Since at least 2007, roughly half of Iowa’s land in agricultural production has been rented or leased rather than farmed by its owner. Farmland values at historically high levels are making it even more difficult for Iowans to pursue a secure career in farming. Almost no one can afford a large parcel of farmland at more than $8,000 per acre (or $10,000 per acre of high-grade land). Banks are rarely willing to lend aspiring farmers the kind of money needed to buy a farm, or to buy out siblings or cousins who inherited parts of the family farm.

Some experts believe Iowa farmland values have peaked, but via Tom Philpott I came across evidence that pressure from large buyers may continue to drive up prices. The Oakland Institute analyzed the trend of Wall Street investors buying farmland in the U.S. As institutional investors pile into this market, Iowa farmland may become increasingly unaffordable.

After the jump I’ve posted a few excerpts from the Oakland Institute‘s report, but I recommend downloading the whole piece to see supporting charts and references.

The trend toward absentee landlords owning Iowa farms is one among many reasons we can’t rely on purely voluntary efforts to protect soil and water quality. Tenant farmers have no incentive to spend money on conservation practices to improve land for the long-term. Landowners (whether they be Wall Street firms or individual investors) are often looking for the highest rent this year, not farming practices that preserve soil fertility and keep excess nutrients out of waterways.  

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers? All topics are welcome in this open thread.

This missing Malaysian airliner is one of the craziest news stories I can remember. I would never have thought that a huge airplane carrying hundreds of people could disappear with investigators still mystified twelve days after the fact. If it crashed, why can’t anyone find a debris field? If the pilot diverted it intentionally, with what goal? If it was flying in the wrong direction for hours before landing or crashing, how did it evade detection by radar? Why didn’t any passenger manage to make a phone call or send a text message reporting strange happenings?

This mystery hits closer to home: why didn’t corn growers and the biotech industry heed warnings that planting whole fields of genetically modified corn across the Midwest would hasten the arrival of resistant weeds and pests? New research published this week points to “the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn.” I’m no longer surprised when regulators and the mainstream media ignore evidence that widespread agricultural practices are harming human health, because money talks. But in this case, failing to manage biotech crops properly is going to cost farmers and biotech companies big money. Herbicide-resistant weeds have been spreading for some time; now Iowa farmers may start using more pesticides to deal with pests that their crops were supposed to be able to repel.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Is anyone else annoyed that the Iowa legislature’s second “funnel” deadline coincided with the last day major-party candidates could file to appear on the primary ballot? I put up a new overview of the Iowa Senate races and a thread on the statewide candidate filings. John Deeth has a quick look at all 125 legislative races. I have posts in progress about Iowa House races to watch, as well as what bills are dead and alive in the state legislature.

Congratulations to Cyclones fans celebrating Iowa State winning the Big 12 championship. I don’t follow college basketball closely, but I know the Big 12 is probably the toughest conference this year. Fred Hoiberg has done a tremendous job recruiting and leading his team, without throwing tantrums on the court like the University of Iowa’s coach, Fran McCaffery.

I highly recommend Josh Harkinson’s fascinating piece, “You’re Drinking the Wrong Kind of Milk.” He explores the hypothesis that many people have trouble drinking cow’s milk because Holsteins, which dominate industrial dairies, produce milk high in A1 protein. Some of those people can digest milk with predominantly A2 protein, produced by Jersey, Guernsey, and Normande cows.

As a friend and I talked about Harkinson’s article a few days ago, she reminded me that Iowa’s beloved Anderson Erickson Dairy used to sell a more expensive “Guernsey Gold” milk. Looking into it, I learned that AE stopped making this product in the mid-1980s, not because there was no demand for the premium milk, but because Iowa didn’t have enough farmers raising Guernsey cows anymore.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.  

If any Iowa Democrat deserves a primary challenge, it’s three-term State Senator Joe Seng. Although the Davenport-based veterinarian represents one of the Democrats’ safest urban districts, Seng is anti-choice and supported Republican calls for a vote against marriage equality in 2010. As chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he has helped pass several bills that are good for industrial agriculture but bad for the environment, especially clean water. In addition, Seng himself challenged three-term U.S. Representative Dave Loebsack in the IA-02 Democratic primary two years ago, so he couldn’t claim the moral high ground against a primary challenger for his state Senate seat.

I was excited to see yesterday that another Democratic candidate, Mark Riley, had filed papers to run in Senate district 45. When I realized Riley was Seng’s Republican opponent in 2010 and ran an independent campaign against Iowa House Democrat Cindy Winckler in 2012, I became disappointed. Was he just a fake like the “Democrat” who ran against State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad in 2010?

I sought comment from Riley about why he was running as a Democrat in Iowa Senate district 45, having campaigned as a Republican in the same district a few years ago. I’ve posted his response after the jump. You be the judge. Riley would have my serious consideration if I lived on the west side of Davenport.  

More than 800 manure spills have occurred on Iowa farms during the past two decades. At least 262 manure spills reached Iowa waterways between 2001 and 2011 alone, affecting the vast majority of counties.

