Hi Everyone,
In this update:
1. The big flood: how did it impact the farm? Will it happen again?
The flood of January 9th was our largest flood in recorded history, eclipsing the previous high water by eighteen inches here at our farm. Wendy and I were on vacation in Mexico when it happened. It was unbelievable to us that we could get enough water to fill the whole valley that much more than the previous all-time high. The County folks have described it as a "prefect storm" in that each area of our basin received a complete inundation, rather than what usually happens where some areas get hit hard, and others are spared. The other factor in this flood that had a significant impact was that the levee on the north side of the Tolt River became impacted with a tightly interwoven log jam. It is really amazing, and it's still there: you can see it from the bridge, perched atop the levee starting where the Tolt meets the Snoqualmie and extending a long way to the east. It ended up being like a dam across the half of the valley that is lowest, and it certainly had a big effect on us having such a high flood here.
Will it happen again? Interestingly, the levee upon which the log jam occurred is scheduled to be removed this summer as part of a salmon habitat restoration project. It is something that has been in the works for at least five years. We had been looking forward to this, as we believed it would help alleviate some of the flooding here. When it's gone, there will be nothing for the logs to hang up on, although it's unclear (to me) exactly what will happen to them. In any event, I doubt that our stretch of the river will soon or ever again bear such a disproportionate brunt of another big flood. And yet, as our climate changes, we will likely continue to experience more-than-usual winter flooding.
Not being here for this flood was both good and bad for Wendy and me. Because we didn't get away last year, we were resolved to take a vacation this year. We left on January 2nd for four weeks in Mexico. That may sound like an extravagant holiday, but as you who know us might imagine, as Wendy and I passed massive and ostentatious all-inclusive resorts (at $600 per night and up!) we didn't even slow down. We kept heading South, until there were no more hotels, until the four-lane freeway became a simple two-lane road, and then, until there was no pavement - and very little area between pot holes! We continued on until we had driven for an hour without seeing a car, a person, or anything but jungle. We really didn't know where we were going, or what we'd find. But on our way to an unadvertised spot on the map that looked interesting, we saw a little-used driveway with a small board bearing the barely legible letters "B & B" nailed to a tree. We pulled in.
We ended up staying at that lonely B & B (which, it turned out, stood for "beer and beach" rather than "bed and breakfast") on the Caribbean side of the Yucatan Peninsula for the week before we ventured out to explore the peninsula (and its major archeological sites), and for our last week before coming home. This was a place that certainly didn't get a lot of drop-in business (none while we were there!), it was very remote, it was very, very inexpensive, and all that suited us just fine.
The morning we left for our trip I checked the ten day forecast which still didn't show anything unusual heading for the Pacific Northwest. But the forecast changed dramatically a few days later. I have to tell you it was agonizing having to monitor this huge flood from afar. What made it worse was that when the electricity went off each night at 11:00, we also lost our internet connection. I'm sure I didn't sleep five minutes the night of the flood. In the morning when we got back on-line and we saw the gauge in Carnation was over 62 feet we were shell-shocked. I was ready to get the first plane back home, but Wendy wisely suggested we wait for a while and try to reach the "boys" by phone.
The "boys" are Will and Ryan. They were here as the waters rose; reading (probably with trembling hands) a five-page missive I'd written the night before we left entitled "what to do if we get the big one." Fortunately, this wasn't the first big flood of the season. Any flood over sixty feet requires lifting everything that is lift-able in the barn and the loafing shed, and Wendy and I had done that for the 60.5 foot flood in November. Once we get "flood ready," we leave things in "ready position." But there was still work to do. The cows and equipment needed to be moved to the top of the farm pad, and that was a big job. The guys really came through in a tough situation.
When we finally got through to Ryan the next morning, our first concern was for them (they were well, and unlike us, had slept like babies!). Next of concern was the cows. We were so afraid that there might be bad news, but there wasn't. All 41 bovine were safe on the pad, along with all our tractors, vehicles, and equipment. The water was a foot and a half higher than it had ever been, and it reached more things in the barn and loafing shed than ever, and it was muddy, dirty, and a lot of plastic and sticks were deposited everywhere, but we really didn't suffer any major damage. We were so thankful, relieved, and so, we decided to say.
This is the first year we've ever committed ourselves to employing our "crew" (Will and Ryan) through the whole winter. I'm not quite sure what they would have done to keep busy without the flood, but after it came they had lots to do to fill their days. As you might imagine, had we not made the decision to hire them through the winter, Wendy and I would have had to come home. As it was, they, along with a lot of help from many others, were able to get a good start on cleaning up the mess. And that's my segue into the next section!
