Conservation service has offered vital support to Kansas farmers and ranchers. Cuts imperil it all.
My family has ranched in the Flint Hills for more than 100 years, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service has always been a part of my life. Hearing that 1,200 NRCS employees have been eliminated nationwide is heartbreaking.
On our ranch, we worked closely with NRCS advisers, and I was honored to join the service to assist ranchers after graduating from Kansas State University. In a post-9/11 world, I felt like I was serving my country, and the work was profoundly meaningful during my husband's deployments. I believe strongly in creation care and that conservation is an act of patriotism.
NRCS is not a political organization, and as an employee I signed a form to basically keep my politics private. As I am no longer employed by the organization, I am free to speak my mind. I hope to convey why this is so distressing for us all.
NRCS employees are technical experts: rangeland management specialists, civil engineers, wildlife specialists, soil conservationists and scientists. I can't speak to the requirements for each position, but as a rangeland management specialist, I had to have 21 credit hours of range management coursework along with soils and soil genesis. This is difficult. While the classes aren't easy, they are also not offered at most universities. Even K-State had the classes staggered, so the process of getting them took three years, even if you transferred in as a junior.
In short, it is a tricky field to enter, and you must be dedicated to study it in the first place.
Beyond this come the necessary people skills. NRCS's goal was 'Helping people help the land.' Applicants undergo background checks, reference checks and interviews to find the right people others would trust on their land. A great scientist isn't always a people person, so the service carefully searches for those who can do both. Staffing has long been an issue.
After college, there's so much more to learn. To be more well-rounded, a new hire begins training with experts in their own and related fields. I trained with range management folks, wildlife people, engineers on pond building and with an adored soil scientist everyone called 'professor.' I learned a ton and saw a lot of different issues.
If this generation of mentors retire without passing on knowledge to new recruits, this hard-won knowledge will be lost. Not only were these experts incredibly knowledgeable, but they were good, kind people — the kind you'd feel comfortable having on your ranch to share the best and worst of your operation. There's a huge amount of trust involved.
The Soil Conservation Service, as NRCS was first known, was formed in the midst of the Dust Bowl. Founders studied ancient civilizations and effects of long-term loss of productive lands, such as salinization — salts building up in soils from irrigation, such as in Egypt and the Nile delta. These remain global concerns, leading to food insecurity and civil unrest in places such as sub-Saharan Africa, where residents face desertification — overgrazing to the point that plants can't hold soil and water, turning once-lush lands into deserts.
Soil conservation was seen as essential to success of American civilization FDR wrote: 'The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.'
Accordingly, since 1935, the U.S. has depended on this crucial private-public partnership: dedicated, government-sponsored NRCS scientists and advisers working with farmers and ranchers to maintain soil quality, water quality, other natural resources and agricultural production.
The results have been astounding. As a kid, my chest would swell with pride driving past road signs reading 'A Kansas farmer feeds 125 people AND YOU!' I knew that my dad's work was so important to so many people, and that families would gather and grill burgers from this rocky, rocky land and celebrate good fortune with a steak. All while not thinking that conservationists and ranchers were also protecting water in the glass right by their plate, and not thinking that our peace and prosperity as a nation depended on strong trade relations from our abundant commodities.
The numbers on those signs increased over my childhood, and the current count is 155 fed per Kansas farmer.
NRCS works to prevents the complex problems resulting from degradation of natural resources. One ranch overgrazing might not seem like a big deal, until you consider that soil loss can be quick but take centuries to rebuild. Long term the land will be less productive, and water running off will be contaminated by sedimentation. Sedimentation is expensive for municipalities to filter, and it often settles into lakes. It decreases lakes' capacity as a water source and their holding capacity during flooding, which shortens the lifespan of the lake and is insanely expensive to dredge.
There are major financial implications to these ecological problems, not to mention our loss of standing in the world as an agricultural powerhouse. We, as a nation and internationally, are all affected by how land is managed here in Kansas.
