Republicans in the Iowa House and Senate approved the death warrant for the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University only a week after news of the planned ambush became public. Three weeks later, Governor Terry Branstad still has not signed the agriculture budget bill, which eliminates both major funding sources for the world-renowned center.

Under Iowa law, the governor can item-veto provisions in appropriations bills. Branstad told reporters on May 5, “We have heard from a lot of people that are concerned about the Leopold Center […] And that is one of the items that we’ll be giving close scrutiny to.”

Those who want to save the center can send a message through the governor’s website or call Branstad’s office at (515) 281-5211–the sooner the better. After the jump I’ve posted a few talking points that may be helpful.

Money

The risk of financial losses for ISU appears to be a primary concern for Branstad as he considers a line-item veto. Brianne Pfannenstiel reported for the Des Moines Register,

Branstad said Friday his staff is still completing a review of the bill and is looking at donations previously made to the center.

“There are bequests that have been made to the Leopold Center that I’m told could be put in jeopardy if it were eliminated,” he said.

ISU alumni or donors may want to mention that they will be less inclined to give to any university fund (either during their lifetimes or as a bequest) if Branstad allows the legislature’s shortsighted, politically-motivated act against the Leopold Center to stand.

A related point: some research projects will be disrupted, and ISU will become a less desirable destination for high-performing undergraduate and graduate students seeking to do cutting-edge agricultural research.

Some people have asked me whether private donations could keep the Leopold Center going if the worst-case scenario comes to pass. The answer is no. Senate File 510 repeals language establishing the Leopold Center from Iowa Code. If Branstad allows that provision to become law, there is no return. In any case, the endowment created to support the center could not keep any reasonable level of operations going, according to Director Mark Rasmussen.

Legacy

Leopold Center co-founder Paul Johnson pointed out that when “Branstad reorganized Iowa government in the mid-1980s, our Department of Agriculture became the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.” Branstad also signed the Groundwater Protection Act, which created the Leopold Center, and “there is no person associated with land stewardship more revered than Iowa native Aldo Leopold,” for whom the center was named.

Does Branstad want one of his last official acts as governor to be erasing an important part of his legacy?

Helping farmers

Jerry DeWitt, a past director of the Leopold Center who was involved in its creation, argued in the Des Moines Register that farmers will face more challenges if the center ceases to exist.

The Leopold Center works within the framework of established processes and challenges of a major land grant university, but has the distinct advantage of not being an academic department dealing with a faculty, tenure, publishing mandates and other joys of academia. We are in the business of solving today’s problems today. We are flexible and responsive. No other university unit or department rivals how the center successfully solicits farmer-driven ideas to solve today’s problems in Iowa agriculture. We do it openly and we listen. The center can respond quickly to farmer problems or issues that do not require lengthy processes, committees or state/USDA oversight. The center’s work is not a plan on paper established by a consensus committee to tackle a problem. It is a dynamic entity that is responsible to farmer ideas and needs. […]

As the Groundwater Protection Act enabling legislation in 1987 directed, the center has always interpreted its mandate and responsibility to identify and tackle those issues that may not rise to the level of action on campus with faculty and graduate students in their current work plans. The center was to do the things that were not being done or were not getting attention and support for a variety of reasons. […]

[T]he Leopold Center is one battle-tested Iowa entity that has a proven track record and the ability to quickly place more farmer-driven and field-ready tools in grower hands that ultimately can stave off increased regulations. The center today provides our Iowa farmers with a full deck of options before more regulations pile on. It is the time-honored and proven approach of first, practical research and education before turning to regulation.

Chris Clayton reported for the DTN Progressive Farmer,

Aaron Lehman, president of the Iowa Farmers Union, also serves on the advisory board of the Leopold Center and testified Monday [April 17] before the Legislature to save the funding. The center had a lot of support at the hearing, he said. Lehman said eliminating the center “would be a devastating blow to the work of family farmers in Iowa.”

Lehman noted that family farmers are facing more financial stress and looking for some innovative solutions to stay in business. At the same time, farmers are being asked to do more to address issues such as water quality in the state.

“So as both of those things are happening, we’re taking tools out of their tool box,” Lehman said. “All of the great research that comes out of the Leopold Center focuses on on-the-farm practices. And the board that oversees the research and helps guide the research is made up of a broad spectrum of farmers. It’s very farm and field focused, and this is absolutely the wrong time to take that innovation away from us.”

Lehman noted that farmers union leaders in other states often talk about the work of the Leopold Center as well. An Iowa State University archive website shows that studies and reports from the center have been downloaded more than 25,000 times.

