Public lands and rural economies

Over spring break, I took a short trip to Yosemite National Park and hiked the Upper Falls trail. As I made my way up the trail I was struck by the natural beauty of the park and also a sense of gratitude that our society has undertaken the difficult task of facilitating access to these places.

Half Dome and Yosemite Falls from Upper Falls Trail. Source: Chris Hayward (2026)

Something about a well maintained trail thousands of feet up the side of a cliff-face feels just as impressive as massive public works projects like dams and highways, and for good reason. Maintenance of the type of tourism economy generated by our National Parks is a staggering task that is largely undertaken by rural communities surrounding them.

The economic benefits of public lands

The National Park Service manages 17,000 miles of trails across the nation, along with 5,500 miles of paved road, and 25,000 buildings that are in need of constant maintenance and repair. This effort provides massive returns for the U.S. economy that have grown in recent years, as has interest in outdoor recreational activities. In 2024, outdoor recreation activities accounted for 2.4% of GDP. As a proportion of America’s GDP, outdoor recreation is now three times larger than air transport or auto manufacturing, twice as large as agriculture, and larger than oil and gas development. This revenue is especially important in rural states like Montana and Wyoming, where outdoor recreation accounts for at least 4.7% of GDP. In 2024, national parks alone accounted for $56.3 billion in output, 340,000 jobs, and $29 billion for local gateway regions.

The economic benefits of a National Park are nearly immediately apparent in local communities. One study estimated that designation of a National Park causes a 4% increase in employment and a 5% increase in income in communities near national parks within four years of a park being designated. Public lands attract high-wage job opportunities in areas like forestry management and infrastructure maintenance, while generating investment and revenue for local businesses.

Snow, a resident of Priest, CA, relies on tourism to Yosemite for attention. Source: Chris Hayward (2026)

Another study by Headwaters Economics examined the effect of public lands (not limited to the National Park Service) on surrounding communities and found that it provided massive benefits. The study compared the population growth, employment, personal income, and per capita income in western non-metro counties with the top 25th and bottom 25th percentiles of proportion of federal land. Headwaters found that these economic indicators grew two times faster or more in non-metro counties with the highest share of federal lands, though there was a smaller increase in per capita income.

 

Graphic courtesy of Megan Lawson, Ph.D., at Headwater Economics (2017)

The Trump administration and national parks

Despite longstanding bipartisan support for the National Park system, the Trump administration has launched an attack on the Park Service in very classically Trump manner; by slashing funding while politicizing National Parks however possible.

The Trump administration recently cancelled free admission to national parks on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and on Juneteenth, while instead instituting free admission on his own birthday. As an additional insertion of “culture war” politics into national parks, the Trump administration has removed or censored exhibits discussing slavery, LGBTQ history, Native American expulsion from national narks, and climate change. Further, the Trump administration implemented a $100 per person additional fee for non-residents on top of existing fees for 11 popular national parks, including Yosemite.

Bridalveil Falls Source: Chris Hayward (2026)

In addition to these attacks on the inclusivity and historical accuracy of national parks, the Trump administration has made a series of more concrete attempts to gut the National Park System. In the first half of 2025 alone, 24% of National Park Service employees were fired, resigned, or otherwise departed the agency. The Trump administration has significantly increased logging, oil drilling, and coal mining on federal land, while ignoring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements.

Continued support for national parks

While national parks are under attack by the Trump administration, public support for the national parks remains strong. The National Park Service is the most popular agency in the federal government, with 78% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats viewing it favorably. There has even been bipartisan pushback on the Trump administration’s attempts to gut the National Park System.

In the summer of 2025, a Trump backed provision intended to sell off large portions of public land introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) as part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” was withdrawn after it drew strong backlash, even from other Republican members of Congress. Similarly, the Trump administration’s proposed 37% reduction in the National Park Service’s 2026 budget was rejected by the Senate.

Conclusions

While public support for our national parks remains strong, the Trump administration has still managed to do significant harm in 15 short months since he returned to office. Many are concerned that the extreme volatility of the administration may have irreversibly damaged the institutional knowledge of the National Park Service. Rebuilding the expertise of our federal agencies will be an extremely long and difficult task, but so was the effort to protect and maintain these places in the first place. Thankfully, even many Republicans see value in our parks, even if only for the benefits they provide to rural communities. 

Back-to-the-land has come...back?

Barn in Benton County, AR.© Lisa R. Pruitt (2011)

If you're a young woman on TikTok, the algorithm likely feeds you some flavor of "tradwife" content. Names like Nara Smith and Hannah Neeleman have become household names among twenty-somethings in the last few years. These women use their online platforms to play out a fictional reality of subservience to their husbands on gorgeous rural acreages, all while raking in millions from sponsorships and $70 bone broth powders. They espouse live simple, pared-down lives, cooking everything from scratch for a big, happy family, while finding time to spend their afternoons barefoot in the grass. They want you to believe that their life is good, and that more young women should aspire to be homemakers and homesteaders. 

These young women are the most visible group of young people promoting a modern "back-to-the-land" movement. They often root their desire in religion and "traditional" roles of men and women. Many scholars and commentators criticize the tradwife movement, saying it is regressive and uninformed. You can read excerpts of a New York Times article about modern "rural" aesthetics centered in patriarchy here. While some of the criticism rings true, this practice isn't new. Americans have demonized processed foods and dreamt of homesteading for decades. Back-to-the-land movements have drawn people's attention since their inception, inspiring families with traditional values as well as environmentalists and counterculturalists. 

