In the wake of the 118th Congress's final actions, which included a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through March 2025 and an extension of the 2018 Farm Bill for another year, the agricultural sector has seen significant financial support. The legislation provided $30.78 billion in assistance to farmers, with $10 billion allocated for economic aid due to lower crop prices and the remainder for disaster relief. This allocation raises important questions about public sentiment towards various forms of agricultural support. Through eleven waves of the Gardner Food and Agricultural Policy Survey (GFAPS), conducted from May 2022 to November 2024, public opinion on these payments has been closely monitored. The survey reveals consistent support for disaster relief but less enthusiasm for subsidies related to low crop prices. Notably, support for payments during trade conflicts saw a surge post-election, likely influenced by the political climate.
Agricultural Aid Allocation and Public Perception
In the crisp autumn of 2024, the 118th Congress took its final steps by enacting a continuing resolution to ensure the federal government remained funded until March 2025. A key component of this legislation was the extension of the 2018 Farm Bill into the 2025 crop and fiscal years. Additionally, the bill allocated substantial funds for disaster relief, providing $30.78 billion in assistance to farmers. Of this amount, $10 billion was designated for economic aid aimed at compensating farmers for losses due to lower crop prices, while the remaining $20.78 billion addressed natural disasters like hurricanes that devastated agricultural regions.
The GFAPS survey, which has tracked public opinion on agricultural support since May 2022, offers valuable insights. Over eleven waves, approximately 1,000 U.S. consumers were surveyed each quarter, ensuring a representative sample across demographics. The survey explored six scenarios where government financial support might be provided to farmers, including natural disasters, low crop prices, sustainable practices, crop insurance affordability, trade restrictions, and general income support. The results revealed strong public backing for disaster relief, averaging 80% across all surveys. Conversely, support for payments triggered by low crop prices consistently hovered around 43%, indicating a clear divergence in public priorities.
Interestingly, the most recent wave of the survey, conducted shortly after the 2024 presidential election, showed a notable increase in support for payments during trade conflicts. This shift is likely tied to heightened awareness of potential tariffs under Donald Trump's second presidency, as evidenced by increased media coverage and public discourse. Republican and Independent participants exhibited a particularly marked increase in support, aligning with the broader political narrative surrounding agricultural policy.
Perspectives and Implications
From a journalistic standpoint, the findings underscore the complex interplay between public sentiment and agricultural policy. While taxpayers, voters, and consumers may not fully grasp the intricacies of the Farm Bill or specific programs, their support—or lack thereof—can significantly influence policy direction. The recent surge in support for trade-related payments highlights the impact of political salience on public opinion. As policymakers prepare for potential reauthorization of the Farm Bill, understanding these dynamics will be crucial. The data also suggests that future policies should strive to align more closely with public priorities, especially in areas like disaster relief, where support remains robust. Ultimately, maintaining alignment between policy and public perception will be essential for effective governance in the agricultural sector.
A Critical Decision on South Dakota's Future Energy Landscape
The Sioux Falls auditorium buzzed with anticipation as hundreds convened to voice their opinions on Summit Carbon Solutions' renewed bid for a carbon dioxide pipeline permit. Commissioner Gary Hanson set the tone, emphasizing the significance of community input in shaping the future of this transformative project. The hearing, part of a series across the state, aimed to address both supporters and opponents, reflecting the deep divisions surrounding the initiative.
Project Overview: A Vision for Sustainable Development
The Iowa-based company plans an extensive 2,500-mile pipeline network, capturing CO2 from 57 ethanol plants across five states, including eastern South Dakota. This innovative infrastructure would transport the captured emissions to North Dakota for secure underground storage. Leveraging federal tax credits, the project aims to mitigate heat-trapping carbon emissions, aligning with global efforts to combat climate change.Despite its ambitious goals, the project faced initial setbacks. In 2023, the state Public Utilities Commission rejected Summit’s first permit application due to conflicts with local ordinances. These regulations mandate minimum distances between pipelines and existing structures, raising critical safety concerns. However, Summit has since secured permits in North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, while Nebraska does not require state-level approval for such projects.
Community Concerns: Safety and Property Rights at Stake
The majority of attendees expressed opposition to the pipeline, citing safety risks and potential damage to farmland. Betty Strom, a property owner whose land would be traversed by the pipeline, voiced her apprehensions. She emphasized that the pipeline represents a "forever hazard" to her property, questioning Summit's true motives and commitment to long-term consequences.Opponents also raised concerns about the designation of the pipeline as a common carrier, which could enable the use of eminent domain. This legal tool allows private entities to acquire land for public use, sparking debates over property rights and fair compensation. The South Dakota Supreme Court recently ruled that Summit must prove its case in a lower court, adding another layer of complexity to the issue.