2. A special "thanks" for flood support!
It's hard to know how to begin to thank the many of you who were so generous with your time and resources and helped us in our absence to clean up after the flood. Our ever-vigilant web-master, Joe, who travels a lot but is always there when we need him, was once again there to get the word out about our work day and clean-up efforts, and I really need to thank him for his faithful support of our farm for so many years now.
The most serious and costly loss in the flood was the inundation of our new farm-worker housing (the blue house near the pumpkin field). That house this year will be occupied by our newest farm worker, Ian Patterson. But if it hadn't been for the timely action of so many of you, we could have been in real trouble, and the home would certainly not able to be occupied for a much longer period of time - and at a much larger cost of repair.
I asked our crew to try to get a list of the people who volunteered (beyond our paid crew), and I have a list. I'm not sure, though, that the guys got everyone's name. But let me start with those on the list - Tracy Clapp (whom we just refer to as "Huck's dad"), Ken Irish, Courtney Johnson, Rebecca Dare, Victoria Hall, Bill Offermann, Ken Spalding, King Madsen, Allen (sorry, Allan, we didn't get a last name), the entire Montague clan (Scott, Sidney, Liana, and Tom), Sonia Knoll, Gino Ranellvcci, Jeff Foster, Ian Patterson, Laura Haakenson, and Cynthia Krass (who couldn't stay but provided a wonderful chili dish that she prepared for the group). Many others helped too, among them our right hand on the farm, Kaila, along with Travis and Cheryl (who seems to have spent more volunteer time than anyone).
I know there were many others because I have talked to some of you whose names are not on this list but I know were here. So to all of you Wendy and I want to say, "thanks." We really needed help beyond what the boys could do, and it was just incredible to get the report that so very many came through for us in so many ways.
3. What do the EU and PCC have in common?
This isn't a riddle. I attended a seminar in Mount Vernon last week on cultivation and weed control strategies. The speaker was a farmer from Ireland, who went back to school and earned a PhD in agronomy. He has worked in England, Europe, and New Zealand. One of the interesting things he said is that in just the last couple of weeks the EU (European Union) has revised the classification of most herbicides from being in the "risk" category to being in the "hazardous materials" category. What that means is that many (probably "most") of the herbicides now allowed in the EU nations will no longer be allowed.
The speaker's purpose in mentioning this, aside from the dramatic shock value that it has on the average, American, chemical-dependant farmer, was to bolster his argument that it no longer makes sense to use chemicals as a strategy for weed control, not on small farms, and not on big farms.
The EU declaring most herbicides to be "hazardous materials" is a huge blow to US chemical producers. It could affect farmers here immediately as it is likely that imports of food products from the US will need to be free from hazardous materials - i.e. the food we export to EU nations won't be able to be grown using most herbicides.
So where does PCC come into this? I'm still reeling from the "shock" of PCC banning all products in its store that contain high-fructose corn syrup. I see this to be somewhat (in a rough sense) analogous in kind to the EU banning most of the remaining herbicides in its member nations. Both are incredibly gutsy decisions made by two very different organizations that seem to recognize that the insanity must stop. Obviously, it's hard to equate the decision of a relatively small, local food co-op with the decision of the European Union; I'm not trying to underplay the enormous impact of an international decision or overstate the impact of a local decision.
I just want to point out that the burgeoning, blundering, and devastating monopoly of US petro-chemical corporate control of the methods of agriculture and the complicity of our government and the FDA in subsidizing the losses generated by these methods (not to mention the declaration of these methods to be "safe") is being assailed from both within and from without.
How embarrassing it must be that an upscale chain of grocery stores in the US refuses to carry any product that contains any amount of the number one agricultural product in the US - the showpiece of the marriage of industry and agribusiness. Yes, PCC is small, but it's there, and it demonstrates that even though more than 75% of what most grocery stores sell is laced with HFCS, a whole chain of stores can operate quite well on a diet devoid of HFCS, and that their customers will support them in the decision to do so. That may not constitute a reason for the international corporations that profit from and control the means of production for about 98% of agriculture in the US to take notice; but the decision of the EU may be a wake up call.
I'm thrilled with the decision of the EU and proud of PCC, a small, local organization that Wendy and I support through our membership. I expect that the strong statements each has made will join with a choir of others to offer a resounding and definitive "no more" to the devastation of our food supply and our environment by the use of harmful chemicals.
4. Farm School 2009: Something new.
Nothing about the farm school that we've been conducting for many years now is going to change this season. The times for each day will remain the same as last year, all of which is printed in our Member's Handbook (which is posted on our web page).
