Tag: farmland

Epa to Re-Examine Impact of Sewage Sludge Fertilizer

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it’s ready to take a new look at the science and risks involved in using treated human waste – sewage sludge – as fertilizer on farmland. That’s seen as good news for people who live near farms using sewage sludge. Some of them say the sludge makes them sick. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Amy Tardif reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it’s ready to take a new look at the science and
risks involved in using treated human waste – sewage sludge – as fertilizer on farmland. That’s
seen as good news for people who live near farms using sewage sludge. Some of them say the
sludge makes them sick. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Amy Tardif reports:


About three million dry tons of treated sewage – called sludge – is used to fertilize sod, pasture
land and even food crops every year in the United States. As cities sprawl and people move into
rural areas they discover the practice. And many don’t like it.


“We were like what is that smell? This is sick. It makes you want to vomit. Your eyes start
burning and you want to get away from it as quick as you can.”


Molly Bowen is one of a group of homeowners suing the haulers who dump and landowners who
use sewage sludge near their neighborhood. People around the country have blamed the sludge
for causing illnesses and even deaths. They say their wells are contaminated with sludge. They
say they breathe sludge dust blowing from recently treated fields. Bowen and her neighbors
blame the sludge for a lot of health problems.


“Laryngitis, stomach, upper respiratory, not being able to breath well.”


For a while these people thought no one was listening. But cases are coming in from all over and
the Environmental Protection Agency is starting to pay attention. In 2002, the EPA asked the
National Academy of Sciences to study the public health aspects of sludge. Thomas Burke is a
professor and epidemiologist with Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
He chaired the study.


“This is poop we’re talking about here. It has the potential to cause serious illness if they’re not treated
appropriately and if there is not appropriate protection of the population.”


Burke and others studied to see if the EPA methods used to determine the limits for chemicals,
viruses and bacteria in sewage sludge were strong enough. Burke says the methods are not strong
enough to use the sludge safely.


“We need to understand better the potential health effects. We need a new national survey to
understand the microbes and the potential pathogens that might be present. And also we need to
better characterize the chemicals that might be present in sludge. The current rules are based upon
work that was done back in the ’80’s.”


The EPA is looking at those concerns. It says it will try to determine if there are contaminants in
the sludge that could cause health problems.


Prior to the National Academies of Sciences report, government regulators, including the EPA,
sewer plant managers, and sludge haulers, insisted sludge was safe when applied according to
the rules.


Houston-based Synagro manages sludge biosolids for municipalities in 35 states. Vice President
for government relations, Bob O’dette says there’s been plenty of studies already.


“If I thought for a moment that this caused anybody any health problems, I wouldn’t be in the
industry. I formed my opinion on biosolids before I came into the private sector.”


Problems have been pointed out. But the Federal Office of Inspector General reported in 2002
that the EPA offers virtually no federal oversight over sludge disposal and the agency is not
protecting the public. Those in the agency that tried to point out the problems were pressured or
fired.


Dr. David Lewis says he warned his bosses that using sludge might cause health problems. He
worked as a research microbiologist at the EPA’s national exposure research laboratory in
Georgia. He was fired last May. He alleges in whistleblower lawsuits that the EPA – which not
only regulates, but also promotes recycling sludge biosolids as fertilizer – wanted his sludge
research stopped.


“I can assure you that many of the issues raised by private citizens are issues that are raised and
that many scientists at EPA share those concerns and have from the beginning because of the
concerns over pathogens, metals and other contaminants in sludge and that concerns the risk that
might be present for public health and the environment.”


Lewis says although many viruses and bacteria die in the field, especially when exposed to
sunlight, the biggest risk of infection comes from what grows in the sludge after it’s put down.
Bacterial pathogens grow when the organic matter decomposes. He says it’s just like meat that’s
cooked and then left out on the counter. Some nasty stuff can start growing.


But now the EPA indicates it is ready to make changes. It plans to spend nearly six-million
dollars over the next three years following some of the advice of the National Academy of
Science study. Geff Grubbs is the EPA’s director of science and technology.


“We’re looking at what are the possible impacts and risks to people who live near and would
otherwise be exposed to pollutants that are emitted into the air from biosolids as they’re applied
to land. We’ll be conducting an analysis of samples of biosolids from various points across the
country to help determine the concentrations of additional pollutants that could impact health.”


The EPA says it will first look at health studies of people who claim to have become sick from
exposure to sludge. And it hopes to work with the Centers for Disease Control and state health
departments to arrange for them to track and investigate alleged cases of sludge sickness.


Environmentalists and others say they hope this is a more science-based look at the issue, but
they remain skeptical.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Amy Tardif.

Related Links

City Battles Sprawl With Greenbelt

Environmentalists scored a huge victory at the polls earlier this month, when a Midwestern city and its surrounding townships agreed to a tax to preserve a belt of green space. The plan marks one of the first locally funded efforts in the Midwest to fight sprawl. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert takes a look at whether this plan will fulfill its promise to curb unplanned growth:

Transcript

Environmentalists scored a huge victory at the polls earlier this month, when a Midwestern city and its
surrounding townships agreed to a tax to preserve a belt of green space. The plan marks one of the first
locally funded efforts in the Midwest to fight sprawl. Sprawl often occurs when developers pave over
farmland and other natural resources to create strip malls and subdivisions. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Julie Halpert takes a look at whether this plan will fulfill its promise to curb urban sprawl:


Voters in Ann Arbor, Michigan gave the nod to a 30 year tax to preserve roughly 8,000 acres of land. It’s
one of the first measures in the Great Lakes states to set up a major regional funding plan for curbing
growth. Sprawl is prominent in the area and Ann Arbor and its surrounding townships will share the
preservation costs. The proposal will allow the city to purchase easements on land. That will prohibit the
land’s future development and preserve it.


Elizabeth Humphrey is the director of the Growth Management Leadership Alliance in Washington, D.C.
She says citizens are fed up with seeing houses overtake park lands. So anti-sprawl initiatives, like Ann
Arbor’s, are gaining popularity among all political parties.


“I think the loss of open space is the one thing that we all see as the big threat of sprawl. It’s tangible.
You can see it in the field you used to play in when you grew up. It disappears and that’s visceral. And I
think that appeals to everybody who’s really concerned about how we’re growing.”


Humphrey says that Ann Arbor’s program is a good approach, since it focuses on regional development.
And while scenic areas like Boulder, Colorado and Portland, Oregon have greenbelts in place, the
Midwest generally hasn’t followed. But that could all change now, according to Mike Garfield. He’s
director of The Ecology Center, which spearheaded the plan.


“I think that what we did Tuesday in Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor township could lead to a wave of new
conservation easement programs and farmland programs around Michigan and throughout the Great
Lakes Region.”

Garfield says his group’s win showed it was possible to successfully trounce a formidable opponent: the
homebuilders. Homebuilders feared the plan would limit housing choices. They spent a quarter of a
million dollars to fight it. Garfield’s hopeful that this victory will help preserve Ann Arbor’s high quality
of life and its vital downtown. In a mere ten minutes, he’s able to walk to work without fighting traffic.
And he thinks the ‘yes’ vote indicated that Ann Arbor residents value that kind of living. But Garfield
realizes not everyone in Ann Arbor agrees with him.


“And of course there were some people in town who are not developers and home builders who opposed
it because it was a tax or because they believed some of the arguments or they didn’t trust city hall or
something like that.”


Niki Wardner is one of those people. She lives in a ranch on an acre of land overlooking a public golf
course in Ann Arbor’s wooded residential section. A handful of vote no signs are perched against her
door. Wardner lobbied heavily with other citizens against the Ann Arbor plan. She thinks 30 years is
way too long for a tax.


“They’re going to bond this issue, this proposal, i.e., take a mortgage out. We can never change it.
There’s no accountability. How do we know 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, what’s going on with
it?”


Wardner’s concerned that this plan was rushed to the ballot without details on how it would work and
what kind of land will be purchased. She thinks something needs to be done about sprawl. But she’s not
sure this is the solution. And she also thinks residents won’t agree to the increased development that will
likely occur downtown and where she lives.”


“Personally, you know, I bought my piece of property because I live on a park and you know, we all like
trees and green space and I don’t think anyone wants townhouses or condos or a five story building in
their backyard.”


And building more homes downtown is a central part of the plan. Doug Kelbaugh is Dean of The
University of Michigan’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning. He says that to avoid sprawling
out, more people need to live in the city’s center.


