Food is power

This article was produced in collaboration with High Country News. It may not be reproduced without express permission from FERN. If you are interested in republishing or reposting this article, please contact info@thefern.org.

Many communities have foods that define them: Los Angeles has tacos, Green River, Utah, has melons, while New Mexico’s Hatch Valley is famous for its green chiles. Historic power dynamics — from colonization to migration — have always influenced how and why people began growing, cooking and consuming these symbolic dishes and crops. Today, these foods and those who prepare, raise and sell them carry cultural power; people travel hundreds of miles to buy a juicy Crenshaw or sweet canary melon from a family-run stand in Green River. And yet the farmers themselves often struggle to stay afloat. They lose access to markets as large companies buy up smaller, locally run grocery stores. 

Most grocery stores across the West trace back to a few major corporations. Whether you’re visiting King Soopers in Colorado, Smith’s in Utah or Fred Meyer in Oregon, you’ll find the same Kroger-brand products. The original names of the once-locally owned grocers might remain, but the shops are now just part of one of the nation’s largest grocery corporations.

A handful of companies control the production and distribution of most of our food, and the West plays a leading role in that system. The U.S. headquarters for the world’s largest meatpacker, JBS S.A., is in Greeley, Colorado, while Driscoll’s, the largest berry producer, is headquartered in Watsonville, California. These companies rarely confront the riskiest parts of agribusiness, raising the cows and growing the berries. Instead, they produce, brand and ship them. 

This global food system has profound impacts on the West’s farmers, workers and consumers. It’s getting harder for family farms to turn a profit, and those who seek alternatives to the consolidated corporate market must navigate complicated policies and finances in order to sell directly to consumers. Berry-pickers and meatpacking workers — often immigrants — face exploitation and unsafe conditions, with workplace protections varying from state to state. 

Meanwhile, food insecurity has increased across the West, and yet Republican-led states, including Utah and Idaho, opted out of a federal summer grocery program for kids last year, in part because of anti-welfare politics. 

Beyond its connection to this international system, the West has deeply rooted myths and policies around water and land that create and sustain other layers of power. In the 1800s, settlers stole land from Native people and killed off bison as they drove tens of thousands of cattle westward. Ever since, the cowboy and his glorified cattle have held cultural power that politicians are rarely willing to tarnish. 

As “The Big Four” meatpackers have consolidated most of the beef industry, the economic power of ranchers has dwindled. Only 2% of U.S. beef comes from cows that graze on public lands, and yet multigenerational ranching families and large landowners continue to influence and benefit from antiquated federal grazing policies. 

Most land in the Eastern U.S. is privately owned, but the federal government owns nearly half of all land in the West. Ranchers graze cows on huge swaths of public lands, paying fees well below the actual cost of managing those lands. Over the past century, grazing policies have changed little even as cows destroyed native vegetation and degraded waterways. State and federal policies often put the health of livestock above that of the region’s arid soils or the lives of large carnivores like wolves and bears. 

Ranchers and Big Beef also intersect and overlap with those who control water in the West. Agriculture consumes nearly 80% of the water diverted from the drought-stricken Colorado River Basin, primarily to grow alfalfa and other cattle-feed crops. An investigation by ProPublica and The Desert Sun found that most of the water consumed in California’s Imperial Valley goes to just 20 farming families, with one of them using more than the entire metropolitan area of Las Vegas. Only four of those families use the majority of their water rights to grow foods people consume, like broccoli or onions. The rest use their water to grow hay for livestock. 

Many of these families have senior water rights, and that increasingly means power in the arid and rapidly growing West. Together with livestock associations, irrigation districts and their political allies, they have sought to influence food and water policy. 

Yet in some parts of the West, other interests are gaining power. In the Northwest, years of advocacy from tribes and environmental groups led federal agencies to decommission dams on rivers like the Elwha and Klamath. The farmers might worry about their ability to continue irrigating, but tribes are reclaiming their traditional foodways as salmon return. 