But we are adding something new this year that I'd like to tell you about. We've had requests from a number of folks who feel excluded from our present farm school: high school and college aged young people, and adults. Many have asked if we could have some kind of farm school geared to older people. So, this year we are breaking new ground, and will have a farm school just for adults. Like our children's farm school, it will also meet during the months of July and August - (eight weeks).
The adult-version of farm school will also be about farming (surprise!). It will be aimed at people who would like to learn more about what is involved in starting and managing a farm. It will be taught by me ( Erick) and Wendy. The weekly topics aren't set yet. On the application form that I'll ask interested members to send in I will ask each person to describe the kinds of things they would like to learn about. We will then try to tailor the class content to the interests of the group.
This class does not presuppose that its members are actually planning to become farmers, but only that members are interested in learning about what is involved in operating a farm. There will likely be a lot of things said that apply to gardening, but the orientation will be directed to farming rather than gardening.
We're open to what we do in this class, and we will establish the "curriculum" only after we see what the members are looking for. But if I were pressed to just off the top of my head give eight topics that might become the focus of the eight weeks, I would say, in no particular order:
I don't see this as being a lecture class - more discussion, answering questions, and hands-on time. Each class will be "annotated" with recourse to equipment, plants, and animals on our farm.
The class will be held at 3:00 on Saturday afternoons. Enrollment will be limited to 12 people. There is no charge, but to compensate us for our time we ask that each person in the class participate in a farm work-project for one hour at the conclusion of each class. The class will be an hour and a half, so with the hour of work following class, the total commitment is for two and a half hours. Let us know if you are interested in this class (jubileefarm@hotmail.com).
5. Prosperity, Confidence, and Security.
Choosing is hard, especially when two options represent alternatives you'd really like to have. At that point many of us spend a lot of energy trying to find ways to get both, and often that can be accomplished. But there are genuine dilemmas. Sometimes we just can not have both alternatives; they are truly mutually exclusive. As witness to this is the common expression, "you can't have it both ways," or chiding references to people who "want to have their cake and eat it too," or oblique references to "Achilles choice."
Our knowledge of Achilles comes mostly from the Greek epic poet Homer. The way Homer tells the story is that when the Greek hero Achilles was young his goddess mother presented him with a choice between two options. One option was to be a great war hero. In an age in which the warrior ethos was highly valued, this option was very much like being told that Achilles could "have it all": he could become the best known, the most highly respected, and by far the most greatly admired person in his society; and he would leave a legacy that would never be erased from the memory of humanity. But there was a caveat. If he chose this life, he would die young: burn bright, leave a lasting memory, but expire quickly.
The other option presented to young Achilles was that he could choose to live without notoriety, without fame, without glory, and without the admiration of the masses of society - but were he to choose this, he would live a long life and be happy.
Although it's been thousands of years since Homer composed the Iliad, the choice of Achilles seems to strike a nerve with every generation in the Western world, and for many others as well. A few years ago I visited a seminar at a University in New Mexico. It was a more-or-less random visit to a more-or-less random university. The topic of the seminar? Achilles' choice. For more than two hours a bright and articulate group of graduating college seniors discussed and debated Homer's homily as if it were today's news. The story doesn't get old for us.
I wonder if it might be the case that today we as a society are facing a kind of Achilles' choice. I think that argument can be made, and I'd like to ask you to think this through with me and see if you agree.
The journal by the name of The Economist has been described as "an authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinion." This assessment is modest; The Economist is the holy grail of all things financial both in our country and throughout the world. Two weeks ago the Seattle Times ran an article from the editorial board of the Economist by the quite transparent title, "Rising Spectre of Economic Nationalism." It was a significant article, and certainly warranted being run in local newspapers throughout the country.
The theme of the article is that there is a position being discussed in the US today that is not only dangerous, but potentially devastating. This position is the idea that we should cut back on global trade. We all know that at least since the Clinton administration, our country has led the world in an unabated march to developing a global trade economy. This is not a new policy, but one that has become an entrenched position that has had strong support from both Republican and Democratic administrations. The ideology and logic of why we have supported globalization is stated quite simply in the aforementioned article in The Economist:
"Trade encourages specialization, which brings prosperity; global capital markets, with all of their problems, allocate money more efficiently than local ones; economic cooperation encourages confidence and enhances security. Yet despite its obvious benefits, the globalized economy is under threat."
I think that based both on this passage and on the context of this passage that what we are being told is that we have two options before us. One is that we continue our policies that whole-heartedly embrace a globalized economy and thereby enjoy prosperity, confidence, and security. The other option is that we revert to policies of "economic nationalism," which promote localized and/or national economies that will lead inexorably to a lack of prosperity, confidence and security.
