Stopping the exodus in the Great Plains

[steel]

It is possible, these days, to become very weary of the average, MIdwestern (and there are parts of the Midwest in strange places, like say the Central Valley of CA) farmer rap about the government (except of course for the farm program) and those who live in "urban" America, and how they don't understand.

But having worked with farmers and ranchers for a very long time, I have to offer some defense of those who are good stewards of the land and who make huge contributions of their time/energy/money to their communities. There are a lot of them.

I am also going to defend some farm programs. A lot of water quality and wildlife habitat protection has been funded by USDA over the years. The price subsidies are a truly troublesome topic, but the notion that simply cutting them off is going to make Rural America a better place is not founded on any facts. We need to make a transition to programs that help sustain the private stewardship of resources. As with all other developed nations that want to maintain a healthy rural landscape, we are going to have accept that such a landscape is, in part, a public good.

I also have to say that while the dynamics of the de-population of the Great Plains and some other agricultural areas are not a mystery (Carl Kraenzel laid it all out in the 1950's in The Great Plains in Transition), that phenomenom does't necessarily lead to the conclusions some folks are drawing about agriculture.

Yes, there is a corporate future. Which will only accelerate resource degradation and the decline in food quality. There is also a scenario in which we keep folks on the land, or perhaps in which we replace the whiners with dentist's kids who want to get back to the land, and in which communities and regions move farther in the direction of reasonable self-sufficiency and sustainability. While it is hard to find the folks who are trying to make this alternative a reality out in the MIdwest and on the Plains, they are there. And there are many many of them tucked away in the nooks and crannies of other rural regions.

It will be very hard, given the resources available and the distances involved, to get truly sustainable agriculture going on the Plains and in the Midwestern Grain Belt. But abandoning whole landscapes to large corporations is not an acceptable alternative.

I do not think you can show that small farmers take better care of the land than large corporations. As a matter of fact it is large corporation which are more likely to use new production techniques which reduce such things as wind erosion. Small farmers are more likely to stay with older methods which cause polution or erosion because they can't afford the new technology or simply do not understand the new technique. I just do not understand what you mean by abandoning the landscape to large corporations means. Most farming in this country is already done at the behest of large corporations and for the most part it is those corporations getting the subsidies.

[boiker]

I'm interested in what the original farm subsidy legislation laid out as justification for the programs....I bet it didn't reference large corporate farms.

On topic with the exodus in the Great Plains. Growth for the sake of Growth? Our community hasn't had new construction in 10 years so we need to create incentives? How about incentives to keep capital costs down for the community by encouraging reinvestment. How about "retention programs" to keep entrepreneurs close to their roots.

The lure of the cities is great. Although I didn't grow up in an Ag based town, I grew up in a small, stagnant Midwestern community. I wanted nothing more than to get out of town and have more career options available. Anyone who stuck around my town either 1) Got a job as a police officer or firefighter, or public works employee 2) Got lucky and got a union job at Owens-Illinois, or 3) Taught history or remedial math at the high school so they could coach football, baseball, or basketball.

btw, from a different thread...aren't all the Hispanics and poor heading towards the plains in search of affordable housing anyway?

[boiker]

I do not think you can show that small farmers take better care of the land than large corporations. As a matter of fact it is large corporation which are more likely to use new production techniques which reduce such things as wind erosion. Small farmers are more likely to stay with older methods which cause polution or erosion because they can't afford the new technology or simply do not understand the new technique. I just do not understand what you mean by abandoning the landscape to large corporations means. Most farming in this country is already done at the behest of large corporations and for the most part it is those corporations getting the subsidies.

Small farmers tend not to use heavily genetically modified materials and tend not to use such heavy quanities of potent pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilizers.

That's been my experience with my grandparents and their 100 acres.