“There aren’t enough people living downtown. It’s the living downtown, the downtown residential
development, that will do the most to decrease sprawl, decrease the number of commute trips, decrease
the length of commute trips, increase the walkability, increase the livability and the urbanity of Ann
Arbor lifestyles.”

Kelbaugh says if that denser development occurs, that means houses will have to be built on smaller lots.
That could curb housing price spikes by adding to housing supply. He said that if carried out responsibly,
Ann Arbor’s plan could be a small, but important first step in attacking sprawl.


“As long as gasoline is so cheap and farmland is so cheap, we will tend to have sprawl in America. This
is a major model that’s prevailed in America for 50 or 60 years, if not a little longer and it’s going to take
a little while to turn it around. But this is a significant beginning.”


Other towns are looking to preserve green space just like Ann Arbor’s doing. They’ll be closely watching
to see if it works.


For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Related Links

Government Expands Farm Preservation Program

For almost 20 years, the federal government has paid farmers to convert some of their land to natural habitat for plants and animals. The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect the creeks and rivers that border farms. This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expanding the program to take on an additional two million acres, including 132,000 acres in Illinois. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

For almost 20 years, the Federal Government has paid farmers to convert some of their land to
natural habitat for plants and animals. The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect
the creeks and rivers that border farms. This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is
expanding the program to take on an additional 2 million acres, including 132,000 acres in
Illinois. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


Ted Gilles farms about a thousand acres along the Spoon River in Central Illinois. But the land
closest to the river doesn’t look much like a farm at all. This land was once planted with rows of
corn and soybeans and contained an area for his cattle to graze. Now it has rolling hills with
trees, and an assortment of prairie grasses.


“This here is probably, it’s not in flower now, but this is what they call the grey-headed
coneflower, which is a yellow one. There’s some blooming up there if you see that yellow one
there.”


Gilles is proud to show off the 300 acres of his land that is in the Conservation Reserve
Program. Before it was converted to a natural prairie, the soil, herbicides, and fertilizer from
Gilles’ farm would flow nearly uninhibited into the Spoon River, down to the Illinois, and
eventually to the Mississippi River. Now this land acts as a buffer and a filter. Gilles says he sets
aside time every day to visit his natural preserve.


“Like yesterday morning, I probably saw twenty pheasants in this half a mile, out along the edges,
catching grasshoppers. It’s really nice. It makes you think it’s really worth for it for doing all
this.”


It’s situations like Gilles’ that led to the U.S. Department of Agriculture adding to the
Conservation Reserve Program this year. Paul Gutierrez is the Assistant Deputy Administrator
for Farm Programs at the USDA. He says the CRP is meeting the goals of finding a voluntary
way to get farmers to protect land that is at risk. Guiterrez says the biggest obstacle to getting
farmers to act in a more environmentally friendly manner is finances. He says that’s why CRP
works.


“They still have their mortgage payments out there. They still have operating costs, property
taxes, and if they can look at a way to look at these lands that may not be as well-suited for
farming, and a way to partner up and save the environment, then they are definitely going to look
to help the environment out while still being able to feed their families.”


Environmental groups are generally supportive of the program, but they caution it might not
always be the right way to help rivers and streams. Ken Midkiff is the Director of the Clean
Water Campaign for the Sierra Club. He says while the Sierra Club supports the CRP, they
would like to see something that lasts longer. Midkiff says the program’s biggest weakness is
that farmers only have to protect the land for ten years.


“There’s nothing that prevents a farmer from resigning. But basically the Conservation Reserve
Program is for a set period of time. These are marginal lands, lands that aren’t very productive
for typical corn and soybeans. So we would like to see those set aside for longer periods of time.”


Midkiff says in terms of protecting bodies of water, ten years is barely enough time to undo the
damage that can happen in just one or two years. He also worries that if crop prices go up,
farmers will be quick to pull up native prairie grasses and replant crops.


(sound of nature)


Ted Gilles says low crop prices did get him into the program, and may be why he stays. He is
also a fan of seeing more acres brought into the CRP.


“I think that’s great. I really think that’s the way it should be. I think we have an abundance of
grain and the prices is low. So why not helping everybody by doing it this way, you know?”