I certainly can't claim to be a scholar in the field of economics. But one doesn't need to know much about the specifics of this field to be able to ask a few critical questions about the situation as described by The Economist.
Let's assume that the authors of this article are right. Let's assume, in other words, that a globalized economy will lead to a utopia of "prosperity, confidence, and security." Based on that assumption, and recognizing that for twenty years or more our country has been wholly committed to globalization, you would think that we would all be experiencing the fruits of this policy; namely, prosperity, confidence, and security.
I must admit that from my perspective, to write these words during the current, global economic crisis that for all we know at this point may end up being the worst ever - to write these words just now seems to me to be beyond comprehension. Prosperity? Confidence? Security? I can think of no charitable way to summarize my reaction to this passage: these claims seem to be absolutely ludicrous.
Please understand that I fully realize that because our current recession has followed the adoption and ascendancy of the policy of globalization that we can say this policy is the cause of the recession (this conclusion would be guilty of the logical fallacy called post hoc, prompter hoc - which means "because event A follows event B temporally, we can say event B caused event A"). But to fail to recognize that this policy of globalization is at least a candidate as a cause of the recession, to fail to recognize, in fact, that in a fairly strong sense it is a very likely candidate, and to have the gall to say that in spite of this world-wide recession that it is "obvious" that the globalized economy produces "prosperity, confidence, and security," this is, to me, is unfathomable.
When I experience otherwise rational people defending a position that seems to be rationally indefensible, I usually am suspicious that I either don't understand the position, or that such people have some reason for what seems to be their convoluted thinking. In this case, a question comes to mind that may help to understand what is happening here. The question is this: Who are the people for whom our globalized economy is bringing prosperity, confidence, and security? Is it everyone? Or is it a relatively small group of economically elite in our society (and throughout the world) for whom global trade has been their vehicle to wealth beyond imagination, and for whom this recession is just a blip on the screen?
Do most people enjoy a better life because of the globalizing of our economy? This doesn't seem to be the case, not even in America. It is well documented that the gap in the US continues to widen. Bill McKibben points out in Deep Economy, that "many economists believe wealth is more stratified today than any time since the Gilded Age" (the "Gilded Age" was from 1866-1901). For the "haves," the global economy has truly brought "prosperity, confidence, and security." But what has it brought to the rest of us?
It will be argued that because of economic trickle-down, we ought not begrudge those few upon whom global trade has bestowed unimaginable wealth, because the prosperity of the wealthy trickles down to everyone. To some degree that is probably true. But I am one, and I know there are many, many others, who question the cost of this "prosperity," and who feel that whereas the cost of this prosperity is and will be equally borne by all, the benefits are not.
The article in the Economist doesn't mention that along with the prosperity that comes with global trade, comes: (1) an inordinate dependence on fossil fuel, a dependence that has arguably catapulted us into multitudes of devastatingly costly, divisive, confidence-shattering wars, (2) utilization of the natural resources of the earth that cannot possibly be sustained at the current rate, (3) levels of pollution and emissions that have impacted our environment and global weather patterns in a way that the most conservative estimates of just the financial losses that will be faced by future generations will render in crystal clarity just how much of a Faustian bargain the short-lived "prosperity" enjoyed by a few really was , (4) a new wave of economic imperialism as wealthy nations rush to extract natural resources from poor countries to advance their elite in the "buy low, sell high" game, which has and will continue to result in, (5) a new sense of world-wide alienation and animosity between third-world counties who will pay for the party enjoyed by the few and the wealthy countries where most of the beneficiaries reside.
Is it worth the cost to have the economically elite in our society enjoying unmitigated prosperity, confidence and security? The trickle-down theory becomes pretty thin when the cost of accommodating this may be future viability of our planet, and the trinkets that have fallen off the table will be little comfort as the world tries to cope with the economic, social, political and environmental impacts which will be the cost of our prosperity.
I really don't have time or space here to follow through this discussion. One would have to examine exactly what the cost would be if we were to enact policies that encouraged a local economy rather than a global economy. There would be costs here, too. The transition would be difficult, and I expect that the standard of living in the US would be lowered. Would we starve? I doubt it. Would we learn to live with less? I think so. Would we be as happy as we are now? I'm quite confident we would be - maybe much more so.