[Lee Nellis]

I guess we'd have to define small farmer. There are a lot of relatively small farmers who are just as much a part of corporate agriculture as any larger farmer. They get seed from the ultimate buyer of the product in many cases. There is still virtue in having individuals own the land rather than the corporation, but it is still corporate agriculture if it is integrated into that system, regardless of the size of the farm unit. But if you want to compare stewardship on places that are not a part of the system v. stewardship on places that are, there is little comparison.

That's not to say that some folks who are integrated into the system aren't good stewards - some are. But they are in a losing game against profit objectives, and will be even more so after the Bush administration eliminates some conservation programs. The best stewardship is on farms and ranches where owner/s set their own objectives and have a relationship with both suppliers and customers. Again, size of the unit isn't important per se, although responsible agriculture tends to be small-scale.

You may be correct in observing that we ALREADY have abandoned Midwestern and, to a little lesser extent, Great Plains landscapes to corporate agriculture. There is, however, an alternative, and a demonstrably better one.

[BKM]

Farm subsidies is a interesting topic. I object, in principal, to restricting it to one group of people as it's unfair to everyone else currently in the industry. The government would basically be punishing the most efficient segment of the farming system and rewarding the less efficient mom and pop operations. And the rational for this would be what exactly: reminisce of a times past?

I don't have a problem with funding being increased or decreased as along as the funds are distributed evenly throughout the industry in a fair manner to both the large corporations and the 'mom and pop' small business.

All well and good, but I might argue, if I'm being difficult , that there are other values we should be promoting in agriculture: diversity in ownership, less reliance on heavily industrialized agricultural techniques, etc. But, I am probably being idealistic here.

[BKM]

It is possible, these days, to become very weary of the average, MIdwestern (and there are parts of the Midwest in strange places, like say the Central Valley of CA) farmer rap about the government (except of course for the farm program) and those who live in "urban" America, and how they don't understand.

But having worked with farmers and ranchers for a very long time, I have to offer some defense of those who are good stewards of the land and who make huge contributions of their time/energy/money to their communities. There are a lot of them.

I am also going to defend some farm programs. A lot of water quality and wildlife habitat protection has been funded by USDA over the years. The price subsidies are a truly troublesome topic, but the notion that simply cutting them off is going to make Rural America a better place is not founded on any facts. We need to make a transition to programs that help sustain the private stewardship of resources. As with all other developed nations that want to maintain a healthy rural landscape, we are going to have accept that such a landscape is, in part, a public good.

I also have to say that while the dynamics of the de-population of the Great Plains and some other agricultural areas are not a mystery (Carl Kraenzel laid it all out in the 1950's in The Great Plains in Transition), that phenomenom does't necessarily lead to the conclusions some folks are drawing about agriculture.

Yes, there is a corporate future. Which will only accelerate resource degradation and the decline in food quality. There is also a scenario in which we keep folks on the land, or perhaps in which we replace the whiners with dentist's kids who want to get back to the land, and in which communities and regions move farther in the direction of reasonable self-sufficiency and sustainability. While it is hard to find the folks who are trying to make this alternative a reality out in the MIdwest and on the Plains, they are there. And there are many many of them tucked away in the nooks and crannies of other rural regions.

It will be very hard, given the resources available and the distances involved, to get truly sustainable agriculture going on the Plains and in the Midwestern Grain Belt. But abandoning whole landscapes to large corporations is not an acceptable alternative.

As always, lee, your posts thoughtfully and eloquently express many things I am thinking.

[NDPlanner26]

Did any of you actually grow up in a rural area?

[giff57]

Small farmers are more likely to stay with older methods which cause polution or erosion because they can't afford the new technology or simply do not understand the new technique.

That is simply not true.

Did any of you actually grow up in a rural area?

