The Corporate farms then drag out some actual small farmers (some still exits) to be their front men, and some of these small farmers fall into that trap and become spokesmen for Corporate Farms while they think they are saving their own farms.
The problem is modern Farming techniques are the most efficient if you remove any obstacle to the Super large tractors of today. This includes both side of any stream or creek that flows through a farm. If you would keep about six foot on either side of said stream non plowed, it would absorb any run off from the surrounding fields BEFORE it hit the stream. All you need is about six foot on each side to do this.
The problems is such barriers, for that what they would be, interfere with the operation of large tractors. , you can not just ignore the stream (or such run across if, but lift up the plow) and resume plowing on the other side. You would have to work around such "Barriers" and corporate farms do NOT want to do that,
Worse, the six feet does NOT have to be left alone, just not plowed. Cattle running up against it is less of a problem (through still a problem).
The solution are simple, you either pass a regulation that no plowing of fields within six feet of a stream (which can be justified on the concept that what you do on your property can not cause serious harm to the property of others, in this case people down stream) OR have the state take such land back as public easements using the power of Eminent domain. The Regulations are cheaper. but opposed by Corporate Farmers for it cuts back their ability to use today's super large tractors. Smaller farmers may oppose them, till told that all it requires is no to the stream plowing, but they can use the six foot on each side of the stream for any other purpose, including running cattle.
Long term the taking of a easement would be best, but that requires the expending of money, but it means either side of the stream is now public property and could be left wild to extend the areas wild life can survive in.
The opposition to both plans from farmers, mostly corporate in financing, but you have front men who are either small farmers OR portrayed as small farmers. Such Farmers opposing both plans for they are told the bad side, less land for them to plow, it is a taking of their land as oppose to the good side, that the land is still they's to use as they see fit within the regulations if this is done by regulations. If this is done by easement, it will become land that they are no longer paying taxes on but they can use as wild lands just like any other citizen and they can do it better for they are living right next to it.
We know what needs to be done, but elected officials do NOT want to do it for the people who oppose both plans will remember the implementation of such plans long after people who support both plans have long assumed it was no longer in dispute. People who see themselves being hurt by an action of Government will remember long after the people who benefited from the action of Government has long assumed it is the natural ways of things and no longer vote on that issue.
Politicians know of the above rule, and prefer to be lead by the people. So far most people do not understand this dispute and how to solve it and thus it festers. We have to take such incidents and drive home WHY it is occurring and HOW it can be solved. That will cause the people to demand action and Politicians will respond only when the people DEMAND that the correct action be done. Thus we must point out HOW to solve this problem and that solution is a six foot ban in plowing next to any flowing body of water. We should demand regulation AND Government buying of such easements and point out that is the only PERMANENT solution to this problem, everything else are only temporary patches.
= new reply since forum marked as read
