Officials from local governments are lobbying Congress to put more money into wastewater treatment projects this year. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Officials from local governments are lobbying Congress to put more money into wastewater treatment projects this year. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
President Bush’s proposed budget would cut money for keeping up and building new sewage treatment plants. The White House wants to reduce funds for a loan program that provides money for wastewater infrastructure for municipalities and factories and stormwater management.
Gary Becker chairs the Great Lakes — Saint Lawrence Cities Initiative. He says there’s a huge need for full funding of the program.
“As population expands, as cities grow, as municipalities grow you have a constant need to expand the plants. .. in addition to being able to upgrade the ones that were put in 30 years ago when the Clean Water Act was put together.”
Becker says he hopes Congress will reverse what the President has in mind. The Bush Administration has generally said it’s trying to shrink spending on everything – except for the military – as a way to reduce the federal budget deficit.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service catch an Asian carp. This invasive species can grow up to four feet long, and the U.S. House and Senate have agreed to supply funds to try to keep them out of the Great Lakes. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildife Service)
The U.S. House and Senate recently passed a bill that will help keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports, the federal government will contribute nearly two and a half million dollars to help repel the fish:
Transcript
The U.S. House and Senate recently passed a bill that will help keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium Celeste Headlee reports, the federal government will contribute nearly two and a half million dollars to help repel the fish:
Asian carp are huge, often growing to be four feet long and weighing 80 pounds. They are also extremely prolific and voracious. Most Asian carp consume up to 40 percent of their body weight every day. There is currently an electric fish barrier strung across the bottom of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to keep the fish out of the Great Lakes. The barrier creates an underwater field of electricity that repels the carp.
Andy Buchsbaum is the director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Office. He says the current barrier is temporary and due to fail next year.
“Today the Great Lakes really dodged a bullet. Right now, the carp are poised 20 miles away from the failing barrier, which is just downstream from Lake Michigan. And if that barrier fails, then essentially the Great Lakes as we know them are over.”
The U.S. House and Senate passed a bill that will supply 75 percent of the funds for building a new barrier. The Great Lakes governors have agreed to supply the rest of the money. President Bush has said he will sign the bill when it reaches his desk. Buchsbaum says the new barrier can be completed within 60 to 90 days.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.
Lilies like these reside in the Reinstein Nature Preserve. Environmentalists worry about natural life in the preserve as the state of New York considers opening it up without restrictions.
Imagine a suburban, backyard wilderness where 200 year-old trees still stand. That’s exactly what you’ll find at the 300 acre Reinstein Nature Preserve. It meanders right through the heart of a bustling suburb. The preserve has been limited to small groups led by a nature guide. But there’s a new plan to give unrestricted access. Some environmentalists worry that would ruin the preserve. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Joyce Kryszak takes us to the woods – and to the debate:
Transcript
Imagine a suburban, backyard wilderness where 200 year-old trees still stand.
That’s exactly what you’ll find at the 300 acre Reinstein Nature preserve.
It meanders right through the heart of a bustling suburb. The preserve has been limited
to small groups led by a nature guide. But there’s a new plan to give unrestricted access.
Some environmentalists worry that would ruin the preserve. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Joyce Kryszak takes us to the woods – and to the debate:
A Great Blue Heron perches lazily in the distance above an expanse of pink water lilies.
At first Bob Reinstein doesn’t see the bird.
“I should’ve brought my field glasses.”
But then its giant wings spread wide, laboring to clear the water in this serene Monet-like setting.
“The lilies were a gift from two different environmental organizations…”
The man and the majestic heron both seem oblivious to the rush of cars and people just
beyond the edge of the woods. This is the Reinstein Nature Preserve. It’s framed on all sides
by a sprawling suburb of houses and shopping plazas in Western New York. Like his parents before
him, Bob Reinstein says he’s risked his life for nearly sixty years defending this scene; he guards it against trespassers – and sometimes trespassers with guns.
