Tag: debate

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.

Northern Neighbor Curbs Pesticide Use

While the U.S. continues to struggle over the use of pesticides, its neighbor to the north has recently taken some major steps toward restricting its use. Earlier this year Canada’s largest grocery chain announced that its 440 garden centers would be pesticide-free by 2003. In the wake of this announcement the Canadian government introduced amendments to its 33 year-old pesticide control act. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that while this is welcome news… “what took so long?”:

Transcript

While the U.S. continues to struggle over the use of pesticides, its neighbor to the north has recently taken some major steps toward restricting its use. Earlier this year, Canada’s largest grocery chain announced that its 440 garden centers would be pesticide-free by 2003. In the wake of this announcement, the Canadian government introduced amendments to its 33 year-old pesticide control act. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that while this is welcome news, “What took so long?”

Contrary to popular belief, there are at least three things that you can’t avoid – death, taxes and pesticides. Pesticides are everywhere – in our food, in our water and in the air that we breathe.

Ever since the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, 40 years ago, many environmentalists have expressed their concern that anything that can kill other living organisms must also have an effect on human health. They have patiently gathered evidence while encouraging the scientific community to do the same. But despite our growing awareness of the dangers of pesticides, progress toward restricting their use has been painstakingly slow.

And then came Hudson. A decade ago this small Quebec town passed a local by-law to restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides. Cosmetic use generally means using them to improve the appearance of lawns and gardens. Two lawn care companies immediately took the town to court. The ensuing legal battle dragged on for ten years. But the town’s remarkable tenacity paid off. Last year the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld Hudson’s right to legislate the use of pesticides and encouraged other municipalities to do the same.

The Supreme Court decision literally opened a floodgate of activity. Hundreds of municipalities that had been waiting for the Hudson ruling are now proceeding with their own pesticide legislation.

Even the traditionally conservative Canadian Cancer Society – known for its “cancer can be beaten” philosophy is calling for a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides known to cause cancer. Apparently, cancer not only can be beaten – it can be prevented.

Then in March a modern day corporate miracle happened. The Loblaw’s grocery chain announced that it would be pesticide free in all of its 440 garden centers by next year. What was so amazing about the giant retailer’s announcement is that a cancer victim inspired it. After being diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997, a young Canadian doctor went on a one-woman campaign to ban pesticide use. Dr. Bruinsma’s story caught the attention of a Loblaw’s company official and the rest is corporate history.

It was only after all of this, that the Canadian government finally introduced a long promised update of its 33 year-old pesticide act. While the bill isn’t perfect, it is a step in the right direction – the direction that environmentalists have been pointing to for decades.

The Canadian Cancer Society, Loblaws, even the Canadian government are making some dramatic shifts in direction thanks to the extraordinary efforts of ordinary citizens – many of them cancer patients, like Dr. Bruinsma. While struggling with their own disease they have gathered evidence about the harmful effects of pesticides in the hopes of preventing others from suffering the same fate.

Sadly, Dr. Bruinsma didn’t live to see the change in Loblaw’s corporate policy. She died of breast cancer just a few short weeks before the announcement was made. Ironically, Rachel Carson, the great-grandmother of the anti-pesticide movement also lost her life to breast cancer a few years after Silent Spring was published in 1962. What we can learn from their deaths – and their remarkable lives – is that change, as always, starts with the power of one.

Casting Votes for Official Fish

Illinois has the bluegill. Minnesota has the walleye. But Ohio lawmakers have argued for years over Ohio’s official fish. It’s a toss up between the smallmouth bass and the walleye, and the debate doesn’t seem to be ending any time soon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston has more:

Transcript

Illinois has the bluegill. Minnesota has the walleye. But Ohio lawmakers have argued for years over Ohio’s official fish. It’s a toss up between the smallmouth bass and the walleye, and the debate doesn’t seem to be ending any time soon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston has more:

Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder says it’s tough to say which fish is more important to Ohio. But an Ohio House committee recently voted 15-4 to make the smallmouth bass the reigning fish. Householder says, though, the decision will not be heard by the full House anytime soon.

It’s a touchy subject because the smallmouth bass is found in all of Ohio’s 88 counties. Yet the walleye brings in millions of tourist dollars into areas along Lake Erie. Tim McCann owns the charter fishing boat service Fisherman’s Wharf in Port Clinton. McCann says walleye fishing lures tourists into town each spring and fall. He says the walleye is so important to the economy that there is an annual walleye festival on New Year’s Eve:

“Just like in Times Square we drop a walleye from a crane. It is a 50-foot walleye made out of paper mache. And it’s very, very big, you know, for our economy and everything else here in Port Clinton.”