The origins of back-to-the-land

America began its foray into the homesteading movement with the Homestead Act of 1862, which offered full title to government lands taken from Indigenous tribes to any settler who lived on and improved the land for five years. The back-to-the-land movement, however, originated in the 1900s. 

Many scholars cite Bolton Hall, an American lawyer and activist, as the origin of the movement. In the early 1900s, he formed the Little Land League, which wanted to make land ownership and homegrown food a reality for low-income New Yorkers. This organization existed to "assist in the acquisition of land and show how to make the best use of it." He allegedly planned a $70,000 endowment for a program that would teach people how to farm and help them purchase the land. His book, A Little Land and Living, extolled the virtues of rural living and explained how to begin to make a living for yourself off the land. 

John Korvola's Homestead in Valley County, ID from the early 1900s. Credit: Jerrye & Roy Klotz, MD under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

A group of reformists picked up Bolton Hall's work, arguing that subsistence farming could help white Americans survive during the Great Depression and avoid the dangers of urbanization. Their writings sparked a the "third wave" of back-to-the-land in the 1960s and 70s. The third wave originated from the protest movements of that era, and grew into a "rural antimodern counterculture". As Jinny A. Turman-Deal's article We Were an Oddity: A Look at the Back to the Land Movement in Appalachia identifies, many third-wave participants were driven by non-economic factors: a desire to "leave the rat race" or political and social turmoil in the city. Their migration created a 4.5% increase in West Virginia's population. 

A New York Times article from 1975 posits that these new, young farmers desired hard work and an escape from American capitalism. They generally eschewed tractors and other "labor-saving devices." This movement reached across the country, with people from Maine to Oregon allegedly growing up to 75% of their food in their backyard. While this article states that most farmers relied on their families' middle-class incomes to make this a reality, a 1991 article states that only about 48% of participants came from a middle-class background. 

Modern takes on back-to-the-land

Homesteading, a popular part of the back-to-the-land movement, has picked up considerable steam in the last 10 years. A November 2024 report from Fannie Mae shows that interest in rural mortgages has increased almost 80% since the start of COVID-19. Homesteaders of America, a conservative, Christian-adjacent homesteading advocacy group, conducted a poll in 2022 to assess the state of homesteading in America. They found that approximately 50% of their respondents were under 40 years old, and about 50% identified as conservative. Most were employed full-time, making at least 50,000 a year. Over 80% were married.

These findings align with the prevailing modern conception of homesteading. Conservative, young families with enough capital to secure property are the ones moving out to a subsistence farm. While I used the example of tradwives as the group most visible in mainstream media, queer and trans homesteaders utilize social media to share their experiences of living off the land, too. A recent CNN article highlighted some of these influencers, who stated they didn't see homesteading as a "conservative, separatist" movement, but rather a community-centered endeavor to build something they're proud of. 

Regardless of politics, many young aspiring farmers and homesteaders take up homesteading for similar reasons: increased health and well-being, an escape from tumultuous politics, and a desire to be more in touch with nature. These groups face a common challenge: a daunting rural real estate market. A 2022 Study from the National Young Farmers Coalition, however, found that 59% of young farmers stated that finding the land to farm was their biggest hurdle. Young farmers are being outbid by more established farmers, as well as large agricultural corporations. This statistic has been true for decades (as this 2012 blog post explains in an analysis between the United States and Greece). In some communities, leasing from community members or land trusts makes homesteading more accessible. In major cities, organizations exist to help low-income residents urban homestead in community co-ops. 

Despite the obstacles, homesteading and back-to-the-land movements draw new converts every day. While the media continues to criticize the tradwives from a feminist perspective, we should recognize that their lives resonate with so many young people. So many of the political pressures of the late 60s and 70s exist today: high inflation, declining trust in politics, and foreign wars impacting oil.

Back-to-the-land has come and gone as a desirable life path for over a century. It seems as if proponents, for decades, have thought it is the cure for societies' ills. Interestingly, the draws are the same, regardless of politics, though each group seems to try and fit their politics to their reasons. At the end of the day, tradwife or drag queen, some people want to put their hands in the dirt.

Sale of Loyalton Ranch and land return in California's historic gold country

Willows along the Creek at WélmeltiɁ Preserve.
Photo courtesy of Feather River Land Trust.

On February 10, the City of Santa Clara finalized the sale of Loyalton Ranch, a scenic 10,274-acre property located 35 miles north of Lake Tahoe, to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. The property will now be known as the WélmeltiɁ Preserve and will be held by the Washoe Tribe's newly-created Wašíᐧšiw Land Trust.

The City of Santa Clara purchased the property in 1970 for $1.6 million, with hopes for potential geothermal energy development. The projects never materialized, and in 2024, much of the property was razed by a wildfire. A heretofore divided city council came together to look for a buyer.

The deal came together with the help of a $5.5 million dollar grant from the California Wildlife Conservation Board, a state agency, and support from private foundations and donors. The acquisition results from a successful collaboration between the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the Feather River Land Trust, the Northern Sierra Partnership, and other conservation organizations and public partners. 

