Conservation pays off for Oklahoma farmers: clean streams, healthy cattle, lower costs and visiting eagles

Horse Creek Cove, Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
 (grandlake.com photo)

Making the tough decision to protect private property water sources helped Oklahoma farmers address contamination, produce healthier livestock and save money. "A big part of the solution was simple: Give cows clean drinking water and keep them out of the streams," reports Cara Buckley of The New York Times. "About 100 Oklahoman streams once polluted by runoff predominantly from farmland have been restored to health. That’s more than in any other state, according to the Environmental Protection Agency."

The choice to restrict farm animals from streams took farmers like Grant Victor, who wanted to clean up his property's creek, even if it meant breaking with ranching tradition. Buckley writes, "Working with a conservation program, he installed fencing around Horse Creek, creating a protective riparian buffer, even though it meant keeping his animals off 220 acres, about 6% of his family’s land."

He waited and nature did not disappoint. "The benefits of a healthier waterway exceeded his hopes," Buckley reports. "Within just a couple of years, the banks were transformed into verdant corridors of grasses and shrubs. Wildlife appeared, including white-tailed deer, bobcats, coyotes and bald eagles that return each year to a sprawling nest to rear their young."

But that's not all. Victor was rewarded with healthier cattle. Buckley adds, "Victor installed pipes and wells in the pastures, allowing his cattle to drink water unsullied by sediment and their own waste. They put on more weight and suffered fewer respiratory ailments, and that resulted in lower veterinary bills."

Other Oklahoma farmers have adopted methods that support nature while increasing farming profits. Steve Glasgow, a recently retired Oklahoma state resource conservationist, "estimates that nearly a third of Oklahoma’s crop farmers employ conservation practices, up from roughly one-fifth 25 years ago. . . . Conservation practices can also increase yields and reduce labor and fuel costs."

Victor knows some of his neighboring farmers remain conservation skeptics and scoff at his choices but he's OK with that. He told Buckley, "I’m sure at the coffee shop, they were all laughing at me. . . . My dad always taught me there’s some things you can’t afford to do and there’s other things you can’t afford not to do. This was one of the things I couldn’t afford not to do."

Opinion: Americans should be alarmed at the 'dangerous idea' Congress is floating, which could 'kill' rural America

A couple cares for fencing in Dark Sky, Oregon, an area
that is mostly comprised of public lands. (Instagram)

 

Inside a recent congressional budget reconciliation discussion, an alarming suggestion was made: Allow Congress to sell public lands to private investors, writes Tim David in his opinion for The Daily Yonder. Although lawmakers indicate sale proceeds would increase federal revenue, the loss of public lands would devastate some rural economies "where public lands aren’t just a backdrop, they’re the backbone of the economy and the way of life."

Even as lawmakers say they care about rural livelihoods, selling public assets would harm many rural communities, particularly those in the West. "From grazing and outfitting to hunting, fishing, and tourism, these lands sustain small businesses, support working families, and keep rural economies afloat," David explains. "If Congress truly wants to support rural America, it can start by investing in the agencies that manage these lands, not liquidating the lands themselves."

Congress has spent years asking the Bureau of Land Management "to do more with less," David writes. "Some of the loudest voices criticizing the BLM are the same ones voting to strip its funding. It’s a political double standard: criticize the agency for being slow or ineffective, then gut the very budget that allows it to function, and turn around and blame it again when things don’t get done."

Considering its ever-shrinking budget, it's unsurprising that "public lands and the rural communities that depend on them are feeling the strain," David adds. "Across the West, deteriorating roads, neglected infrastructure, and staff shortages are leaving public access routes impassable and economic opportunities squandered. Local businesses are losing revenue right when tourism and recreation seasons should be ramping up."

What those in Washington may see as a budget line that needs reduction, are real Americans working and serving in the communities where they live. "These are folks who know every rancher by name, who raise their families in the same towns, and who show up for volunteer projects and community events," David explains. "When Congress cuts funding, it’s not just abstract numbers. It’s fewer people to maintain campgrounds, issue grazing permits, support outfitters, and help prevent wildfires. It’s not the agency that suffers, it’s rural America."

Congress needs to seek out different solutions. "If Congress truly wants to help rural America, it starts with two things: fund the BLM like it matters, and keep our public lands public," David writes. "If Congress continues to underfund the BLM and entertains a wholesale sell-off of public lands, it won’t just hurt rural America. It will kill it."

Lawmakers in some states are working to provide property tax relief because of soaring home values, increased bills

(Photo by Jennifer Grismer, Unsplash)

Alongside soaring home values, U.S. property taxes have increased, leaving some homeowners struggling to pay eye-popping bills. "The typical home value in Idaho increased from $275,852 in November 2019 to $434,224 this November — a 57% increase over four years, according to data provided by real estate giant Zillow, which tracks the average of the middle one-third of home values," reports Kevin Hardy of Stateline. Property tax rates are "generally set by local governments, not legislatures. But public pressure has compelled lawmakers in several states, including Idaho, to use surplus state revenues to mitigate property tax hikes."

Commenting on the public outcry, Idaho state Rep. Jason Monks told Hardy, "The biggest problem was they just went up so quickly. … I think that's one of the reasons why it became this rallying cry from the people asking for tax relief." Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation, a pro-business research organization, told Hardy: "In virtually every state where the legislature meets this year, property tax relief bills will be filed. This is a front-of-mind issue for many legislators across the country."