But McCann says he recognizes the importance of the smallmouth bass throughout the state. The fish is plentiful in southeastern Ohio. That’s where Ohio House speaker Larry Householder grew up. But Householder’s spokeswoman Jenn Detweiler says her boss doesn’t have a preference.

“The Speaker himself has, has avidly pursued both the walleye and the smallmouth bass … (laughs) so, making a decision about which one is more appropriate could be a tricky one.”

Over the years, Ohio schoolchildren and fisherman have cast their votes for their favorite fish. But lawmakers have the final choice, and, right now … they say they have bigger fish to fry. It is an election year, and lawmakers worry a vote for the wrong fish could cost votes at the polls.

So, some say perhaps the state should leave the decision to others. For instance, school children in Illinois picked the bluegill more than 30 years ago because they liked the way it looked, and the politicians didn’t lose any votes over the decision.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Natalie Walston

Voters Love the Lakes

The Michigan Legislature voted recently to ban new oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. Until the ban was enacted, Michigan had been the only state considering to allow such drilling. As the nation heads into a new round of federal, state, and local elections, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis says that the region’s drilling debate provides some invaluable lessons for candidates:

Transcript

The Michigan legislature voted recently to ban new oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. Until now, it had been the major holdout on such a ban. As the nation heads into a new round of federal, state, and local elections, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis says that the region’s drilling debate provides some invaluable lessons for candidates.

The first lesson to our future leaders is to beware of one element of news “spin”- that if you repeat something long enough it will become true. In pressing their case, oil and gas interests said that drilling would not result in oil bubbling up to pollute Great Lakes water. As a result, they repeated, drilling was quote -“safe.” They failed to listen, however, to citizens troubled by something different: oil and toxic hydrogen sulfide leaks on land that could put human health and fragile coasts at risk. Given the small amount of oil and gas below the lakes, citizens said drilling wasn’t worth it. So, we get to lesson number one: Our future leaders should define public safety and environmental health broadly, not so narrowly that they gloss over legitimate concerns.

Lesson number 2: the debate was as much about the need for states to be credible leaders in natural resource protection as it was about drilling itself. The Lake Michigan Federation looked at 30 active wells in Michigan and found that eight of them had in fact contaminated water supplies. According to the same research, state oversight continues to fail in the clean up of any of those sites. In the drilling debate, citizens believed that without responsive agency action, the only way to prevent similar damage from shoreline drilling was to prohibit the practice in the first place. Congress responded to citizens’ concerns over the summer by suspending new drilling for two years. Candidates can take away from this that if states don’t want Congress stepping on their toes, they need to do a credible job themselves of protecting the Great Lakes.

Last, pro-drilling interests argued during the debate that other serious challenges besides drilling deserved more attention. While concerned citizens believed that a drilling ban was the best way to prevent new shoreline damage, advocates also agree that a number of other important threats need to be addressed. The third moral of the story is that people’s interest in protecting the Great Lakes environment from drilling is the beginning, not the end.

It’s time to move onto other pressing threats such as harmful water diversions in an increasingly thirsty world. We need to prevent future invasions of foreign pest species like the zebra mussel that throw the multi-billion dollar Great Lakes fishery out of whack. With women of childbearing age and other sensitive populations unable to eat certain fish because of contamination, it’s time to eliminate cancer-causing and other pollution once and for all. And, it’s time to restore fish and wildlife habitat, including the region’s precious wetlands, forests, and sand dunes.

Voters love the Great Lakes. Because of that, whoever commits first in upcoming elections to protect them, wins.

Walkerton Water Tragedy Revisited

The consequences of the tainted water tragedy in southern Ontario are still being assessed. Seven people died and more than two thousand were made sick nearly two years ago, when the bacteria E. coli was found in drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. An inquiry into the tragedy lasted more than a year, and a preliminary report was released last month. It blamed the two men in charge of the public utilities commission in Walkerton. But it also pointed the finger at cuts made years before by the Ontario government. Environmentalists across the Great Lakes are concerned that unless the lessons of Walkerton are learned on both sides of the border, water supplies will again be placed at risk. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:

Transcript

The consequences of the tainted water tragedy in southern Ontario are still being assessed. Seven people died and more than two thousand were made sick nearly two years ago when the bacteria, E. coli, was found in drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. An inquiry into the tragedy lasted more than a year, and a preliminary report was released last month. It blamed the two men in charge of the public utilities commission in Walkerton. But it also pointed the finger at cuts made years before by the Ontario government. Environmentalists across the Great Lakes are concerned that unless the lessons of Walkerton are learned on both sides of the border, water supplies will again be placed at risk. The Great Lakes Radio Consortiums Dan Karpenchuk reports from Toronto:

Walkerton is a small community of five thousand people about 135 miles northwest of Toronto not far from Lake Huron. There’s some light industry, some tourism… but agriculture is the economic mainstay. The E. coli disaster put the town of Walkerton in the headlines, where it’s remained. Some still feel the effects of the tainted water through an assortment of medical symptoms and complications. Others won’t drink the water; no matter what assurances they’ve been given that it’s safe. Many, like Robert Cooney, remain bitter.