More than half of rivers and streams in the region including Iowa are in “poor condition for aquatic life.” Manure spills are a major contributing factor to this problem, and they are happening more often. The number of recorded manure spills in Iowa grew from 46 in 2012 to 76 in 2013.

How should state government respond to this set of facts? Various policies might address the explosion in waterways officially recognized as “impaired.”  

But this is Iowa, where it’s a minor miracle to get state lawmakers to take any steps against water pollution, and agricultural interests have repeatedly moved to undermine regulations related to the handling of manure on large-scale farms.

Last week, two-thirds of Iowa House members saw fit to reduce continuing education requirements for people certified to spread liquid manure on farm fields.  

I’m always fascinated when conservatives who claim to support “states’ rights” cry foul when another state enacts a law they dislike. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, a law designed “to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals,” including new rules on conditions for egg-laying hens. State lawmakers later passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law extending those rules to producers of any eggs sold in California. Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) tried but ultimately failed to insert language in the federal Farm Bill overturning California’s law, which will affect Iowa egg producers when it becomes effective on January 1, 2015. King argued that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, creating an illegal trade barrier between states.

Since President Barack Obama signed into law a five-year Farm Bill that does not include King’s amendment, attorneys general in Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the California law. Governor Terry Branstad announced yesterday that he has joined that lawsuit on Iowa’s behalf. Details are after the jump, including excerpts from the court filing and statements released by Branstad and King.

I am not an attorney, much less a specialist on the Commerce Clause, but I doubt the plaintiffs will succeed in overturning the California law, for three reasons: 1) the law does not “discriminate”; 2) the law does not force any conduct on egg producers outside the state of California; and 3) overturning this law would prompt a wave of lawsuits seeking to invalidate any state regulation designed to set higher standards for safety, public health, or consumer protection.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

If you’re among the roughly half a million Iowans whose household water comes from the Des Moines Water Works, you may have noticed a stronger chlorine smell lately. After the jump I’ve posted a statement explaining why the recent snow melt led to elevated ammonia levels in the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers, the sources for most drinking water in central Iowa. I also enclosed background on the most common causes of higher ammonia levels in surface water systems. Those can differ from watershed to watershed, but in Iowa conventional agriculture is a common source.

The Raccoon River Watershed Association is organizing an “Aldo Leopold Weekend Event” at the Hotel Pattee in Perry this Friday night and Saturday. I’ve enclosed the program below. On Saturday afternoon people will be reading from the Sand County Almanac before a showing of the documentary “Green Fire: Aldo Leopold and a Land Ethic for Our Time.” That movie is well worth watching for anyone who cares about the environment.

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers? Here’s an open thread.

Change for the better: According to Maj. Gen. Tim Orr, adjutant general of the Iowa National Guard, no members of the Guard are stationed in war zones for the first time since before the Iraq War. Orr delivered his annual “Condition of the Guard” speech to Iowa legislators today. Only about 100 of roughly 9,400 National Guard or Air National Guard members from Iowa are stationed overseas; the largest group is in Kosovo.

Change for the worse: U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman announced last week that he will retire after 40 years in Congress. He is one of the giants of his generation, having helped pass the Clean Air Act and a wide range of consumer protection laws, from tobacco regulations to food safety. Until I read this article by Timothy Westmoreland, I didn’t realize that Waxman was also an “unsung hero in the fight against AIDS” during the 1980s.

Changes don’t get much bigger than climate change. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced today that seven news “regional hubs for risk adaptation and mitigation to climate change” will open around the country. The Midwestern “climate hub” will be located in Ames. The full USDA press release is after the jump.

The U.S. Senate approved a compromise five-year farm bill this afternoon by 68 votes to 32 (roll call). As occurred in the House of Representatives last week, the farm bill drew substantial support from both caucuses. At the same time, a sizable number of conservative Republicans opposed the bill because of the costs, while some liberal Democrats voted no because of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Iowa’s Democratic Senator Tom Harkin voted for ending debate on the farm bill yesterday and for the conference report today. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley voted no on cloture and on final passage.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Harkin and Grassley explaining their stance on the farm bill. Click here for details on the contentious provisions of the farm bill. For once I am inclined to agree more with Grassley than with Harkin. In many respects the conference report was a missed opportunity and won’t serve the interests of Iowans or Americans generally.

I also sympathize with Grassley’s outrage at “a select few members dismantling a provision that was passed by wide, bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate.” Congressional rules should be changed so that the conference committee can alter only provisions that differed in the House and Senate bills, not consensus language from both versions.  

On the other hand, I suspect Grassley cast this protest vote because he knew his support wasn’t required to get the farm bill to President Barack Obama’s desk. As disappointing as this legislation is, Iowa’s economy truly needs stability and predictability in federal agricultural programs.

UPDATE: Added Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey’s comments below.  

The Farmer Veteran Coalition of Iowa has a full agenda for 2014. We’re hosting four educational workshops across Iowa, collaborating on two regional events in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and participating in a Midwest Farmer Veteran Conference at Drake University in July.

These events provide opportunities for military veterans to come together, network, and learn about farming.

