Minnesota Leaders Call for Prompt Farm Bill Action to Protect Farms and Nutrition Programs

Minnesota’s leading county and farm organization officials are urging Congress to pass a new farm bill before the current extensions run out.

Larry Lindor, president of the Association of Minnesota Counties and a Pope County commissioner, and Dan Glessing, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau who farms near Waverly, wrote a joint op‑ed in the St. Cloud Times making the case.

They begin by noting that it is rare for groups representing farmers and county governments to speak with one voice, but they say the stakes this year are too high to stay silent.

The op‑ed describes the farm bill as a package of comprehensive legislation intended to give agriculture stability and to protect access to nutrition and food‑security programs that counties across the state rely on.

For decades, the bill has been one of the few major pieces of legislation able to bring rural and urban interests together, according to the authors.

It works to strengthen the farm economy while making sure families and children can obtain nutrition assistance through programs such as SNAP.

The writers point out that this bipartisan tradition deserves to continue as a shining example of how policy can serve both producers and consumers.

They observe that Congress is presently in the midst of negotiating a new farm bill, but the talks have encountered turbulence over several complex policy issues.

A central point of disagreement is a federal law change enacted last year that could, for the first time in U.S. history, require states and local governments to assume a portion of SNAP benefit costs.

Minnesota’s farm economy, the authors say, is already on unstable ground because of continually rising input and labor costs, persistently low commodity prices, and heightened volatility in weather and markets.

Repeated extensions of the existing bill, rather than the passage of a new five‑year plan, have eroded the policy safety nets that farmers depend on when they plan for the future.

For county governments, the uncertainty creates budgeting and planning difficulties, especially in rural communities where agriculture forms a substantial share of the local tax base.

The authors argue that passing a new farm bill would deliver the predictability needed for farmers to make investment decisions and for counties to manage their finances.

They note that Minnesota’s congressional delegation understands the intertwined challenges facing agriculture and local governments, and they thank the delegation for its active involvement in the negotiations.

The op‑ed stresses that farm resilience is not a partisan issue; when the agricultural sector struggles, the effects are felt by all Minnesotans.

Likewise, the writers remind readers that any federally imposed SNAP costs will ultimately be shifted to local property taxpayers who are already dealing with significant levy increases.

Lindor and Glessing ask lawmakers to keep this perspective at the forefront as they return to the Capitol and to view the farm bill as an opportunity for both parties to unite, find common ground, and produce tangible benefits for farmers and communities.

In their view, nonaction is not an option, and a timely farm bill would reinforce the bipartisan tradition that has served the state well for decades.

They conclude by urging Congress to act swiftly so that the legislation can provide the stability and nutrition support that Minnesota’s farms and families need.