Ag Success Requires Urban Support

While much has been written about the divide between agriculture’s producers and consumers, several recent examples have struck a nerve.

In our last newsletter, we encouraged support for passage of the Right to Farm amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Later we viewed election results from across the state in what had become a closely contested election. Most rural voters seemed to understand the need to protect the use of modern farming methods and supported the proposal. However, two out of every three voters in metropolitan areas voted no, with 74% of City of St. Louis voters—the highest rate in the state—telling farmers “Hell no!” with their no votes.

While a recount is likely, the Right to Farm ballot measure appears to have passed with 50.13% of the almost one million votes cast, but we should take seriously urban areas’ lack of support for, and understanding of, agriculture needs.

Last week the California legislature found a last-minute compromise to address yet another ballot issue that pitted urban voters’ needs against those of agriculture as the state considered long-ignored water issues. The legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a bill that will appear as Proposition 1 on California’s Nov. 4 ballot.

The Western Growers Association (WGA) and other ag-related groups praised lawmakers and the Governor for their decision to establish a $7.5 billion water bond that includes $2.7 billion for storage. WGA association CEO Tom Nassif said, “We are especially pleased that the storage portion of this legislation is a continuous appropriation preventing the legislature from withholding funding. Passage of this legislation is an essential first step in adding capacity to our state’s existing storage infrastructure.”

The agreement won’t solve any of the state’s current water problems in the near future, but, as one ag journalist wrote,“it gives a glimmer of hope to a state that has not improved its water infrastructure since the 1960s.”

The water plan satisfied Republicans and farmers by providing funding to build two new reservoirs and placates environmentalists by providing billions more for water conservation, recycling and cleanup efforts. The bond also includes other water projects not directly related to supply, such as watershed improvements and flood management.

While the state’s crippling drought provided the impetus to overcome longstanding divisions and offer voters a proposal in November that balances regional politics with the state’s overall water needs, the 70-plus days between now and the election will provide yet another test of ag interests being able to stick together and overcome special interest attacks aimed at urban voters.

This Friday our Association staff, along with a few members, will travel to Madison, WI, to meet with AEM staff, representatives from the majors, and our lobbyist and standards experts as we continue to work on the many issues surrounding the use of farm equipment on public roadways.

While these conversations and industry-adopted standards may lead to possible solutions, in the end, the roadway use issues are no different than a Right to Farm constitutional amendment in Missouri, approval of water bond issues in California, or warranty and buyback legislation in any state. These issues all require agriculture’s interests to be balanced against urban interest, either with the people’s representatives under the state capitol dome or at the ballot box.

Gone are the days when we could expect automatic wide-based support for pro-ag issues. Seeking gains, or simply holding ground, requires building coalitions. We encourage member companies to increase their involvement with our Association’s efforts and also with those of other ag interests within your community, state and region, reaching out to find new friends in urban communities and earning their support for our issues. S