed the women doing the distribution, "we don't want any of these back."  So they gave two lunches for every one anyone requested.  On prior days, extras were put in the refrigerator at the center so they could be handed out to late comers or on subsequent days if the supply of about 100-120 a day ran short.  

The whole operation was very positive. Indeed, everything going on the Resources Center was positive, and I hope to write another post about the facilities and services, including a food pantry, at a later date.  For now, I'm just going to include this photo of new backpacks the center was preparing to distribute the next week. 

Meanwhile, I was reminded of my time hanging out at the Family Resource Center of the Redwoods this past week when I saw this NBC story out of Missouri about that state's decision not to allow "grab and go" delivery of the summer lunches. Instead, the state requires students to sit at the distribution center to eat the meals.  Missouri is the only state to make this decision.  In the past few years, "non-congregate feeding" had been allowed because of the pandemic.  

According to Sarah Walker, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services’ bureau chief of community food and nutrition assistance, "making sure to-go meals were going to the right place was another concern."

It’s very difficult to maintain program integrity when the program is not operating under normal circumstances. If the children aren’t there, you can’t always guarantee those kids are the ones getting the meals — as opposed to sitting on-site eating, you can assure that it’s the child themselves getting the meal.

Vehicles coming and going
from the Resource Center
to collect free grab-and-go lunches

And here's some information from the story on the impact that Missouri decision has had across the state, including in rural-ish places like Neosho (population 12,590)and Nevada (population 8,212):

At the Tri-State Family YMCA in Neosho, staff distributed about 9,800 meals a week last summer. That fell to just over 300 a week, a 97% drop, without the waiver extension, CEO Benjamin Coffey said.

Osage Prairie YMCA in Nevada, Missouri, went from serving 2,400 kids a week last summer to about 200 kids a week, a nearly 92% drop, CEO Jeffrey Snyder said. The drop in meals is even steeper, he said, because last summer, families received multiple grab-and-go meals at once.

These numbers likely reflect a lack of access to meals among families, not a lack of need, anti-hunger advocates say, warning that Missouri is a case study in what could happen for the rest of the country next summer.

The No Kid Hungry campaign estimates that before the pandemic, 6 out of 7 kids who may have needed summer meals were not getting them, said Lisa Davis, a senior vice president of the program at Share Our Strength, a nonprofit organization working to end hunger and poverty.

On a related note, here's a 2014 post about the creative means being used to feed rural Kentucky kids, given that they are scattered across the countryside.  And that reminds me that we saw a number of food distribution locations around Crescent City, including one at the middle school that was a relatively short distance from the Family Resource Center.  Bottom line:  no kid in Crescent City had to walk too far to get lunch this summer--and all could take them home to eat.  That's surely a good thing, though I suspect kids living in outlying areas of the county, like Gasquet, Klamath and Smith River, may not have had such easy access, though lunches were being distributed in those farther flung parts of Del Norte County, too. 

Railing against corporate farming and what it's doing to smaller farmers and rural places.

Farmer Darvin Bentlage writes in the Ohio Capital Journal about lawmakers in the thrall of big money, and the consequences of that for farmers like him.  It's a powerful piece.  Here's an excerpt: 

The predominant system of agriculture I am working in now has been intentionally set up against me and current and future farming generations. Today’s corporate controlled system is bad for farmers, bad for consumers, bad for rural and urban communities and economies, bad for our environment and our climate, and bad for democracy.

We are in this position because the rules (laws, policies and regulations) have been written, and lobbied and paid for by corporate special interests. We are in this position because of corporate-written, bad Farm Bills and bad trade agreements (the main drivers of our farm and food system).

We are here because many of our elected “representatives” don’t really represent us, their constituents or the vast majority of Americans. We’re here because we have a democratic process controlled by that “elephant in the room” – billion dollar multinational corporations.

They are planning and implementing our demise. It’s their business model. Without competition, they can push everyone else out of the market, then they win and take all the wealth (and land).

Some of the results: In 30 years, the U.S. has 25% fewer cattle farmers. In 30 years, nearly 90% of U.S. hog farmers were put out of business. And, the average age of a farmer is nearing 60 years old.