“Their lives were threatened several times, in fact, mine was also. I was unarmed at the time,
but he had pointed his shotgun at me and threatened to shoot. Realizing it was pointing at my face,
I stopped following him.”
But Reinstein never stopped trying to protect the nature preserve his father created half a century ago.
By the time he died in 1984, the elder Reinstein had dug nine ponds, planted thousands of trees,
rare ferns and flowers to compliment the ancient scene. The younger Reinstein says it’s like a
living museum.
“Where else can schoolchildren walk back through history a hundred and fifty years and see
samples of what existed then, that are still here today?”
Reinstein says his father bequeathed the preserve to the state to keep it from being trampled.
He stipulated that it must stay forever wild. People could visit, but only for educational
purposes. And only with a trained nature guide. That could all be changing. A proposal by the
State Department of Environmental Conservation would give the public unrestricted access.
Jane Wiercioch lives in the nearby suburb and loves visiting her backyard wilderness. But today
Weirchioch is handing out petitions here. She hopes to stop the DEC from opening the preserve. She
says it would leave the woods vulnerable.
“I know I came in here the other day for a walk around that lily loop with my great granddaughters
and, of course, they were chasing frogs. So, I’m with them, I’m yelling at them, ‘don’t do anything.’ But can you imagine having people just coming in here and doing what they want?”
State conservation officials say bringing in more people is the whole point. Meaghan Boice-Green
is a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. She says all
other department-run properties are open to the public. Boice-Green says unrestricted access would be good for both the public and for the agency.
“We’re not talking about property that hasn’t touched by the hand of man, and in order for us
to obtain the funding to do the habitat maintenance that’s going to be necessary to maintain
this manmade habitat, we have to provide some public access. We’re not going to be able to
access funds to support a property that the public isn’t allowed to access.”
But the state has never had any trouble finding money to maintain the preserve before.
And Boice-Green couldn’t offer specifics about any extra funding.
Terry Boyle has volunteered as a guide at the preserve for eight years. But he agrees the
preserve should be unrestricted. Boyle says visitors can’t have a truly natural experience
if someone’s watching their every move.
“A lot of those people who do want to come in, they want to take photographs, they want to sit
down and reflect for a little bit about what they’re looking at, and that kind of stuff. So,
they can’t go at their own leisurely pace with tour guides, because we have to push them through a little bit
faster.”
But the head of a local environmental group sees it differently. Larry Watson says if the
preserve is opened, there won’t be anything left to look at anyway. He believes the state is
just tired of policing the woods. But Watson says it was Dr. Reinstein’s wish that the
preserve be kept wild. And he should know. As a young boy sixty years ago, Watson spent many
long hours in the woods, helping Reinstein plant the saplings that now tower overhead.
“If they turn this into what they want to, it will be nothing more than a state park.
And we’d rather see it kept as an individual showpiece and a place New York state can be quite
proud of and show the rest of the country what can be done in the way of environmental
conservation.”
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation says it hasn’t made a final
decision. It will consider the wishes of those who want access to the preserve to remain
restricted. But many people are also demanding it be opened. Ultimately, the state says
it will likely let people come to the preserve whenever they want – and trust them
to be good caretakers.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Joyce Kryszak.
The Bush Administration has been under a lot of pressure from environmentalists, hunting groups, and state agencies to do something about wetlands protection. On Earth Day, President Bush responded by announcing a new initiative that he says will take wetlands protection to a higher level. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush takes a closer look at the President’s latest proposal:
Transcript
The Bush Administration has been under a lot of pressure from
environmentalists, hunting groups, and state agencies to do something about
wetlands protection. On Earth Day, President Bush responded by announcing a
new initiative that he says will take wetlands protection to a higher level.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush takes a closer look at the
President’s latest proposal:
In the last thirty years, urban sprawl and farming have destroyed millions of
acres of wetlands. Because of that, the past two Presidents called for a
policy of “no net loss of wetlands.” The current Bush administration says it also
supports that goal. And says it wants to go a step further.
