USDA helps grow rural America
Reading recent news articles in the Washington Post must leave leaders at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and in Congress feeling as if no good deed goes unpunished.

An article that ran in early April, for example, was headlined “Rural Aid Goes to Urban Areas.” In it, the reporters essentially alleged that rural development programs once intended for isolated, poor and struggling areas are also now financing development in more metropolitan and suburban areas.

The Washington Post has an antagonistic editorial history on farm and rural programs in general. Thus, this recent article comes as little surprise as the Congress gears up to write a new farm bill this year.

Those of us who live and work in rural America wish urban papers like the Washington Post would come live and work on our farms and in our towns before they write so assuredly about what Congress or USDA should provide for rural development.

The fact is, Congress has authorized USDA to provide rural development programs, and also provided guidelines on how the programs should be administered. USDA follows these definitions and guidelines to a “T.” We know, because as you’ll see in the article on page 8 of this issue, USDA’s Rural Development program and its Rural Utilities Service program are essential partners of ours. The professional staff at Rural Development and Rural Utilities Service knows their programs well; they know when, where and for whom the programs work; and they’re quick to tell us or others what doesn’t qualify for funding.

What the Washington Post doesn’t see is that rural America is a dramatically changed place from when USDA first started its finance and development programs. It’s brighter, more vibrant and more essential than ever before. In many regards, rural America is hot right now, and the influx of people in many rural areas across the country is placing increasing demands on rural-based businesses and governments to provide services. In states like ours, where rural out-migration is a continuing concern, the USDA programs are even more essential.

Because of the changing demographics of rural America, it’s not nearly as easy to identify where rural America starts and urban America ends. In our state, for example, some argue that 640,000 people living in 70,000 square miles means we have no urban areas whatsoever. But for some federal programs, three or four cities are considered metropolitan areas and thus ineligible for certain rural development programs. In addition, many of the projects funded by Rural Development likely started in the countryside. But as the cities grew and enveloped these areas, they look more urban now. That’s why we’ve always believed that USDA should continue to follow its practice of “once rural, always rural” definition for the lending it does for rural utilities. That’s because the electric infrastructure we build to these places is most often done years before major growth or development occurs.

It’s our position that Congress and USDA continue its strong commitment to rural development as it works on the 2007 farm bill. As evidence of past success, the Post story points out that more than $70 billion in loans, grants and loan guarantees have been provided by USDA since 2001. In our state, just one rural development program—called the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant program—has brought more than $15 million in financing through the state’s electric and telecommunications cooperatives since 1990.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the repayment record of the loans made to rural utilities and rural businesses in our state is exemplary. Too often, the USDA programs are portrayed only as grants or giveaways. In reality, much of the financing is provided by way of loans or loan guarantees, on which USDA is fully repaid.

We believe there are even brighter days ahead for rural America. To get there, we’ll continue to need the tools provided by Congress in USDA’s rural development programs.
Our view is this: Keep up the good work.