We’re importing billions of pounds of beef from around the world, and consumers are paying record high prices, while cattle farmers struggle. In 2021, the U.S. imported 3.35 billion pounds (with a “b”) of beef and 1.8 million live cattle.

The author writes from Barton County, Missouri, population 11,637.  

Rural gentrification impacting Hudson Valley farms

Elizabeth G. Dunn reports for the New York Times today; the headline is "How 'Fairy Tale' Farms are Ruining Hudson Valley Agriculture."  An excerpt follows:  

The Hudson Valley is a prime agricultural region stretching from New York City to Albany, N.Y., home to an eclectic mix of tractor dealerships, twee specialty food shops, dollar stores and high-end furniture boutiques. It has long been a popular destination for second-home buyers in search of a pastoral lifestyle. But since the pandemic, demand for properties there, especially farms, has surged.

The median listing price for farms, ranches and undeveloped land in Columbia County, an agricultural stronghold in the heart of the Hudson Valley, shot up 62 percent between January 2020 and January 2022, according to data from Realtor.com. Rental homes are also pricier, in part because so many of them have become Airbnbs, a mounting crisis for both farmhands and beginning farmers who don’t have places to live. A recent one-bedroom rental unit in Coxsackie, N.Y., in neighboring Greene County, drew over 260 inquiries and 130 applications, said Tracy Boomhower, a local real estate agent.

As a result, farmers are getting squeezed out. Some have tried leasing land from owners new to the area, but those alliances are more challenging than they might appear, farmers said, since many of the new owners don’t know what it takes to run a farm.

* * *

Sophie Ackoff, an executive director of the National Young Farmers Coalition, a nonprofit that supports the interests of beginning farmers, is no stranger to the issue. “We’ve seen a surge in interest from non-farmer buyers in the Hudson Valley,” she said, adding that such bidders often have a buyer’s advantage over farmers just starting out. That includes access to speedier loan options, whereas beginning farmers largely rely on slow-moving loans through the United States Department of Agriculture.

Access to affordable farmland is a major challenge nationally, particularly for people of color, who today make up 2 percent of farmland owners. To address this, the coalition has started the One Million Acres for the Future campaign, which calls for Congress to invest $2.5 billion in the 2023 Farm Bill to facilitate equitable access to land.

According to Holly Rippon-Butler, the land campaign director for the coalition, farmland near cities is especially desirable for small livestock operations and fruit and vegetable growers, because of the greenmarkets and farm-to-table restaurants nearby. Competition is the worst in “places where there’s a lot of money and the agricultural land is high quality and aesthetically attractive.”

Powerful story out of Colorado: ranchers v wolves, and what that battle reveals about rural v. urban

This Colorado Sun story "Wolves, ranchers, and the law," is a doozie, any way you slice or dice it.  Jennifer Brown reports out of Walden, population 609, in the North Park region of the state.  Wolves are killing cattle there, and ranchers are furious, not least because the state voted in 2020 to re-introduce wolves.  

Of course, at its core, this is an old story--the conflict between ranchers who wish to protect their cattle and conservationists who wish to protect the wolves.  The Colorado Sun piece features the Gittleson family, in particular, who've recently lost three head of cattle and had another cow injured in a wolf attack.  The whole story is very much worth a read, but I'm just going to highlight the part about how ranchers feel they are treated--by urbanites and the law--reflected mostly in quotes from Gittleson family members:

North Park is ground zero in Colorado’s wolf controversy. Almost no one here supported the 2020 ballot measure to reintroduce wolves to the state. And now that the wolves have arrived on their own, wandering across the Wyoming state line and helping themselves to cattle, residents here are wondering whether the city dwellers who voted to bring back wolves will finally understand what they’ve been saying.

“I don’t think they care, no matter what we say to them,” said Kim Gittleson, sitting at her kitchen table with tired eyes after another night on wolf watch. “These cows are our living. We don’t want to see that happen to our cows, not just because it’s our livelihood. It’s just sad to see any animal tortured that way that you cared for.”

