Farmers have long taken environmental issues seriously and, as has been said many times in this space, have been among the world’s greatest environmental stewards.

With their love for the land in mind, farmers have been working with government agencies to assure that their practices continue to produce affordable food while protecting the environment.

In the meantime though, some shoot-from-the-hip public relations work has continued to give all farmers an environmental black eye. Such was the case in recent weeks when the Madison-based Midwest Environmental Advocates issued a news release that a nonfarming rural resident had “won” an environmental lawsuit as the result of a settlement reached with a neighboring dairy farmer.

In its information — which some media used without seeking the other sides of the story — MEA leaders said the settlement showed the farmer was guilty of having polluted the neighbors’ wells. A conclusion taken from the settlement, according to the MEA, is that farmers shouldn’t be allowed to spread manure onto frozen fields.

It took little checking to realize that the farmer and his insurance company didn’t admit any guilt in the settlement and, instead, said it was more financially beneficial to reach a payout settlement than to defend the matter in a court.

More checking showed that there might have been other problems contributing to the farm neighbors’ well contamination. Several people in that area — including the family the farmer’s insurance company paid — had been notified that their septic systems didn’t meet their municipality’s standards.

The MEA news release said the farm neighbors’ children had been poisoned by the well-water pollution caused by the farm’s manure nutrient runoff. One child, according to the news release, was rushed to the hospital because of the water pollution.

The problem with nearly all the information cited by the MEA, which provided legal representation to the farm’s neighbors, is that it was based on little more than speculation. The farm may have caused none, some or all of the water pollution. But a fairly large dairy farm — one that had previous environmental citations — was involved, apparently making it easy for MEA leaders to think it’s OK for them to say “see; put it all together and large farms are big polluters.”

A war of words between MEA and Dairy Business Association leaders followed the MEA news release; a war of words that may have done little more than to fan the issue’s flames.

At one point, a DBA representative challenged MEA attorney Andrew Hanson to hold small farm operations to the same environmental standards to which the MEA holds the large farms. That challenge likely was to show that Mr. Hanson and the MEA “have it out” for large farms. However, Mr. Hanson quickly turned the public relations tables by telling the world that the DBA has little respect for owners of small farms.

The bottom line in all of this is, people must stop confusing facts with assumptions and speculation — and that goes for farmers, their nonfarming neighbors and environmental groups. If that doesn’t happen, our rural countryside will turn into the public relations and sound-bite world that has become a driver of federal politics. That world doesn’t fit with rural values.

Perhaps someday a case like the most recent one presented by the MEA will go to trial, so some judgments may be formed on science and fact instead of on speculation and spin.

In the meantime, the farm community must work to not allow words to tear it apart because, as farms of one size go, so go farms of other sizes. Indeed, the entire rural community, whether farmers or nonfarmers, must continue developing cooperation and understanding with neighbors.

Instances that occur when a producer becomes a bad neighbor or when nonfarming neighbors turn their backs on farm neighbors are on the rise.

Words such as “community” and “neighborhood” need to be re-established in rural areas. Many more of the arguments between farmers and rural nonfarmers like those we’ve seen during the past couple years will come to be the downfall of the rural Upper Midwest as we know it.

It’s easy to recognize the extreme environmental agendas that some people have toward farmers — especially toward those who operate large farms. Likewise, it’s easy to recognize the production-based agendas held by others. Much less recognizable has been an agenda of rural neighbors striving to work together for the good of all.

Leave the sound bites and public relations moves to Washington, D.C., and allow decency and facts to steer rural neighborhoods.

By Scott Schultz