President Barack Obama will finally have an opportunity to sign a five-year Farm Bill into law. The U.S. House approved the conference committee report today by 251 votes to 166, and the U.S. Senate is expected to approve the deal this week. The House roll call shows an unusual partisan split. Iowa’s four representatives were all among the 162 Republicans and 89 Democrats who voted for the final deal. But 63 House Republicans and 103 Democrats voted no, a mixture of conservatives who objected to spending in the $956 billion bill and liberals who opposed cuts to nutrition programs.

Although 41 representatives and senators served on the conference committee (including Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Steve King), the four top-ranking members of House and Senate Agriculture Committees hashed out the final details. King’s controversial amendment aimed at California’s egg regulations was left on the cutting room floor.

After the jump I’ve posted several takes on the farm bill’s key provisions and comments from the Iowa delegation.  

Today I attended the hearing put on by Governor Branstad to bash the EPA for proposing to change the rules on the Renewable Fuels Standard for ethanol.  It was an all-day pepfest for ethanol.  I came late, but I think was the only one to talk about the “other side” of ethanol.Here are my remarks (although the footnote explanations and references don’t come through):

Later this week state and regional agribusiness leaders will gather at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates to cheerlead for corn ethanol.  The agenda for this “Hearing in the Heartland” is to rail against a proposed update to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bipartisan entrenchment against the update suggests corn ethanol is being somehow threatened, but despite the fanfare it really isn’t.

The EPA’s update to the 2007 law deals mostly with 2^nd and 3^rd generation biofuels. The proposed volume requirements don't hinder corn ethanol; the grain mandates shifts a few percent as business models tend to do when they are updated after 7 years.  The long-term prospects for next generation biofuels also remain strong. So why an update?  Projections for next generation biofuel have not panned out, yet. Simply put: science & engineering need to catch up to ambitious policy.

Corn ethanol was always meant as a stepping stone to “advanced” biofuels. The RFS update only seriously impedes corn if convoluted math is done to figure corn as the stop-gap filler for our old overestimates for next generation biofuels. Vested interests want to double-down on endless growth in corn ethanol, but they have lost sight of the long game amidst a tangled web of conflict-of-interest.  

Yesterday the U.S. Senate easily approved the omnibus budget bill funding most of the federal government through September 30. Like all of the Democrats present, Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted for ending debate on the budget bill and for the bill itself. Both passed by 72 votes to 26 (roll call). Although quite a few Republicans supported the omnibus bill, Senator Chuck Grassley was among the 26 GOP senators who voted no on cloture and on final passage. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s floor statement explaining his reasons for backing the bill, along with Grassley’s comment on his no vote.

On Wednesday three of Iowa’s four representatives in the House voted for the omnibus budget bill.

The Hill’s Erik Wasson posted a good analysis of winners and losers from the deal, which eliminates any risk of a federal government shutdown before October 1. He noted,

The omnibus makes it easier for [House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank] Lucas to pass a farm bill. Western members wanted the omnibus to reinstate funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program that sends money to local governments in areas where the federal government owns most of the land, thereby limiting property tax revenue. House leaders promised this would be taken care of in the farm bill and Lucas was all too happy to comply, knowing this adds momentum to passing the farm bill in late January.

Harkin and Representative Steve King (IA-04) both serve on the conference committee working on a long-term Farm Bill.  

Citizens for a Healthy Iowa today released a new 30 second advertisement entitled ‘Drinking Water Roulette’. The ad is the first in a series that will highlight the need for Governor Branstad and the Legislature to improve standards holding Iowa farms accountable for cleaner water. ‘Drinking Water Roulette’ will air on statewide as well as in paid targeted online placements.

Citizens for a Healthy Iowa is a local clean water/environmental advocacy organization chaired by local environmental advocate Mike Delaney. 

In a departure from the usual brinksmanship over funding the federal government, the U.S. Senate approved yesterday the recent bipartisan budget deal. Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan worked out a compromise on overall budget targets for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, replacing some of the “sequester” cuts that went into effect earlier this year. The deal passed the House last week with strong bipartisan support, including three of Iowa’s four representatives.

Senate Republicans were less supportive of the budget agreement than House GOP members, but nine Republicans crossed over to vote with the entire Democratic caucus, approving the deal by 64 votes to 36 (roll call). Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley was one of the 36 Republicans who voted no, along with possible future presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul. I have not seen any statement from Grassley’s office explaining that vote but will update this post as needed. UPDATE: Added a few comments from Grassley.

President Barack Obama will sign off on this agreement, but Congress still needs to pass an omnibus budget bill before January 15 to avoid another government shutdown. After the jump I’ve posted a statement from Senator Tom Harkin supporting the deal, as well as details on why some conservatives oppose this deal.

Below is a response to the article http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013312050037&nclick_check=1 that was published on December 5th. The piece was submitted but not published. It was written in collaboration with staff from Pesticide Action Network:

Contrary to Mr. Lehr’s inflammatory remarks to the recent Iowa Farm Bureau Federation annual meeting, the trend of Iowans paying attention to agricultural practices is a far cry from the state rejecting farming. Iowans have a deep appreciation for agriculture. They want what is best for food production, and for the state... A healthy dialog about farming practices isn’t something to fear – it can help make Iowa a healthier and more economically secure place to live. 