 
It would be easier, many locals say, to “shoot, shovel and shut up” when wolves prey on their livestock, although getting caught shooting a protected species could mean a $100,000 fine and a year in jail. The Gittlesons, though, said they are reporting every wolf sighting and attack to their local Colorado Parks and Wildlife agents, seeking government compensation for their dead cows, and asking for help to scare the pack away from the ranch.

* * *

“If we wanted to shoot the wolves, we could have stopped this day one,” Dave Gittleson said. “We could’ve gone out there and wiped out the pack. Done. But that’s not a long-term solution. Don’t shoot the wolves. Everything we just lost would be for nothing.”

Instead, North Parkers are working together to protect their cattle — and to make a point.

Don Gittleson, who runs the ranch alone on weekdays while his wife and son work other jobs more than an hour away in Steamboat Springs, is exhausted from staying up most of the night for weeks. They’re hoping Colorado Parks and Wildlife will come through on hiring a range rider, someone to patrol the ranch in the dark, but they have their doubts.

It makes the Gittlesons chuckle that the state would require the range rider to have a COVID vaccination. It’s just one more example, they say, of how urban Colorado and its government does not “get” them, seeing as how the range rider would sit alone on a four-wheeler or in a truck on a ranch in the middle of nowhere.

Like the infamous “MeatOut Day” controversy of last spring and the proposed ballot measure that would have defined artificial insemination of cows as a criminal sex act, the wolf debate has widened the cultural divide. Ranchers feel their way of life is under attack, or at the least, misunderstood.

“It’s not just a Democrat-versus-Republican divide. It’s urban versus rural,” said Coby Corkle, who grew up in Walden and is a Jackson County commissioner. “Rural Colorado is really just trying to hold on.”

Gov. Jared Polis is not popular here. Neither is First Gentleman Marlon Reis, an animal rights advocate. North Park ranchers were fuming last week after governor-appointed State Board of Veterinary Medicine member Ellen Kessler called ranchers “lazy and nasty” and accused them of using a cow to bait wolves in a comment on Reis’ Facebook page. They cheered when she apologized and resigned from the board a few days later.

The sentiment up here, in the “Moose Viewing Capital of Colorado,” is made clear by a sign east of Walden. “If you voted for reintroduction of wolves,” it says, “Do not recreate here. You are not welcome!”

The rancher's talk about "shoot, shovel and shut up," reminds me of this post from a student more than a decade ago.  That student had grown up in rural Idaho and was a former law enforcement officer there, which gave him a distinct perspective I was glad he shared on the blog.   

Texas agriculture commissioner undermines Black farmers' claims, assistance from federal government

James Pollard reports for the Texas Tribune under the headline, "Black Texas farmers were finally on track to get federal aid. The state’s agriculture commissioner is helping stop that."  The subhead is, "Sid Miller is challenging a debt relief program that the U.S. Department of Agriculture saw as a way to correct historic discrimination. An advocate for Black Texas farmers says the challenge “pushes us back even further.”

Here's an excerpt that further sums up what's happening under the Republican agriculture commissioner: 

Last March, Congress passed a sweeping debt relief program for farmers of color. The culmination of 20 years of advocacy, the law would have provided $4 billion worth of debt relief for loans many of them had taken on to stay afloat while being passed over for financial programs and assistance their white counterparts had an easier time obtaining. Black farmers made up about a quarter of those targeted in the bill.

As agriculture commissioner, Miller leads an agency tasked with “advocat[ing] for policies at the federal, state, and local level” beneficial to Texas’s agriculture sector and “provid[ing] financial assistance to farmers and ranchers,” among other duties. In a statement to The Texas Tribune, Miller called the debt relief program “facially illegal and constitutionally impermissible.”

“Such a course will lead only to disunity and discord,” Miller said. “Shame on the Biden Administration for authorizing a program it knows was unambiguously illegal, instead of enacting a proper relief bill that complies with the laws and constitution of the United States.”

But advocates of the program saw it as an attempt to make Black farmers whole after years of USDA discrimination.

