Hispanic Farmers Blame USDA for Lost Land

Lawsuit Filed 9 Years Ago Accuses USDA of Discrimination, Neglect; Many Farmers Have Since Lost their Livelihood and Homes

(AP)  In their straw hats, rolled up sleeves and work boots, a dozen or so Latinos gathered by a field of ripening strawberries still look like farmers. All but one of them, however, have lost their land.

Now they ring up purchases in stores, drive tractors - and hold the U.S. Department of Agriculture responsible for denying or delaying the loans that could have saved their farms.

"I used to be a farmer - now I'm a farmworker, working on someone else's fields," said Juan Atayde, who lost his 90 acres of strawberries when he couldn't get loans to recover from the one-two punch of lower prices and a flood in the mid-1990s.

A lawsuit filed nine years ago on the behalf of Hispanic farmers from Texas to California alleged the USDA discriminated against Hispanics such as Atayde by refusing them help that was extended to white farmers in similar situations, then neglecting to investigate complaints. A similar suit, filed by black farmers, led to a billion-dollar settlement.

Hispanic farmers are still waiting. While they wait, some have lost their livelihood, some their homes and others have died.

"It was so hard, watching everyone go down, lose what they'd worked for," said Alicia Alvarez, who had built her raspberry farm from one and a half acres to 85 acres, only to lose most of it when the 1995 flood washed away her harvest. Without USDA help with her debts, she lost all but three acres of land.

As an attorney updated the Salinas valley farmers in late September, farmworkers stooped among the rows of strawberries, doing work that Maria Martinez said was the most grueling she had ever experienced - but which she still hoped to do again.

She lost 22 acres of zucchini in 1999, when water pipes broke in Hollister and brackish water ruined her land. She went to the USDA and applied for $20,000 in disaster relief assistance.

"They just saw my name, looked at me, and said I didn't qualify," said Martinez, who now works at Wal-Mart. The rebuttal cost her financially, but it was also deeply offensive, she said.

Her son, 16 years old at the time, had gone with her to translate and left upset, believing his mother had been humiliated and disregarded because she was Mexican.

"That was hard," Martinez said.

What has made the process singularly frustrating, these farmers said, is that a similarly worded suit brought on behalf of black farmers but heard by a different judge was certified as a class action and settled in 1999. The 15,000 claims represented in the Pigford lawsuit, named after a black farmer from North Carolina, shared a $1 billion settlement.

"It makes no sense morally, legally or politically to treat one group different from another," said lead counsel Stephen Hill, who is representing the Hispanic plaintiffs pro bono.

In addition to the initial payout, Congress last year gave black farmers a second chance to claim the money. In May, President Barack Obama proposed the government set aside another $1.25 billion as part of the 2010 budget to settle their additional claims. A month later, seven senators representing states from New Jersey to California applauded Obama for his stand on the black farmers' case, then called on him to apply the same standard to the Hispanic farmers.

"These are heartbreaking stories," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. "These cases are valid, and the farmers deserve to be heard and deserve justice."

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has tried to address the issue and change the way the agency operates.

"From the moment I became the secretary of agriculture, my message has been clear: discrimination in any form will not be tolerated at USDA," said Vilsack in September, when he announced the agency's programs would be evaluated to identify barriers to equal access.

Despite the USDA's recent actions, and the support on Capitol Hill, Hispanic farmers have moved no closer to justice, said Hill, who estimated up to 80,000 farmers could be affected.

The Department of Justice, which is representing the USDA, pointed to the court's rejection of class certification to explain their refusal to discuss a group settlement. Instead, the government would like to see the cases broken apart and fought individually, in thousands of courts around the country.

"USDA and Department of Justice will give fair consideration to settling claims based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case," Justice Department spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said.

Forcing these farmers to fight their cases one by one, rather than as part of a class, is tantamount to denying them justice, Hill said. Alone they don't have the means to take on the federal agency's bottomless resources, he said.

"It's really a cynical ploy on the part of the government, and it denies these farmers justice," said Hill.

He has appealed the Hispanic farmers' case to the Supreme Court, and is still hoping to get certification as a class action.

To the farmers in Salinas, promises made in Washington continue to ring hollow. Improving the way the agency works is important, but it will not bring their farms back. And more than anything, they are in this fight because they want to work the land again.

"It's the devil's work - you're bent over all day," Martinez said. "But still, it's my dream - to farm again."

[toldyouso21]

Forcing these farmers to fight their cases one by one, rather than as part of a class, is tantamount to denying them justice, Hill said. Alone they don't have the means to take on the federal agency's bottomless resources, he said."

class action suits are a joke. Anyone who has been a part of one (I have been a part of at least 8) KNOWS that it only nets real money for the Lawyers. I have been part of 2 class action suits with GE Capital Mortgage, 1 with Chrysler, 1 with Bank of America, one with Wells Fargo, one with Citizens gas... VISA and on and on.

They write you and tell you that if you have been a part of ____or have had loans __________ or had a mortgage in the state of _ between years __ and ____. All the class action suits were won in my case. The companies sued always pay out hundreds of billions to supposedly be split among all in the suit MINUS the 33 to 60% share from all the attorneys and court costs. The average settlement is about 45.00. Yep, in a case where those who are affected figures into thousands, the amount received is really small.

