USDA abruptly halts $59 million grant to University of Idaho

The University of Idaho took a gut punch earlier this week when the U.S. Department of Agriculture abruptly terminated a $59 million grant, which would have pumped money to Gem State farmers to boost the marketing of most of the crops grown there.

The grant, which was the largest in school history, was canceled in a message sent by the USDA on Sunday. By Monday morning, university officials informed 26 employees they no longer had jobs, said Sanford Eigenbrode, a university-distinguished professor at the UI College of Agricultural and Life Sciences.

“That’s how they came to work on Monday. It’s not like you have three weeks to close this down. It was, ‘You are done,’ ” Eigenbrode said.

The job cuts included 13 graduate students, three post-doctoral fellowships and 10 others, who either had full- or part-time positions.

The terminated grant also severed partnerships with the Coeur d’Alene and Nez Perce tribes, the Nature Conservancy of Idaho, the Desert Mountain Grass Fed Beef cooperative and several soil conservation districts.

The grant had been funded to UI through the USDA’s Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program. Idaho’s winning bid was titled Innovative Agriculture and Marketing Partnership project and Eigenbrode was the co-director of the program.

The USDA letter that announced the grant’s termination also noted that Idaho could resubmit a request for funding, but the USDA has changed the name of the funding program from Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities to “Advancing Markets for Producers,” Eigenbrode said.

Asked if the word “Climate” had anything to do with the grant’s termination, Eigbenbrode said he didn’t know for sure.

“That was not said,” he said. “I’m guessing that it was a problem with the whole program. That’s just a guess.”

An emailed request to the USDA for comment was not immediately answered on Wednesday afternoon.

Regardless of why it was killed, the termination of the grant puts Idaho officials in the position of trying to find ways to help the graduate students and others who otherwise were relying on jobs tied to the grant.

If it had continued, the grant would have funded an effort to provide money to farmers who grow chickpeas, barley, hops, wheat, potatoes and sugar beets, and raise cattle for beef, to better promote and inform potential buyers of their products, Eigenbrode said.

“For example, chickpeas, we are looking at expanding markets for hummus in our nation,” he said. “Consumers of hummus are interested in how the chickpeas are grown.

“And, we were going to be tapping into the market potential of that. The same with potatoes and all the products that would have been produced under our incentives.”

Of the $59 million, some $33 million, or about 56%, was earmarked to go directly to the farmers as part of the program.

In its letter, the USDA noted that the grant rules were changed and now require 65% of the grant award to go directly to farmers, which Eigenbrode said could present a challenge in its next application.

“They said that was the reason it was being terminated,” he said of the 65% threshold. “We were in good shape for getting those contracts rolling. This was a huge award.”

Eigenbrode, who is in his 30th year at UI, noted that the USDA’s earlier criteria called only for a majority of funds to go to farmers. More than 200 producers had signed up to be a part of the program from 34 Idaho counties.

“It did not specify a percentage. I wanted to give more to producers directly, but when you try to do everything to make something like this work, you need administrative support,” he said.

“There are management costs for visiting each farm. And, getting soil samples is costly.”

Eigenbrode noted that simply handing over cash to farmers “would be a misuse of public funds. We were hoping to use those funds to responsibly document what was happening to the benefit of everyone – farmers, consumers and the general public.”

The effort would have produced a searchable map and data base to show locations of farmers, their crops and the scope of how the grant was being administered.

Then word came Sunday that the grant program was dead.

“It was a very short notification message that was clearly like a form letter,” Eigenbrode said.

“It had our award number in the text, but it otherwise could have gone to anyone.”