“People in this town are sick of the whole thing. Yes, they got compensation. But for the people that are on dialysis and the people that lost loved ones, we’re looking for something. Something went wrong.”

There was a lot that went wrong, according to the man who headed the inquiry into the tragedy. In January, Justice Dennis O’Connor released his report. He concluded that the brothers who ran the Public Utilities Commission contributed directly to the tragedy, first by failing to properly monitor the drinking water, then by trying to cover up the emerging catastrophe by actively misleading health officials, assuring them the water was safe.

But O’Connor also turned his criticism on the government of Ontario, saying cuts to the MOE, or Ministry of Environment, undermined its ability to deal with the problems in Walkerton.

“The provincial government’s budget reductions led to the discontinuation of government laboratory testing services for municipalities in 1996.”

Now six years later, those services still have not been reinstated.

“In implementing this decision, the government should have enacted a regulation mandating that testing laboratories immediately and directly notify the MOE and the medical officer of health of adverse results. Had the government done this, the boil water advisory would have been issued by May 19 at the latest, thereby preventing hundreds of illnesses.”

The Conservative government in Ontario reacted quickly to the allegations. Premier Mike Harris, who early on during the inquiry, maintained that his government’s policies were not to blame, now did an about face.

“I deeply regret any factors leading to the events of May 2000, that were the responsibility of the government of Ontario either prior to or during my tenure as premier.”

Harris went further in his attempts to limit the political damage. He said many of the recommendations made by Justice O’Connor would be implemented. They included continuous chlorine monitors for wells, increased inspections and better training for operators.

But many critics say they they’re not convinced. They say a week after the 700-page report was released, neither Harris nor any member of his cabinet, had read it.

Far from Walkerton, the political fallout is being felt most in Toronto, seat of the province’s legislature…. and home to many of Ontario’s environmental groups.

The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policies says the problems in Walkerton have called attention to the broader issue of water quality in the region. Researchers say the amount of pollutants discharged into rivers and lakes more than doubled between 1995 and 1999. And over the same period the number of provincial water testing sites was cut by two thirds.

That could have serious implications for the province’s lakes and rivers…. and since those systems feed into the Great Lakes, the entire region is at risk.

Professor Louis Mallott was involved in the study….

“We concluded that Ontario is unable to assess the overall quality of Ontario’s inland waters that flow into the Great Lakes. And this is necessary to determine whether Ontario’s environmental policies are effective.”

Over the past year almost four hundred cases of bad water have turned up in Ontario. E. coli and other bacteria have plagued water systems in towns, trailer parks, schools, private homes and even a nudist colony. And that worries people like Paul Muldoon, the executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Muldoon says Ontario is also sending a clear message south of the border, and it’s not a positive one.

“I am convinced that if I was in the U.S. right now, I could at least legitimately raise the issue, saying lookit Canadians sure we cause stresses in the Great Lakes and there’s lots of issues here. But don’t talk to us until you get your act together and Walkerton is a glowing example, you do not have your act together. And since Walkerton there’s not a lot of evidence you’ve got your act together yet despite that wake up call, despite the depth of that tragedy.”

The Ontario government, however, insists the situation is improving.

But critics aren’t buying it. They say Ontario’s environmental problems have not only jeopardized the province, but could affect the entire Great Lakes region. They say there is a clear message to governments on both sides of the border…. that budget cuts and privatization could lead to more tragedies like Walkerton.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Campaign Finance Reform

The recent collapse of the energy-trading corporation, Enron, has put campaign finance reform back on the congressional agenda. Environmentalists have long decried big business influence in energy policy; and while Enron illustrates the worst kind of backroom decision-making, it isn’t an isolated case. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King suggests that we all take notice…and take up the cause of campaign finance reform:

ZOOS SET STAGE FOR WILDNESS (Part 1)

  • Today's zoo exhibits attempt to immerse visitors in the scene while also enriching the animals' lives. Some zoos are criticized for emphasizing appearances instead of the animals' well-being.

