"We Can Do Better" shows path for conservation movement

Charles Bruner, Ralph Rosenberg, and David Osterberg jointly wrote this piece. All of the authors served with Paul Johnson in the Iowa legislature and remain active in Iowa politics and policy. They serve on the board of the Johnson Center for Land Stewardship Policy, which worked with Curt Meine in the development of We Can Do Better.

A land comprised of wilderness islands at one extreme and urban islands at the other, with vast food and fiber factories in between, does not constitute a geography of hope. But private land need not be devoted to a single-purpose enterprise. With a broader understanding of land and our place within the landscape, our Nation’s farms, ranches, and private forest land can and do serve the multiple functions that we and all other life do depend upon.

That quote is from Paul Johnson’s introduction to the USDA National Resources Soil Conservation Services’ 1996 America’s Private Land: A Geography of Hope, which is even more relevant today than when he wrote it and shepherded that publication. 

Paul Johnson (1941-2021) was a pivotal figure in American conservation, dedicating his life to bridging the gap between agriculture and environmental stewardship. A new book of Paul’s writings has just been released.

A dairy farmer from Decorah, Iowa, Johnson’s pragmatic, on-the-ground approach to conservation distinguished him as a leader who could inspire change from the legislative halls of Iowa to the federal government. His legacy is one of visionary public service, a deep love for the land, and a commitment to the idea that a healthy environment and a productive farm economy are not mutually exclusive.

The three of us served with Paul in the Iowa legislature. The Groundwater Protection Law of 1987 and the Resources Enhancement and Protection Law of 1989 were legislative endeavors that demonstrate this pragmatism. 

Paul was chief of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service in the Clinton Administration, and Governor Tom Vilsack appointed him to be director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. All the while, he wrote and selections have been assembled and edited with an excellent introduction by Curt Meine, a senior fellow with the Aldo Leopold Foundation and author of the definitive biography of Leopold.

Upcoming are two book signing events—one co-hosted by the Harkin Institute on the Drake University campus on Wednesday, October 29th, from 4:00 to 6:30 p.m. and one at the Ames Public Library on Thursday, October 30th, at 6:00 p.m. Both will feature Curt Meine, some of Paul’s family and one of us. Both will explore how to take Paul’s work and writings to heart in developing the federal, state, and community policies that achieve his vision.

You don’t have to take our word of the value of Paul’s work and this publication. Lisa Schulte Moore, Professor and Co-director, Bioeconomy Institute, Iowa State University, and a 2021 MacArthur Foundation Fellow, was one of the many reviewers. She wrote the following:

We Can Do Better is the textbook for what the conservation movement—and indeed our democracy—desperately needs right now: “pragmatic, radical centrism.” Paul’s ability to find common ground and productively move people along the middle path, all while staying true to his own values, was truly remarkable. I’ve tried to assist the natural resource managers I train in developing this skill. Now I will just hand them a copy of We Can Do Better.

Members of the public are invited to attend either of these events. Registration is requested for those planning to attend the Harkin Institute event. Here is the link to register.

About the Author(s)

Charles Bruner

  • sounds like a lovely man

    but there is nothing pragmatic about “radical centrism” given that Repugs and their Big Ag backers aren’t interested in compromise.

    ps isn’t Schulte Moore the one who got an award for literally tinkering around the edges of farms and opposed to any new government regulations of farming that aren’t voluntary?

  • Hi dirk

    I know that Lisa Schulte Moore has gotten many awards for her work, but I have not heard that she is “opposed to any new government regulations of farming that aren’t voluntary.” I’d be interested in any sources.

    That does bring up the question of people who are working within the current Iowa ag system to encourage and/or do more farm conservation. Should they be refusing to work within the system until the system is transformed? Should they be openly stating that regulations are needed, and thereby possibly putting their careers at risk? I don’t think there are easy answers.

