A few stories have caught my eye recently about farmers taking advantage of new legislation and government grants in order to reduce their carbon footprint by building up their renewable energy resources. Some legislators are even exploring ways to build renewable energy in to farm bills to provide a more holistic benefit to farmers.

Carlson Orchards – Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

I’m kind of a Scientific American junkie and so the first piece that caught my eye was in there. It’s about how one of the largest orchards in Massachusetts is benefiting from that state’s cap & trade auctions. Carlson Orchards is cutting their electricity bill by 80% with the help of grants from the state of Massachusetts that helped with the installation of 1,050 solar photovoltaic panels.

Massachusetts got the money from a 10-state cap & trade program called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Through this, the states set a carbon emissions cap and then earn revenue when companies buy additional credits. So far the combined 10 states have earned over $400 million dollars ($106 for MA) that they then re-invest in renewable energy programs.

And Carlson Orchards is taking advantage of that. In addition to growing apples and making apple cider, that orchard is reducing its footprint and electricity bill.

Clark Family Orchards – Rural Energy for America Program

Similarly, in Colorado, a fifth-generation farmer is taking advantage of a program that was in the 2008 Farm Bill called the Rural Energy for America Program to cover about 25% of his costs to install solar panels that will offset about 55,000 kilowatt hours of electricity yearly.

A bit about the REAP program from their website:

“REAP offers grants and/or loan guarantees for the purchase and installation of renewable energy generating systems and for energy efficiency improvements.  Assistance is limited to small businesses and farmers & ranchers.  Projects must be located in a rural area.  REAP grants and guarantees may be used individually or in combination.  Together they may finance up to 75% of a project’s cost.  Grants can finance up to 25% of project cost, not to exceed $500,000 for renewables, $250,000 for efficiency.  There are also REAP grants to help pay for technical assistance on energy projects.”

With the energy costs continually going up, the solar panels going on the packing shed will save him about $4,500 a year.

Dennis Clark grows cherries, apples, peaches, pears, and plums on the orchard and now with the help of solar panels he’s also saving more than 116,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the earth’s atmosphere.

The Next Farm Bill

As more and more farmers take advantage of incentives and grants to create renewable energy, legislators are looking at how the existing programs are doing and thinking about how future farm bills might be written to increasingly encourage renewable energy use on farms and in rural communities. The next farm bill is still 3 years away, but that’s not stopping folks from thinking about it now.

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand recently visited several New York farms, to better understand their needs — including those around renewable energy. She’s on the agriculture committee and so has a vested interest in making sure the next farm bill works for New York farmers — and presumably farmers across the country.

Let’s hope more senators take the time to get out there, talk to farmers, and create the next bill that really helps farmers not only produce great fruits, vegetables, and livestock, but also empowers them to reduce their carbon footprint and leverage more renewable energy.

Seattle is taking seriously it’s initiative to make 2010 the Year of Urban Agriculture. Not to be outdone by other cities reviewing existing legislation and passing new legislation that removes some barriers urban agriculture, Seattle’s Department of Planning & Development are proposing some changes as part of their urban agriculture project.

The gist of their proposals are:

• Add and/or clarify definitions for the following key terms: horticulture, aquaculture, animal husbandry, community gardens (including P-Patch community gardens), and urban farms.   These refined definitions have additional recommendations (below) for regulation by zone.   
• Allow community gardens as permitted uses in all zones, with some limitations in industrial zones.
• Allow urban farms in all zones as follows:
  • Commercial: Allow urban farms as a principal or accessory use.  Horticulture uses are currently limited to 10,000 sq. ft. in NC1 zones and 25,000 sq. ft. in NC2 zones; there are no size of use restrictions in NC3 or C zones. 
  • Industrial: Allow urban farms as an accessory or principal use on land outside of designated MICs, and on tops and sides of buildings in all industrial zones.  Currently, horticulture uses are not allowed in industrial zones, and DPD proposes no change to this provision as based on the new definition of a horticulture use.
  • Residential: Allow urban farms as an accessory use without a permit up to 4,000 sq. ft. of planting area. Urban Farms with more than 4,000 sq. ft. of planting area would be subject to an administrative conditional use permit process.  Currently, agriculture uses are not allowed in residential zones. 
• Allow rooftop greenhouses a 15 foot exception to height limits as a rooftop feature, if the greenhouse is dedicated to food production in MF/C/I/SM/Downtown zones.  
• Add farmers markets to the definition of multipurpose uses. 
• Increase the number of chickens allowed on residential property from three to eight. DPD also proposes to add that roosters are not allowed in any zone. 