The idea of the Homeric choice of Achilles seems to me to fit. We can choose, on the one hand, to have a representative few of us have it all - prosperity, confidence, and security. But if we choose this, it will be short-lived (like the short life of Achilles). Maybe we have already come to the end of this path; we still don't know how deep our current recession will cut, and the age of unlimited prosperity even for the few may be over. Maybe, as our scientists tell us, the damage to our environment is already irreparable, and the best we can hope for if we take dramatic action is to modify and prepare ourselves for fruit of the seeds we have planted.
The other option is to settle for less. Wendell Berry says the essential impulse of the agrarian life is to say "this much, but not more." Maybe instead of thinking that "more, more, more" is our birthright, we need to recognize that our earth just isn't big enough for all of us to do that, or even for very many of us to do that. Maybe we need to adopt a life style that is simpler, gentler and kinder to our environment - a lifestyle whose merits are not assessed by the calculus of "more, more, more." There are ways for a person and for a people to enjoy "prosperity" that transcend the amassing of money, or the abundance of material possessions. Maybe the failure of the global economy and the impending threat of environmental disaster will back us into a corner within which we can learn that happiness does not consist in a life of ease and extravagance.
6. The farm is in need of a CPA (federal tax help)
It's that time of year again. In the last several years we have worked very hard and self-consciously to establish agricultural and marketing systems on the farm that will make it sustainable and able to survive a changing of the guard when the time comes. We also need some help and continuity in the area of federal taxes. I'm wondering if there is someone in our group who would be able/willing to help us work through some tax issues both this year and in the future. We need someone who is confident in S-corp tax returns, and who can help us navigate the various hoops that, it seems, even farmers need to jump through.
We are not, of course, asking for free services. We'd be happy to talk about a partial trade of CSA shares for tax work, but that is not necessary. What we really want is a competent, professional tax person who is supportive of the work and mission of our farm and has the availability to take us on as a client. Please let us know if you'd like to talk more about this, jubileefarm@hotmail.com.
7. Workshare 2009
We're very pleased this year to have a large number of our Work Share members from last year rejoining us for the 2009 season. That means, at least, that it can't be all bad! I don't know if saying what I'm about to say will encourage potential Work Share folks or not, but both last year and this year a new CSA farm has been started by people whose first exposure to diversified, organic farming was here at our farm in our Work Share program. This doesn't mean that we put something in the water so that everyone who joins our Work Share program wants to drop everything and become farmers. But it does mean that people who have that interest have a chance to see first-hand how a sustainable farm operates.
I don't want to give the impression that most or even very many of our Work Share members join because they want to become farmers. More common reasons are, to get a break from the kids, to get out of the house, to get out of the cubical, to "get my hands dirty," to save money on food, to learn about how food grows, to participate in a meaningful activity with like-minded men and women, and so on. But that's the beauty of the program. People come for all different reasons, and find all kinds of different rewards.
If you have an interest in becoming a Work Share here at Jubilee, please drop us a note. We have more specific information about how the Work Share program functions, which we will be happy to send you. After looking over the information we forward to you, you can contact us if you'd like to apply. jubileefarm@hotmail.com.
8. Spring and Summer Sessions
Next week is week five (of six weeks) in our Winter Session. The next Session (Early Spring) starts on Wednesday, March 18th. You can sign up on-line for the Early Spring Session.
We hope too that if you haven't signed up for Summer Session yet that you will do that soon. After the tough winter that we've had, and after the historic flooding, I've had several members ask if we need money, or even if they could organize to collect money to support the farm. That's tempting, but what we really need is just for our members to stick with us. We are confident that will happen, but we don't want to just assume it will, and we don't want any of you to think we take your memberships for granted. Your memberships keep the doors to this farm open; it is as simple as that. So, please vote with your dollars.
For those of you who have joined for the Summer Session, there is a payment due in March. We will be sending out reminders and confirmation of your membership soon. If you don't receive one, that is probably because we don't have a record of your application for Summer Session. If you are in that situation, please let us know.
There is one more thing I'd like to mention. As I said above, we're not asking for gifts. But we are wondering if among our members someone is sitting on a couple hundred thousand dollars that they would like to get a secured return on that would be better than CDs or bank funds. I think you all know that Wendy and I are finishing up our new home. Our mid-stream conviction that we should follow the advice we always give - to vote with our dollars for the kind of future we want to have - has put us pretty seriously over budget. It is sad that building a "net-zero" home costs so much more, but if some of us don't pay the price now, it will never get less expensive.
We aren't without options, but the cleanest and simplest option would be a loan with a five-to-seven year pay-off that would be secured by a first position (and only position) on the new house which sits on its own one-acre lot. Given the present financial situation, it is possible this could be interesting to someone; if it is, please drop me a note at jubileefarm@hotmail.com and I can give you more details.
Erick and Wendy