The U.S. House adjourned for the rest of 2013 yesterday after approving several major bills. By a surprisingly large 332 to 94 majority (roll call), representatives approved The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, a federal budget compromise worked out by Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan. Most of the House GOP caucus supported the budget deal, including Tom Latham (IA-03). Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 163 Democrats who voted for the budget deal. Steve King (IA-04) was one of the 62 Republicans who voted no because the agreement increased domestic discretionary spending. The 32 House Democrats who opposed the deal objected to the fact that it did not include an extension of unemployment benefits, did not reverse more of the “sequester” federal spending cuts, and increased federal worker contributions to their pensions.

Also yesterday, House members passed by voice vote a one-month extension to most federal agricultural programs, giving a conference committee more time to work out a deal on a long-term Farm Bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the upper chamber won’t pass any more short-term farm bill extensions, but he’ll probably have to backtrack now to prevent farm programs from expiring on January 1.

Finally, the House approved by 350 votes to 69 a compromise on the defense authorization bill. All four Iowans voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, negotiated informally by House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders after the Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the defense authorization bill before Thanksgiving. I need more time to read up on what’s in the final compromise, so will cover the details of the defense authorization bill in a future post.

After the jump I’ve enclosed comments on yesterday’s votes from the Iowans in Congress and some of the candidates for U.S. House and Senate, where available. UPDATE: Added more comments below. However, Steve King has uncharacteristically not released a statement explaining his vote on the budget compromise. His office did not respond to my request for comment or to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth.

Last month Iowa politicians from both parties expressed outrage after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal to alter the Renewable Fuel Standard on how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline. At an EPA hearing in Washington today, Representative Bruce Braley (a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee) and Governor Terry Branstad both testified against reducing the Renewable Fuel Standard. Several Iowa farmers and representatives of corn and soybeans growers also spoke and met with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy afterwards.

After the jump I’ve posted a statement from Braley’s office containing highlights from his remarks and a link to the video. Branstad warned that reducing the RFS could lead to another farm crisis like the one Iowa experienced during the 1980s. I will add more details from his testimony if they become available. I expect both Braley and Branstad to feature their advocacy for ethanol and biodiesel in their campaigns for the U.S. Senate and governor next year.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that last month, Branstad’s re-election campaign created a “Protect the Renewable Fuel Standard” website. I’ve added more details on that effort below. Like the pro-Olympic wrestling site the campaign launched earlier this year, ProtectTheRFS.com presents as a petition supporting a popular cause in Iowa, doubling as a way to build the Branstad campaign’s contact list.

The progressive 501(c)4 group Americans United for Change announced today that it will run a commercial on Des Moines-based television stations to support the Renewable Fuels Standard. Scroll to the end of this post for the video and transcript. The ad encourages viewers to send their comments to the EPA by visiting a website called SavetheRFS.com (a list-building effort like the one Branstad’s campaign created). The veterans political action committee VoteVets.org, which is part of the Americans United for Change coalition, operates SavetheRFS.com.

SECOND UPDATE: Added more comments from Branstad below.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread. Here are a few links to get a conversation started.

A Polk County district court ruling related to one of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s pet projects called attention to the fact that Schultz was in Switzerland for the American Swiss Foundation’s 24th annual Young Leaders Conference, a weeklong event. Whether the secretary of state should attend a foreign junket like this at any time is debatable. But it’s ridiculous for him to have planned to be out of town when Iowa’s 99 county auditors were gathering in Des Moines to discuss election-related issues. The Iowa Democratic Party and the only declared Democratic candidate for secretary of state blasted Schultz. I’ve posted their comments below, along with the official defense from the Iowa Secretary of State’s spokesman.

Speaking of Schultz’s pet projects, here’s some important news from last month: the federal judge who wrote a key ruling upholding Indiana’s voter ID law now believes he got that case wrong.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Friday that it is proposing to alter the Renewable Fuel Standard on how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline. The announcement upset Iowa elected officials from both parties. After the jump I’ve posted statements from Governor Terry Branstad, Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds, and all of the Iowans in Congress except for Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03), who has not commented on this issue to my knowledge.

The Associated Press reported this week on how the push to produce corn-based ethanol has damaged the environment in Iowa and elsewhere.

One last outrage: Will Potter reported for Mother Jones about a case that “could make it harder for journalists and academics to keep tabs on government agencies.” The FBI is going to court to prevent its “most prolific” Freedom of Information Act requester from accessing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents.

Polk County Soil and Water Commissioner Sherrie Taha announced her candidacy for Iowa secretary of agriculture last month and has been appearing at Democratic events around the state in recent weeks. Her campaign is on Facebook here. To my knowledge, there isn’t a campaign website yet.

Taha’s central message is simple: “A healthy Iowa begins with healthy soil.” Protecting that soil will reduce input costs for farmers while producing cleaner water in Iowa and downstream. That basic truth seems to be lost on the incumbent Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey. Despite evidence that Iowa’s world-class topsoil, a non-renewable resource, is “floating away” at an alarming rate, Northey has resisted any regulation aimed at reducing runoff into waterways. Instead, Northey promotes voluntary efforts, which may not be applied where they are most needed to keep topsoil in place. The incumbent also opposes any numeric standards which would indicate whether the state’s strategy to reduce water pollution from farms is working.

Taha will have an uphill battle against Northey, who was narrowly elected in 2006 and easily re-elected in 2010. The incumbent will have strong financial backing from interest groups that profit from current conventional agricultural practices. A far larger group of Iowans would benefit from Taha’s plan to do more to protect farmland and clean water. After the jump I’ve posted the introductory piece of literature from her campaign, which highlights her priorities and provides a short bio.

Today members of the U.S. House and Senate began conference committee negotiations on the farm bill. The last five-year farm bill expired in 2012, and the latest extension of most federal farm programs (except for some related to conservation and sustainable agriculture) lapsed on September 30. Two Iowans are on the 41-member conference committee: Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and Republican Representative Steve King (IA-04).

One issue is likely to dominate the Congressional talks: funding levels for nutrition programs, especially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. This summer, both Harkin and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley voted for the Senate farm bill, which cut SNAP by about $4 billion over 10 years. Iowa’s four U.S. House members split along party lines when the House approved a Republican bill with $39 billion in cuts over the same time frame. Keep in mind that regardless of what happens in the farm bill talks, all SNAP recipients–including an estimated 1 million veterans and approximately 421,000 Iowans–will see their food assistance reduced as of November 1. Click here for a detailed report on those cuts, which will occur as extra funding from the 2009 federal stimulus bill runs out.

After the jump I’ve posted the latest comments about the farm bill from Iowa politicians.

UPDATE: Added King’s opening statement from the conference committee meeting below.

SECOND UPDATE: Added new comments from Harkin.

As a member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), I have been asked by consumers how the rules recently got changed in the National Organic Program (NOP) to make it easier for synthetic materials on the National List of Approved Materials to be relisted when they sunset after five years (as required by law).  To clarify, any synthetic materials approved for use in organic production and handling must be approved by the NOSB by a two-thirds majority vote.  And, by law, those materials sunset in five years and must be re-approved by the NOSB to remain on the National List.  

The recent rule change — made by USDA without consultation with the NOSB — turns the voting upside down, changing the voting for sunseting materials from a former two-thirds majority to re-approve a sunseting material to two-thirds majority to de-list a sunseting material.  As Jim Riddle, long-time leader in the organic community and former Chair of the NOSB points out below in a letter to the Organic Trade Association (who supports the rule change), that is a huge change.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

I’ve been catching up on news related to the Iowa Supreme Court. On October 9 the seven justices heard oral arguments in two cases at the Fort Dodge Middle School auditorium. One of those cases was Iowa Farm Bureau, et al. v. Environmental Protection Commission, et al. Interest groups representing major water polluting industries in Iowa are seeking to overturn one of the most significant water quality protection rules this state has adopted during my lifetime. In March 2012, a Polk County District Court judge declared the legal challenge to the rule “without merit.” The Farm Bureau quickly signaled its intent to appeal, claiming the case was about “good government” rather than water quality.

The Iowa Supreme Court will likely announce a decision in this case sometime early next year. Ryan Koopmans noted recently at the On Brief blog that the justices have cleared what used to be a major backlog and are running an efficient operation.

On average, the Court issues a decision 112 days after final submission (which is usually triggered by oral argument).  But even that figure understates the Court’s efficiency.   There is a small subset of cases that, because of their complexity or other unusual factors, skew the average, which means that the median might give a better picture of the Court’s timeliness.  That’s 87 days between final submission and decision, which is relatively fast.

The Court is even faster when the situation calls for it.  In February, the Court issued a decision in In re Whalen-a case about a burial location- just 29 days after the scheduled oral argument.  And the  Court has made it a priority to respond quickly to certified questions from federal district courts.

Incidentally, last week’s session in Fort Dodge is part of the Iowa Supreme Court’s relatively new commitment to hear cases outside its chambers in Des Moines periodically. The effort was one response to the 2010 retention elections, the first ever in which voters chose not to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices. University of Iowa College of Law professor Todd Pettys cited those hearings around the state as one among many reasons that the 2012 vote to retain Justice David Wiggins turned out differently from the elections two years earlier. You can download Pettys’ paper for the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process here. While it’s probably healthy for the justices to work in other cities from time to time, I think the other factors Pettys discusses were far more important in 2012 than the court’s statewide tour.

At the end of Pettys’ paper, he discusses the future for the Varnum v Brien ruling, which cleared the way for same-sex marriages in Iowa in 2009. Commenting on a somewhat surprising “special concurrence” by Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman in a different case related to marriage equality, Pettys suggests that perhaps “the Iowa Supreme Court is no longer of one mind about whether the Varnum Court was right to hold that the Iowa Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry.”

The 2014 fiscal year began at midnight. Congress is ringing in the occasion with the first partial federal government shutdown since the mid-1990s. The U.S. House and Senate have been unable to agree on a continuing spending resolution, because most House Republicans insist on defunding or delaying the 2010 health care reform law as a condition of funding most government operations.