USDA press secretary Kate Waters told the Tribune that she couldn’t comment on ongoing litigation. She added the agency is establishing an equity commission of about 30 non-USDA employees to help identify how the USDA can eliminate structural barriers to various programs.

“There is a long history of racism at USDA. It’s a lot to unpack,” Waters said. “We’re on the case and we’re here to regain trust.”  

Covid stimulus bill includes $4 billion debt relief program for Black farmers

Most experts expect the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill in the coming days, although negotiations will continue as Republicans use various procedural levers to amend some aspects of the bill. 

This will be the third stimulus package passed by the United States Congress since the start of the pandemic, and like the previous two, this bill (the American Rescue Plan) will also include funding for agricultural programs (see agriculture provisions in the March 2020 CARES Act and the December 2020 stimulus package). 

However, one new centerpiece of this round of agriculture funding is a $4 billion program of debt relief for “socially disadvantaged” farmers. More precisely, the program would provide farmers of color with direct payment to pay off U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and USDA-guaranteed loans and provide an additionally 20% in funding to cover related taxes. 

Today, 98% of agricultural land is owned by white people. Slavery and the Homestead Act of 1862 primarily benefitted white men and disadvantaged women. Further, outdated tenancy-in-common laws (sometimes called heirs’ property) that trigger land partition persist in many states, leading to widespread land loss for many racial and ethnic groups, particularly African American families in the South. Despite these giant obstacles, law professor Jessica Shoemaker notes, “[B]y 1890, African Americans represented 14 percent of all farmers and owned roughly 15 million acres.”

Yet, over the past century, Black land ownership plummeted dramatically. Black land owners lost 12 million acres of farmland, which has especially impacted people in Southern states as illustrated in the below graph from the New York Times. For example, Black farmers in Mississippi lost 800,000 acres of land from 1950-1964, which researchers have calculated would be a $6.6 billion loss today. 

This bill merges a 2020 proposal by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker with a proposal by newly-elected Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock. 

Despite the bill’s likely passage, there is still plenty of pushback. Former Republican New York lieutenant governor, Betsy McCaughey, argues in an op-ed that the bill won’t solve any problems “because the restaurants that accounted for half the demand for . . . [farmers’] products aren’t buying.” What is noteworthy about this reasoning is its focus on the plight of New York restaurants—an urban-centered argument. 

Additionally, Georgia Republican Rep. Austin Scott argues that the allocations are unjustified because there is no proof of discrimination against Black farmers. He offered as a better model the 1997 Pigford v. Glickman class action, which resulted in large settlements paid out by the USDA for discriminating in its allocation of farm loans. (For more background on the history of civil rights and the USDA, including Pigford, see this prior blog post.)

However, Scott’s argument only underscores the need for legislative action here because it shows Black farmers’ reasonable distrust in the USDA as an institution due to its historic discriminatory practices. As journalist Mark Bittman writes in an op-ed for the New York Times:

Black farmers understandably have called the USDA “the last plantation.” 

Moreover, this bill reflects an important public policy interest in preserving Black agricultural land ownership, which is already at such low numbers. Many Black-operated farms are smaller and have less income, which can be precarious in an industry where farmers regularly rely on credit to finance operations. As a result, the USDA recently suspended debt collections for distressed borrowers, but this may not be enough wiggle room for some farmers. 

Senator Booker believes this is only the start if the aim is to increase the number of Black farmers. Shoemaker observes that “10 percent of U.S. agricultural land— or roughly 100 million acres—will change hands over the next five years based on natural aging events,” which creates opportunities for meaningful intervention for the next administration. Bittman proposes the U.S. federal government can buy out “buy land from farmers cashing out for retirement so that rather than being absorbed by existing large landholders, the land can be redistributed to smaller or beginning farmers of color.” Additionally, law professor Thomas W. Mitchell recommends state legislatures adopt the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act to stave off Black land loss by updating tenancy-in-common and partition laws—a proposal that recently passed in Florida, Mississippi, and Virginia. Hopefully, this bill signifies potential political momentum.