On Earth Day, the President unveiled his latest plan to protect and restore
wetlands.
“The old policy of wetlands was to limit the loss of wetlands. Today, I’m going to
announce a new policy and a new goal for our country: instead of just
limiting our losses, we will expand the wetlands of America.”
(Applause – fade under)
The Bush administration says its policy will restore, improve, and protect a
total of three million acres of wetlands in the next five years. In his speech, the
President gave a general outline of the plan, saying he’s going to increase support for a
number of programs already in place.
Ben Grumbles is an Assistant Administrator at the Environmental Protection
Agency. He heads up the water and wetlands programs for the EPA. He says
the President has called on many agencies to implement the new plan:
“The heart of the President’s new goal and commitment is to use
collaborative conservation-based programs to gain three million acres of
wetlands and to do so through USDA, Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, conservation programs and
partnerships with the private sector.”
While environmentalists approve parts of President Bush’s new plan, many of
them say it’s the wrong first step to take. Julie Sibbing is a wetlands
policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation.
“Although it’s a great thing that they’re going to get a million acres of
wetlands restored, and a million acres enhanced, and a million acres
protected, it’s only a drop in the bucket compared to what’s currently at
risk due to their policies on protecting wetlands under the Clean Water
Act.”
And that’s the main criticism – environmentalists and some hunters say the
Administration is not doing its job in enforcing current federal laws. Laws that protect
rivers, lakes, and wetlands – and worse – they say the administration has
actively weakened laws that protect millions of acres of smaller, isolated
wetlands. These critics see this latest announcement by the Bush Administration
as an attempt to shore up its dismal record on the environment in general…
and on wetlands in particular.
The National Wildlife Federation’s Julie Sibbing says the Administration
would make better use of taxpayers’ money by reviewing some of its policies
and protecting wetlands that already exist:
“It’s just too hard to build new wetlands for us to ignore protecting what’s
there right now. We love the programs that restore former wetlands, but the
most important thing is to try to protect those wetlands that we still
have.”
Officials in the Bush Administration say they are serious about enforcing
the law. And they say they are protecting wetlands. They say they’re just
taking a different approach.
In his speech, President Bush said good conservation will
happen when people don’t just rely on the government to be the solution to
the problem, saying more people should look to private sector land trusts
and voluntary efforts by landowners to get the job done.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
The amount of money invested in so-called socially responsible mutual funds continues to grow. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports, they’re still a small part of the big picture:
Transcript
The amount of money invested in so-called socially responsible mutual funds continues to grow.
But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports, they’re still a small part of the
big picture:
A report from the trade group the Social Investment Forum says holdings in socially responsible
mutual funds grew by eleven percent over the last couple of years. The amount now stands at
151 billion dollars. Todd Larsen is a spokesperson for the Forum. He says the industry has
grown dramatically since the group first added up the investments eight years ago.
“In our first report, we found there were 12 billion dollars in assets in socially responsible mutual
funds.”
Larsen says socially responsible funds have a variety of approaches. Some screen out entire
sectors of the economy.
“For example, perhaps, the oil industry might be screened out. In other funds, they’re doing a
best of class approach. So they’ll look at each industry and see which companies are the best within
that particular industry, and they’ll hold those companies.”
Even with the growth, socially responsible mutual funds are still only a tiny percentage of the
trillions of dollars invested in all funds.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.
Most of the Great Lakes states are taking advantage of a federal program to get money to help make creeks, rivers, and lakes cleaner. But one state has not found a way to get the federal dollars. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Most of the Great Lakes states are taking advantage of a federal program to get money to help
make creeks, rivers, and lakes cleaner. But one state has not found a way to get the federal
dollars. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is making
hundreds of millions of federal dollars available to states if they come up with matching funds of
about 20-percent. The money would go to private landowners to take measures to reduce soil
erosion and pesticide and fertilizer runoff. Seven of the eight Great Lakes states have signed
agreements with the federal government, each earmarking tens of millions of dollars to leverage
much more from the federal government. The state of Indiana has a proposal before the USDA,
but instead of tens of millions of dollars set aside as the other states have done, according to a
report in the Star Press newspaper, Indiana so far only has set aside 120-thousand dollars.