Like maybe here:

[Cardinal]

Most economic developers can only think about their profession as promoting growth. It is why a majority of them are little more than sycophants to corporate or political interests, who make very little difference in the world, but take credit for any kind of growth in their community. Why does economic development need to mean growth or its surrogate, job creation? Instead, let's talk about productivity, competitiveness, or innovation in businesses. Let's measure success not by the jobs we create, but by personal disposable income, the match between available resources and the cost of community services, or personal stress levels. We could do more through the auspices of economic development by managing the transition to smaller populations than by wasting our resources on trying to get our college graduates to return to North Dakota to work for minimum wage in the local meat packing plant or manage the local liquor store. Face it, people are leaving for a reason. Concentrate on providing the services needed for the people who remain, rather than trying to attract the creative class by bragging about the live theater production of Oklahoma in the high school gym.

[Bear Up North]

Agree with mgk's description of the dot-on-the map places, with grain elevators, disappearing. Here in NW Ohio, big agricultural conglomerates like The Anderson's have replaced all those small elevators. I lived in a town with a railroad that went to the elevator. Not anymore.

Agree with eg's take on farm subsidies. The programs are out of control and seem to spend the most $$$ giving those $$$ to big corporations.

Slightly-off-topic.....worked a couple summers in the 1960's on a tomato farm. A basket of picked tomatos, handed up to the guy with more seniority on the moving wagon in the lane, weighs 33-pounds. Hard work but fresh 'maters are wonderful.

Bear

[Lee Nellis]

Bravo Cardinal! You are one of the few ED specialists who gets the point that it is NOT about jobs. It is about INCOMES, broadly measured, and thus about the quality of peoples' lives, not where they go to work. I do disagree with you on one point, although indirectly. It is harsh, but it is true, that ED has to find some way to bring back some of those who left if rural communities are going to prosper. I hate saying it, but there has been a brain drain from rural America that makes it very hard to get communities that do not have outstanding attractions back on their feet. Even more than the brain drain, there has been a culture of dependence on corporate employment in food processing, in mines, in mills. This culture is not moving into the post-industrial era very gracefully.

As for growing up rural, I grew up in a small town on the edge of the Flint Hills, and watched, unknowingly, but uncomfortably, the beginning of the end of traditional general agriculture. I fed calves on my uncle's farm and rode from farm to farm with my grandfather, who was a farm mechanic, welder, and smith. Since then I have bucked many bales, including feeding cattle at well below zero. I have also worked as a hunting guide and wilderness ranger in some of the most remote areas in the lower 48. As a planner, I have worked for mining, logging, farming, and ranching communities in several states. I know these dynamics. I have seen enough of corporate agriculture to know that I am not willing to depend on it for my health.

[Cardinal]

Bravo Cardinal! You are one of the few ED specialists who gets the point that it is NOT about jobs. It is about INCOMES, broadly measured, and thus about the quality of peoples' lives, not where they go to work. I do disagree with you on one point, although indirectly. It is harsh, but it is true, that ED has to find some way to bring back some of those who left if rural communities are going to prosper. I hate saying it, but there has been a brain drain from rural America that makes it very hard to get communities that do not have outstanding attractions back on their feet. Even more than the brain drain, there has been a culture of dependence on corporate employment in food processing, in mines, in mills. This culture is not moving into the post-industrial era very gracefully.

As for growing up rural, I grew up in a small town on the edge of the Flint Hills, and watched, unknowingly, but uncomfortably, the beginning of the end of traditional general agriculture. I fed calves on my uncle's farm and rode from farm to farm with my grandfather, who was a farm mechanic, welder, and smith. Since then I have bucked many bales, including feeding cattle at well below zero. I have also worked as a hunting guide and wilderness ranger in some of the most remote areas in the lower 48. As a planner, I have worked for mining, logging, farming, and ranching communities in several states. I know these dynamics. I have seen enough of corporate agriculture to know that I am not willing to depend on it for my health.