And the Northwest’s rivers aren’t the only places where tribes are reasserting their culture and food sovereignty: Indigenous-run restaurants, farms and cooking classes are springing up across the West. 

Farmers markets, mutual aid efforts and community gardens are creating new forms of cultural, social and economic power, often led by and benefiting those who are excluded and marginalized, including queer, immigrant and Black farmers. Their efforts encourage people to take back intrinsic food traditions while they act in resistance to the global, capitalist food system. 

Still, the corporate structures of our food system are so deeply entrenched that they can be hard to fully comprehend or even notice. In this region, food is power, and that power is not equally shared. Before that can change, however, we need to understand the complexities of this system, tracing its roots to the growth of retail giants and the consolidation of Western agricultural production. 

The grocery giants

A handful of powerful corporations dominate the U.S. grocery market. Over the last few decades, these firms have consolidated their control, leaving a shrinking share of the market for local, independent grocers. Grocery giants and their supporters claim that economies of scale enable them to offer lower prices to consumers. But critics say that these conglomerates’ size gives them too much power, not only over their consumers, but also over suppliers and workers.

Corporate consolidation in U.S. grocery
Breaking down the big grocery firms
Note: Walmart, Kroger, Costco and Albertsons were the four largest firms in grocery by market share in 2023, according to industry reports. To estimate the footprint of these grocery giants, HCN used USDA data on SNAP-authorized grocery stores. While not every retail location accepts SNAP, we cross-referenced the data with corporate reports and found our totals closely matched the store counts listed by the largest firms.
Walmart & Costco: The West’s superstore empires
SNAP-authorized Walmart & Costco stores in the West
Note: Includes SNAP-authorized Sam’s Club
stores, which are owned by Walmart. Store totals
are for the 12 Western states.

The illusion of competition

Confronted by Walmart’s growing power, traditional grocers like Albertsons and Kroger responded with a spate of mergers and acquisitions starting in the early 1990s. Albertsons now owns over 1,300 stores in the West, though few of the shoppers patronizing Safeway and Haggen may realize that those stores are owned by the same firm. In December of 2024, the Federal Trade Commission blocked a proposed merger between Albertsons and Kroger after a number of Western states sued, arguing that it would further limit competition and raise prices for consumers.

Farmers markets — a bright spot in the grocery landscape

The rise in the popularity of farmers markets since the mid-1990s has been a positive counterpoint to the relentless march of corporate consolidation. Nationally, the number of farmers markets more than quadrupled from 1994 to 2019.

Get big or get out: Consolidation in agricultural production

The small family farm holds a special place in the American imagination. Today, however, a modest and diminishing portion of our nation’s food is grown on smallholder farms. Production is shifting to larger-scale factory farms in every Western state and across nearly every commodity.

Production shifts to larger farms
Marked growth for select goods
Giants of agricultural production
Net loss of 600,000 U.S. farms 1982-2022

The trend towards consolidation in the food system has made it increasingly difficult for smaller farmers to compete and stay in business.

Concentration in meatpacking

The meatpacking industry is concentrated to an extraordinary degree, with an estimated 81% of U.S. cattle and 65% of hogs processed by “The Big Four” meatpacking corporations as of 2021. Critics say this market stranglehold gives The Big Four too much control over both ranchers and consumers.

The above hourglass power dynamic is not unique to meatpacking; it’s also conspicuous in the seeds, agricultural chemicals and food retail markets. The concentration of power in these industries allows a handful of companies to dictate prices and production methods, trapping Western consumers in a food system that prioritizes corporate profits over sustainability, diversity and equity.

Help us keep digging!

FERN is a nonprofit and relies on the generosity of our readers. Please consider making a donation to support our work.

Cancel monthly donations anytime.

Make a Donation

What’s Working: Rural Colorado taps into flow of geothermal development. Here’s how one family caught the current.

Gasoline spill near Durango now estimated at 97,000 gallons, making it Colorado’s largest since 2016

Hundreds lose water source in Colorado’s poorest county with no notice, no warning

Formation of Colorado’s first special district funding childcare to be decided by tri-county voters

Formation of Colorado’s first special district funding childcare to be decided by tri-county voters

This November, regional voters will decide whether or not to pass the Early Childhood Service District ballot measure proposed by the Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition (CECE). If approved, it would become Colorado’s first special taxing district meant to improve access to early-childhood care and education — another is being explored on the Front Range, but won’t likely make the 2025 ballot. Following a successful judicial review in July, CECE launched its “Strong Start, Bright Future” (SSBF) campaign to promote the measure and connect with voters.

“We really believe sustainable funding is one of the critical pieces [of the] puzzle,” said Maggie Tiscornia, SSBF’s outreach coordinator. 

Spanning Garfield, Pitkin and the southwest corner of Eagle County, the special district would implement a 0.25% sales tax on non-essential goods. Items excluded from the tax are things like groceries, gas, medicines, diapers, feminine hygiene products and other goods not taxed by the state. The tax could generate an estimated $10 million in annual revenue.

To maximize reach and address the region’s diverse socioeconomic needs, the funds would be flexible. Families with children under 5 could benefit from sliding-scale tuition assistance, while childcare providers would receive grants for expanding capacity (particularly for infant and toddler care), lowering tuition rates, improving quality of services or obtaining licensure and so forth. Additional funds would be used for the district’s operational needs and third-party accountability reviews.

Voters will also elect the special district’s five-person board of directors. Akin to a school board, the special district’s board would implement programs, determine policies and listen and adapt to the community’s needs. Nominations for the new board are due Aug. 22. 

“I think the beauty of this being local, and these directors being voter-elected to represent these communities, is that we can directly advocate, have our voices heard and respond to the needs here,” said Tiscornia, “rather than at the state level.” 

Community-wide challenge
From Parachute to Aspen, the need for high-quality, reliable and affordable childcare is increasingly prevalent. Noting that 90% of brain development happens from birth to 5 years old, Tiscornia said supporting these children will set them up for success and also benefit the communities where they live and play.

Currently, the region has 2,272 licensed childcare placements, but over 5,100 children under the age of 5. Faced with this challenge, many working parents have opted to reduce their work hours or leave the workforce entirely. Based on CECE’s data analysis, the lack of accessible childcare leads to an estimated regional loss of $50 million in annual revenue, earnings and productivity.

Families who have secured a spot face another challenge: tuition. The federal government recommends that 7% of household income goes toward childcare. In the Valley, families making the median household income with two young children are budgeting nearly 37% of their monthly income toward childcare. In some cases, this surpasses their monthly housing budget.

Ali Cottle, founder and director of the Thompson Schoolhouse and a CECE volunteer, said childcare funding is a systemic problem. Providers have to charge more to maintain their business and employees in an expensive area, and families struggle to afford the tuition. 

“We just need money; that’s the big answer,” said Cottle. “This proposal is a way [visitors and second homeowners] can help build our small community.”

Sweeping support
Founded in 2017, CECE has been a leading voice in expanding access to childcare. When the ballot proposal was made public, it quickly garnered support from community leaders and organizations. The boards of county commissioners in each of the three counties unanimously supported the proposal, while former and current superintendents from Roaring Fork School District and Aspen School District have endorsed it. In May, CECE gathered over 1,000 registered voter signatures in support. 

“One thing that really grabbed me about this campaign is that it is a nonpartisan group trying to do something good for so many families in our valley,” said Kassidy Birdsong, another CECE volunteer. She added that with the number of overwhelming challenges worldwide – from healthcare to food insecurity –  opportunities for success can be limited. For her, this childcare tax is an actionable piece of the solution.

“Becoming a mom made me feel a sense of solidarity with other moms around the world and in my community,” said Birdsong. “I want to see parents and providers in my community thrive.”

Nominations for the Early Childhood Service District board of directors are open until Aug. 22. Visit www.strongstartbrightfuture.com to learn more about the ballot measure and board nominations.

The post Formation of Colorado’s first special district funding childcare to be decided by tri-county voters appeared first on The Sopris Sun.

Western Slope lawmakers want to pause wolf reintroduction, redirect funding amid Colorado’s $1 billion budget hole

Cambios en SNAP afectarán a inmigrantes locales

Cambios en SNAP afectarán a inmigrantes locales

En mayo, el Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA) anunció que los estados debían presentar información detallada sobre todos los solicitantes del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP) de los últimos cinco años. Esta medida ha generado preocupación entre los defensores de los derechos de los inmigrantes, quienes advierten que la divulgación de datos dará lugar a deportaciones dirigidas a personas indocumentadas y además negará a las familias los alimentos necesarios.

Lift-Up brinda seguridad alimentaria, educación y apoyo a las familias necesitadas desde Parachute hasta Aspen, sin importar su estatus migratorio. Foto por Klaus Kocher

El USDA solicita “los nombres de todos los miembros del grupo familiar, sus fechas de nacimiento, números de seguro social, direcciones residenciales y postales utilizadas o facilitadas, así como todos los registros de datos utilizados para determinar la elegibilidad o inelegibilidad”. Una evaluación del impacto sobre la privacidad del USDA también menciona una solicitud de información sobre el estatus migratorio y de ciudadanía, la educación, el empleo y el estado civil.

Aunque los inmigrantes indocumentados no son típicamente elegibles a las prestaciones del SNAP, su información puede estar en peligro. Los hogares con estatus mixto que solicitan el SNAP deben proporcionar datos de todos sus miembros, incluidos los indocumentados. 

Beatriz García, organizadora de Western Slope para la Coalición por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de Colorado, dijo que este tipo de divulgación de datos es un riesgo significante para las comunidades de inmigrantes.

“Estas son políticas que están afectando no solo a familias indocumentadas, sino también a las familias con estatus mixto, compuestas por ciudadanos y residentes legales, debido al temor de que el gobierno utilice su información para localizarlos y expulsarlos de los Estados Unidos por el simple hecho de ser inmigrantes”, dijo García. 

Sumado a estas preocupaciones la regla de “carga pública” de la ley de inmigración de Estados Unidos, que permite a los funcionarios de inmigración negar visas o ajustes de estatus si se determina que los solicitantes dependen probablemente de asistencia del gobierno. García señaló que algunos inmigrantes indocumentados evitan programas como el SNAP por temor a que pueda perjudicar sus casos de inmigración, a pesar de que el SNAP no se tiene en cuenta para la regla de carga pública.

Lo que resulta es una relación delicada entre las personas indocumentadas y las agencias gubernamentales en torno a la privacidad de datos. El USDA defiende su solicitud de datos como una herramienta contra “el desperdicio, el fraude y el abuso”, citando una orden ejecutiva de marzo que concede “acceso ilimitado” a los datos estatales. Defensores como García ven esto como otra forma de agravar la injusticia.

“Los niños y las familias están sufriendo inseguridad alimentaria”, dijo García. “Y eso no es fraude. Es una realidad. Si el gobierno no quiere ver la realidad y quiere llamarlo fraude, es difícil porque el SNAP surgió de la necesidad de proteger a las familias para que pudieran tener un plato de comida sobre la mesa. Y si eso es fraude para un gobierno, eso significa estar en contra de un sistema humanitario”.

Datos del Urban Institute estiman que 298,000 familias de Colorado perderán una parte o la totalidad de sus prestaciones del SNAP debido a los recortes del ‘Big Beautiful Bill’. En promedio, los hogares se enfrentan a una reducción de $88 dólares al mes, o $1,056 dólares anuales. Con tantas familias potencialmente afectadas, las organizaciones locales se están preparando para el aumento en la demanda de sus servicios.

Lift-Up ha funcionado por mucho tiempo como una red de seguridad vital desde Aspen hasta Parachute. Desde el colapso de la industria de la pizarra bituminosa hasta la pandemia de COVID-19, Lift-Up ha creado numerosos programas de seguridad alimentaria para satisfacer las necesidades cambiantes y crecientes del valle. Desde 2020, Lift-Up afirma que ha visto un aumento del 600% en la demanda y espera que la cifra vaya en aumento. 

Elyse Hottel, directora ejecutiva interina de Lift-Up, explicó que la ayuda alimentaria contribuye a aliviar los problemas. “Hay mucha gente que se desplaza largas distancias porque no puede permitirse vivir más cerca de su trabajo”, dijo. “Y, por lo tanto, a veces hay que tomar decisiones muy difíciles. ¿Pago el alquiler o compro comida? ¿Pago por cuidado médico o compro comida? ¿Pago la gasolina para ir al trabajo y así tener dinero, o compro comida?”.

Para acceder a los programas de ayuda alimentaria de Lift-Up, es necesario registrarse. Se solicita el nombre, el número de teléfono, la dirección de correo electrónico y un documento de identidad para evitar duplicidad y garantizar una distribución equitativa de los recursos entre las comunidades del valle.

“No buscamos por licencia de conducir, pasaporte o cualquier otra cosa. Pueden traer una sobre postal con su nombre y dirección”, dijo Hottel.

“La divulgación de datos ha sido uno de los mayores riesgos, y el gobierno ha dejado muy claro que los está poniendo a disposición del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional a través de muchos medios”, dijo García. A medida que la administración Trump toma medidas para recopilar datos de programas federales como el IRS y compartirlos con agencias de control de inmigración como el ICE, crece el temor de que los datos personales conduzcan a la deportación.

En el futuro, los recursos locales como Lift-Up pueden ser fundamentales para apoyar a los más vulnerables entre nosotros. García destacó la importancia de dar a conocer estos recursos comunitarios y animó a la gente y a los gobiernos locales a apoyarlos. Con suficiente apoyo, cree que estos recursos pueden satisfacer las necesidades básicas de las personas y crear un movimiento significativamente grande como para resistir un sistema opresivo y llevar los recursos a las personas que más los necesitan.

Traducción por Dolores Duarte

The post Cambios en SNAP afectarán a inmigrantes locales appeared first on The Sopris Sun.

‘Nobody to Watch My Twins.’ Military Spouses Quit Jobs, Families Bust Budgets in Scramble for Child Care

Senate Republicans want to sell 3 million acres of public land

Over 3 million acres of public land could be sold in the next five years, after Senate Republicans on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reintroduced land sales into the party’s major spending bill. 

Released on Wednesday night, the megabill text includes a proposal for extensive transfers of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, supposedly for housing but with leeway for other uses. The new bill text escalates a recent GOP push to sell federal land. In May, the House Natural Resources Committee passed a version of the spending bill that called for 500,000 acres of public land sales in Nevada and Utah.

The Senate bill instructs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to dispose of .5%-.75% of all BLM and Forest Service lands, respectively. While the percentage appears small, each agency manages huge swaths of land, mostly in the Western U.S. The BLM oversees 245 million acres, equating to 1.23 million to 1.84 million acres for sale under this proposal. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres, which would mean 970,000 to 1.45 million acres would be sold off if the bill passes.

In all, the total amount of public lands for sale could be as high as 3.29 million acres. The bill text would allow sales in all western states, except Montana.

“This Senate version is just open season on public lands.”

“It’s a travesty that Senate Republicans are putting more than 3 million acres of our beloved public lands on the chopping block to sell at fire-sale prices to build mega mansions for the ultrarich,” Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an emailed statement. He noted that the proposal’s broad language differed from the House version that focused on lands already identified for disposal in resource management plans. 

“This Senate version is just open season on public lands,” Donnelly added. 

If passed into law, the new proposal would create a process for states, local governments and tribes to have a “right of first refusal” on public land sales — suggesting that if these entities did not want to purchase these parcels, private buyers would be considered. The proposal also prohibits the sale of national parks (which are not managed by the BLM or the Forest Service), national monuments, wilderness areas and national recreation areas, as well as land with mining claims, grazing permits, mineral leases and right of ways. 