This sale is significant for its status as one of the largest land returns in California history, and the largest in the Sierra Nevada. The land area contains over 30 protected-status species, herds of pronghorn deer, golden eagles, and mountain lions. Twenty-seven miles of creeks and numerous springs on the land feed the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Beyond the boundaries of the Preserve, this project represents a step toward re-establishing tribal management of lands in the fragmented landscape characteristic of much land in the Sierra Nevada. 

Map of Project Area reveals checkerboard land ownership
in the region. Photo courtesy of Sierra Sun.

To understand the significance of land return in the Sierra Nevada, it is useful to examine the federal policies that contributed to the fracture of tribal landholdings. In 1862, Congress passed the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, granting millions of acres of public land to railroad companies to finance construction of the transcontinental railroad. The statute created a "checkerboard" pattern of alternating private and public sections along the rail corridors, permanently reshaping land ownership across the West. 

In California and throughout the Sierra Nevada, this pattern consolidated vast tracts in private hands, often without regard for existing tribal presence. The legacy of that policy remains visible today in the fragmented ownership patterns that complicate cohesive land management and habitat restoration efforts. 

This post examines the myriad potential benefits of land return efforts like the one here in the Sierra Nevada. First, returning land directly to ancestral stewards creates new opportunity for Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) practices to flourish. California wildlife agencies recognize TEK to some extent, and these practices are increasingly integrated alongside western conservation methods, but the ability of tribal land managers to direct conservation efforts means TEK and place-based management can take place more readily. Second, greater focus on opportunities for land return in the Northern Sierra Nevada presents a viable way out of the strange pattern of private inholdings and "checkerboard" arrangement of public and private lands. 

Map of checkerboard land surrounding Lake Tahoe.
Map courtesy of  Truckee-Donner Historical Society.

Returning land to tribal stewardship provides tribal community members with meaningful opportunities to reconnect with ancestral lands. In the case of the WélmeltiɁ Preserve, tribal leaders and conservation partners said the acquisition represents a major step toward addressing generations of displacement:

“The return of this land is deeply meaningful for our people,” said Chairman Serrell Smokey of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. “These lands are part of who we are and have been stewarded by the Washoe people since time immemorial.” [. . .] "This return is about more than acreage," said Corey Pargee, executive director of the Feather River Land Trust. "It's about restoring stewardship to the people who have cared for this landscape for thousands of years." 

Access to culturally significant sites strengthens intergenerational knowledge transfer and traditional practices tied to specific landscapes. Land return thus supports not only environmental restoration, but also cultural continuity and community health. 

Land return also removes administrative barriers that often limit the used of TEK as a primary conservation framework. When tribes hold title to land through tribal governments or land trusts, they can design management regimes that respond to local ecological conditions and long-standing cultural priorities. These strategies may even go on to inform and strengthen regional conservation efforts.

Finally, increasing the number of tribally managed acres in the Northern Sierra boosts possibility of greater habitat connectivity, more cohesive management regimes, and increased climate resilience. Larger contiguous areas under aligned stewardship reduce the inefficiencies created by fragmented ownership. Coordinated management improves wildlife corridors, watershed health, and fire resilience.

Land return efforts like the creation of the WélmeltiɁ Preserve demonstrate how restorative justice and environmental stewardship can move forward together. These projects have the potential to repair both social and ecological systems in the Sierra Nevada. In the Northern Sierra, land return offers a path toward a more equitable and ecologically coherent future. 

California's bid for carbon capture continues, local communities remain divided

A recent proposal to inject and store millions of tons of carbon dioxide beneath wetlands in Solano County, California marks the latest development in carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Golden State. Integrating large-scale CCS projects with a clean energy grid is part of California's strategy for reaching net-zero emissions by 2045. 

The state is accelerating CCS deployment through legislative efforts (SB 905, 2022; SB 614, 2025), executive actions (E.O. B-55-18, 2018), and policy declarations (AB 1279, 2022). Detractors say (and research supports) that the capacity for CCS deployment is under-proved; CCS perpetuates reliance on fossil fuels, and the focus on mitigation pulls money and attention away from more beneficial climate innovations. 

The Montezuma Wetlands are a series of tidal marshes in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Until recently, the area "was treated as expendable." Proximity to the Bay Area, lower population numbers, and agricultural land use meant that "[b]y the end of the 20th century, much of the area functioned less as a marsh and more as a repository for industrial waste," Miranda de Moraes wrote in Grist a few days ago. Over the last two decades, ongoing, large-scale restoration efforts have seen the wetlands make a remarkable recovery. In 2020, tidal flows returned and the marsh resumed providing habitat, flood protection, and other ecosystem services to the region. 

Montezuma Hills along the Sacramento River
Image source: public-domain-image.com (2013)

Given this history, the newly-proposed NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub raises the sore issue of Solano County's role as a dumping ground for the Bay Area's toxic waste. The new CCS storage project seeks to "inject CO2, sourced from refineries, hydrogen plants, and power plants" into the saline aquifers a mile or so below the wetlands. The storage site would be located around the small town of Collinsville. According to Grist, project architects hope to be depositing up to 8 million tons of carbon dioxide annually within the next three years. 