I'm not sure we entirely disagree, but I do not see how it will be possible to save every place. Many of these towns do not, and really never did have the population and resources to support themselves. As economic developers, I would argue that the role of the profession should be to use our imagination to come up with new ways of serving the population that remains. There are some great examples of coops used to establish local groceries or to start processing companies to add value to local crops. Some communities are combining schools and other services to increase efficiencies. There may even be an opportunity for agritourism in some of these places. All of these and other ideas can help to keep income in th ecommunity and improve the local quality of life, but most people are going to continue to gravitate to where there are better opportunities.

As far as agriculture goes, I am a firm believer in natural foods. It is a market that is growing rapidly, and as American farmers wake up to the fact that Europe and other countries will not import our GMO's, they will realize the opportunity natural foods provide. Look at what Madison is doing with its farmer's market and the consortium to put locally grown organic and fresh foods in schools, hospitals, restaurants, and on grocery shelves. This is the trend of the future, and farmers can make money in it. Sadly, too many will first have to learn how to farm. Growing hundreds of acres of seed corn with herbicides and pesticides and unnatural fertilizers is not the experience they need to be able to raise organic carrots or tend to bees.

[Chet]

I've said it before and its been a known fact for well over 30 years - The Ogalala aquifer is running dry. Its decreasing in volume by over 1,000,000 acre feet per year. There is no amount of economic development that will stop it, and promoting a return to these places will only make "the end" that much worse when it comes. Nebraska. Doomed. Western Kansas. Doomed next. America's "breadbasket" was once a desert, now we call it "the High Plains" or "the Great Plains" because it sounds less frightening than what it used to be called - the Great American Desert

[gerblunk]

Most economic developers can only think about their profession as promoting growth. It is why a majority of them are little more than sycophants to corporate or political interests, who make very little difference in the world, but take credit for any kind of growth in their community. Why does economic development need to mean growth or its surrogate, job creation? Instead, let's talk about productivity, competitiveness, or innovation in businesses. Let's measure success not by the jobs we create, but by personal disposable income, the match between available resources and the cost of community services, or personal stress levels. We could do more through the auspices of economic development by managing the transition to smaller populations than by wasting our resources on trying to get our college graduates to return to North Dakota to work for minimum wage in the local meat packing plant or manage the local liquor store. Face it, people are leaving for a reason. Concentrate on providing the services needed for the people who remain, rather than trying to attract the creative class by bragging about the live theater production of Oklahoma in the high school gym.

I can picture the bumper sticker: "Re-Elect Smith: Increased Productivity."

Reminds me of an Onion headline a few years back: "Bush Administration Announces the Creation of 500,000 ****ty Jobs."

[BKM]

I've said it before and its been a known fact for well over 30 years - The Ogalala aquifer is running dry. Its decreasing in volume by over 1,000,000 acre feet per year. There is no amount of economic development that will stop it, and promoting a return to these places will only make "the end" that much worse when it comes. Nebraska. Doomed. Western Kansas. Doomed next. America's "breadbasket" was once a desert, now we call it "the High Plains" or "the Great Plains" because it sounds less frightening than what it used to be called - the Great American Desert

Does it make me a racist or fascist to suggest that facts like this mean we should maybe stop dreaming about permanent population and economic gorwth? Maybe barely controlled and illegal immigration is a mistake? (That's probably a whole 'nother thread)

[Lee Nellis]

It IS another thread, but of course there is no such thing as permanent growth. It eventually violates the laws of thermodynamics, and the hope for it can only be based on a willingness to colonize the future, leaving all its inhabitants in a state of poverty.

Cardinal is right, of course, that saving every small community is not a realistic expectation. As he suggests, various types of consolidations and attempts to capture economies of scale are necessary. But ED folks need to be creative in thinking of how they can bring back well-educated, successful folks. Chet is also right about the Ogallala, but the short grass plains were never meant for farming. There can be a small, but successful grass-based economy on the Great Plains. And it will, despite all the detractors and all the static, look a lot like the Buffalo Commons.

