Editor’s note: This commentary is by James H. Maroney Jr. of Leicester, who has a master’s degree in environmental law and policy from Vermont Law School and is a former farmer.
There comes a time in the trajectory of any problem-solving endeavor, if exertions are not bearing fruit, to go back and question foundational beliefs. Those who have tried to solve the “twin crises” of lake pollution and farm viability in Vermont, a quest that began in the 1960s, are way past this point.
Heedless of this, the Vermont Dairy and Water Collaborative embraced the same beliefs we have heard many times before and in March of last year issued a report, which begins with:
“Dairy farming continues to be central to our state’s identity and culture and is far and away our leading agricultural activity … excellent water quality is a critical part of Vermont’s quality of life and farming plays a major role in Vermont’s economy and a healthy working landscape … farm stewardship practices are a critical pathway to improving water quality. From this perspective, farm viability is essential.”
Everyone knows that dairy is “central to our identity” and that excellent water quality is “critical to the quality of our lives” But the Vermont Dairy and Water Collaborative’s effort to draw a moral, cultural or economic equivalency between the two is circular reasoning — when the end of an argument refers back to the beginning assumptions without having first proven itself.
Had the leaders of the collaborative invited me to join their group, I would have insisted we stipulate that the attainment of our water quality standards is a necessary duty and, once that is established, we could explore ways to adapt the exigencies of farming, which are discretionary, to that duty. If, in other words, we had our horse before our cart, it would be more expeditious to attain our water quality standards by discontinuing farming altogether.
The flaw in these opening statements is in the failure to scrutinize the meaning of “farm viability” and “essential.” Farms are “essential” because farms grow food and all of us need to eat. Of course, the collaborative’s writers knew that about 90% of Vermont food is imported so we don’t farm in Vermont in order to eat. The writers also knew that Vermont farming really means dairy.
Surely those writers knew that New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut all seem to get along fine without a dairy industry to speak of — and without the huge costs of keeping one, either. Why is it essential to dairy farm in Vermont?
For a farm to be “viable,” its revenues must be greater than its expenditures. There are two ways to achieve that: 1) Farmers could rethink how they farm and come up with a value proposition that cash flows and doesn’t degrade the state’s water. This is the preferred way. Or 2) The Legislature could pump hundreds of millions into the farm economy to keep expenditures barely tolerable. This is the Vermont way.
The state has enacted an array of property, sales and income tax deferrals and/or exemptions, to “save agriculture and protect the lake.” These programs cost the taxpayers roughly $135 million a year, or about $3 billion over 60 years, and they have empirically failed to achieve either goal.
So, the Vermont Dairy and Water Collaborative decided to intervene on the revenue side of the farm ledger. In a section headed “Recommendations,” the collaborative proposes paying conventional Vermont dairy farmers for “eco-services” such as:
• nutrient and water cycling
• soil structure, formation and fertility
• stormwater attenuation and flood mitigation
• carbon sequestration and climate regulation
• pest control and pollination
• wildlife habitats and biodiversity conservation
• recreation, tourism, scenic beauty and open space
• production of food, fiber and fuel
A cynic might say these “services” are incidental to farming, or the farmers’ provision of them hasn’t done much to alleviate the “twin crises.” But making payments to Vermont’s conventional dairy farmers for “eco services” deliberately ignores the two 800-pound gorillas in the room.
Gorilla 1: Before conventional Vermont dairy can become “viable,” a dependable buyer must be found willing to pay above $20/hundredweight — our farmers’ cost — for 2.1 billion pounds of Vermont milk when the identical product can be purchased elsewhere for $16/hundredweight. What is more, it is extremely unlikely that whatever amount of money the collaborative hopes to convince the Legislature to pay farmers for “eco-services” will come anywhere near assuaging their $100 million annual operating loss. I read somewhere they are pushing for $400,000 a year, which falls about $99.6 million a year short of helping Vermont conventional dairy farmers break even.
Gorilla 2: Paying conventional Vermont dairy farmers a premium for “eco services” without first ending the importation of conventionally grown grain, without first ending the importation of artificial fertilizer, without first ending the housing of more than one cow for every three acres under management and without first constraining the farmers’ urge to oversupply their markets, will only drive the surplus further up and milk prices further down; and it will embolden them to expand capacity with which to make even more milk, putting us all right back where the Vermont Dairy and Water Collaborative surely knew we were before they started: With a dairy industry that is not viable or essential and that deploys a methodology that pollutes the lake and the atmosphere.
Readers interested in revisiting the Vermont Dairy and Water Collaborative’s predicates to see why it issued this report anyway will find my observations at this link.