[UC Berkeley Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering Jamie] Rector believes the site could store at least 100 million tons [of CO2] over its 40-year lifespan. The site’s compacted mud, silt, and clay, he said, would provide a natural cap that could keep the pollutant locked underground indefinitely, while its location alongside Bay Area industries would reduce carbon transportation costs.

Carbon capture and storage as a climate change mitigation strategy is not a new idea. Carbon capture has been used around the globe since the 1970s, and the projects generally come in two flavors: capturing carbon dioxide at the point of emission (point-source capture) or sucking carbon dioxide out of the ambient atmosphere (direct air capture). Once captured, the gases are pressured into a liquid and transported by truck or – more likely – by pipeline to the storage site. 

Researchers and organizations focused on climate change generally agree that some carbon capture and storage will be necessary to reach international climate targets. California may become especially reliant on CCS in order "to eliminate [the] millions of tons of greenhouse gases" needed to meet its carbon-neutrality mandate by 2045. Whether the state can meet these goals without exposing rural communities to localized environmental harms remains to be seen. Thus far, the dozen or so projects awaiting permits occur in largely rural and low-income communities (such as the CarbonTerraVault projects, which are pending permits for multiple carbon capture and storage projects in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Basins). 

A visual representation of CCS
Image Source: CO2GeoNet (Creative Commons license) (2025)

The extent to which communities will welcome the technology is another question. In western Kern County, CalMatters covered community response to a project designed to capture emissions at Elk Hills Oil and Gas Field and then "inject the gases more than a mile deep into a depleted oil reservoir." Elk Hills sits between the small Central Valley towns of Buttonwillow (pop. 1,2501) and Taft (pop. 7,000), about 30 miles west of Bakersfield. Covering the proposal for CalMatters, Alejandro Lazo writes:

Many residents and environmental justice groups oppose these projects because they allow oilfields, power plants and other industrial operations to keep emitting dangerous air pollutants in their communities. At the Kern County project, emissions of fine particles and gases that form smog would be 'significant and unavoidable,' according to the county’s environmental impact report.

On the other side of the conversation lies Dave Noerr, the mayor of Taft. According to CalMatters, Noerr "sees the technology as a gamechanger for Kern County: a way of hanging on to well-paying, middle class oil and gas jobs as California tackles climate change." 

Shuttered gas station near Taft, western Kern County
© Lisa Pruitt (2024)

New reporting from Grist and local news outlets suggest that support for the Montezuma project might be harder to come by. Environmental groups oppose the project for its location near sensitive wetlands habitat just beginning to realize the benefits of ecosystem restoration. Public health professionals cite concerns about leaks and continued exposure to polluting industry. 

The Montezuma NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub is currently waiting on a permit from Solano County to build a test well. In its permit application, Montezuma Carbon claims the project will bring jobs, tax revenue, and cleaner air to Solano County. However, as proposed, the 45-mile carbon dioxide transport pipeline would run right by South Vallejo. Recent reporting by the Vallejo Sun highlights California EPA data showing that South Vallejo residents already deal disproportionately with poverty, unemployment, air pollution, and higher rates of asthma. 

Opponents frame Montezuma Carbon’s proposal as a question of who controls their land and who absorbs the risks of decarbonization. The county is home to roughly half a million people, including the Bay Area’s largest per capita populations of veterans and residents with disabilities, and it is among the most racially diverse counties in the nation. 

Conclusion

In many ways, the Montezuma Carbon project highlights systemic inequities and urban-centric values lurking in the corners of the energy transition. Success of CCS in California appears to depend (almost entirely) on rural counties and communities to host and accommodate these projects, now and forever. Their permanence raises questions about monitoring, the potential for future harms, and meaningful consent. Similar proposals have been shut down due community opposition in the Midwest (previous coverage of one such proposal on the blog), but the fate of many California projects remains to be decided.

Montezuma Hills between Suisun and Rio Vista
© Lisa Pruitt (2024)

My Rural Travelogue (XLI): Exploring rural Japan amidst rising rice prices

Truck delivering rice plants in Nagahama, Shiga Prefecture, Japan, May 2025

I traveled to Japan for the first time in late May, which happened to be amidst a spike in rice prices.  As such, this was a topic much in the news during my time there, and I got interested in the matter and talked to many of our guides about why prices have risen so steeply of late.  I'll return to that subject below.  

Nagahama, Shiga Prefecture

Rice farms everywhere.  While on Honshu, the primary island in the Japanese archipelago, I had the opportunity to take many photos of rice fields and rice farming--and even a few rice farmers.  You don't have to get far out of the major cities--and this includes looking out the windows of bullet trains (the Japanese is "shinkansen") as you are whisked through the countryside--to see multitudes of what appear to be small family rice farms.  (All photos are (c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2025).

Agricultural activity
Rural Shiga Prefecture, May 2025

We learned that in exurban and rural places, many families have their own little family rice paddy. This seems especially common among elderly folks.  For example, in one village in Shiga prefecture (where I took the photo above of the rice plant delivery truck), we met a Japanese gentleman who came to greet us and take our photo at the local shrine.  He is retired from local government, and when we asked if he is a rice farmer, he said not any more, though he still raises a vegetable garden.   (The man, photo below, wore an Anaheim Angels baseball cap to signify he is a Shohei Ohtani fan, he told us, because that was Ohtani's first team; when he is out of his village, he wears a Dodgers cap to signify his fandom to the wider world).  