Emily Holley posted on the Iowa Environmental Council’s blog,

Thirty years later, the Center has won awards for its work in the areas of policy, marketing and food systems, ecology and interdisciplinary research and education. Its contributions range from educating farmers to improving Iowa’s outdoor recreation and tourism. […]

For every dollar the Leopold Center spent on their projects, an additional $4.60 was leveraged to complement or expand the work. These projects represent approximately 22 percent of Center grant funding over 10 years. Project examples include: Hoop Barns for Alternative Hog Production Systems; Regional Food Systems Working Group; and the Bear Creek Riparian Buffer Project. Additionally, 22,500 acres were shifted to more efficient conservation practices and structures such as riparian buffers to reduce nitrate runoff and soil erosion and to improve water quality and wildlife habitat. […]

The Leopold Center’s research and information has also supported farmers interested in growing their businesses to cater to consumer interest in local food. Many existing farmers have diversified, while other Iowans have begun farming to meet the demand. At least 171 new Iowa jobs have been created, one-third of which are full-time due to the growing trend. In fact, the marketing food systems section of the Leopold Center’s website is full of free, practical information for farmers on such topics as evaluating the profitability of production choices, meeting food safety rules, market planning and more.

Innovation

Johnson noted in his guest column,

Drive across Iowa today and you will see miles of vegetative buffers along rivers, streams and drainage ditches. The science behind these practices was, and continues to be, developed at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. This is just one of some 600 research projects that have been supported by the center over the past 30 years.

Clayton interviewed Doug Gronau, a farmer who leads the center’s advisory board.

Gronau said the center’s work on crop production and water quality became the basis for Iowa’s nutrient management strategy. Tile line buffers and wood chips for bioreactors were among some of the early items studied by the Leopold Center to address water quality, he said.

“The original grants that the items in the strategy had, probably 80%, were mostly started by the Leopold Center,” Gronau said. “The tile line buffers — this was stuff that was totally unheard of. It was unnecessary, why are you doing this? Well now, it’s a tool in the toolbox to reduce nitrates. It’s these types of things that the Leopold Center is known for.”

Thomas Dorr, former president of the U.S. Grains Council, argued for saving the Leopold Center in a guest editorial for the Des Moines Register. Even though Dorr “disagreed with some of the center’s approaches,” and the center’s leadership opposed his confirmation as under secretary for rural development in the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

I believe the Leopold Center should continue in its current structure. The center’s research on issues of water quality, manure management, livestock grazing, cover crops, alternative conservation practices, biomass production, etc. in some cases has been seminal. In all cases, the center has challenged us to think. That was its purpose.

Frequently we in large-scale crop and livestock production have been dismissive of a number of these concerns. Equally frequent, groups opposed to large family farms have attempted to prostitute the center’s work to support their unique agendas. Even when consumer and environmental concerns appear to lack a scientific basis, I strongly believe an alternative view point is often times helpful and necessary to get us thinking about these challenges.

Ties with China

In the same Des Moines Register column, Dorr observed,

As I watched the Iowa Legislature’s budget discussions unfold regarding the continuation of the Leopold Center, I realized how important the center’s relationship was to a number of issues facing rural China and its agricultural leadership. I visited the center’s website to refresh myself on its more significant efforts. “Low-Input-High-Diversity Systems,”“Long-Term Agroecological Research,” “Regional Food Systems Working Group,” and the “Bear Creek Riparian Buffer Project” are just a few of the projects I saw. They are all particularly relevant to China’s system of smallholder farmers and rural poverty.

For Gov. Terry Branstad to affirm the Legislature’s decision to close the center on his way out of Iowa, and on his way to China, would cause those in China’s ag leadership to raise questions as to why the center was deemed unnecessary. Iowa’s long-term relationship with China would benefit greatly by being able to refer them to Leopold Center projects. It may even lead to collaborations.

Soil and water

The first week of May was Soil and Water Conservation Week across the country. Branstad was unable to persuade state lawmakers to enact significant new water quality funding in 2016 or 2017. Senate File 510 would direct proceeds from a fertilizer tax that has supported the Leopold Center to ISU’s Nutrient Research Center. But preserving our world-class topsoil and reducing water pollution require a broader focus than just nutrient research. From a letter to the Des Moines Register signed by ISU students and alumni:

Over the last 30 years, the Leopold Center has been a leader in agricultural systems research. As a transparent granting agency, it serves all Iowans. It funds and promotes studies on row crop and animal agricultural, water quality, and local food distribution, access and marketing, among others. The center’s broad support and appeal have inspired farmers, communities, students and researchers alike to generate sustainable solutions for a stronger and healthier Iowa.

Now more than ever we need cooperation among diverse stakeholders around complex issues. The Leopold Center’s research and programming contributes to the betterment of all Iowans, regardless of political persuasion or geographic location. Its pioneering work on soil erosion and water quality keeps soil and nutrients where they need to be, and water clean — goals essential to all Iowans. We should be celebrating and continuing our support of the Leopold Center, not abandoning our statewide commitment to it.