Vilsack, Stabenow: New definitions of ‘rural’ will be positive
March 05, 2013 | 08:29 PM
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today defended the Agriculture Department’s recommendation that “rural” communities applying for USDA grants can be as large as 50,000 people.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., praised the recommendation last week.
Vilsack’s and Stabenow’s statements are in marked contrast to earlier comments by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who said in a news release last week that allowing such large communities to be defined as rural will take away resources from small, needy communities.
Vilsack told the House Agriculture Committee today that he hopes Congress will establish a single, consistent and simple definition of “rural” rather than the 11 or 12 definitions that now exist for different programs.
Asked about concerns that allowing communities of 50,000 people to qualify as rural may mean that the smallest, most impoverished communities may have a harder time competing, Vilsack said the recommendation to use a 50,000 population definition is “a reflection of the demographics of what is happening in the country.”
Tom Vilsack
“I recognize that we are going to have to ensure that very, very small communities are going to get their share of the resources that we have,” he said. “We are encouraging very small communities to work regionally.”
The discussion over the definition of rural is decades old, as farm bills have given a number of rural development programs different definitions of the size of population that can be considered rural. Rural leaders have complained that the many definitions are confusing and have caused difficulties in figuring out whether their areas were eligible for programs.
In the 2008 farm bill, Congress ordered USDA to conduct a study of all those definitions and make a recommendation on how to handle the issue in the future. Last week USDA finally released the long-awaited study.
At a news conference following a speech to the Commodity Classic last week in Kissimmee, Fla., Vilsack said that the new definition “doesn’t mean that smaller communities are going to be ignored. It’s just about creating a uniformity of definition that will allow folks to understand what ‘rural’ means.”
Vilsack said the new definition also recognizes that “individual communities in and of themselves may not have the capital to change their economy, but can do that within a region.”
Told by a reporter in Florida that many small towns cannot agree to cooperate, Vilsack said he disagreed with that view because USDA is already working with more than 50 regional groups around the country.
The secretary also noted that when he was mayor of Mount Pleasant, Iowa, he was told that many people did not live in Mount Pleasant even if they worked there because they “didn’t want to live in such a big town,” and preferred to live in even smaller towns.
Vilsack said he then decided that he should work with the local governments of those towns and made arrangements to share programs and costs with many of them.
Stabenow said in a news release last week that the proposed 50,000-population definition “is a common-sense solution that will help our rural communities and small businesses grow and create jobs,” and she noted that last year the Senate-passed farm bill called for one definition.
In its report, USDA said that changing the definition would require amending the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (ConAct),, as well as the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
“This common starting point allows communities to come together on more regional infrastructure projects,” the report said.
“It allows the [world development] mission area to market programs in a simple streamlined fashion, facilitating staff sharing outreach responsibilities. The common definition would also substantially reduce the number of communities affected by the decennial census, thus reducing confusion and increasing the predictability of RD programs.”
But the report also noted, “Critics of this approach may suggest that the change would move the focus of some programs away from serving the most rural communities.”
“Furthermore, some may say that the most programs are already oversubscribed, so by broadening eligibility, those communities that are currently eligible would be less likely to receive RD program support. With these concerns in mind, this proposal suggests that the definition provides the Secretary the discretion to serve areas of greatest need and where the resources can make the greatest economic impact.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., praised the recommendation last week.
Vilsack’s and Stabenow’s statements are in marked contrast to earlier comments by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who said in a news release last week that allowing such large communities to be defined as rural will take away resources from small, needy communities.
Vilsack told the House Agriculture Committee today that he hopes Congress will establish a single, consistent and simple definition of “rural” rather than the 11 or 12 definitions that now exist for different programs.
Asked about concerns that allowing communities of 50,000 people to qualify as rural may mean that the smallest, most impoverished communities may have a harder time competing, Vilsack said the recommendation to use a 50,000 population definition is “a reflection of the demographics of what is happening in the country.”
“I recognize that we are going to have to ensure that very, very small communities are going to get their share of the resources that we have,” he said. “We are encouraging very small communities to work regionally.”
The discussion over the definition of rural is decades old, as farm bills have given a number of rural development programs different definitions of the size of population that can be considered rural. Rural leaders have complained that the many definitions are confusing and have caused difficulties in figuring out whether their areas were eligible for programs.
In the 2008 farm bill, Congress ordered USDA to conduct a study of all those definitions and make a recommendation on how to handle the issue in the future. Last week USDA finally released the long-awaited study.
At a news conference following a speech to the Commodity Classic last week in Kissimmee, Fla., Vilsack said that the new definition “doesn’t mean that smaller communities are going to be ignored. It’s just about creating a uniformity of definition that will allow folks to understand what ‘rural’ means.”
Vilsack said the new definition also recognizes that “individual communities in and of themselves may not have the capital to change their economy, but can do that within a region.”
Told by a reporter in Florida that many small towns cannot agree to cooperate, Vilsack said he disagreed with that view because USDA is already working with more than 50 regional groups around the country.
The secretary also noted that when he was mayor of Mount Pleasant, Iowa, he was told that many people did not live in Mount Pleasant even if they worked there because they “didn’t want to live in such a big town,” and preferred to live in even smaller towns.
Vilsack said he then decided that he should work with the local governments of those towns and made arrangements to share programs and costs with many of them.
Stabenow said in a news release last week that the proposed 50,000-population definition “is a common-sense solution that will help our rural communities and small businesses grow and create jobs,” and she noted that last year the Senate-passed farm bill called for one definition.
In its report, USDA said that changing the definition would require amending the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (ConAct),, as well as the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
“This common starting point allows communities to come together on more regional infrastructure projects,” the report said.
“It allows the [world development] mission area to market programs in a simple streamlined fashion, facilitating staff sharing outreach responsibilities. The common definition would also substantially reduce the number of communities affected by the decennial census, thus reducing confusion and increasing the predictability of RD programs.”
But the report also noted, “Critics of this approach may suggest that the change would move the focus of some programs away from serving the most rural communities.”
“Furthermore, some may say that the most programs are already oversubscribed, so by broadening eligibility, those communities that are currently eligible would be less likely to receive RD program support. With these concerns in mind, this proposal suggests that the definition provides the Secretary the discretion to serve areas of greatest need and where the resources can make the greatest economic impact.