    Just today I read, on another forum, a claim attributed to Fred Kirschenmann, a famous longtime leader in sustainable agriculture. He also tried for years to work with conventional agriculture to make it more sustainable. His reported claim was that conventional agriculture won’t change until it collapses. (He died just a month ago, age ninety. RIP Fred Kirschenmann, and thank you.)

    I know a few people who are doing good work within the current system. They know that transformational change is badly needed, but meanwhile, they are saving soil, helping wildlife, improving water, and helping/causing some farmers and landowners to change their practices for the better. I’d like them to be able to keep doing what they can, and I think what is most needed at this point is much more pressure from Iowa voters. Iowa voters are the ones who have effectively put the Iowa Farm Bureau in charge of conservation in this state for decades, and the results of that were entirely predictable.

  • hi PF IPR doesn't have

    transcripts that I can find, think she was on Talk of Iowa after she won an award for her land-strip work and it was there that she was pushing the idea that we (taxpayers) should pay farmers to lessen their pollution and against government setting effective enforceable limits. I wrote her after pointing to studies about how badly such voluntary plans have been doing and also asking if she was open to some studies that showed the benefits of real crop diversity that the government could implement (as we support the current model of mass destruction) and she wasn’t interested in any substantial reform. You look deeply into this stuff, do you think our system just needs some minor tweaks?
    Well one can work within the system in ways which offer actual changes (even if the powers that be don’t listen and or listen and get mad) or one can effectively green-wash the system, her work is clearly in the latter.
    As for making a living off of the taxpayers but serving forces that undermine their health, politics, and economics, well ask poor Chris Jones about whether or not he thinks that’s a good life choice…

  • ps here is a Ag-Econ prof from UIowa

    bravely talking in public about systemic changes in Iowa Ag.
    I think she’s also an Iowa State alum, think they would hire her to teach there?
    https://drilled.media/podcasts/drilled/14/s14-ep07

  • Mandatory Ag Fees and the Debate over Voluntary Conservation in Iowa

    The comment section of the “We Can Do Better” column misses two main points: the historical success of mandatory fees on agricultural chemicals in Iowa and a narrow view of Lisa Schulte Moore’s approach to conservation-that failed to put her work in context.

    I am the former committee chair and floor manager of the conference committee. I disagree with those who comment by implying that only ‘voluntary measures’ were supported in the past, by explaining the success of the 1987 Iowa Groundwater Protection Act=which included mandatory fees. The law, signed by Governor Branstad successfully passed laws that put mandatory fees on agricultural chemicals, including nitrogen and pesticide products, for both rural and urban users.

    The purpose of the fees was to fund programs like the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the Center for the Health Effects of Environmental Contamination (this bill was nearly 40 years old–cancer and Ag chemicals are in the news today and one can argue one partial solution was in the books). The design was based on the principle that “if you contribute to the problem, you will contribute to the solution,” meaning farmers who used fewer chemicals would pay less. Today, Isaak Walton League of America and others are pushing monitoring of our waters to help educate Iowans (just as done 40 years ago, just as important today). Monitoring is not regulation, but is valuable research to educate Iowans; said monitoring has been opposed by the Republican legislature. The 1987 law was bipartisan, I have to note.

    This 1987 effort was “extraordinary,” “recognized nationwide,” and a recipient of “several national awards” from sustainable agriculture and research institutions. replicated by other states.

    Undercutting the Center: The Leopold Center achieved success (reduced use of N, for example) before recent legislatures undercut the Center, which efforts were supported by the Farm Bureau, among AG chemical associations.

    I urge people to push state and federal candidates to revive the Leopold Center.

    2. Critique of Lisa Schulte Moore’s Work
    The exchange among commenters dirkiniowacity and PrairieFan focuses on Professor Lisa Schulte Moore’s conservation philosophy. To my memory, she never claimed that her work by itself would solve all problems. In today’s environment, within state and ISU political positions, Schulte Moore is showing an example of what can be done. As with monitoring, it is a valuable part of the steps to reviving the Leopold Center and stronger Ag policies

    I agree we need to more pressure from Iowa voters–on candidates for all state offices- to counteract the long-standing influence of the Iowa Farm Bureau over conservation policy.

