Farmer Fatigue: Farmers Grow Weary Of Trade War, But Most Stick With Trump

Tom Folz drives around on a sunny, August afternoon and surveys the thousands of acres of dark green, leafy soybean plants and tall stalks of corn he…

Tom Folz drives around on a sunny, August afternoon and surveys the thousands of acres of dark green, leafy soybean plants and tall stalks of corn he grows on his sprawling farm in Christian County, Kentucky.

At 54, Folz has wispy, white hair matching his white mustache. It’s taken him several long work weeks to get his crop to where it is today.

“You got to be a little bit ‘off’ to be a farmer,” Folz said. ”You don’t get to enjoy anything during harvest and planting season because we’re working.”

He said his crop has grown well, which is something not all farmers here can say. Ohio Valley farmers were unable to plant almost 1.6 million acres this year – most of that in northwest Ohio – because of excessive rainfall and flooding. Across the country, farmers faced similar weather-related struggles.

On top of bad weather, Folz worries about the country’s increasingly stormy relations with trading partners, especially China. A trade war with escalating tariffs by both the U.S. and China has stretched for more than a year now, with the latest salvos coming Friday: China announced more retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion worth of U.S. goods, including soybeans, pork, wheat, and other agricultural products. President Donald Trump responded with higher tariffs on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports. Trump also called for American companies to cut ties with China.

Folz fears it will continue to depress the prices he gets for his harvest, putting more stress on his family-run business.

“Everything is just scary. And there’s so many things that we think we’ve figured out, when really, we don’t have any idea what’s going on,” Folz said. “Especially when a tweet comes out and drives prices down ten or fifteen percent, or a report comes out and drives corn prices down ten percent,” he said. “You go from a profit margin to a substantial loss from numbers real quick.”

Two weeks ago Folz signed up for the second round of the Market Facilitation Program, a Trump administration effort to give a portion of $16 billion as direct trade relief payments to affected farmers.

Folz said he doesn’t want these payments. He doesn’t like government subsidies in general, and wants trade deals reached as soon as possible. “I wish it would settle today,” he said.

With no strong signals that Trump will reach a trade deal with China anytime soon, Folz said the relief payments keep farmers afloat in the meantime.

“If [Trump] doesn’t keep stepping up with these different little payments to help save us until it gets done, there’ll be a lot of farmers who won’t be in business in a couple of years if it lasts that long,” Folz said.

Credit Liam Niemeyer / Ohio Valley ReSource
/
Ohio Valley ReSource
‘Everything is just scary,’ Folz says of the uncertainty around trade.

He still backs the Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate new trade deals because he wants someone to stand up against unfair trade practices and make up for a trade deficit with China.

A recent Farm Journal survey showed a large majority of the country’s farmers still support Trump. Yet many regional farmers are also becoming weary of ongoing trade disputes, with some questioning the Trump administration’s tactics and ultimately whether they’ll support Trump’s reelection.

Varying Relief

In northeast Ohio, Ben Klick is just establishing his career in agriculture. The 24-year-old, closed on his first farm this year and grows crops including corn. He said he thinks farmers still trust Trump to follow through with trade deals.

“He’s done a lot for us. More than any recent president has done for a farmer in the past,” Klick said. “As long as he comes through on some of his trade promises, I think he’ll have no problem with our support.”

Klick thinks Trump is making progress on his trade promises to replace NAFTA with a new trade deal, called USMCA. That agreement with Mexico and Canada has not yet been ratified by Congress. But Klick also wishes Trump would be more careful with his words.

“I wish he would just quit saying he was close on something when he’s been saying that so many times now,” Klick said. “I’d rather him just say ‘Be patient, this takes time,’ instead of him saying ‘We’re close on something, we’re close.’ And you get your hopes up, but then nothing happens.”

The latest relief payments are being distributed to most crop farmers by acreage planted, depending on the farmer’s county of residence. U.S. Department of Agriculture officials said they based payments on a calculation of the amount of trade damage that farmers in each county are expected to face.

Credit Alexandra Kanik / Ohio Valley ReSource
/
Ohio Valley ReSource

These payments vary widely. In the Ohio Valley, they range from as low as $15 an acre in some counties to as high as $124 an acre in Braxton County, West Virginia.

“I just found out today that I can get $124 dollars an acre for it. And I was floored,” John Meadows said. He’s a Braxton County farmer growing a 20-acre plot of corn, which, he admits, does not make him a major producer.

“It’s not like I have a billboard hanging out that you can fly over and see that says ‘Oh my god, look at that corn!’”

Meadows said he was surprised the relief payment rate was so high for him because there’s little crop production in Braxton County and central Appalachia, compared to other parts of the country. But he said he wasn’t turning down the payment.

Some analyses of the relief program indicate that farmers are being overcompensated.

Researchers at the University of Missouri Food & Agricultural Policy Institute argue in an analysis published in late July that the lost soybean markets from China were partially made up for by exports to other smaller countries. Soybeans prices still saw a modest decline, but not enough of a decline to justify the amount of payments.