Economic Opportunities: A Path to Regional Growth
Supporters argue that the pipeline could bring substantial economic benefits to South Dakota. Summit estimates $1.9 billion in capital expenditures within the state, creating thousands of construction jobs and supporting hundreds of ongoing positions. Al Giese, an Iowa farmer and board member of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, highlighted the broader implications for the agricultural sector and Midwestern economies.Giese stressed that carbon sequestration is essential for the region's vitality. He urged the commission to recognize the project's potential to drive sustainable development and enhance economic opportunities. The carbon sequestration train, he noted, has already left the station, underscoring the urgency of embracing this technology for a greener future.
Legislative Actions: Addressing Community Fears
Amidst growing opposition, some state lawmakers have proposed legislation to prohibit carbon pipelines from using eminent domain. This move reflects the increasing pressure to protect property rights and ensure transparent decision-making processes. The legislative landscape remains fluid, with ongoing discussions likely to influence the project's trajectory.As public hearings continue in De Smet, Watertown, Aberdeen, and Redfield, the debate over the carbon pipeline intensifies. Each meeting brings new perspectives and insights, shaping the narrative around this pivotal infrastructure project. The outcome will undoubtedly impact South Dakota's energy future and its commitment to sustainable practices.
Tom Vilsack, who served as the United States Secretary of Agriculture for nearly 12 years across two presidential administrations, has no plans to retire at age 74. Instead, he intends to remain active in addressing critical issues such as food and nutrition security. Vilsack's tenure was marked by significant advancements in climate-smart agriculture and efforts to create new income streams for farmers. He emphasized the need for a sustainable agricultural model that supports both environmental health and economic stability. During his final days in office, Vilsack reflected on the challenges facing U.S. agriculture, including pest and disease outbreaks, climate change, and structural inequities within the farming sector. His legacy includes transformative policies aimed at promoting equity and sustainability in rural America.
Vilsack's dedication to agriculture began long before his time in Washington. After graduating from law school, he moved to Iowa, where he served as the state's 40th governor from 1999 to 2007. His deep connection to Iowa and its agricultural roots shaped his approach to policy-making at the federal level. Behind his desk at the USDA headquarters, Vilsack kept a poster-sized image of Henry Wallace and George Washington Carver—two influential figures in American agriculture history. These icons symbolized the values of science, equity, and innovation that guided his work as secretary. Wallace, a former agriculture secretary and vice president under Franklin Roosevelt, and Carver, a renowned agricultural scientist, were both associated with Iowa, reinforcing Vilsack's commitment to the state's agricultural heritage.
During his tenure, Vilsack faced two major challenges in U.S. agriculture: the increasing prevalence of pests and diseases exacerbated by climate change, and the structural imbalance within the farming industry. The former issue highlights the need for resilient agricultural systems capable of responding to environmental shifts. Vilsack emphasized that producers must be prepared to adapt to these changes, ensuring appropriate protections and responses are in place. The latter challenge concerns the concentration of farm income among a small percentage of large-scale operations. Vilsack pointed out that the top 10% of farms receive 85% of the income and 60% of the safety net, leaving the remaining 90% of farms with limited resources. This disparity underscores the urgency of creating alternative models that provide additional income streams without overburdening farmers with extra work.
To address these challenges, Vilsack championed initiatives like the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, which incentivize farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices. By promoting sustainable agriculture, Vilsack aimed to mitigate the impact of climate change while enhancing farm profitability. Additionally, investments in renewable energy, local food systems, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) have laid the foundation for a more resilient and diverse agricultural economy. Vilsack also stressed the importance of collaboration between the USDA and other government agencies, Congress, and career professionals within the department. He advised future leaders to rely on the expertise of career staff to ensure timely and effective policy implementation.
Looking ahead, Vilsack envisions continuing his efforts to promote food and nutrition security, both domestically and internationally. He remains committed to developing an alternative agricultural model that complements traditional production methods while addressing environmental concerns. In particular, Vilsack highlighted the need to support livestock producers in reducing methane emissions through sustainable practices. His vision for the future of agriculture is one where innovation and sustainability go hand in hand, ensuring that farming remains viable and environmentally responsible for generations to come. Despite stepping down from his role at the USDA, Vilsack's influence on American agriculture will continue to shape policy and practice for years to come.