Details on Iowa Congressional votes on budget resolutions are after the jump, along with comments from all the Iowans in Congress and many of the candidates for U.S. House or Senate.

Authorization for most federal agricultural programs also expired at midnight, and it’s not clear when Congress will be able to agree on a short-term extension or a new five-year farm bill. Toward the end of this post I’ve enclosed some comments on the failure to pass a farm bill.

The U.S. House voted mostly along party lines on September 19 to cut the leading federal food assistance program by $39 billion over the next decade. Iowa’s four representatives split in the expected way: Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supported the “Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act,” while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no. In fact, the roll call shows that not even the bluest Blue Dog Democrat supported this bill.

After the jump I’ve posted comments on this vote from some of the Iowans in Congress, along with the latest Iowa and national figures on food insecurity and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as “food stamps.”

Some potentially good news for Iowa waterways: after months of delays, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finally signed a work plan on new procedures for permitting and inspecting large livestock farms.

Iowa’s confined animal feeding operations create more untreated manure annually than the total sewage output of the U.S. population. An EPA report published last summer concluded that the DNR’s CAFO permitting and inspection protocols did not conform to the Clean Water Act.

Federal and state officials negotiated a draft work plan to address these problems last fall, and the plan was ready to be signed in January of this year. However, the DNR requested changes to the plan based on feedback from the Iowa Farm Bureau, which tries to protect corporate agriculture from effective public oversight. Governor Terry Branstad tried to intervene with EPA officials to reduce inspections of factory farms. (Click here to read the correspondence.) To the dismay of some environmentalists, the governor also insisted that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy meet with industry representatives to discuss the CAFO inspection regime.

Although the final work plan isn’t ideal and provides for fewer in-person inspections than the earlier draft, the agreement looks like a big improvement on the status quo at the DNR. After the jump I’ve posted statements on today’s news from the DNR and environmental organizations that have been involved with this process. I also posted the seven-page work plan for inspecting thousands of CAFOs over the next five years. For more background, check out the EPA Region 7’s website and the Sierra Club Iowa chapter’s documents on CAFOs.

It will take a lot of follow through to make sure the DNR implements this plan. The agency indicated last fall that it would need thirteen new livestock inspector positions to meet Clean Water Act goals. Then DNR Director Chuck Gipp formally asked for eleven new positions in the 2014 budget, but Governor Branstad requested funding for only five new inspectors. Iowa Senate Democrats approved funding for thirteen new inspectors, but Iowa House Republicans supported the governor, and final budget for fiscal year 2014 included funding for just seven new DNR positions in this area.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey announced yesterday that he has hired Mike Naig as the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship’s new deputy secretary. In the press release I’ve posted after the jump, Northey praised Naig as a “tremendous asset” and a “natural fit” for IDALS. Naig has spent the last 13 years working for Big Ag companies or trade associations, most recently as a state lobbyist for Monsanto.

While Naig helps the agriculture department be “accessible to Iowans by traveling regularly” to meetings, and assists in managing the IDALS budget and personnel, Northey will continue to ignore some big problems facing Iowa farmers. Research has implicated Monsanto’s genetically-modified “Roundup ready” seeds and/or glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide, in the following trends:

• the accelerated evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds;

• “sudden death syndrome,” a crop disease affecting soybeans;

• “harmful changes in soil” and possibly a “fungal root disease” in conventional crops;

• digestive problems in hogs fed a diet of GM crops;

• other diseases and reproductive problems observed in swine and cattle fed a diet containing Roundup ready corn and soybeans.

But never mind all that.

Speaking of government officials with their heads in the sand, you won’t hear anything from the Iowa Department of Public Health about the risks of glyphosate exposure in humans. Nevertheless, research has linked the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide to breast cancer, birth defects, obesity and other “diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet.”  

Public policy has been slow to make a dent in the obesity epidemic, which turns out to be “a lot more deadly than previously thought.” But a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control shows that Iowa is one of eighteen states where obesity among low-income preschoolers declined by a statistically significant amount from 2008 through 2011. An estimated 14.4 percent of low-income two- to four-year-olds in Iowa were obese in 2011. Iowa Department of Public Health officials credited several programs with helping to reverse the trend.

Adult obesity is still a major health problem, according to the latest “F as in Fat” report by the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Iowa had the twelfth-highest adult obesity rate in the country at 30.4 percent in 2012. The sort-of good news was that for the first time in decades, obesity rates held steady in most states. But it’s depressing to see that the adult obesity rate exceeds 20 percent in even the “healthiest” state of Colorado now. As recently as 1991, not a single state had an obesity rate that high.

Speaking to Radio Iowa about the new obesity estimates, Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks had sensible advice:

“People don’t have to go out and do a programmed physical aerobics program for 30 minutes or an hour or two hours a day. […] Just eating less, a plant slant to your diet, and trying to get in 30 minutes of exercise a day.”

Mark my words: the Iowa Farm Bureau and other groups representing industrial agriculture will go nuts over Dr. Miller-Meeks encouraging Iowans to bring “a plant slant” to their diet, especially if she runs for Congress a third time in Iowa’s second district. But here’s an inconvenient truth for Big Ag: peer-reviewed research shows that “meat consumption is associated with obesity” in U.S. adults.