Other critics have pointed to several large farms, including one in central Kentucky, which were able to collect in some cases over $1 million in the first round of payments. Ohio Valley farmers received $616,287,779 in payments from the first round of the Market Facilitation Program through the end of April, according to data obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group. Three-fourths of that total went to Ohio farmers, and twelve farms in Ohio and Kentucky received at least $500,000.

Davie Stephens, a far west Kentucky soybean farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, said those critiques don’t take into account the financial situation of every farm.

“You may have some farmers think it’s great and some say this isn’t near enough,” Stephens said. “So it goes back to financially how each individual farm is feeling this impact.”

Agricultural economists in the Ohio Valley also agree that the financial situation of farmers can vary. Ben Brown, Ohio State University Assistant Professor of Professional Practice in Agricultural Risk Management, said the payments might be slightly overcompensating, but that some farms still need the support.

“Maybe they’re a little bit higher than what they should have been,” Brown said. “This isn’t a long term solution. I don’t think anybody in agriculture likes waiting to see if the government will make these trade aid payments.”

Brown said he expects there to be future rounds of relief payments to farmers if unresolved trade disputes continue into 2020.

Credit Liam Niemeyer / Ohio Valley ReSource
/
Ohio Valley ReSource
Tom Folz grows thousands of acres of corn and soybean in western KY.

Growing Weary 

Not all Ohio Valley farmers support the Trump administration’s tactics, even if those trade relief payments do continue.

Ohio Farmers Union President Joe Logan said his members generally still want to support Trump, but are questioning whether tariffs are the best path toward trade deals.

“They’re frustrated. They don’t see a favorable end in sight,” Logan said. “They still want to give Mr. Trump’s team a chance to succeed in this, but I would say their tolerance for further misery is becoming limited.”

John Meadows, the Braxton County farmer, said he wants politicians in Washington to put aside partisan differences to tackle issues like trade.

“The last several years, we’ve either been in the left ditch or the right ditch,” Meadows said. “We haven’t been going down the road with one or even two wheels on it. We’ve went clear off the road, left or right.”

He voted for Trump in 2016 but is unsure about whether to do so in 2020. He said like other farmers, he wants to see if Trump will ultimately follow through on his trade promises.

“I think most farmers would still vote for him today,” Meadows said. “But I’m also aware that a lot of them are sitting on the fence and may be sitting on the fence until election day.”

Watershed Moment: 'Ephemeral' Streams Debate Could Reshape Ohio Valley Waterways

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will decide over the next six months whether to follow through with a Trump administration executive order that would dramatically change federal protections for such streams and wetlands.

The proposed revision would roll back an expanded Clean Water Act rule from the Obama administration, that included protections for ephemeral streams and wetlands in something called the “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. 

In the Trump administration’s revision, ephemeral streams and wetlands would not be protected, and that concerns West Liberty University Professor Zachary Loughman.

Credit Glynis Board / West Virginia Public Broadcasting
/
West Virginia Public Broadcasting
Loughman poses with a crayfish at his laboratory at West Liberty University, West Virginia.

Loughman has dedicated his professional life to crustaceans – specifically freshwater crayfish. He dips his hand into one of the water tanks at his laboratory near Wheeling, West Virginia, to pick up a teal crayfish the size of a dollar bill.

“See the little guy dropping down? We caught mom and she had 300 babies. So we just let them grow,” Loughman said. “We’ve had our feet – my lab – in over 3000 rivers in the past ten years.”

His team has been all over Appalachia and the Ohio Valley searching streams, wetlands, and marshes to document thousands of crayfish, some of them undiscovered species. His students even named one after him.

“So when we’re out looking for our crawfish, we’re flipping rocks and letting our ‘inner ten-year-old’ fly, but we’re doing it in a scientific way,” Loughman said. “I got to go to all the places I love to be, because I like water, so.”

Yet with each new species Loughman discovers, he worries that the habitats of these unique animals may be at risk in the future. Some crayfish he studies live in wetlands and streams that are considered “ephemeral,” which means they only occasionally have water during events like heavy rainfall.

“I don’t know a single aquatic conservationist or biologist – and I know a lot of those kind of people – who thinks ‘yeah, this rule is great.’ I don’t know anybody who thinks this rule is good, or even OK,” Loughman said. “So when you have an entire community of people whose job it is  to generate the science that this rule is based off of, that are all unified and are emphatically saying, ‘this is a disaster,’ then that is a tremendous amount of evidence that this is a disaster.”

Members of the EPA Science Advisory Board in early June questioned the science backing the Trump administration’s revised WOTUS rule.

Credit Trout Unlimited
/
Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited advocates for the Obama-era version of the WOTUS rule.

Explore your area’s streams with this interactive map from Trout Unlimited.

Scientists and biologists, including Loughman, worry that if ephemeral streams and wetlands don’t have federal protection, it could lead to pollution of watersheds, a loss of water quality and aquatic wildlife, and the potential for more dangerous flash flooding as climate change intensifies.