Senate Republicans want to sell 3 million acres of public land
An aerial view from the Book Cliffs, Bureau of Land Management land, across the Grand Valley towards Grand Junction, Colorado. Credit: Luna Anna Archey/High Country News

Local governments near parcels that sold would get 5% of the proceeds “for essential infrastructure directly supporting housing development or other associated community needs,” while the public land agency would get 5% for deferred maintenance.

Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources — Members in the West:

Republican:
Chairman Mike Lee, Utah
John Barrasso, Wyoming
James E. Risch, Idaho
Steve Daines, Montana
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska

Democrat: 
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada
John Hickenlooper, Colorado
Alex Padilla, California
Ruben Gallego, Arizona

Attempts to sell public land are not new. But during President Trump’s second term, opponents of federal land management have couched transfers as a solution to the housing crisis. The Senate committee’s one-page summary of the plan blames the federal government for “depriving our communities of needed land for housing and inhibiting growth.” 

A recent analysis by Headwaters Economics found that public land transfers offer little promise as a housing solution.

“Our findings show that opportunities are limited to a few states, and are complicated by wildfire and drought risks, as well as other development challenges,” the researchers wrote. They found that less than 2% of Forest Service and Department of Interior land is close enough to population centers to make sense for housing development.

The only viable chunks of Forest Service land — defined as 5,000 acres or more — near towns are in Arizona, Utah and Oregon. Department of Interior parcels that could work for housing development are primarily in Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico and Utah, according to the analysis. Economists also found that more than half of federal lands within a quarter-mile of towns needing more housing and a population of at least 100 people had high wildfire risk.

Research also shows that creating more housing in scenic resort towns and gateway communities doesn’t usually result in more affordable housing. “If you build more housing and your community is a very popular place to visit, then often that housing gets consumed by short-term rentals” or second homes, Danya Rumore, founder and co-director of the Gateway and Natural Amenity Region Initiative at Utah State University, told High Country News last year. 

The Hughes Fire burns Forest Service land near Castaic, California, this January. Credit: Andrew Avitt/U.S. Forest Service

A broad bipartisan coalition opposes selling public land, especially among Western voters. Some members of the committee, like Steve Daines (R-Mont.), have specifically said they would not support disposing of federal land. “Sen. Daines opposes public land sales,” spokesperson Matt Lloyd told the Montana Free Press on June 4. Idaho Senator James Risch (R) has also publicly opposed such sales. Montana Republican Representative Ryan Zinke — also Trump’s former DOI secretary — was instrumental in removing land sales from the House spending bill. 

“Our findings show that opportunities are limited to a few states, and are complicated by wildfire and drought risks, as well as other development challenges.”

Chairman Mike Lee (R-Utah) has long championed attempts to sell federal land or transfer it to the states. Other Energy and Natural Resources Committee members represent Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, California and Arizona and Alaska — all states with thousands of acres of public land. 

If the committee passes this version of their megabill, a vote on public land sales would go to the entire Senate, and then, the House of Representatives. If this becomes law, it could “establish a model for members of Congress to liquidate America’s lands at any time to pay for their pet projects, with little benefit to local communities,” said Michael Carroll, director of the BLM campaign at The Wilderness Society, in a statement.

The post Senate Republicans want to sell 3 million acres of public land appeared first on High Country News.

Community rallies to revive RFHS greenhouse and garden

Community rallies to revive RFHS greenhouse and garden

Editor’s note: I, Raleigh Burleigh, was a student at Roaring Fork High School and in its inaugural agriculture-biology class in 2011. The experience gave me a connection with several local elders in sustainability, as well as a greater appreciation for the wisdom of plants.

In the year 2010, Roaring Fork High School (RFHS) — with assistance from local nonprofits Fat City Farmers and Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute (CRMPI) — welcomed the installation of a new 42-foot diameter “grow dome” greenhouse on campus. This was just a few years after the new high school was built along Highway 133. Yampah Mountain High School paved the way, completing their own grow dome in 2009. 