One elderly rice farmer we met in his field said he planted his crop on May 9, and we were there less than two weeks after that.  He was weed whacking the grass at the margins of his small paddy, which was adjacent to other small fields being tended by other elderly male farmers.  We also saw both elderly men and women tending vegetable patches.

Elderly Ohtani fan in rural Shiga 
Prefecture

(By the way, my family and I got to these Nagahama villages with Biwako Backroads Tours, an amazing little biking and walking tour company based in nearby Maibara.  The entrepreneur behind this company, Takako Matsui-Leidy, has terrific English language skills.  Her company offers many tours of  this area around the northern part of Lake Biwa, an easy train ride from Kyoto.  See photo below, near a green tea plantation in the area.  Highly recommend these outings.)

Biwako Backroads Tour, Nagahama,
Shiga May 2025

Shirakawa-go Village, May 2025

We also saw a lot of rice farming activity in the village of Shirakawa-go, in Gifu Prefecture, on the Sho River.  It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site because of the historic structures, gassho-zukuri houses, with thatched roofs.  Farmers still live in the village, and we saw a great deal of rice farming activity while there, much of it involving mechanical equipment farmers seemed to be using to turn the fields or to put the plants in the ground.  We saw the same thing as we took the train from Takayama toward Nagoya a few days later.   

The spike in rice prices.  So why have rice prices doubled in Japan in the past year?  Well, it depends on who you ask.  Many folks indicated that the rice harvest was especially poor last year because of a very hot summer, and I found this New York Times story from October 2024 suggesting that scientists are working to genetically alter Japan's favorite rice to make it more heat resistant in the face of climate change.  Others mentioned that folks no longer want to be rice farmers and that those elderly folks we saw farming their own rice paddies, were a dying breed--literally.  

Vegetable gardens along irrigation canal
Rural Shiga Prefecture 

This New York Times coverage dug a little deeper: 

The shortage has been blamed on decades-old policies, meant to protect small-time farmers, that have blocked newcomers from buying or using agricultural land, leaving thousands of acres uncultivated. Efforts to change the system have been blocked by the national farming cooperative and other rural interests, which are stolid supporters of the governing Liberal Democratic Party.

That has put Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba between a rock and a hard place. Urban voters have chafed at the soaring prices and shortages, which at times have forced rationing by supermarkets.

Here is some late March 2025 New York Times coverage of a farmer protest--partly on tractors(!)--in Tokyo.  

Over the past year, Japan has grappled with a more than 200,000-ton shortage of its staple grain. Rice prices have skyrocketed, and supermarkets have been forced to restrict amounts that shoppers can buy. The situation became so dire that the government had to tap its emergency rice reserves.

Farmer in rice field, Shirakawa-go Village,
 a UNESCO World Heritage Site

The twist is that even as Japan deals with shortages, the government is paying farmers to limit how much they grow. The policy, in place for more than half a century, consumes billions of dollars a year in public spending.

Farmers exasperated with the government regulations protested on Sunday. Under cherry blossoms in a park in central Tokyo, more than 4,000 farmers, wearing straw hats and sun caps, gathered with signs declaring “Rice is life” and “We make rice but can’t make a living.” Thirty of them drove tractors through the skyscraper-lined streets of the capital city.

Politicians' heads rolling:  The "rice minister" resigns.  In the midst of all this, on May 20 (our first  day in Japan), agriculture minister Taku Eto resigned after a significant gaffe:  admitting he'd never purchased rice.  Here's the full quote: 

I have never bought rice myself. Frankly, my supporters give me quite a lot of rice. I have so much rice at home that I could sell it.

Transportation to the garden plot for an elderly resident of
rural Nagahama, Shiga Prefecture 

I'm reminded of Barack Obama's 2007 campaign gaffe: 

Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?  I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.

Local rice for sale
Kinomoto Train Station, Shiga

I guess he didn't realize most people in Iowa don't eat arugula--or shop at Whole Foods.  But at least there was a hint of him doing this own grocery shopping.     

The Times further explains Prime Minister Ishiba's response in pushing Eto out, with a July election looming:

Underscoring the political importance of containing the furor, Mr. Ishiba said on Wednesday that he had asked one of the Liberal Democrats’ rising stars, Shinjiro Koizumi, the photogenic son of a former prime minister, to replace Mr. Eto.

Here is May 24 and May 26 coverage of the crisis by Nikkei Asia, in which Koizumi announces sales of government rice stockpiles.  His stated aim was to bring the price down to Y2000 per 5 kilograms by early June.  Don't know if that has happened yet, but this Reuters story says prices in Japanese grocery stores have fallen for the third straight week.  

Rice plants (c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2025

Will Trump’s push to increase timber production help rural communities?

Many rural communities in the Pacific Northwest grew up around a once-thriving timber industry. Almost all timber harvesting operations are located in rural areas. Logging has, and continues to be, a source of pride in these communities. The timber industry allowed rural communities to thrive economically. However, the timber industry has slowly shrunk over the years. President Trump wants to revive the timber industry by opening more national forests to logging.