I have always found it sweet that our native grasses do so much good. Yes, they are great feed for cattle. They also increase our soil carbon, which makes land more productive and pulls carbon from the atmosphere, while providing habitat to countless beloved wild species.
However, this beloved prairie is under constant threat from invasive species such as eastern red cedars. A mature cedar tree can produce up to 1.5 million seeds annually, and this problem's growth has been exponential. My concern is not only the lost agricultural production, but the creation of drought-like conditions as they change the hydrology of land. According to research from K-State, half of the rainfall on a cedar tree is intercepted by its branches, never reaching the ground. The top 4 inches of soil under cedar trees is 20% dryer than rangeland.
Having watched Los Angeles burn recently, I can't help but think how the mess of cedars south of Manhattan, a single careless smoker and the prevailing winds would rain down embers on K- State and the community, causing immense tragedy and loss — as well as skyrocketing everybody's insurance. There are many homes and communities at risk across the state. We need to push back hard against these problems, not holding back and giving them ground!
The invasive species sericea lespedeza and old world bluestems have no grazing value and threaten to overtake our native prairie. They are also increasing exponentially and require knowledge and action and money, sooner rather than later.
I do not know the next step. NRCS by no means has the monopoly on dedicated public employees within the USDA, and there have been a number of decisions lately with horrific consequences for American agriculture. A guiding quote to many in conservation and environmental education comes from Senegalese environmentalist Baba Dioum: 'In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.'
I share this in the spirit of the public servants who served a noble and patriotic goal, and a government agency guided by a spirit of benevolence and foresight. I hope we can all understand and mourn this loss and to stand our ground in the future in every sense.
Katie (Wilson) Hancock grew up on Flint Hills ranches and graduated from Kansas State University with her degree in range management. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Veterans may be denied food stamps under Trump's new tax law
Veterans will no longer be exempt from work requirement rules for food stamps under President Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending and tax law, leaving many worried about how they will find employment. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is the federal aid program formerly known as food stamps, currently allows work exemptions for veterans, but that will soon end under legislation signed into law last month. Starting in 2026, all SNAP recipients, including vets, will have to prove they are working, volunteering, participating in job training or looking for work for at least 80 hours a month to keep their food stamps beyond three months — unless they qualify for another exemption, such as having certain disabilities, reported Stateline. About 1.2 million veterans live in households that participate in the SNAP program, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'What I'm trying to do is get settled into, you know, stabilize into an apartment. I have the credentials to get a job. So it's not like I'm not gonna look for a job,' Darryl Chavis, a former Army service member, told Stateline. 'I have to work. I'm in transition, and the obstacles don't make it easy.' 'Nobody even came to help me,' Chavis, who said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder from his service, told the outlet. Veterans have lower employment rates largely due to the fact that fewer vets are looking for work, since they often have more health conditions from serving and lower educational attainment, according to the Center. Veterans may face barriers to employment, such as little work experience beyond military service, trouble finding a position that matches their skills, discrimination by employers or lack of access to support services, they said. In addition, Black and Latino veterans experience higher unemployment rates than white veterans, the group states. While many vets say the new work requirements don't take into consideration the additional barriers they face, those who support the measures say eligibility changes are necessary to stop people who could be working from abusing the system, Stateline reported. 'Most of the people that are in this category live in households with other people that have incomes, and so there really isn't a chronic food shortage here,' Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, told the outlet. 'We have tens of thousands of free food banks that people can go to,' he added. 'So it's just a requirement to nudge these people in the proper direction, and it should no longer go unenforced.'
