Farmers and other agriculturists seem to be growing increasingly frustrated with recent efforts of Minnesota agencies to increase regulations.

These efforts are best exemplified by the now famous (or perhaps infamous) buffer law of 2015, with further modifications in 2016 and 2017, along with the proposed rule to limit nitrogen fertilizer applications across much of the state.

Farmer advocates have stepped up in various ways to respond. Minnesota Department of Agriculture officials held about a dozen meetings across the state, where they heard from farmers that their proposed rule missed the mark. The MDA also reports receiving more than 800 comments on the proposed rule during the preliminary comment period ending in late August.

Concurrently, other agricultural folks are organizing for potential legal action on expanded buffer requirements imposed by the state of Minnesota. Crop and livestock producers have also been well-represented at Governor Mark Dayton’s town hall meetings on water quality held across the state this summer and fall.

Among the many conversations I have had with farmers and their allies, a common theme is emerging. Even among those relatively accepting of these new regulations, there is a growing concern that the apparent abandonment of voluntary conservation efforts will lead to much higher levels of regulation of farming practices. Many wonder where it will end.

Participation in town hall meetings and sending in comments are proactive ways to engage and it is good to see more representation from the ag sector. I hope that trend continues.

Some out of touch
One troubling trend involves the number of conversations I have had regarding elected decision-makers seemingly not in synch with their local constituents on issues like buffer regulations. County commissioners, county soil and water conservation district, supervisors and state legislators often faced hard choices, and sometimes could have chosen better. This is certainly not to say that all are out of step. There are many very good, effective individuals serving in these roles. Sometimes, the concern lies with individuals. At other times, the concern lies with the larger workings of the process.

Here are two steps that may help with whatever comes next. Or it may be a whole series of ongoing steps, depending on how you look at it.

• Work in advance to have in place decision-makers likely to support your interests. This means getting to know them, letting them know what your interests are and asking for their support.

• Thank and encourage decision-makers who demonstrate support for your interests. They can be more effective if they know you will stand up for them. Remember, they are probably hearing multiple perspectives on most issues. In our buffer example, many local officials report feeling they could do little to influence the outcome due to pressure from state agencies and uncertainty that local constituents would back them. You may not be able to reduce the pressure from above, but you can show them that you have their back.

It’s time to turn frustration into action, creating a wave that redirects resources away from top-down mandates and toward locally determined priorities. Otherwise, the regulatory push emanating from federal or state agencies running roughshod over local efforts is only going to get worse.

Formo is the executive director of the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center.