On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand American timber production. The Executive Order calls for the reversal of restrictive policies and the implementation of federal policies that promote timber harvesting throughout the United States.

This executive order is meant to assist rural communities that depend on the timber industry and help gain support for the Trump Administration. Will the change in policy work, and will it help the economies of rural communities? The answer is likely no.

The timber industry has been slowly shrinking across the United States, particularly in Western states. Many sawmills near national forests have closed in recent years. With the closure of mills, jobs in the rural communities that surround local mills have disappeared. For many rural communities, the local mill was the largest employer in the area.

One example of this is the closure of the Malheur Lumber Company in John Day, Oregon. John Day has a population of 1,543 people, and the Malheur Lumber Company employed 76 people. Following the closing of the Malheur Lumber Company, two other mills in Oregon closed in 2024. This means that in Oregon alone, seven individual mills have closed in 2024.

The closure of so many mills demonstrates that the timber industry in rural areas has vanished. This means that increasing timber harvesting in national forests will be of little help to rural communities. There is nowhere to go with the logs that are harvested. This is because “logs would have to be transported longer distances, at increased costs.” Struggling mills cannot afford to pay extra transportation costs.

It is also unlikely that any of these closed mills will reopen their doors. Susan Jane Brown, an environmental lawyer and principal at Silvix Resources in Oregon, said that “‘no businessman is going to invest millions of dollars in a new mill or in retrofitting an old mill.’”

Further complicating the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order is the recent Forest Service budget cuts and employee layoffs. I have previously discussed how the layoffs of Forest Service employees disproportionately affect rural communities, but these layoffs also hamper the Trump Administration’s goal of increasing timber production.

The Federal Government has laid off approximately 3,400 Forest Service workers. Forest Service staff are responsible for organizing and implementing timber sales. Without adequate staffing, the Forest Service will struggle to market timber sales to private companies.

The Trump Administration's ongoing tariff war will negatively affect the wood products industry as well. If the United States’ economy falls into a recession, the timber industry and rural communities will be hit extraordinarily hard. If a recession were to occur, the housing market would suffer. Since the wood products industry is intertwined with the housing market, the effects on rural communities that depend on local mills would be devastating.

President Trump’s Executive Order is unlikely to assist rural communities that depend on the timber industry. Local mills and rural mill communities have already disappeared. The industry that needed to produce wood products no longer exists. Harvesting more trees will be of little use, as there is nowhere to go with the logs.

The Executive Order appears to be an attempt by the Trump Administration to appease rural communities who overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in 2024. However, this push to open more national forests will do very little to help rural communities that depend on the remnants of the timber industry. 

For further reading on the hardships that logging-dependent communities face, please see Jennifer Sherman’s book, Those Who Work, Those Who Don't: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America, and Michelle Wilde Anderson’s book, The Fight to Save the Town: Reimagining Discarded America. 

What are we trying to build: affordable housing and high-density bonus laws in California's Eastern Sierras

Mono county is dominated by the rugged beauty of the Eastern Sierras. The 4th-least-populated county in California, it has only one incorporated community: Mammoth Lakes. Home to scenic views, hiking trails, fine dining, and two ski resorts, the town has seen a boom in popularity over the past 20 years. This has caused a fierce affordable housing shortage, with real estate skyrocketing as wealthy investors seek to capitalize on the region's dynamic tourism economy.

According to realtor.com, the median listing for a home in Mammoth Lakes is $865,50. Scroll through the website's 122 entries, and you will see only a handful condominiums and studio apartments approach that figure; most houses exceed $1 million in value. A quick search on Airbnb.com, however, reveals well over 1,000 options—a ratio of more than 10 rental properties for every home on the market.

The overwhelming mismatch between rental properties and permanent residences is just one major factor driving the affordable housing crisis in California's rural eastern counties. In Mammoth Lakes, it has forced members of the local workforce to live out of their cars; Emily Markstein, a local ski instructor, tree-trimmer, yoga instructor, and waiter estimates the percentage of her colleagues embracing "van life" is greater than 20%. Speaking to the LA Times, she describes the struggle for access to basic amenities this lifestyle presents, and how it has become the most viable option for working people in Mammoth Lakes.

In nearby Inyo county, the city of Bishop grapples with similar issues. Its proximity to the wilderness has made it a long-time hub for activities like hiking, fishing, climbing, and skiing. But the mayor, Jose Garcia, says that the town "hasn't grown at all" in his tenure. This frustration stems from another key factor driving the lack of affordable housing in the Eastern Sierras: there's often nowhere to build. 

Much of the land around Bishop and Mammoth Lakes is ineligible for development. Approximately 90% of land in Mono county and 92% of land in Inyo county is federally owned, and the Los Angeles Department of Water (LADW) owns and manages an additional 250,000 acres in Inyo County and 60,000 acres in Mono County. Purchased in the 1930's, these landholdings secure water rights to Eastern Sierra snowmelts for the city of Los Angeles. This hems in communities, preventing affordable housing developments from cropping up on the outskirts of established towns and driving up the price of privately-owned land that is available for development

One proposed solution is to increase housing density within established communities. Doing so could  mean more affordable housing in the Eastern Sierras, and prevent towns like Bishop and Mammoth Lakes from having to engage in complex, multi-party land-swaps with federal agencies and LADW when they want to implement a new development project. 