[Chet]

Does it make me a racist or fascist to suggest that facts like this mean we should maybe stop dreaming about permanent population and economic gorwth? Maybe barely controlled and illegal immigration is a mistake? (That's probably a whole 'nother thread)

Is it racist or facist if I have no idea what you're talking about in the context of this thread?

[Cardinal]

... There can be a small, but successful grass-based economy on the Great Plains. And it will, despite all the detractors and all the static, look a lot like the Buffalo Commons.

Maybe in Canada, but that's still illegal here.

I really do believe that depopulation, and allowing (or encouraging) the land to return to its natural state may ironically be a good solution to bringing people back to the plains. Nobody wants to farm there. It is hard, depressing work with very little benefit. But I do think there are educated people who can bring good jobs to an area, who would be attracted by the idea of a home on the rolling plains, with buffalo roaming around them and flocks of birds flying above.

[BKM]

Is it racist or facist if I have no idea what you're talking about in the context of this thread?

Maybe I should have used the off topic quote. What I meant is that the Ogallala Aquifer is not the only major environmental threat, and that eternal rapid population growth may not be a good thing-but such a statement is often branded as racist. Sorry for being unclear.

[Northboy]

[QUOTE=Mich_Airport_Planner]I was seeking opinions on the use of incentives to retain or attract people to a certain area. The plains story got me thinking about it. I understand what direction you are coming from since I too have spent many days listening to farmer welfare issues and subsidies blah blah blah. But that was not my reason for the thread. Ah the joys of impersonal communication.[/QU

I'd sure like to engage in this discussion about attracting people to rural areas and what incentive programs make sense...

I'll stay a mile away from the farm stuff though other than to say you'll only be as strong as your weakest link....

[Chet]

Maybe I should have used the off topic quote. What I meant is that the Ogallala Aquifer is not the only major environmental threat, and that eternal rapid population growth may not be a good thing-but such a statement is often branded as racist. Sorry for being unclear.

Branded as racist why? Because Pat Buchanan spews vitriol about immigration? What am I missing in your context?

[BKM]

Branded as racist why? Because Pat Buchanan spews vitriol about immigration? What am I missing in your context?

In California, "immigration" (especially "illegal") is often understood as a code word for MEXICAN immigration. Hence, expressing opposition to eternal population growth can be branded as racist. And, many (not all, many) of the most vitriolic anti-immigration groups have leadership to the right of our buddy Pat.

[psylo]

When I look around Kansas I see that only the really small towns are shrinking and most of them have been bedroom or ag-only communities for years.

Having lived in western Kansas for many years I agree with that assessment. I've spent a great deal of time around these smaller communities, and the people there that are staying have deep roots. But the odd thing I've began to notice is that there are a sizeable amount of people moving from urban areas (Wichita and Kansas City) to the rural to raise families. However, the key is that the reason for is the move is the schools. If the town still has a school, it's doing well; if not, then it's experiencing a population loss. I came across this thread I was a bit intrigued because right now I'm working on a paper on this topic, and having not been outside the area much lately I was interested if this "migration" was happening elsewhere.

[OfficialPlanner]

[Northboy]

Maybe in Canada, but that's still illegal here.

I really do believe that depopulation, and allowing (or encouraging) the land to return to its natural state may ironically be a good solution to bringing people back to the plains. Nobody wants to farm there. It is hard, depressing work with very little benefit. But I do think there are educated people who can bring good jobs to an area, who would be attracted by the idea of a home on the rolling plains, with buffalo roaming around them and flocks of birds flying above.

$ 7 billion industry provincially so they report. .....

depopulation and forced migration due to economic circumstance in my opinion should not be viewed as some darwinian formulae-- it's about people-- actually its all about the guy down the street and his family....
the trick is how do we manipulate the local assets and network to allow these people to follow their dreams where they are..
If it was easy, why would they pay us the BIG BUCKS

Seriously, problems known.....how can we work to fix or minimize the effect????

Graham.