  • not sure what RR is referring to

    when he says “only ‘voluntary measures’ were supported in the past” so let’s get to his equally odd/puzzling characterization of the discussion of Schulte Moore’s work;
    who said that she claimed that her work “by itself would solve all problems”? As for the broader context for considering work like hers (and I should note the general gist of the original post) this is exactly what I was replying to our current political-economy here in Iowa is not a place where compromise is either welcomed by the ruling party or amenable to the kinds of fundamental reforms that would make significant changes in how Ag is done here in Iowa.
    That people in charge (past and present) think our current mode of doing things is just dandy is just further proof that they are part of the ongoing degradation of our health. environment, and democracy.
    https://www.thegazette.com/crime-courts/iowa-officials-quietly-fast-tracked-legal-settlement-with-major-meatpacker-environmental-group-alle/

  • Response to Dirk and PrairieFan

    First, Paul was a lovely man. Thank you. Please buy a copy of the book. After you read it, please add more comments. Second, I do not believe I know either of you.I don’t know to what extent either of you have been involved with state or federal policy debates. If you have, thank you. If you, like myself and Chris Jones, have lost employment because of our work on these issues, I thank you for taking those stands

    Please also note that I would be happy to share a list of the advocacy groups that I have worked with and continue to support in fighting for our land and waters. If you wish, feel free to contact me over any of my social media accounts and I can share what it was like in the 80’s to have ‘taken on’ big ag and big chemical.

    I am not a scientist. I do not claim to be an expert on Lisa Schulte-Moore’s work. I offer these for your consideration.
    : https://faculty.sites.iastate.edu/lschulte/publications

    http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art10/

    https://yellow-wave-0e513e510.3.azurestaticapps.net/issues/volume-i-issue-1/larsen-schulte-tyndall/

  • Obviously my comment was not clear, so I will try to be clearer below.

    I’ve been doing conservation work of various kinds for forty-five years. I’ve been watching conventional industrial agriculture steadily degrade Iowa’s landscape and pollute Iowa’s water during that time. I now agree with Chris Jones’ ongoing researched arguments that the current Iowa voluntary-farm-conservation system is an ineffective failure. Iowa agriculture needs requirements and transformational change, not suggestions and tinkering.

    But requirements and major change will be very hard to achieve in this state. (Tonight’s water discussion on IOWA PRESS was a jaw-dropping example of why.) Meanwhile, I respect and appreciate those working in farm conservation who are doing their best for natural resources within Iowa’s deeply-inadequate system. Of course some are better than others, but I know, have met, and have heard about some really good people. And it’s not a profession that people go into to become wealthy. I’ve read good things about Lisa Schulte Moore and now intend to listen to that IPR interview. And I am extremely grateful to Paul Johnson, Ralph Rosenberg, Charlie Bruner, and David Osterberg for the good work they did in the Iowa Legislature. From what I remember of Iowa politics in the Eighties, that work was very hard.

  • Book Event. Now available for zooming

    thank you Prairie Fan for your comments. If it could be done in the 80’s, with legislation signed by Gov. Branstad, progressive legislation can be achieved again.

    Special early treat for people who wan to attend the We Can Do Better Book Launch, but are unable to attend in person. Thanks to the Ames Public Library, you can zoom the event.

    Time: Oct 30, 2025 06:30 PM Central Time (US and Canada)

    Join Zoom Meeting

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84936040173?pwd=7aoaX9bOUvIbFI1SkrYi5RGzMCyIVH.1

    Meeting ID: 849 3604 0173

    Passcode: 899902

    One tap mobile
    +13126266799,,84936040173#,,,,*899902# US (Chicago)
    +16465588656,,84936040173#,,,,*899902# US (New York)

    https://us02web.zoom.us/meetings/84936040173/invitations?signature=-sL51h7-aCajy9EpSMeqlxVpOvkMxXci1qDLhnnVb1E

Comments