Making use of “climate battery” technology, circulating sun-warmed air via underground pipes, the dome maintains year-round growing conditions without the use of fossil fuels. Eco Systems Designs provided the blueprint, modeled after successes at CRMPI, including the presence of a fig and pomegranate tree. 

Illène Pevec, then a University of Colorado PhD candidate, arranged an AmeriCorps program on the site, earning student-interns money toward college along with real-world work experience. Her interviews with students at RFHS, Yampah, Colorado Rocky Mountain School and others resulted in a book: “Growing a Life: Teen Gardeners Harvest Food, Health, and Joy.”

RFHS science educator Hadley Hentschel used the dome for an agriculture-biology class which welcomed local experts to teach about the pitfalls of our industrial food system and potential solutions. With the addition of outdoor growing beds and fruit trees surrounding the dome, students were soon producing food to be used by the school cafeteria for more nutritious meals. In 2014, the project received a visit from Janey Thornton, then an undersecretary for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The mental health aspect of it for kids is enormous,” Pevec commented. “They have time outside, touching the Earth, watching things growing, feeling empowered by what they do. They can see the results of what they’re doing; they work with adults who are in a mentorship relationship with them.” 

Gradually, the gardens fell into decline and that program was put on pause. With Hadley now teaching at Carbondale Middle School, RFHS principal Lindsay Hentschel (also Hadley’s wife) is working with RFHS science teacher Megan Ravenscraft to revive the gardens with help from volunteers and the Garfield County CSU Extension. At a Feb. 6 planning meeting, Lindsay attributed the current state of affairs to responsibility falling on individuals, rather than a system. Also, with so much work to be done during the summer months, when students are out of session, it was a losing battle with the weeds.

Nonetheless, “Where else can one be part of a community garden with a greenhouse harboring a year-round Mediterranean climate, complete with a mature and productive fig tree and kiwi vines?” Michael Thompson, an architect who first brought the dome to fruition, mused. “Where else to harvest plenty of pears, apples, apricots and plums in the first year, on mature trees outside?”

Efforts are already underway to rebuild the raised bed soil in the greenhouse, replace the climate battery fans, build a new irrigation system indoors and outdoors, repair the dome roof vents, retape the polycarbonate glazing panels on the outside and replace the insulation in the north side.  

This group hopes the community will get engaged as they see fit. There’s even a set-up for keeping bees — complete with an electric fence — that is currently unused, Pevec noted, if any community member desired to take that aspect on. Additional improvements will include a shade structure and benches. There’s also a hoop house on the property in need of a new skin and end walls. Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers is already actively hosting projects on the site.

Eventually, the group would like to have an accessible sensory garden planted, to compliment all the other features. Mariah Foley works for the CSU Extension and lives at the new Meadowood teacher housing nearby, thanks to her husband working for the school district. She is optimistic about getting other members of that housing development involved. Lindsay called her presence “a perfect miracle.”

“It can be a really amazing space,” Lindsay said. “There’s no reason that only one class needs to use it. There should be potential for English classes to go out and have writing time, art classes to paint flowers. [Woodshop teacher] Mr. Black wants to build benches and things to go out there.” 

RFHS parent Karen Crownhart has also come forth to help shape up the irrigation system and outdoor gardens. She sits on an advisory committee meeting regularly to secure funding and keep projects on track. 

“My hope is that with an advisory committee, even if certain individuals leave, because it’s a standing committee, other people would join,” remarked Lindsay. Those interested in joining the committee, or lending a hand (or heavy machinery), can contact lhentschel@rfschools.com

Specifically, a contractor is sought to 1) help bury an electrical line and 2) dig a trench and tap into the water main, ideally this summer into early fall. 

Keep an eye out for future volunteer opportunities, including a tour of the property on June 23. Community members are invited to lend a hand anytime from noon to 5:30pm followed by a focused interest meeting and a potluck. The grow dome is located on the east side of the RFHS building. Questions? Contact the garden coordinator at mariah.foley@colostate.edu

The post Community rallies to revive RFHS greenhouse and garden appeared first on The Sopris Sun.