Conservationists in that state are calling on the legislature to tax bottled water and bagged ice as a
way to come up with the matching funds to leverage the federal money.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The government is expecting shortages of natural gas in the next year. A combination of factors has caused reduced inventories of natural gas. Environmentalists say the Bush administration is trying to take advantage of the situation by calling for more drilling on public lands. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The government is expecting shortages of natural gas in the next year. A combination of
factors has caused reduced inventories of natural gas. Environmentalists say the Bush
administration is trying to take advantage of the situation by calling for more drilling on
public lands. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
In a letter to U.S. Senators, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham indicated natural gas
must be conserved this summer by switching to coal or other fuel sources. Abraham also
suggested to boost supplies, the government should allow more drilling for natural gas on
federal lands. Some environmentalists see this as opportunistic. Patricio Silva is an
attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“We think that it’s reprehensible that the White House and some of their industry
supporters are using this opportunity to help subsidize the industry by giving away
billions of taxpayer dollars so that companies can drill and develop more of our protected
public lands.”
The shortage of natural gas is due to reduced storage capacity, hurricanes in the Gulf of
Mexico which stopped natural gas production, and low prices which curtailed
exploration. Inventories are down by 29-percent and prices are rising quickly.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
For many cities in the Midwest, one of the greatest challenges is how to re-develop old, abandoned industrial land. Known as ‘brownfields’ – these areas often host signs of days gone by – shells of old factories; rusting railroad tracks; or grain elevators that are falling apart. They are also often contaminated. And now a bill that was recently signed into law by President Bush will give more money to cities to clean up their brownfields. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
For many cities in the Midwest, one of the greatest challenges is how to re-develop old, abandoned industrial land. Known as ‘brownfields’- these areas often host signs of days gone by – shells of old factories, rusting railroad tracks, or grain elevators that are falling apart. They are also often contaminated. And now a bill that was recently signed into law by President Bush will give more money to cities to clean up their brownfields. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has details:
The law will double the amount of funding available for fiscal year 2003. The money will help cover the costs of assessing and cleaning up brownfields. Officials are pleased with the increased funding, but they say environmental clean up is just one hurdle in re-selling, and ultimately re-using, the land. Donna Duscharme is the co-director of the Delta Institute in Chicago:
“Well, it takes an enormous amount of work and knowledge to get through a lot of the barriers that are facing the re-development of these sites. The EPA really focuses very heavily on the environmental barriers, but there are also often other barriers.”
Duscharme says these barriers include things like demolition of old buildings, debris removal, legal work to clear the land of outstanding liens, and the legwork necessary to find potential buyers for the land. These costs often can’t be re-couped in the sale of the property. So other sources of funding need to be found before the land can be re-used. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
Father Charles Morris installed a solar-wind hybrid system to make his parish less dependent on fossil fuels for energy. Other congregations across the country are taking similar steps to be more energy efficient. Photo by Arthur Cooper.
Even before September 11th, energy policy was being fiercely debated in the U.S. Now, such a policy has taken on even greater importance, and President Bush is again promoting what many environmentalists view as an outdated energy plan. They say his focus on renewable energy is insufficient. And protest against the plan is gathering speed. But some may be surprised at who’s helping to lead the way. Many religious leaders are voicing concern about America’s dependence on fossil fuels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has the story:
Transcript
Even before September 11th, energy policy was being fiercely debated in the U.S. Now, such a policy has taken on even greater importance, and President Bush is again promoting what many environmentalists view as an outdated energy plan. They say his focus on renewable energy is insufficient. And protest against the plan is gathering speed. But some may be surprised at who’s helping to lead the way. Many religious leaders are voicing concern about America’s dependence on fossil fuels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has the story:
(natural sound of birds, street sounds, wind)
Twenty minutes before Father Charles Morris will listen to confessions, he’s up on the rectory roof… inspecting his new solar panels and windmill. He’s perched three stories above the ground, so he has a clear view of his neighborhood here in Wyandotte, Michigan. It’s a sunny afternoon. But for as far as he can see, his roof is the only one that’s turning the sunlight into electricity. And he wants to change that.