Yahoo
30-07-2025
- Yahoo
The trouble with Trump's homelessness plan
Tracy Bennett, left, and a friend move her tent after police told her and others staying in a downtown San Diego homeless encampment to vacate for a cleaning. (Matt Vasilogambros/Stateline) The Trump administration is pushing to involuntarily commit more people to psychiatric hospitals in an effort to keep them off the street, according to a new executive order issued Friday. 'Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order,' the memo states. It also calls for defunding 'housing first' programs, which prioritize quickly getting people into stable housing with fewer restrictions. With the order, the new Trump administration is entering an ongoing debate over nationwide crises in mental healthcare and housing, and the intersection of the two. In recent years, even some blue states and cities like New York and San Francisco have moved to increase the use of involuntary treatment. Proponents of these policies say that people with severe mental illness are often too sick to accept help and can pose a threat to themselves or others when left untreated. Critics argue that these approaches are ineffective, costly, and in violation of patients' civil rights. This story is part of 'Trump Two: Six Months In,' a Marshall Project series taking stock of the administration's efforts to reshape immigration enforcement and criminal justice. Some housing advocates say the president's order is a deflection. 'Some people experiencing homelessness have mental illness,' said Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center. 'That's not the cause of homelessness. The cause of homelessness is that housing is too expensive. Institutionalizing folks doesn't treat the root cause of the problem.' Standards for when someone is eligible for involuntary treatment vary state by state, and attorneys say much of Trump's order is beyond his authority. But the order could have an impact on the distribution of federal funding and gives support to cities and states looking to crack down on homeless encampments. To better understand the potential impact of this directive, The Marshall Project spoke with Jennifer Mathis, Deputy Director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, which advocates against 'unnecessary institutionalization' and for increased voluntary mental health treatment in community settings instead. This conversation was edited for length and clarity. Were you surprised by this move by the Trump administration? There had been chatter for a while about this happening. It was somewhat consistent with the rhetoric the president has used over the years in his campaigns and while in office. I think it's entirely misguided. It's unusual, at best, for the president to tell the Justice Department to actively seek to undermine established law rather than to enforce it. There is Supreme Court precedent on civil commitment. [The state cannot involuntarily commit someone who doesn't have mental illness and isn't a danger to themselves or others.] That's the law of the land. There is no legal support for what they are advocating. If there were, they would not need to try to overturn judicial precedents. What makes it 'misguided,' in your opinion? It is a little peculiar to suggest that the primary goal of this administration — when it comes to people with mental health disabilities — is not to help them in the community, but to focus on civilly committing them. And then what happens? Are they going to civilly commit them on a long-term basis? You can't commit your way out of a problem of not having sufficient community services. That's the root cause of many of the issues they are addressing in this executive order. It seems like a very backward vision of a system that resembles the one we came from many years ago, and that we got away from because it was not only destroying lives — it was destroying budgets as well. It is very costly to keep people institutionalized. If you don't focus on creating the services that people need to avoid it, or to be discharged and free up other beds when people need them — you will continue to have people showing up at the front door. Civilly committing everybody doesn't solve that problem. You can't create hospitals ad nauseam. This is not serving people or treating them. It's warehousing. How does this order square with research on reducing homelessness or the use of involuntary treatment? These provisions about using discretionary grants to expand civil commitments and involuntary outpatient commitments, to stop supporting housing-first policies or harm reduction policies — all of that seems to signal a shift away from evidence-based practices. There is a mountain of evidence supporting housing-first, that it works, and that it's been a very effective and important strategy to meet the needs of people who often have the highest needs. Housing-first had bipartisan support for many, many years. It was started during the George W. Bush administration. That is a really effective strategy. To say we're not going to house people who — by virtue of their situation or disability — are not going to be able to comply with certain requirements, and therefore we're going to leave them on the street, has not been very effective. So what will happen to the people who will remain unhoused? They're going to be civilly committed then? And then what? Hospitalization is not a magic pill. They don't seem to have a plan for what happens after. On assisted outpatient treatment [the practice of providing someone with involuntary mental health or addiction treatment in the community under a court order], this executive order seems to be promoting it and suggesting agencies should use all means available to expand it. But