 If you have feedback or ideas, the primary contact is Andrea Petzel: andrea.petzel@seattle.gov. Make sure your voice is heard.

To stay up to date, visit the Urban Agriculture site and sign up for their notifications.

An article in the newsletter of PCC Farmland Trust gives information on getting tickets to see Joe Salatin, the farmer who has led, by example, the revolution against farming, and eating, industrially. Here in Washington State, we have a similar farming family doing the same thing near Walla Walla: Thundering Hooves…check out their website for finding and buying ethically grown and slaughtered meat.

We reported a couple weeks back that the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) approved the creation of a Regional Food Policy Council.

I’m taking this online course via the John’s Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and stumbled across this research from Food First, published in December 2009, that specifically looks at Food Policy Councils — the history (The first Food Policy Council started in 1982 in Knoxville, Tennessee), how they’re formed, some trends, common first steps, and some recommendations.

There is an executive summary and then the full version, which is much longer (still making my way through it). A few of the highlights:

Challenges

• Achieving and working with diverse membership and constituencies
• Working in complex political climates
• Designing an effective organizational structure
• Obtaining adequate funding
• Balancing focus between policy and program work and between structural and specific foci
• Adequately evaluating a council’s impact

Recommendations

• Engage members across different sectors of the food system and from different socio-economic backgrounds and draw from a diverse, but organized base
• Establish priorities and agree on some kind of a strategic plan from the outset
• Establish clear structures for decision-making, communication and evaluation from the beginning
• Examine structural trade offs between being within or independent of government, how the council is funded, and what issues the council chooses to prioritize
• Include elements of self-education (for members) and the public
• Diversify political and internal leadership support
• Evaluate and monitor the effects of the councils’ policies and/or activities

As the newly formed regional council gets going it will be interesting to see how they proceed & manage some of the challenges outlined in the paper.

This week the Seattle City Council rolled out their 2010 Priorities which focus on building a livable city for our future, fostering a safe, just and healthy communities for all, and investing in publice resources fairly and effectively.

You can check out the entire list here, watch a video of the council meeting or download a PDF version.

Their priorities included this about local food:

Implement the Local Food Action Initiative, including making 2010 “The Year of Urban Agriculture,” expanding the community garden program, and encouraging local food production and food-related businesses.

Missed this when it happened late last month, but it’s pretty cool so I wanted to make sure to call it out. From Richard Conlin’s site:

The Regional Food Policy Council (RFPC) will work with community, business, agriculture, and government partners to identify gaps in the region’s food system and develop integrated policy recommendations and actions that will help our region move towards a food system that supports healthy people and communities and environmental sustainability.

You can read more about the new council here. And in case you’re interested, these are the folks who served on the Acting Food Policy Council.

A good story in the Christian Science Monitor about the work some folks are doing in Detroit (and other cities) to get more urban agriculture-friendly zoning laws.

The more interesting piece was a short, high-level background as to how Los Angeles zoning rules changed away from an urban agriculture focus to a more development focus:

Just a half century ago, Los Angeles was transforming itself from the most lucrative farm county in the nation into a major metropolis. A zoning ordinance written in 1946 as developers were cutting down the San Fernando Valley’s citrus orchards to build suburbia allowed small farms to grow vegetables to truck to market, but banned growing fruit, nuts, or flowers for sale on residential plots.

Funny how things swing back and forth. Here in Seattle there’s been a big emphasis on urban gardening from both citizens & the city (2010 is the Year of Urban Agriculture). And Seattle’s also implemented an Acting Food Policy Council, which a bunch of different cities around the country also have in place. 

Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, and Seattle aren’t alone. Zoning issues are popping up in cities & states all over the U.S. A few places to keep up to date with the latest:

• Urban Farm Hub — extensive policy content here.
• Urban Agriculture Magazine – land use planning articles.
• Urban Food Policy blog - infrequent updates, but good stuff here.