Here’s the second inconvenient truth: even if everyone ate responsibly and exercised regularly, Americans would be more prone to obesity because of exposure to certain chemicals, such as the endocrine disruptors Bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates, and some organotins used in pesticides. Long-term, low-level exposure to the prevalent herbicide atrazine can cause insulin resistance and obesity too (click here for an explanation of that research in layman’s terms).

Three years ago, a White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity called on federal and state agencies to “prioritize research into the effects of possibly obesogenic chemicals.” That won’t happen in my lifetime, at least not in Iowa.

P.S.- For anyone wondering, Iowa Department of Public Health Medical Director Dr. Patricia Quinlisk warns against ingesting a tapeworm as a weight-loss method.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I’ve been thinking about some high-tech failures. For instance, genetically-modified seeds were supposed to solve farmers’ weed problems. Yet weeds resistant to glyphosate (the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide) are “gaining ground” across Iowa. The problem is worse on farms where Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds have been planted the longest.

Rootworms “resistant to one type of genetically engineered corn” are also a growing problem. Genetically-modified seed was supposed to make corn plants poisonous to rootworm, but now farmers are “deploying more chemical pesticides than before.” The outcome was predictable.

On a related note, research shows that nitrogen enrichment through added fertilizers can hurt plant diversity and productivity of grasslands in the long term.

Some Midwestern cities and towns “are absorbing a financial beating after betting big on an innovative coal-fired power plant” during the last decade. “Clean coal” was always a boondoggle.

Speaking of costly investments, the state of Iowa continues to shovel tax credits to Orascom for a fertilizer plant project that would have been built in Iowa anyway. But hey, what’s another $25 million?

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Catching up on news from the weekend, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey held his seventh annual “BBQ bash” at the State Fairgrounds in Des Moines on July 13. Speaking to the crowd, Northey confirmed that he will seek a third term in 2014 and said he had raised at least $100,000 for his re-election campaign at the event. Ever since Northey ruled out running for the U.S. Senate in early May, it’s been clear that he would go for another four years in the job he loves.

I’ve been disappointed in Northey as secretary of agriculture. He never followed through on the farmland protection initiative he announced in 2008, even though Iowa continues to lose some of the world’s most productive agricultural land at an alarming rate. He has insisted on a solely voluntary approach to reducing nutrient pollution in Iowa waterways despite ample evidence that approach will fail. Record nitrate levels have been reported this spring and summer in major Iowa rivers, and the Des Moines Water Works is facing huge extra costs to make water drinkable for 15 percent of Iowa’s population. Not only is Northey not part of the solution, he’s digging in his heels to perpetuate the problem.

Any comments about next year’s campaign for secretary of agriculture are welcome in this thread. I haven’t heard yet of any Democrats planning to challenge Northey. Dusky Terry, who narrowly lost the Democratic primary for this office in 2006, could be a credible candidate. He is currently mayor of Earlham,  a small town in Dallas County.  

After last month’s embarrassing failure to pass a five-year Farm Bill in the U.S. House, Republicans moved new legislation yesterday that included funding for agricultural programs but excluded the nutrition programs that have been embedded in farm bills for decades.

After Democrats forced a long slog through procedural votes, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act barely passed by 216 votes to 208. Every Democrat present voted against the bill, as did twelve Republicans. The rest of the GOP caucus voted yes, including Representatives Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04). Last month, King tried but failed to muster sufficient conservative support for a farm bill including big cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (more commonly known as food stamps). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) rejected yesterday’s bill. They were among the small group of House Democrats to support the previous version of the farm bill despite cuts in nutrition programs that drove away most of their caucus.

Comments from Senator Tom Harkin and most of Iowa’s House delegation are after the jump. I will update this post as needed with more comments from Iowa candidates or elected officials. At this writing, I don’t see anything about yesterday’s vote on Latham’s Congressional website. According to Radio Iowa, Latham “said he was disappointed with the process, but pleased the House was ‘at least able to pass the agriculture portion.'”

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

I’ve been thinking about how bad assumptions produce flawed theories and poor decisions. Steve Denning wrote an excellent piece for Forbes about Milton Friedman and the origin of “the world’s dumbest idea”: “that the sole purpose of a firm is to make money for its shareholders.”

Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for the conservative website RealClearPolitics, recently spun some rosy scenarios for Republicans worried about their party’s over-reliance on white voters. GOP candidates would be extremely foolish to count on his “racial polarization” scenario panning out. His “full Rubio” and “modest Republican outreach toward Hispanics” scenarios seem too optimistic to me as well.

High nitrate levels in Iowa waterways continue to make news, as they have for the last two months. I enjoyed this Des Moines Register editorial from Saturday’s paper. Excerpt:

During a meeting with The Des Moines Register’s editorial board earlier this year, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen made the claim that Iowa’s rivers are actually cleaner today than they were in the past. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. But Paulsen’s comment speaks to a troubling mentality that permeates the Iowa Legislature: If you just tell Iowans the water is OK often enough, maybe they will believe you and will think the lake they are swimming in doesn’t really smell like a toilet.

I don’t take my kids swimming in any Iowa lakes, and I won’t feel a bit sorry for Paulsen if he runs for Congress and loses the Republican primary, as I expect.

David Osterberg stepped down yesterday as executive director of the Iowa Policy Project, Iowa’s leading think tank. A legendary figure in this state’s environmental community, Osterberg served six terms in the Iowa House, chairing the Agriculture Committee for four years and the Energy and Environmental Protection Committee for two years. He has received honors and awards from many non-profit organizations and was the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate against Chuck Grassley in 1998.

In 2001, Osterberg created the Iowa Policy Project “to bring a fact-based focus to public policy issues affecting Iowa families.” The organization’s research reports and Iowa Policy Points blog are must-reads for anyone interested in state policy. In conjunction with the Des Moines-based Child and Family Policy Center, the Iowa Policy Project also publishes valuable research on the Iowa Fiscal Partnership website. The latest Iowa Fiscal Partnership report shows how food assistance programs in the Farm Bill affect thousands of Iowans.

I was pleased to read in the statement enclosed below that Osterberg will keep working with the Iowa Policy Project on energy and environment research, and longtime assistant director Mike Owen will take over as executive director.  

The future of most U.S. farm programs is in question today, as the House of Representatives voted down a new five-year farm bill that had bipartisan support in the House Agriculture Committee. Background, details on today’s vote, and some Iowa reaction are after the jump.

A new study in a peer-reviewed journal indicates that pigs fed a diet containing genetically-modified corn and soy had more severe stomach inflammation and (in females) heavier uteri than pigs fed an equivalent diet in conventionally raised corn and soy that was not genetically-modified. You can read the full article describing research on an Iowa farm here (pdf). For a summary of key findings, click here or here. The pigs “were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions.”

These results are disturbing, considering that more than 90 percent of the corn and soybeans grown in Iowa are now “Roundup Ready” biotech varieties, sprayed with glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide. Many anecdotal reports have linked animal health problems to genetically-modified feed. At the 1000 Friends of Iowa annual meeting on June 8, large-animal veterinarian Arthur Dunham described nutritional deficiencies, fertility problems, and unexplained deaths that he has seen increasingly in the cattle and swine herds of his clients. Dunham has been in practice for nearly 40 years and presented data about lower levels of certain vitamins and minerals (including B-12, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, manganese, and iron) in feed made from genetically-modified crops.

Monsanto and its allies dismiss such data as anecdotes and cite their own corporate-funded studies, which allegedly show the safety of GM crops. The new scholarly article describes the limitations of earlier research and calls for further studies on the subject. (Very few studies have been conducted over a time period longer than 90 days, for instance.) One Danish hog farmer saw big improvements after switching from genetically-modified feed, but Roundup crops are so dominant in this country that it can be hard for farmers to source animal feed that hasn’t been sprayed with glyphosate.

This year’s cool, wet spring was a blessing at first, reducing drought conditions substantially across Iowa. But now that the state has chalked up the wettest spring in 141 years of record-keeping, many communities are dealing with major flooding again. Flooding forced the closure of Highway 14 north of Marshalltown and prompted emergency sandbagging in downtown Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. You can see high water threatening downtown Cedar Rapids on Friday, and today the basement of the rebuilt city hall flooded. Water was pumped across some lanes of Highway 30. The lack of rain on Friday may have prevented the worst-case scenario in some cities.

At the downtown Des Moines Farmers Market this morning, several vendors told me they have “more water than they need” but not a devastating amount of moisture–yet. Farmers in many parts of the state haven’t been so lucky. Either rains have prevented them from planting, or floodwaters are washing away recently-planted crops.

Governor Terry Branstad was on vacation for most of the past week but has issued disaster emergency proclamations for 47 Iowa counties. He and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds plan to tour flood-affected areas in eastern Iowa on Monday.

Any news or comments about the Iowa flooding are welcome in this thread.

JUNE 3 UPDATE: Dry weather over the weekend helped mitigate the flooding in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, but Coralville Lake is not expected to crest until June 7.

Speaking to reporters in Des Moines on June 3,

Branstad resisted the notion that this year’s floods or last year’s drought conditions could be linked to climate change or that the state could do anything to prevent such events from happening.

“Weather is always going to change,” said Branstad, who’s serving his fifth term as Iowa’s governor. “I’ve been governor during droughts and floods and we just went from a drought to a flood.

Time for another discussion thread on the race for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat. Recent news on the campaign is after the jump.

cross-posted with permission from State Representative Mary Wolfe’s blog

There have been many questions/concerns raised by the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Sallee v. Stewart, in which the Court was asked to interpret Iowa’s Recreational Land Use Immunity doctrine. Like most of my colleagues, I’ve read the relevant court cases and studied the applicable statutes, and I’ve reviewed House File 605, the Farm Bureau’s proposed bill intended to fix the “crisis” allegedly created by the Sallee ruling – and like many others, I’ve concluded that the actual impact of the Sallee ruling on Iowa’s recreational land use immunity doctrine is minimal, and that the Farm Bureau’s proposed legislation is an over-reaction to Sallee‘s extremely narrow holding.