the Government Accountability Office just issued a report saying evidence is inconclusive that assisted outpatient treatment actually does anything. I don't think this has become a priority issue among most conservatives. I think there are particular groups for whom this has been a priority. It's not like Republicans broadly are clamoring for this. There have been efforts to demonize people with mental health disabilities and portray them as violent, even despite a lack of evidence. All the data over all the years shows that people with mental illnesses account for 3 to 5% of violence. There was a specific effort to create these associations in the public mind of mental health and violence, because it was a convenient narrative. Some people did it because fear was a good way to generate support for mental health services, since otherwise, people didn't seem to care. There were other actors who had other motivations and were happy to take advantage of those increasing public fears to scapegoat people with mental health disabilities to divert from gun control conversations. Whether it's right or left, both have been guilty of perpetuating those stereotypes. There has been a trend over the years to lower civil commitment standards. Apparently, the president thinks they should be [even] lower. Certain groups exist in states across the country who have beaten the drums for lowering [them]. It becomes a politicized issue where legislatures feel pressured to do something in the wake of a [violent] incident, and the answer is painted as 'if you just lowered civil commitment standards, then this wouldn't happen.' What does it mean to issue this order just as Congress approved significant cuts to Medicaid and other social services? That's the absurdity of it. Hospitals are the most costly services we have in our system — that is why state mental health systems moved away from psychiatric hospitals. Also, because it was much better for people to live a life in the community. We are in an era where Congress has made historic cuts to the Medicaid program, and states are going to face massive shortfalls in their mental health service systems. The idea of encouraging states to bypass interventions that would help people avoid hospitalization and to live in the community, and instead spending historically scarce resources on the most expensive interventions … seems completely flawed. They would be able to serve far fewer people. It makes no sense. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE This article was first published by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for their newsletters, and follow them on Instagram, TikTok, Reddit and Facebook. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
18-07-2025
- New York Post
Hooray! Taxpayers will no longer have to pay for NPR, PBS's lefty propaganda
Congress is finally defunding public broadcasting, and it's about time. Taxpayers will no longer have to pay for the toxic, biased propaganda that federally funded media have been poisoning America with for the last 60 years. The argument for government-run media has always been dubious at best; it's what dictators use to control and discipline the public. The news media is supposed to scrutinize and reveal what our leaders are doing. How does that work when the government — of any sort — is picking up the bill? Imagine if the government paid for newspapers. Would you trust the news it reported? Ken Burns, who made the Civil War and baseball documentaries that aired on PBS, says that without public broadcasting, farmers won't hear the weather forecast. Their crops will be ruined. Somebody tell Ken this isn't the Dust Bowl-era. Farmers today use GPS and AI to optimize irrigation and improve yields per acre. They aren't huddled around the wireless waiting for the crop report from a publicly funded broadcaster. Liberal supporters of PBS love to say that conservatives are trying to kill Big Bird. But 'Sesame Street' long ago partnered with HBO, and now Netflix. The Muppets brand is owned by Disney. Market-driven programming ensures that quality content — for kids and adults — will reach its audience. There's no lack of outlets. Cable and satellite television offer hundreds of channels, not to mention the Internet. There is more content out there than could be watched in a lifetime. Perhaps there's an argument to be made for non-profit media. But that's why public television calls itself 'viewer supported' and runs fundraisers all the time. The people who like it send in a few bucks every year to keep it going. You didn't think all those tote bags were free, did you? Anyway, public broadcasting still has corporate 'sponsorship.' The companies just run their commercials at the beginning and end of the shows instead of the middle. On top of everything, though, PBS and NPR had became overtly identified with lefty viewpoints. Liberal to far-left opinions ran through all public media-sponsored news, documentaries, commentary and even featured programming. NPR CEO Katherine Maher called Donald Trump a a 'deranged, racist sociopath.' She viewed 'reverence for truth' a 'distraction' that 'prevents us from getting things done.' Maybe that's why NPR buried The Post's Hunter Biden laptop story, saying it was 'not really a story' and a 'distraction.' The PBS NewsHour also dismissed the story as 'Russian disinformation.' NPR ran stories defending looting. PBS featured a boy drag queen called 'Lil Miss Hot Mess' on a show for small children. We live in a free country. People can produce and consume all kinds of programming for their enjoyment. And if it's good, it will find a paying audience. But there's simply no reason for our taxes to support it. Audiences that want that programming can fund it themselves.