However, intervening in property taxes is complex, and failure to do it correctly could leave some coffers empty because the money is being used for tax relief. "The effort across the country to provide property tax relief has sparked some concern that states could go too far, jeopardizing revenue for school districts and local governments," Hardy explains. "And some policymakers worry about overly broad relief that could benefit the wealthiest property owners at the expense of those most in need."

Colorado lawmakers are trying for a measured approach, which is difficult when the state's "landscape ranges from rural ranching communities to booming urban and suburban markets," Hardy reports. Democratic state Rep. Marc Snyder told Hardy: "I've been struggling with this. It's really hard to come up with a statewide solution when you have such a variety of situations in Colorado."

Democratic state Rep. Chris deGruy Kennedy said he "wants to ensure that Colorado's school and fire districts have the revenue sources they need to operate well. But he's wary of tax relief that is overly broad," Hardy adds. Kennedy told him: "I want to make sure that whatever we do to provide property tax or rent assistance is done in the most targeted way possible so that we're actually giving the dollars to the people that need them, rather than doing across-the-board cuts."

Every hurricane gets a number, but what does it mean? Hurricane winds aren't the only extreme danger.

A graphic within the Post's story shows how wind defines each hurricane category.
(Digital art, The Washington Post)

Every hurricane gets a category number designed to guide response efforts, and while most people are used to hurricane weather jargon including the category number, what the number represents is somewhat mysterious. The five categories are based on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, report Amudalat Ajasa, Aaron Steckelberg and Julie Vitkovskaya of The Washington Post. "The scale only measures one component of a hurricane: the wind. Each category is divided by a range of wind speeds, estimating potential damage and impacts on properties . . .The numbers categorize hurricanes based on maximum sustained wind speeds ranging from 74 mph to 157 mph and above." Each category is describer here:

Category 1: Wind speeds range from 74-95 mph. Dangerous winds will produce some damage. Metal roof coverings, shingles and gutters will sustain damage. Shallow-rooted trees can be uprooted, and power lines can fall.

Category 2: Wind speeds range from 96-110 mph. Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage. Major roof and siding, commercial signage, fences and canopies will be damaged or destroyed. Shallow-rooted trees will probably be snapped or uprooted, along with close to total power loss.

Category 3: Wind speeds range from 111-129 mph. Devastating damage will occur. Homes may experience roof failure and wall collapse. Windows will be blown out of high-rise buildings. Commercial signage, fences and canopies will face destruction. Trees will be snapped or uprooted. Power and water will be lost.

Category 4: Wind speeds range from 130-156 mph. Catastrophic damage will occur, including the destruction of most homes with the collapse of all walls and roof structure. Commercial signage, fences and canopies will be destroyed. Trees and power poles will be downed or snapped. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

Category 5: Wind speeds range from 157 mph or higher. Almost complete destruction of all homes. Many industrial buildings and low-rise buildings will be destroyed. Nearly all the windows from high-rise buildings will be blown out. Near-total destruction of all commercial signage, fences and canopies. Nearly all trees and power poles will be downed or snapped. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

The scale isn't a perfect measurement, and emergency responders, government officials and the public need to remember that wind isn't the only consideration with hurricanes. Storm surges can be equally deadly. The Post reports, "As a hurricane barrels across the open ocean, strong winds drive the water forward. Once the water reaches the shore, it combines with normal tides and creates the storm surge.

Storm surge is the leading cause of hurricane-related deaths in the United States, according to the National Weather Service."

In 2008, Hurricane Ike was designated a Category 2 hurricane. "But the wind wasn’t what caused the most damage," the Post reports. "The storm had a surge of more than 20 feet, the largest storm surge on record for a Category 2 hurricane. Imagine rushing water the height of two basketball hoops stacked on top of each other barreling toward homes, cars and buildings. . . . The storm claimed 195 lives and resulted in $30 billion in damage. It wasn’t even considered a major hurricane."

Loan program to help Black farmers keep land they inherited informally, authorized in 2018 Farm Bill, is finally starting

The Agriculture Department will implement a loan program for farmers who inherited their land informally to resolve ownership issues so they can hold onto their land. Heirs' property issues have particularly threatened Black farmers in the South.

"The Heirs’ Property Relending Program will provide $67 million for loans to resolve property issues that have long kept some producers and landowners from being able to access USDA programs and services," Ximena Bustillo reports for Politico. "The program’s provisions were included in the 2018 Farm Bill, but it wasn’t implemented during the Trump administration."

Under the program, landowners can borrow up to $600,000 to "buy out other people with claims to land, consolidate a title and clear the titles on the ground. Those farms would then become eligible for other USDA agricultural programs as well," Chris Clayton reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. "Lenders such as cooperatives and credit unions can apply for up to $5 million at 1 percent interest when a two-month sign up window begins in late August. USDA will loan the money to those intermediate lenders who will then loan out the funds to the farmers."

About one-third of Black-owned land in the South is considered "heirs' property," or property passed down without a will or other clear documentation. Black families have often lost land to speculators and developers because they couldn't prove ownership, Clayton reports.

"The rising frequency and severity of natural disasters also poses a threat to heirs’ farms and other rural property. The Federal Emergency Management Agency more commonly denies disaster aid requests because of title issues in the South in counties that are majority Black," Bustillo reports.