“Even in a working class, industrial area such as Wyandotte, an inner ring suburb, if it can work here, it can work anywhere. If you would have homes all across the Detroit area, across Michigan, across other communities, that were to adopt this model, I think it would have a profound impact on the stress we’re placing on nonrenewable resources.”
Father Morris’ parish, St. Elizabeth Roman Catholic, is among the first congregations in the U-S to draw energy from the sun and wind. But he’s not alone in his mission to expand the use of clean energy throughout America.
Across the country, religious leaders are writing to Congress, rallying at SUV dealerships, and making their houses of worship more energy efficient.
St. Elizabeth is a winner of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star award. Four other congregations also won this year’s award, including a Sikh temple in Illinois, and a Lutheran church in Iowa.
This past June, Father Morris was up on his roof, standing above a gathering of 70 people. For those watching, the day held some miracles.
“During the blessing of the solar panels, it was a bright sunny day, no wind, and no wind all morning. But the moment that the prayer had finished for the blessing of the solar panels, and they were switching over to the blessing for the wind generator, and I walked over with the holy water to bless it, this gust of wind comes out of nowhere, and it starts to spin, just as it’s beginning to spin right now (windmill whirs).” “It was incredible, and people were going, ‘ooh, ahh.'”
While using alternative energy sources has immediate benefits at home, leaders such as Father Morris hope that enough people will save energy locally to have a broader impact.
Not only on energy policy but also on energy practices around the globe.
There are 18 Interfaith Global Warming Campaigns in the U.S. Kim Winchell directs the one in Michigan. Her group is concerned that America is ignoring global warming. Electricity generated from fossil fuel releases emissions that add to global warming. So Winchell’s group wants Americans to use less fossil fuel. Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders have joined the effort, which Winchell says fits their beliefs.
“All faiths – Christian, Muslim, Jewish – teach that life is sacred, and the created world is given into our keeping by God.”
But should all congregations run on alternative energy?
Critics say that solar and wind energy are not practical for poor or working-class neighborhoods such as the one served by St. Elizabeth because such systems cost thousands of dollars to install. But Father Morris believes in the long-term, the investment is worth it.
“Every dollar you save on energy is a dollar you can feed a hungry person, a dollar you can pay an employee a just wage, a dollar you can do outreach.”
To pay for his hybrid system, Father Morris took a risk – and drew from the parish savings. It may take 12-15 years to see a return on his investment. So he says some churches may hesitate to follow his example.
U-S Representative David Bonior attended the blessing at St. Elizabeth. He thinks the federal government should invest in renewable energy.
“We ought to provide some incentive, not only for churches, but for anybody who institutes energy wise devices. The government has a central role to play in moving us to a more efficient, technologically safer and cleaner environment.”
Some states are already offering incentive programs and grants. But the amount varies, because state energy conservation usually depends on federal funding.
Father Morris just got a grant from the state of Michigan. He used it to put in a solar thermal system to heat water. He’s also inviting schools and churches to tour St. Elizabeth.
“This is the living room; we’ve got the TV on at the moment…” (sounds of football game)
Father Morris lives in the rectory, and his entire first floor runs on solar and wind power. That includes his living room, bedroom, four offices, two computers…and a radio.
“Here’s one of those old fashioned radio/stereos. We’ll have to put the radio on and see what’s on.”
(sound of pop music)
“I don’t know what that stuff is.”
(sound of rapid change between stations)
“You see, this is being powered by solar right now and so the quality of life is the same, there’s no change.”
President Bush’s new energy plan is now being considered by Congress. But whatever the government does, Father Morris says the role for people of faith is clear: to be witnesses for the nation, one windmill at a time.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
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.
