Florida benefits if the USDA moves its agencies to … Fargo? | Opinion

Gale Buchanan
Your Turn
Gale Buchanan

Florida’s farmers generate billions of dollars each year for the Sunshine State. From seafood on the coasts, to citrus, sugarcane, and numerous vegetables in the interior, to lumber in the north, Florida’s vast agricultural network drives a GDP that recently surpassed $1 trillion.

Florida farmers and producers face many challenges and threats, from pests and weeds to extreme weather and fierce international competition. To address these adversities and still meet the challenge of feeding a growing population, they benefit from agricultural research, economic analysis, and reliable statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture.

Unfortunately, Florida faces a new threat from USDA itself. An ill-conceived proposal will see the USDA research, economics and statistical agencies – the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service – relocated from Washington, D.C., to a location that will (according to the proposal) help the department better serve farmers.

Given that nearly all major farming organizations are in Washington, this would seem to be a solution in search of a problem. How exactly would Florida’s farmers benefit from these agencies moving out of D.C. to somewhere like Fargo?

As former USDA chief scientist appointed by President George W. Bush, I urge we harken the words of wisdom attributed to a Southern farmer: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

We’re all used to hearing that Washington is broken — sometimes metaphorically, sometimes literally. But our government support structure for agriculture is far from broken; in fact, it is the envy of the world.

USDA research funding helped triple the national output of crops and livestock since World War II, while the sum total of land, labor and capital inputs has hardly changed. These knowledge-based productivity gains come from USDA agencies like the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service.

What’s at stake for Florida in all this? Due at least partially to citrus greening, Florida’s citrus trees have declined in value by more than $1.5 billion in 2012 to less than $800 million last year. It’s doubtful that $10 million plus in research grants from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to help Floridians fight citrus greening disease could have been so quickly facilitated with trips by Florida’s citrus industry and researchers to Fargo, Kansas City, or another locale.  

Last month I visited USDA offices in Washington and came away convinced that Florida’s interests are best served by keeping these vital USDA functions in the nation’s capital. The concern I heard from current employees left little doubt in my mind that staff attrition would be high with any relocation. The USDA says the move will help with recruitment, but I — and many others — see only a brain drain that will set back the work of these agencies by years.

While I support the goal outlined by the secretary — to ensure USDA programs are delivered efficiently and effectively — all signs point to this proposal being counterproductive.

It ain’t broke and Florida and the country will be set back by the fix.

Gale Buchanan is the former USDA Chief Scientist and Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education & Economics. He is Dean and Director Emeritus, University of Georgia, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences.