Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
agency staff. Chris Feise, then an extension specialist from the Pacific
Northwest land-grant universities serving as a liaison to the agency,
insisted that CPAI staff first conduct a listening tour of the farmers and
agricultural institutions in the region. He had extensive experience with
sustainable farming systems, but he realized how much USEPA staff had
to learn about agriculture if this initiative had any chance to bear fruit.
Plans for the one week tour included 30 meetings in 5 counties with
more than 90 people. For several staff members, this would be the first
time ever seeing the Columbia Plateau or visiting a farming operation.
CPAI ran afoul of controversy before the listening tour even left
Seattle, however. A pubic information document announcing the initia-
tive was released without being fully vetted by staff aware of the feelings
of suspicion held by some of the farmers in the region. In another con-
text, the announcement would have been cheered by a population eager
for resource protection initiatives. On the Columbia Plateau, it triggered
highly critical publicity, led by several agricultural commodity groups.
The listening tour was a crash course in the sociology of agriculture.
USEPA staff listened to grape growers, potato farmers, wheat farmers,
commodity commission representatives, county commissioners, wildlife
agents, agrochemical sales representatives, extension agents, university
researchers, conservation district employees, and staff from other federal
agencies. This was a whole new world for USEPA staff. Many of the
institutions these people represented were brand new to them, and they
began to appreciate the complexity of factors shaping land management
decisions and their environmental impacts, and the roles played by
economics and public policy in these decisions. They recognized the
importance of understanding the social institutions in agriculture. For
the first time, some staff realized that crops like potatoes and dry-farmed
wheat differ in significant ways, and would require different approaches
to address their environmental impacts.
The listening tour heard an earful about the credibility problems of
regulatory agencies. Farmers explained some of their fears: that the
agency rendered decisions affecting the agricultural community without
their input; that these regulations will drive them out of business and a
way of life; and that costly efforts to improve their environmental prac-
tices will only be rewarded with more regulations. The growers
convinced the listening tour staff that the lack of communication