Gilles also says he has come to love this portion of his farm, and crop prices would have to be
very high for him to give up on his flowers and pheasants.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Related Links

GOVERNMENT EXPANDS FARM PRESERVATION PROGRAM (Short Version)

The federal government is expanding a program to take farmland out of production and temporarily convert it to conservation areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The Federal Government is expanding a program to take farmland out of production and
temporarily convert it to conservation areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl
reports:


The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect rivers and streams by paying farmers to
create buffers between farm fields and the bodies of water. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
is adding two million acres to the project this year.

Fred Guttierez is with the USDA. He says the program works because it’s voluntary.


“We look at it as a way to partner up with the private land owners to take those marginal lands
out of production and to really benefit the environment by doing that.”


Environmental groups are generally supportive of the program, but say it doesn’t go far enough.
Farmers can convert conservation areas back to farming after ten years in the program.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Related Links

Small Forest Patches Breed Disease

Chopping down trees for subdivisions and farm fields isn’t just bad for forests. It can also hurt people. According to new research, small patches of woodlands breed more ticks with Lyme disease. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

Chopping down trees for subdivisions and farm fields isn’t just bad for
forests. It can also hurt people. According to new research, small
patches of woodlands breed more ticks with Lyme disease. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:


Felicia Keesing, a biology professor at Bard College, wanted to know
where people ran the greatest risk of getting Lyme disease, an illness
spread by ticks. She knew Lyme disease-bearing ticks are carried mostly
by the white footed mouse. And she knew that kind of mouse thrives in
small chunks of forest.


That’s because its predators need larger woods to live and have
moved away. So Keesing compared forest chunks of different sizes for
tick populations. She found a lot more ticks with Lyme disease in small
forests boxed in by houses or farmland.


“On average about seven times as likely to encounter an infected tick in a patch of woods
smaller than five acres.”


Keesing says the results send a clear message to town and village zoning boards
weighing development issues. They should do everything they can to prevent the
fragmentation of forests.


Keesing says her research doesn’t suggest small lots should be cut down altogether. But
new development could be better planned to reduce the risk of Lyme disease.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Council Looks for Land Use Consensus

Governors and legislatures across the nation have been trying to figure out the best way to manage land-use in areas where urban sprawl is gobbling up open space and leaving behind deteriorating city centers. But finding a way to manage land-use is controversial. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on one state’s attempt to tackle the problem:

Transcript

Governors and legislatures across the nation have been trying to figure out the best way to
manage land use in areas where urban sprawl is gobbling up open space and leaving behind
deteriorating city centers. But finding a way to manage land use is controversial. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on one state’s attempt to tackle the problem:


The Governor of Michigan made it clear while she was a candidate that she wanted to tackle the problem of urban sprawl. Shortly after her inauguration, Governor Jennifer Granholm established what she calls a Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. It’s made up of home-builders, developers, farmers, environmentalists and others. The council’s job is to find a consensus on the best ways to make the best use of land in Michigan so that the state doesn’t lose any more farmland and open space than necessary.


Hans Voss was appointed to the council. He’s with the Michigan Land Use Institute, a group
advocating the principles of Smart Growth… getting government to take a more active role in
preserving open space and redeveloping blighted urban areas. He says he expects the council to come up with recommendations that everyone can live with… and still adhere to Smart Growth principles…


“And it’s not a regulatory approach. But, if you put real, substantive
financial incentive on the table by reallocating our existing state dollars,
we will then put together the local coalition to
actually implement the recommendations. It’s all about incentives.”


Voss says local governments too often encourage urban sprawl by putting the
wrong incentives in place for builders and developers. He’s optimistic that the
various interests represented on the
governor’s new council will find common ground and solve some of the problems.


Keith Charters is also a member of the council. He currently serves as chair of
the state’s Natural Resource Commission. He agrees the council will
find consensus and make good recommendations to the Michigan legislature.
But he’s concerned that much of the agreement
will be lost in the legislative process.


“The recommendations are not going to get through the sausage grinder of
the legislature overnight. It’s not a 30-day process and some of the
recommendations may take two or three
years. That’s a lot of time for the special interests to reconsider
some of the consensus they may
have already approved at the council level, to rethink it and come back
with a different attack on it.”


Further complicating the matter is a political consideration. Rick Johnson
is the Speaker of the
Michigan House of Representatives. He says term limits will hurt the chances
of getting more
complicated land use legislation through the process.


