Vol. 71/No. 33      September 10, 2007

Howard is one of about 13,000 Black farmers who won a claim against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of a 1999 settlement over racist discrimination. But earlier this year the USDA’s loan agency notified him they were moving ahead with foreclosure on his land because of outstanding debt.

The lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman was brought against the USDA in 1997 for systematic racist discrimination in farm lending. A hard-fought struggle by farmers forced the USDA to admit decades of discrimination.

The settlement brought relief to some Black farmers who filed complaints between 1981 and 1996. But it left the agency’s racist county committee system intact. Of 7,882 county committee members nationwide, only 90 are Black. In Mississippi, just 8 of 236 are Black.

In a recent interview at the Mileston Co-Op here, Howard said farmers still have to deal with the same people in the USDA’s lending programs who for years have been discriminating against Black farmers.

“With the Black farmer, they watch everything we do like we were children,” he said. “I don’t know of any Black farmer who put in for a loan and had it come in time [for planting]. That’s why it can’t be paid back in time.

“That is what the Black farmers’ lawsuit was started over,” he said.

The most common award in the Pigford settlement included $50,000 per farmer. Tax assistance, limited debt forgiveness, and priority consideration for a future loan were also part of the terms. Farmers had to present “substantial evidence” of discrimination, including proof that a similarly situated white farmer was treated more favorably. Of 94,000 claims filed, nearly 9 in 10 were rejected, most for missing deadlines, despite lack of notice.

After winning his claim, Howard notified the local USDA office here that he would take advantage of priority considerations for a loan to buy land. But his application was denied due to a debt—even though it was forgiven under the settlement.

The USDA’s current threat to foreclose on his land stems from an outstanding loan to his father, whose 254 acres were transferred to Howard in 1986.

The debt had ballooned since his father received the original loan. Like his cousin David Lee Howard and other farmers around here, the USDA is coming after Howard to collect on loans that include debts they thought had been written off.

This is when the settlement’s restricted loan forgiveness hit home for Howard. But he also couldn’t understand how written-off debt could come back for collection 10 years later.

When USDA loans secured by land are in default, qualifying farmers must enter into a non-negotiable agreement to avoid foreclosure. These require a lump-sum payment at the end of a 10-year term, which the USDA says is a way to recover “forgiven” debt. The payment is based on the USDA’s inflated assessment of land value appreciation.

Farmers across the country have complained that USDA officials told them the agreement will simply expire if they’re still farming the land at the end of its term. Because of how these debts are restructured, when the appreciation payment comes due it often creates a financial crisis for the farmer with risk of being driven off the land.

Howard said that after receiving the foreclosure notice, a county USDA committeeman was seen showing Howard’s land to a white farmer. Howard has received no apology, despite complaining to the state USDA office.

Meanwhile, two competing bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress June 21 to address the high rate of rejections of Pigford claims. One would allow those who didn’t receive notice of the deadline to re-file their claims. The other would allow Black farmers to go back to court.

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association and other farm groups will hold a town hall rally in Washington, D.C., August 29 to mark the 10th anniversary of the filing of Pigford v. Glickman. “We had them at our mercy and we should have put the fire on them,” said Howard of the Pigford settlement. “But we had to take the crumbs.”

Susan Lamont contributed to this article.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home