What I usually receive is a notice telling me I was a part of a successful lawsuit and either I accept my share of a settlement (they don't tell you in advance what that is) or I can fight a case I never knew existed, personally, on my own dime and waive my settlement. If I don't respond at all, then that indicates an agreement to the settlement.

so about every other year for the past 20 years, I get a check for as little as 8.51 to 49.83 and some lawyer who tells me "we" successfully one a HUGE lawsuit of 400 or 500 MILLION and aren't I just the lucky one? I get 35.00 or 49.83.

I's be interested to know just how much money those black farmers got each--I think most would be surprised to learn if it was more than a few hundred dollars. Class action suits are instant riches for any attorney who successfully brings one--not so much for those they pretend to represent--they are a SCAM.

[billpl-2009]

"...A similar suit, filed by black farmers, led to a billion-dollar settlement..."


now it's their turn to get a ride on the gravy boat

[itgranny]

anti-global3 money in the bank don't have nothing to do with it. None of them do. Today's farming is not so much a business as a popularity contest. They've bid up the farmland price so much there is no way in hell it pencils out even in a good year. They get bigger and bigger and more and more in debt.

Seed corn is $300 for a 50 lb bag. Monsanto has this roundup ready seed where you can't save back your own seed like in the old days because they'll sue you if they find any of their genetics in their field and people have been sued (and won) because their field was pollinated by the roundup-ready beans on the other side of the fenceline.

Take a look at money's received in my state, Minnesota, for farm subsidies in 2006.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=27000&progcode=total&yr=2006

Why are these people getting taxpayer money? Better yet, how do many of these guys stay farming in spite of going through bankruptcy? Slimey business practices is how.

I live this life and i do believe these people. I'd bet money they've been done wrong. Unfortunately, it's going to be you and i who will be paying for somebody Else's mess.

[itgranny]

anti-global3 money in the bank don't have nothing to do with it. None of them do. Today's farming is not so much a business as a popularity contest. They've bid up the farmland price so much there is no way in hell it pencils out even in a good year. They get bigger and bigger and more and more in debt.

Seed corn is $300 for a 50 lb bag. Monsanto has this roundup ready seed where you can't save back your own seed like in the old days because they'll sue you if they find any of their genetics in their field and people have been sued (and won) because their field was pollinated by the roundup-ready beans on the other side of the fenceline.

Take a look at money's received in my state, Minnesota, for farm subsidies in 2006.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=27000&progcode=total&yr=2006

Why are these people getting taxpayer money? Better yet, how do many of these guys stay farming in spite of going through bankruptcy? Slimey business practices is how.

I live this life and i do believe these people. I'd bet money they've been done wrong. Unfortunately, it's going to be you and i who will be paying for somebody Else's mess.

[MGTexas]

Disaster Relief for Farmers ( IS NOT A LOAN)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is alerting producers that the federal stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) has loosened the requirements for obtaining 2008 disaster assistance authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill.

By paying a $100 per crop buy-in fee, farmers can obtain assistance under five Farm Bill disaster assistance programs even if they have not met previous requirements to obtain crop insurance from the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) or Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). The five programs are the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, Farm-Raised Fish, and the Tree Assistance Program.

The fee must be paid by May 18, 2009. The maximum fee for insurable or non-insurable crops is $300 per county per producer, not to exceed $900 for multicounty producers. Paying the buy-in fee does not provide the producer with crop insurance or NAP for the 2008 crop year; it simply permits the producer to become eligible for the 2008 crop disaster assistance programs.

In addition to paying the buy-in fee, producers must meet two requirements:

* In the case of each insurable crop (those for which insurance is available from FCIC), excluding grazing land, the producer must agree to obtain a policy or plan of insurance for the next insurance year for which crop insurance is available; the coverage level should equal 70 percent or more of the yield at 100 percent of the price.
* In the case of each non-insurable crop, the producer must agree to file the required paperwork and pay the applicable administrative NAP coverage fee by the applicable state application closing date for the next available year.

Producers who meet the definition of socially disadvantaged, limited resource or beginning farmer or rancher are not required to pay the buy-in fee.

For more information, contact your local USDA office or call Farm Service Agency (530-792-5520); Natural Resources Conservation Service (530-792-5600); or Risk Management Agency (530-792-5870).

[Marc_1986]

You know who wins in this scenario? Not the farmers.

The trial lawyers who take their share of the settlement profits! The same lawyers that some day become Congress men and women.

[toldyouso21]

AMEN to that!!!!

[anti-global3]

I doubt it was because they were hispanic. it was more likely because they had no collateral to back up the emergency loans. Again you see the attitude that the govt' is a big charity and these people feel entitled to a bailout. If you look at the so called white farmers who were given emergency loans they probably had money in the bank, or property they owned outright to cover the loans in the worse case that their business still failed.
Making loans to people who could not pay them back is what helped implode the strongest economy in the world.

[toldyouso21]

Uber inflated gas and food prices are what helped to implode our economy. When banks figure out the viability of lending, no one factors in a 400% increase in goods like food and gas. When faced with that under the Bush wars--people chose to pay for food and gas over their mortgages--after all, a person always has to eat and needs to be able to get to work--as for the mortgage--the time it takes to finally default and foreclose allows many to believe they can buy time.

Even if there had been no ignorant loans--no one could have prepared for what 2004-2008 and the loss of American capital did to interest rates and inflation. With over 90% of our groceries (veggies and seafood and beef) now being imported--a market relying on imports and inflation is a sure fire way to outpace any economy. As for our problems--consumer based economies are ticking time bombs. Without out the position to create one's own jobs to drive the economy and instead being a 'service industry" (translation : flunkeys of countries that actually produce goods) one is in a lose/lose position.