There are strong legislative incentives for increasing housing density. California's density bonus laws, recently expanded under AB 1287, require cities and counties to grant zoning incentives to housing projects that reserve a certain number of units for low-income residents. This allows developers to build more market rate units than would ordinarily be allowed under the city/county's zoning laws, in exchange for guaranteeing the availability of affordable housing the developer otherwise might not build.

Although proponents of the density bonus schema praise it as necessary in a state where high costs often render affordable housing projects financially impractical, it is not without its flaws. In the Northeastern Sierra community of Truckee—a community struggling with its own housing crisis—homeowners John Kedzie and Jim Frances have criticized high-density bonus programs, arguing that by mandating approval of projects that meet arbitrary thresholds, legitimate local concerns such as snow storage and traffic infrastructure are bypassed. 

Several places in the Sierras have implemented their own initiatives to combat the lack of affordable housing. Nevada, Amador, Calaveras, and Mariposa counties have partnered to launch the Mother Lode ADU program. Its goal is to streamline the construction and approval process for accessory dwelling units (ADUS)—self-contained residences constructed on private properties that already have homes, usually by the homeowner.  The focus is on working directly with community members, instead of development companies, to increase housing density on a small scale.

Back in Mammoth Lakes, the Mono County housing program offers down-payment assistance loans, support for some development projects, and a revolving loan fund that supports the preservation of deed restricted units (among other things). The program's goals are explicit: it's designed to solve "the market failure that has caused the large housing shortage locally, especially for local workforce households."

These programs' long-term effects on affordable housing remains unclear. However, any truly comprehensive solution will have to address the region's relationship with ecotourism directly. The proliferation of expensive rental properties in places like Bishop and Mammoth Lakes, coupled with their proximity to pristine wilderness, make them ripe for rural gentrification—simply increasing housing density won't solve the deeper problems.

Welfare for the rich in California agriculture

A new report by Gregory Weaver of Fresnoland on California’s Williamson Act adds to the unrelenting stream of news about the disproportionate power and influence of America’s wealthiest citizens. . The report by Fresnoland, a nonprofit newsroom and policy research lab launched by the Fresno Bee, examines the highly unequal distribution of tax benefits under the Williamson Act. 

Per this 1990 report by the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis, the Williamson Act, passed in 1965, allows property owners in participating counties to sign contracts with the county that provide landowners with reduced property tax assessments in exchange for restricting the development of their land. County participation is voluntary, although as of 2020, the CA Department of Conservation reported that 52 out of 58 counties had signed contracts with landowners. At its inception, the Act provided for partial reimbursement of the lost local tax revenue by the state, but state funding for the program ceased in 2010, leaving counties to absorb the loss of revenue themselves.  

The intent of the Williamson Act was pro-rural, as it was meant to protect California agricultural land from urban and suburban sprawl that was rapidly encroaching on rural areas in the mid-20th century. By lowering property taxes, the Act’s drafters sought to help farmers hold onto land that they might otherwise have been tempted to sell to real estate developers seeking to build the next subdivision. 

Williamson Act tax breaks have been exploited by large conglomerates and investors to generate larger returns on their investment in massive industrial farming operations.  Fresnoland’s analysis found that “just 120 mega-farms – less than 1% of recipients – are capturing half of the program's $5 billion tax shelter,” while the majority of farmers receive less than $800 in tax breaks per year. 

Under standard property tax formulas, agricultural landowners are taxed based on the purchase price they paid for the farmland. However, if they enroll in the Williamson Act, they instead pay a much lower tax rate calculated using the land’s potential rental value for agriculture, [Fresno County Assessor Paul] Dictos said. This preferential tax structure applies to all farmers enrolled in the Williamson Act. But Dictos said it’s the deep-pocketed investors who acquired prime farmland in recent years who see the largest tax reductions. The result of this tax formula is that the higher the purchase price, the bigger the Act’s tax subsidy, Dictos said. Small farmers and landowners who have owned their land for generations see hardly any benefit under this tax formula, multiple assessors from across the state told Fresnoland.

The Williamson Act property valuation mechanism has led to a discrepancy in tax benefits in which small and medium-sized farmers in Fresno County “are subsidized $24 per acre, while the top mega-growers get $62 per acre.” In Fresno County alone, Williamson Act tax benefits lowered county revenue in 2022 by $50 million below what it would have been absent the subsidies, and over the last 30 years the Act has resulted in a total decrease of $820 million in revenue, most of which has gone to the largest and wealthiest owners of agricultural land. 

Instead of providing a boost to local small farmers, most of the benefits go to large corporations that need no government assistance. Some of these tax breaks are going to investors far outside the county, including the second-largest subsidy in 2022 going to a $240 billion pension fund for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the fifth-largest subsidy going to Gladstone, Inc., a corporation whose purpose is “actively acquiring” agricultural land across the U.S. The report also found that nearly all of the land owned by mega-farmers that receive these benefits are more than a mile from any city.  Thus, the land is not even “at risk of being paved over by encroaching suburban sprawl.”

This outcome strikes me as profoundly unjust and something that the California legislature should rectify. At a time of increasing wealth inequality, providing tax breaks for wealthy investors and corporations to further buy up and consolidate farmland has the primary effect of selling out localities and rural areas that could use the tax revenue for schools, roads, and social services. The issues with the Williamson Act are not unique to California, as experts have observed that the farm "subsidy system is literally undermining the economic and social foundation of rural communities."

