Posted on

County blacks out farmer budget

County blacks out farmer budget County blacks out farmer budget

The Marathon County Conservation, Planning and Zoning (CPZ) Department has answered a Wisconsin Open Records Law request for a crop budget from a corn farmer being paid to reduce phosphorus run-off with a document that blacks out most information.

Asked for a reason for the extensive redactions, Marathon County corporation counsel Scott Corbett said in a Feb. 2 letter that the information about crop input purchases, yields and overall profitability were “trade secrets” protected by state law. The attorney said, further, that while the contract with the farmer does not guarantee privacy, CPZ employee Patrick Bula verbally promised the farmer confidentiality and, given that the farmer would not have agreed to the conservation contract without this promise, there was now a public interest in keeping the farmer’s production information secret.

In the contract, the county promises to pay the farmer $20 an acre on 357 acres to reduce phosphorus run-off from 3.5 pounds per acre to 2.9 pounds, a reduction of sixth-tenths of one pound. Total payment to the farmer over three years will be $21,420.

The farmer pledged to raise corn with reduced tillage and cover crops in return for the county payment. Such prac­tices are included under the umbrella of “regenerative agriculture.”

Corbett said it was in the public interest to contract with farmers to reduce phosphorus pollution and, despite the payment of tax dollars, to keep information confidential.

“In this case, the participant farmer sought and received a pledge of confidentiality under the auspices of participating in a government program,” wrote Corbett. “There is great public interest in permitting the farmers under this set of circumstances to be able to rely on this pledge. Publication in the press of the participating farmers’ private business dealings would certainly harm the CPZ’s ongoing relationship with the farmers.”

Corbett said that maintaining this confidentiality policy would prove important to “impact the future of the regenerative agriculture program that seeks to reduce phosphorus run-off, as well as other programs or initiatives going forward.”

The Record-Review made the Wisconsin Open Records Law request to try and figure out whether regenerative agriculture, promoted in a 10-year Land and Water Management plan approved by the Environmental Resources Committee (ERC) and sent to the county board, is profitable or, if not profitable, would it require government subsidies.

Information on regenerative agriculture profitability was sought from UWMarshfi eld Agricultural Research Station and from a local crop consultant who has provided technical advice to the county. Neither source could provide profitability data.

Asked whether the county had information about what kind of county subsidy would be needed to extend regenerative agriculture county-wide, Paul Daigle, county land and water program director, said he did not have any relevant data that could apply either to the county or a watershed, including the Big Eau Pleine watershed.

“At this point, there are no records showing extrapolations across any watersheds or the county as whole,” he said.

Daigle reported the county has paid five farmers in the Fenwood Subwatershed between $33.33 a pound and $11.75 a pound for phosphorus run-off reductions as calculated with computer modelling. In these five cases, the farmers reduced phosphorus run-off from an average of 3.4 pounds per acre to 2.2 at an annual county cost of $30,520 across 1,214 acres.

The proposed county Land and Water Resource Management plan calls for county farmers to meet phosphorus targets set out in an EPA-mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report. These targets call for most of western Marathon County farmland to reduce phosphorus run-off to either one or one and one-half pounds per acre.

Daigle did not provide a projection about what it would cost to incentivize farmers to meet these TMDL goals.

All he said was that the ERC will need to discuss this. “The ERC will have to have a policy discussion on how they want to implement objectives in the new Land and Water Resource Management plan if and when it is passed,” he said.


Redacted document
LATEST NEWS