Zoos across the nation are putting their animals in more natural settings instead of cages. For some zoos, it’s done to make the animals’ lives a little more comfortable. But for others, it’s simply done to draw more people rather than to give the animals a better place to live. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the details in the first of a two-part series:

Greening the Republican Party

Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives, but Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America:

Transcript

Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America.


Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental whacko.” I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, food contamination, and oil drilling under the Great Lakes.


Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principle of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.


The funny thing is, when it comes to most social issues, I’m a fairly conservative guy. There are few so-called “liberal” ideas that I support. Yet, I often find myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.


I wonder why that is. Shouldn’t Republicans join the fight? After all, there are few things more “conservative” than trying to conserve our resources for future generations.


I know there are some members of the so-called “political right wing” – whatever that is – who feel as I do. REP-America, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment – and boost our economy at the same time.


But many Republican leaders don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species. What’s that all about?


Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more – not less – needs to be done. While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will bring greater benefits tomorrow, including greater economic performance?


You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard these natural resources – rather than fighting against the liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it. Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity.


Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.


Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”


Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental whacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time for another one – along with several others at all levels of government.


And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservatives.

FARMERS CONCERNED ABOUT NEW FARM BILL (Part 2)

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded. Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ income. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:

Transcript

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded.
Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ incomes. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned
about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:


As the fall harvest winds down, Ken Lougheed has more time to catch up on the farm bill debate. He’s not happy about the possibility of more government imposed conservation programs.


“Farmers have been very good stewards of the land for years. We have to live in the same communities, we have to drink the same water, breathe the same air. We’re probably more aware of what’s going on than a lot of environmental groups are.”


Lougheed farms several hundred acres on the Minnesota North Dakota border near Fargo. He says he’s seen what happens when environmentalists help write farm legislation. He points to a wetland protection program known as “Swampbuster” as an example of well-intentioned but intrusive government. Lougheed says a bureaucrat who’s never set foot on his farm decides where wetlands are located. And with that decision, parts of his land are taken away from farming. Lougheed says that makes him feel helpless, and angry.


“We need to have more common sense in these issues. Because it’s nonsense, there’s no common sense involved in it and we need to have more common sense.”


Lougheed says he’s never actually talked to an environmentalist, but he’d welcome the chance to seek common ground on conservation issues. But if the current farm bill discussion is any indication, that common ground may be difficult to find. Environmental groups want to shift funding from traditional farm commodity programs to conservation. Most farm groups staunchly oppose that idea, arguing new conservation initiatives should have new funding. There’s also disagreement over which conservation programs to fund. The House favors expanding the Conservation Reserve Program that pays farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production. But in the Senate, Ag Committee Chair Tom Harkin of Iowa is pushing the Conservation Security Act. That legislation would pay farmers to incorporate as yet undefined stewardship practices into their farm operation. Farmers fear that would, as one put it, let the environmentalists run the farm. Minnesota Seventh District Congressman, Collin Peterson, sits on the House Ag Committee and knows the middle ground on this issue can be hazardous. He’s been criticized by some of his farm constituents for voting in favor of expanded conservation programs, and painted as anti-environment by some environmental groups.


“You get those two groups on the extremes, in a lot of cases clashing, and the people in the middle are just keeping their heads down.”


Peterson says the fear some farmers have of environmentalists is well founded. He says environmental groups have a variety of political viewpoints, ranging from moderate to extreme; but he believes most have little real understanding of agriculture.


“They sit in their ivory tower and say, well, you guys are getting all that money. We’re paying you all that money, then we’re gonna have our way. The biggest problem is these groups are based in the urban areas. It’s not their fault, they just don’t understand. ”


But Peterson says farm interests must learn to compromise with environmentalists. That’s because farm state lawmakers no longer have the political clout to pass a farm bill without votes from urban members. And those urban members often represent environmental positions. But Peterson says, like abortion and gun control, environmental discussions often can’t get past ideology.


“The problem I have is you’re not even debating what the real issue is. They’re out there on their ideological extremes and they’re raising money and getting people stirred up and we never have the debate about the middle where we could get something done and make things better for people.”


At least some farm organizations say they are willing to compromise.
Minnesota Farm Bureau President Al Christopherson says it’s clear the days of farm groups writing the farm bill are over. They need support from environmental interests to pass legislation. But he says most farmers would be happy just to have Congress decide on conservation priorities and stick to them.


“Farmers have a very difficult time adapting to them if A; they’re not understood, B; they don’t make sense, and C; there’s a whole lot of shouting in the wings about what we ought to be doing.”


Christopherson says the cacophony will only get louder and the confusion greater as a dwindling farm population continues to lose political clout in Washington, and other interests vie for a piece of the agriculture budget.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Gunderson.