“You know, you’re only around for six years in the House. It’s real hard
to – you know, an issue of land use isn’t going to get done in a year, two
years’ time. It’s a more lengthy discussion.”


On top of that, Johnson says legislators have a hard time keeping the best
interests of the state as
a whole in mind when so many local constituents are pressuring legislators to
think local first.


“When you have a bunch of townships, city, county people saying
‘We don’t want that,’ you know. Or ‘What’s good for Detroit, I don’t care.’
Or, what’s good for Marquette, the legislator
from Detroit don’t care.”


Beyond parochial biases, there are philosophical biases. Senator Liz Brater
also sits on the governor’s land use council. She says the political reality
is that the council’s recommendations
won’t carry that much weight with some legislators unless they fit within
their existing philosophy.


“There’s a certain group of legislators that just embrace the whole Smart Growth
principles and would go forward with it. There are others that are concerned that we’re taking away property rights and the rights of homebuilders and developers to have economic benefit from land that they control. So, there’s a whole gamut and what we need is to identify the common ground.”


But… even if the legislators see some common interests within the Michigan Land Use
Leadership Council’s recommendations… many of the public comments indicate there are a lot of people who are skeptical about land use management. It’s even been called un-American. Senator Brater says if more people knew the issue better… there wouldn’t be so much concern and opposition…


“But, I think we have a lot to overcome in terms of this perception
that we’re trying to do some
kind of centralized, top-down state planning, which I don’t think anybody
really is talking about,
but that is a fear out there that we have to address.”


The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council will make its recommendations for managing land
use in just a few weeks… but whether anything like Smart Growth principles
become part of Michigan law or policy will depend on finding some common ground
between the different interests
and overcoming political biases of the state’s people and their elected representatives.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.


EDITOR’S NOTE: Audio for the piece was gathered at a People and Land conference.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium receives funding from People and Land.

COUNCIL LOOKS FOR LAND USE CONSENSUS (Short Version)

States are concerned about the loss of farmland and open space to sprawling cities and suburbs… but it’s hard for legislatures to find practical political solutions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

States are concerned about the loss of farmland and open space to sprawling cities and suburbs…
but it’s hard for legislatures to find practical political solutions. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Land use management is not simple. In some areas it means preserving farmland… in other areas
it means urban renewal… and in others it means building higher density housing instead of big
houses on big lots.


In Michigan, for example, the Speaker of the House, Rick Johnson predicts conflict between
legislators from urban, suburban and rural areas. He says getting legislators up to speed on land
use management and in agreement will be more complicated than many of the other issues
legislators face.


“Land use is going to be extremely harder because the focus is so immense and different
from different areas.”


A council appointed by the Michigan governor is working to send land use
recommendations to the legislature. Meanwhile, even during these poor economic times… rapid
growth at the edges of metropolitan areas on what was once open land continues with little
restraint.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Wider Impact From Pesticide Spray Drift

Spray drift from pesticides might travel farther and last longer than first thought. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Spray drift from pesticides might travel farther and last longer than first thought. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Pesticide drift – the spray, droplets, and dust that’s stirred up during application – has always been
a health concern, but a study by the California Air Resources Board combined with other studies,
found that pesticide drift lasts longer than just the moment of application.


Susan Kegley is a scientist with the Pesticide Action Network North America:


“It turns out that for many pesticides, the greater part of the drift happens in the hours and days
and even weeks after the pesticide is applied and these levels are high enough to be of concern.
And right now, EPA does not look at those types of exposures for most of the pesticides it
evaluates.


Groups wanted stricter rules on pesticide handling are calling for more studies saying that
pesticide drift might be responsible for higher rates of cancer and other health problems in rural
areas surrounded by farmland being sprayed with pesticides.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Dairy Farmers Revive Old Customs

  • A revival of pasture-based agriculture in the Midwest is pleasing cheese maker's palettes. Photo courtesy of Uplands Cheese Company.