Given recent consolidation trends in U.S. agriculture, lawmakers should examine how exactly the Williamson Act is "saving" agricultural land and formulate new policy that actually helps small farmers who live and work in rural parts of the state. Providing financial benefits to large companies who use more water-intensive, extractive agricultural methods provides a sustainable future for only those companies.

Leaving rural agricultural land to the whims of the free market leaves those with fewer resources open to exploitation by moneyed interests. The same economic forces that compel small farmers to sell to industrial agricultural operations are those that led many people in Solano County to sell to the folks from California Forever (further discussed here, here, and here). 

It seems as though tax incentives to protect rural land inevitably end up being exploited by sophisticated investors, as is the case with conservation easements. And protecting existing landowners and creating incentives that drive up land prices only makes it that much harder for those, such as young people and immigrants, who do not already have extensive resources to start new farms. 

There are myriad other agricultural laws and policies that are intended to support farming in California and the U.S. more broadly. Yet the agricultural industry continues to move away from the subsistence model towards large, extractive, profit-seeking ventures. California should take a hard look at how the Williamson Act contributes to that trend and imagine better ways to support the people who live in rural areas rather than aiding those who simply extract profit from them. 

For more discussion of the Williamson Act, see here, here, and here.

Amid mass layoffs in the National Park Service, rural communities could be some of the first to suffer.

 On February 14th, 2025, the Trump administration fired 1,000 National Park Service (NPS) employees and several times that number of U.S. Forest Service employees. These terminations came in the wake of a federal hiring freeze for full and part-time positions with the NPS.

While the Department of the Interior recently exempted 5,000 seasonal workers from the hiring freeze, this represents only a portion of the estimated 7,500 part-time employees NPS hires to help manage the hectic spring and summer. It is unclear if these 5,000 positions will have to be re-advertised and whether early applicants will have to re-apply; if they do, it could result in substantial hiring delays, stretching the NPS' already thin resources even further during peak season. 

The NPS has funding for "about 13,000 full-time employees nationwide," according to their website, and some of these jobs are already unfilled. The full-time layoffs thus represent the elimination of nearly 1/10th of NPS positions. Additionally, the full-time hiring freeze also affects incoming NPS rangers, with those about to begin training having job offers rescinded as of January 27th. This contradicted previous statements from the Trump Administration that law enforcement personnel would not be affected by federal layoffs.

Theresa Pierno, President and CEO for the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) said in a Feb. 14th press release that the administration's actions will have "devastating consequences for parks and communities," warning that larger parks could lose key staff and smaller parks risk closing their doors altogether. Former NPS director Jonathan Jarvis said in a statement to the National Parks Traveler that the layoffs would cause "chaos," leaving visitors unsatisfied and at potentially serious risk. Search-and-rescue crews, firefighters, and emergency medical service positions are often filled by seasonal workers.

As both Pierno and Jarvis noted, however, it is not just visitors and employees who will be affected by these policies. A 2019 study from headwaterseconomics.org shows 224 rural counties (16.8% of all counties defined as rural by the census bureau) have recreation-dependent economies. Many of these counties are contiguous with national parks or forests and rely heavily on visitors to stimulate local businesses. (You can read more about rural recreation economies and ecotourism on the blog here).

Although rural recreation economies are often linked with gentrification, there may be some advantages to this model. Rural recreation counties saw more post-pandemic job growth than other rural counties, although this varied slightly from region to region. Rural recreation counties were identified as significantly less likely to experience population loss than non-recreation counties. They were also found to have more food-away-from-home (FAFH) outlets per 1,000 people than metropolitan counties, according to a 2019 study by the USDA, Economic Research Service and the University of Arkansas. 

To help support these recreation economies, the EPA formed the Recreation Economy for Rural Communities (RERC) in 2019. This program establishes 'steering committees' designed to work closely with rural communities, providing locally tailored workshops and guidance and helping to ensure "equitable access to the outdoors for residents and visitors alike." Partner communities have been established in 16 states, primarily in counties adjacent to or contiguous with a national park, forest, or monument. 

 The federal hiring freeze is very likely to negatively impact rural recreation economies. It is unclear whether programs like the RERC will survive, and as parks become more difficult to operate, tourists are likely to be less satisfied. They may withdraw from or lash out at surrounding communities. A 2023 National Park Visitor Spending Effects survey found that 325.5 million visitors spent $26.4 billion in communities near national parks, providing 415,400 jobs, $19.4 billion in labor income, and $55.6 billion in economic output overall. 

Ms. Pierno emphasized that slashing staff would have a devastating ripple effect on businesses and communities that depend on parks for their survival. With the summer rush mere months away, many of these communities will have already invested in new infrastructure to support the influx of tourists. If that influx doesn't materialize, they face unprecedented revenue loss. 

UPDATE 5/4/2025: Federal District Judge William Alsup ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees, including NPS workers. The NPS initially reinstated probationary employees fired by the Trump administration, but a Supreme Court order issued in April temporarily paused Alsup's order, suggesting the probationary workers should not be reinstated and that the firings are legal.