Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.
Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
NO FARMERS---NO FOOD! NO TRUCKERS--NO DELIVERIES!
Just try to get along without either of them!
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
It isn't cheap if you are shut down. Simply because you stop working does not mean the bills don't stop rolling in. Don't dismiss the shit.
At issue in 2015 was how it was defined.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Your source indicates it's all under control.
When was she shut down?
I will put it between 2013 and 2014. That was when the EPA came under fire heavily.
It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.
I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.
Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it may very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.
Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
NO FARMERS---NO FOOD! NO TRUCKERS--NO DELIVERIES!
Just try to get along without either of them!
BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.
Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.
In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.
Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.
Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."
But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.
To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.
Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.
"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.
In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.
'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America
This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.
It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.
Some cancers also grow and evolve rapidly. Not all change is good.
Improving land management is a cancer?
What has land management got to do with the OP?
And what makes you think urbanites know more about land management than country folK?
What has land management got to do with the OP?
I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.
Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it may very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
I don't buy that at all. It sounds more like her failure to keep up with the times and plan accordinly finally caught up with her.
It's a rainy day here. While on my way home from dropping my son at School this morning, I passed an area of flooded roadway. It was muddy runoff from an adjacent corn field. A field that I know for a fact had manure applied last fall. We aren't even in the peak of the spring rainy season yet. I shook my head as I watched it draining into the storm sewer. I almost stopped to take a picture. I wish I had. I did however call and report it to the county.
Review the best practices put out by the Iowa Farm Bureau that is freely available to everyone.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it may very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
I don't buy that at all. It sounds more like her failure to keep up with the times and plan accordinly finally caught up with her.
It's a rainy day here. While on my way home from dropping my son at School this morning, I passed an area of flooded roadway. It was muddy runoff from an adjacent corn field. A field that I know for a fact had manure applied last fall. We aren't even in the peak of the spring rainy season yet. I shook my head as I watched it draining into the storm sewer. I almost stopped to take a picture. I wish I had. I did however call and report it to the county.
Review the best practices put out by the Iowa Farm Bureau that is freely available to everyone.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
It's one thing to prevent runoff from a manure pit. That can be controlled by placing it at the top of a hill with high sidewalls and a roof of some sort over the top...
Exactly how do you expect any farmer from preventing runoff from a whole field?
*****SMILE*****
Exactly how do you expect any farmer from preventing runoff from a whole field?
BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.
Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.
In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.
Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.
Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."
But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.
To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.
Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.
"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.
In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.
'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America
This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it may very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
I don't buy that at all. It sounds more like her failure to keep up with the times and plan accordinly finally caught up with her.
It's a rainy day here. While on my way home from dropping my son at School this morning, I passed an area of flooded roadway. It was muddy runoff from an adjacent corn field. A field that I know for a fact had manure applied last fall. We aren't even in the peak of the spring rainy season yet. I shook my head as I watched it draining into the storm sewer. I almost stopped to take a picture. I wish I had. I did however call and report it to the county.
Review the best practices put out by the Iowa Farm Bureau that is freely available to everyone.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
It's one thing to prevent runoff from a manure pit. That can be controlled by placing it at the top of a hill with high sidewalls and a roof of some sort over the top...
Exactly how do you expect any farmer from preventing runoff from a whole field?
*****SMILE*****
Exactly how do you expect any farmer from preventing runoff from a whole field?
I don't. I expect the application of chemical fertilizers and manure to be done with the expectation of runoff in mind and to employ runoff controls.
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it may very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
I don't buy that at all. It sounds more like her failure to keep up with the times and plan accordinly finally caught up with her.
It's a rainy day here. While on my way home from dropping my son at School this morning, I passed an area of flooded roadway. It was muddy runoff from an adjacent corn field. A field that I know for a fact had manure applied last fall. We aren't even in the peak of the spring rainy season yet. I shook my head as I watched it draining into the storm sewer. I almost stopped to take a picture. I wish I had. I did however call and report it to the county.
Review the best practices put out by the Iowa Farm Bureau that is freely available to everyone.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
It's one thing to prevent runoff from a manure pit. That can be controlled by placing it at the top of a hill with high sidewalls and a roof of some sort over the top...
Exactly how do you expect any farmer from preventing runoff from a whole field?
*****SMILE*****
Exactly how do you expect any farmer from preventing runoff from a whole field?
I don't. I expect the application of chemical fertilizers and manure to be done with the expectation of runoff in mind and to employ runoff controls.
View attachment 178292
So what you're saying is you expect no run off from any farm field whatsoever...
Exactly what kind of runoff controls are going to accomplish this magnificent feat?
*****CHUCKLE*****
BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.
Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.
In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.
Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.
Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."
But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.
To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.
Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.
"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.
In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.
'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America
This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.
“We’ve left behind Americans who run lunch counters and small businesses across this great nation,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.166844b2aba1
"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
It isn't cheap if you are shut down. Simply because you stop working does not mean the bills don't stop rolling in. Don't dismiss the shit.
At issue in 2015 was how it was defined.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Your source indicates it's all under control.
When was she shut down?
I will put it between 2013 and 2014. That was when the EPA came under fire heavily.
No, where in your article does it say she was shut down?
I have to call BS on your OP. If she was told , several years ago that she had wetlands it was not because of some rule changes from 2 years ago. My best guess just from the fact that she could replace the wetlands is she is dealing with the government rule called Swamp Buster. That little pain in the ass came out in the 80s , remember who was in charge back then .
I had to jump through all the hoops with the government on what was a wetland and what wasn't. I went through all the photos and we pretty much agreed on what was wet, except for a couple that I said weren't.
"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
It isn't cheap if you are shut down. Simply because you stop working does not mean the bills don't stop rolling in. Don't dismiss the shit.
At issue in 2015 was how it was defined.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Your source indicates it's all under control.
When was she shut down?
I will put it between 2013 and 2014. That was when the EPA came under fire heavily.
No, where in your article does it say she was shut down?
In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. T
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
NO FARMERS---NO FOOD! NO TRUCKERS--NO DELIVERIES!
Just try to get along without either of them!
The human animal is amazingly adaptable...
Farm to Table: Building Local and Regional Food Systems
No doubt.
I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.
I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.
oic
I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.
You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."
This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.
I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.
Here's a good source for what we're talking about.
Iowa conservation progress and future challenges
$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it very well be the expense that breaks the bank.
*****SMILE*****
NO FARMERS---NO FOOD! NO TRUCKERS--NO DELIVERIES!
Just try to get along without either of them!
Great. None of them are precluded from operating with best practices.