If you drive out into our Midwestern countryside these days, expecting pastoral scenes of placid cows grazing leisurely on grassy hillsides, you’ll be at least 50 years too late. Traditional pastoral herding practices, based on the summertime abundance of self-renewing grasses, has mostly disappeared. It’s been replaced by year-round production based on dried feeds grown from intensively worked soils. However, if you were to visit Pleasant Ridge Farm in Dodgeville, Wisconsin or a small number of other farms around the Great Lakes region, you would find a successful and quite modern, revival of pasture-based agriculture. You would also find an incredibly tasty cheese. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ed Janus reports:

Transcript

If you drive out into our Midwestern countryside these days expecting pastoral scenes of placid cows grazing leisurely on grassy hillsides, you’ll be at least 50 years too late. Traditional pastoral herding practices, based on the summertime abundance of self-renewing grasses, have mostly disappeared. It’s been replaced by year-round production based on dried feeds grown from intensively worked soils. However, if you were to visit Pleasant Ridge Farm in Dodgeville, Wisconsin or a small number of other farms around the Great Lakes region, you would find a successful and quite modern, revival of pasture-based agriculture. You would also find an incredibly tasty cheese. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ed Janus reports:


Although they own a dairy farm and milk 200 cows, Mike Gingrich and Dan Patenaude really don’t farm at all like their neighbors. They’re grass farmers and herders. Their cows feed themselves on well-managed, systematically rotated pastures of flavorful summer grass – on farmland that does not know the plow, or soil erosion. So fresh is their grass that their cows convert it into milk that is unusually rich in essential dairy flavors. As Mike explains:


“This rotational grazing was a way that we preferred to run a dairy. It’s easier on the soil, it’s easier on the animals, and easier on the farmer, I think, too. All of our land is pastureland. We graze our cows all summer long. That is unusual. So they’re eating a live plant. Pasture produced milk is sort of like going back in time. You know, a hundred years ago and earlier, all milk was pasture produced.”


As traditional dairy farmers, Mike and Dan’s labors had been both anonymous and poorly compensated. Their milk was combined with that
of hundreds of other farmers and processed into a standardized,
personality-free product. But, on the way to proving that herding could be economically viable, they learned that this method of farming also made a real difference in the richness and flavor of their milk.


“I had always heard from old-time cheese makers that the best milk for making cheese was the June milk when the cows were on that new pasture. And that’s the ideal stage… for both nutrition for the cow and the flavor development of these cheeses coincidentally. That’s why, for instance, dairy products from New Zealand will have a stronger dairy flavor because their national milk supply is grass-based. Whereas in the United States, our national milk supply is stored feeds predominantly, and they’re much milder, they don’t have these dairy flavors.”


Because of their system of rotational grazing that allows them to move the cows from pasture to pasture, their cows are regularly introduced to new and flavorful grass. That means that they have that strong tasting June-like milk from late spring through October. Finding a way to get that milk with its unique qualities directly into the mouths of consumers was the next step for Mike and Dan. They decided that making their own cheese was the answer. So, Mike got his state cheese maker’s license, apprenticed in a small road-side cheese factory and became a farmstead cheese maker.


“A farmstead cheese comes from the milk from a single farm.
It has the potential of having unique and different and interesting flavors that are not available in production cheeses. And that’s because the cheese maker is the same person that milks the animals. Because we use only our milk, and we manage our cows so differently than a
typical farm, we really get a substantially different milk, and then of
course the cheese that we make is only from that milk.”


To make a cheese worthy of their milk, Mike chose a French alpine cheese called Beauford as his model because it too is made from the milk of grass-fed cows that gives it a pronounced but subtle, earthy
flavor and color. Pleasant Ridge Reserve cheese, like its French cousin, is cave-aged and turned by hand at least fifty times. And like its French cousin it has something lacking in mass-produced cheeses. It has “terroir” – the flavor of a particular place and the character of the people who make it.


Apparently there is a place for “terroir” in America. Last year Pleasant Ridge Reserve was awarded the Best in Show by the American Cheese Society. This year Mike and Dan will sell 2,000 ten-pound wheels of their cheese to top-scale restaurants, gourmet cheese retailers and on their Web site, at prices many times what they would get if they just waved goodbye to their milk at their farm gate. And, happily for cheese lovers, Mike and Dan, like a handful of other Great Lakes states farmstead cheese makers have found a way to package some of the splendor from their grass.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Ed Janus.