As we mentioned previously, Jamie Oliver won this year’s TED prize and his presentation is now available online. His presentation is compelling, delivered with a touch of humor, and full of horrifying statistics.

The part that stands out for me is that kids can’t even identify fruits & vegetables. At one point he holds up tomatoes and kids think they’re potatoes.

It’s worth a look.

And he also has an upcoming television series called Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. A trailer of it is below.

Hopefully everyone watched Michelle Obama & the kids kicking off the Let’s Move campaign. Here’s a video below if you missed it.

And here is another one that is Mrs. Obama explaining what it’s all about.

I just really like the simplicity of it all — eat better, eat less, and be active. It’s a great message and a model for living that anyone should be able to follow.

According to the last census, 64% of adults are overweight or obese. That’s a 36% increase since 1980. And in 2008 only one state had a prevelance of obesity of less than 20% — and no it wasn’t Washington. It was Colorado.

Children are slightly better (5%-17%, depending on age group). And Mrs. Obama’s campaign is hopefully going to bring that number down. As these kids develop good habits, they’ll carry them through for the rest of their lives.

One of the more striking statistics I’ve heard is that the planet has roughly 7 billion people. Of that, 1 billion are obese. An additional 1 billion have inadequate nutrition.

Availability of healthy, affordable food is a huge issue. It’s not easy to get local, healthy, low-cost fruits and vegetables in all areas of Seattle — food deserts exist in plenty of places. That’s something we’re trying to address. Last year we distrubted over 10,000 pounds of fruit to local food banks, senior housing, and worked with organizations like Market on Wheels to ensure everyone has access to healthy fruit.

Fruit is not only an important part of an every day diet, it can also help a person lose weight. The Mayo Clinic has a great article on energy density and how it’s possible to feel fuller with fewer calories when a diet is rich in fresh vegetables and fruit. They recommend “Whole fresh, frozen and canned fruits without added sugar are better options than fruit juices and dried fruits, which are concentrated sources of natural sugar and therefore have a higher calorie content.”

So review that food pyramid and grab some fresh fruit the next time you’re looking for something sweet.

Just got an e-mail from Nick Lacata with the news that the two bills we wrote in support of were passed 8-0.

Here’s the press release they included with the mail:

Council approves new tree protection guidelines
Implementation begins in 2010, establishes an Urban Forestry Commission

SEATTLE – The City Council today unanimously passed two measures to improve the management of the city’s trees and strengthen protections to ensure the health, quality, and overall coverage of Seattle’s tree canopy.

Resolution 31138 asks the Department of Planning and Development to write a new tree protection ordinance. It outlines specific policy initiatives that the Council believes critical to successful urban forest management. Council Bill 116557 establishes a nine-member Urban Forestry Commission to advise the mayor and Council and help educate the public on urban forestry issues.

“Our urban trees are an incredibly valuable resource — and we must act if we want to keep them,” said Council President Richard Conlin. “The review by the City Auditor told us that the city must improve our system for protecting and managing trees. We need updated code that recognizes the economic, environmental, and social values that trees offer.”

Both measures are in response to a dramatic 50 percent loss of tree cover over the last forty years. The city continues to lose mature trees that provide cooling shade, improve air quality, provide wildlife habitat, sequester climate changing carbon, help with drainage issues by retaining water and improve property value.

“The Urban Forestry Commission will provide well-rounded expertise to assist the city in protecting and expanding our tree canopy while accommodating growth,” added Councilmember Nick Licata.

A report by the City Auditor in 2009 highlighted that most of the implementation work outlined in the Urban Forest Management Plan has not been completed.

Resolution 31138 requests that DPD write new regulations that consider preventing tree removal in required yards and setbacks, create a permitting system and fines for non-permitted tree removal, provide clearer direction for tree relocation and develop incentives for retention. It also asks DPD to consider Transfer Development Rights to developers, giving them more flexibility for creative solutions to Seattle’s urban canopy crisis.

The Urban Forestry Commission will include a community group representative, experts with technical backgrounds in wildlife biology, arboriculture, landscape architecture, and a representative of the development community. It will be staffed by the Office of Sustainability and Environment.