Yet some Ohio Valley farmers, coal companies, and land developers worry that expanded federal protections will bring burdensome federal regulation.

Connected Watershed

The EPA received over 600,000 public comments this spring on the Trump administration’s revised WOTUS definition, including from the Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Association, the Kentucky Coal Association, and the Kentucky Waterways Alliance.

Some comments criticizing the proposed rule change cited the work of Ohio State University School of Environment and Natural Resources Professor Mazeika Sullivan, who has studied wetlands throughout Ohio and contributed to a study on the ecological role of the nation’s ephemeral waterways.

“If this were to go into law, we’d lose protections for millions of acres of wetlands. Millions of miles of streams,” Sullivan said. “I think folks don’t necessarily understand just the services they provide.”

He said one benefit ephemeral streams offer in the Ohio Valley is to buffer against flash flooding, holding back heavy precipitation. If more ephemeral streams are eliminated because of a lack of federal protection, then the possibility of flash floods increases.

Sullivan said the Ohio Valley could see more streams become ephemeral in the future, as climate change is predicted to increase drought conditions.

“An intermittent stream today could become an ephemeral stream in the future, and then it would fall out of protection,” Sullivan said. “And we’re seeing that, at least anecdotally, in areas of Ohio.”

Sullivan also helped review a 2015 EPA report that detailed how ephemeral streams and wetlands, while not having regular flowing water, are still connected to and contribute to the quality of larger downstream waters. Essentially, water that flows from ephemeral bodies eventually ends up in streams and rivers.

“Once you degrade these systems, you can’t just turn them around and snap your fingers and say, ‘OK, we’re going to restore them,’” Sullivan said. “Once we go down this path, it’s a very slippery, slippery slope.”

The Obama administration cited that report when expanding the definition of WOTUS protections to include ephemeral streams and wetlands. But land developers, the coal industry, and agriculture interests pushed back, arguing that vague language in the rule could put excessive regulation on businesses and farms.

Regulation Reservations

Kentucky soybean farmer Larry Thomas is one of those farmers against the Obama-era definition of WOTUS and in favor of the Trump administration’s revision.

Sporting a white beard, he stands among tall weeds on his farm near Elizabethtown, Kentucky, to point over at a nearby creek bed.

“Talking about ephemeral streams, this stream, and I don’t know where it stops – somewhere on the other side of Bacon Creek Road – will not run year-round,” Thomas said.

Thomas said he was worried the Obama-era definition of WOTUS was too vague, and that federal regulators could extend the language to require regulation of things like water retention ponds on his farm.

“They want to grab another tributary and bring it into that,” Thomas said. “And we have to say somewhere, where does this stop? Otherwise we wind up in people’s yards.” 

He believes the Trump administration revision of WOTUS provides more clarity for farmers on what water bodies are regulated.

Thomas mentioned specifically, under the revision, that it’s easier to determine whether wetlands are protected by having a surface water connection to other protected streams and rivers. Thomas also said regulation of ephemeral streams and wetlands should be left to the states.

But other area farmers believe such concerns are misplaced and that they, too, benefit from protected streams.

Laura DeYoung raises sheep in northwest Ohio, and is a member of the Ohio Farm Bureau and the Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association. She supports the Obama-era rule because of the expanded protections it provides for wetlands, and she points out that the 2015 rule explicitly exempted agriculture from any new regulation. She trusts the EPA in its exemption of agriculture.

“What happens upstream impacts what happens downstream,” DeYoung said. “I just think there are better battles to fight, and this isn’t a battle [farmers] need to fight.”

DeYoung said she hasn’t noticed a difference in how her farm has been regulated when the Obama-era rule went into effect in Ohio, the only state in the Ohio Valley where the rule is currently enacted. The Southern District Court of Ohio in March refused to issue an injunction to stop the implementation of the rule in the state.

Credit Liam Niemeyer / Ohio Valley ReSource
/
Ohio Valley ReSource
Farmer Larry Thomas fears this retention pond could be regulated.

Legal Battles

The Obama-era rule is enacted in a total of 22 states, but ongoing litigation stopped its implementation in other states, including Kentucky and West Virginia.

West Virginia University Agriculture Law Professor Jesse Richardson believes even more litigation is likely if the Trump revision of WOTUS is finalized.

“I think as soon as the Trump administration finalizes their rule, which I anticipate that they will, I think there will be dozens of lawsuits filed the very next day,” Richardson said. “It’s just going to wind its way through the courts for five years, ten years – who knows?”

Richardson said that Congress could step in to define WOTUS and help end the court battles, but he didn’t think that was likely. A Senate hearing on WOTUS in June had senators expressing interest to redefine the Clean Water Act, but lawmakers offered no definitive steps forward.

An EPA spokesperson said the agency expects to take a final action on the Trump administration’s revised definition by December.

Glynis Board of ReSource partner station West Virginia Public Broadcasting contributed to this story.

Exit mobile version