Cities Tackle Regional Planning Puzzle

In the mid-1960’s, the federal government started requiring metropolitan areas to come up with regional plans in order to get government grants for everything from highways to housing. That forced officials from large cities and from the suburbs to sit down at the same table (in many cases for the first time) and think about what was best for the entire region; not just their own town. From this effort, sprang the regional planning movement, but things aren’t always easy, and certainly don’t always go ‘according to plan.’ The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on one region’s attempt to plan for growth:

There are four major regional planning orgnizations in the Chicago metro area:

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Chicago Area Transportation Study
Chicago Metropolis 2020
Metropolitan Planning Council

Transcript

In the
mid-1960’s, the federal government started requiring metropolitan areas to come up with regional plans in order to get government grants for everything from highways to housing. That forced officials from large cities and from the suburbs to sit down at the same table — in many cases for the first time — and think about what was best for the entire region, not just their own town. From this effort, sprang the regional planning movement. But things aren’t always easy and certainly don’t always go ‘according to plan.’ The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on one region’s attempt to plan for growth:

If you were to gather around the coffee pot in the morning at just about any place of business in just about any suburb of just about any big city, the topic of conversation would probably not be the weather, or last night’s big game, or even politics. Nope. More than likely it would be about how long it took to get to work. Lots of people drive an hour, ninety minutes, or even longer to make the commute. So, why not move closer, you might ask. The answer could very well be “Can’t afford it.”

Housing costs in many suburbs are so high that the people who teach the kids, fight the fires, and fix the cars in the nice suburbs have to live in other less affluent communities where housing is cheaper. That’s because city officials in many suburbs encourage the building of expensive houses on big lots because it means a better tax base. But that also means many workers need to hop in their cars to get to work in those fancy suburbs.

Of course, when thousands of cars line up bumper to bumper to make the commute, you get traffic congestion.

“If you think it’s bad now, just wait. It’s gonna get worse.”

That’s Frank Beale. He’s the Executive Director of a group named Chicago Metropolis 2020. Metropolis 2020 put together a plan that looked at the Chicago area’s growth patterns and came up with some pretty dire forecasts. According to the study, if the Chicago region conducts business as usual, by the year 2030 there will be a 75-percent increase in auto miles traveled for work, shopping, and normal everyday trips. The time it takes to drive to work will be up 27-percent. And only about seven-and-a-half percent of housing units will be within walking distance of mass transit.

Beale says there’s seems to be a disconnect between local governments’ decisions to encourage big, expensive houses and the resulting need for more roads and additional lanes of traffic to handle all the commuters.

“More equitable
distribution of affordable housing and the employment centers would diminish the demand on the transportation systems. We seem to always only talk about roads. But, we only need roads because of how we’ve configured the land in the region.” Beyond the travel concerns, business as usual — according to the Metropolis 2020 study — means another 383 square miles of farmland will become subdivisions and strip malls in less than 30 years.

Organizations such as Metropolis 2020 are working together to try to educate and persuade the Chicago region’s 275 suburban mayors that the decisions they make will have an effect on the whole region.

Larry Christmas was once one of those mayors. He’s also spent his career running or working for regional planning agencies. He says as a mayor, it’s hard to think about the larger region when you are working to bring good growth to your town. It’s especially hard when regional planners want you to give up local control of land-use for the betterment of the larger region.

“And that’s something the communities don’t want to give up lightly even if there’s a regional argument that the collective local decisions may add up to bad regional development patterns.”

So, those looking at the big picture have their work cut out for them. The regional planners spend a lot of time at meetings with local officials, putting together roundtables to explain plans and trying to schedule meetings between antagonists.

One of the partners of Metropolis 2020 is the Metropolitan Planning Council. Executive Director Mary Sue Barrett says sitting down with those different interests and getting them to consider the reasons for bending a little here and there to adhere to a regional plan can pay off.

“To put it in practical terms, if you can get an environmentalist and a homebuilder and a mayor to agree on something, you can probably go get it done. And that’s what we try to do.”

And the regional planners try to get the mayors to listen on topics ranging from fair and equitable housing, to public transportation, and even taxing systems that sometimes encourage bad development with tax breaks.

But given the kind of expansive sprawl that continues to plague the Chicago metropolitan area, there’s still one question you have to ask of people such as Frank Beale with Chicago Metropolis 2020. That is: who’s listening?

“Well, the general assembly, the legislators are listening, the Mayor, the 275 suburban mayors are listening. They don’t always agree, but they’re listening.”

And as long as they keep listening, the people looking for better regional planning will keep trying to persuade the cities in the suburbs there’s a better way.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.