Connecting the Disconnected: Why Rural Infrastructure Can't Wait

The Rural New Deal, Pillar #4

This is the fourth post in a ten-part series exploring the Rural New Deal, a comprehensive policy framework developed by Progressive Democrats of America and the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative. Each week, I'll break down one of the ten pillars through the lens of rural organizing, focusing on what these policies would mean for communities like ours and how local organizers can push for implementation. The goal is an informational and practical roadmap for rebuilding rural economies and Democratic credibility in rural America.

Pillar #4: Invest in Community & Regional Infrastructure

In 2018, Washington state legislators passed a bill requiring all broadband providers to submit coverage maps showing exactly where service was available. The goal was simple: figure out where the gaps were so the state could prioritize investments in underserved areas.

Seven years later, we’re still working on it.

The maps came in incomplete. Different providers used different definitions of “coverage.” Some marked entire census blocks as served if a single building had access. The state had to build new mapping systems, negotiate with companies reluctant to share proprietary data, and sort through layers of conflicting information about who actually had service and who didn’t.

Meanwhile, kids in rural Lewis County sat in McDonald’s parking lots trying to finish homework assignments. Small businesses struggled to process credit card transactions. Farmers couldn’t access precision agriculture tools that required reliable internet. Telehealth remained largely unavailable to elderly residents who needed it most.

The infrastructure gap isn’t just about convenience. It determines whether rural communities can participate in the modern economy at all. Without reliable broadband, remote work becomes impossible. Without processing facilities for agricultural products, farmers have to ship raw goods hundreds of miles for basic value-added steps. Without transportation infrastructure that works, moving those goods becomes prohibitively expensive.

The Current Reality

Infrastructure investment in rural America has lagged for decades, creating cascading problems that compound over time. Roads deteriorate faster than they get fixed. Rail lines that once connected small towns to regional markets have been abandoned or sold off. Processing facilities close because corporate consolidation favors fewer, larger operations over distributed networks.

Broadband provides the clearest example of how this plays out. Federal programs have poured billions into rural internet expansion, yet coverage remains spotty and speeds often fall short of what providers advertise. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated $65 billion for broadband, but the money moves slowly through bureaucratic channels while private providers cherry-pick the most profitable areas to serve.

Washington’s broadband mapping saga illustrates the fundamental problem: we’re trying to build critical infrastructure through a patchwork of competing private companies, inconsistent state programs, and federal grants that require elaborate application processes. Communities that need infrastructure most often lack the technical capacity to navigate these systems successfully.

The situation gets worse when you look at other types of infrastructure. Independent meat processors who could serve local farmers have largely disappeared, forcing ranchers to ship animals hundreds of miles for slaughter. Small-scale grain mills and vegetable processing facilities that once anchored rural food systems have closed, replaced by nothing.

The physical infrastructure that allowed rural communities to add value to their products and capture more of the retail dollar has been systematically dismantled.

Transportation infrastructure faces similar challenges. Rural roads get less funding per mile than urban highways, despite serving as the primary corridors for moving agricultural products and timber. Rail service has contracted dramatically, leaving trucks as the only option for many areas. This increases costs for rural businesses while accelerating road deterioration.

A Rural New Deal Solution

The fourth pillar addresses these problems by treating infrastructure as a public good that enables economic development rather than as a series of private business opportunities. This means making universal broadband access a priority comparable to rural electrification in the 1930s, when the federal government recognized that private utilities wouldn’t serve sparsely populated areas without public investment and coordination.

For broadband, this requires treating internet access like electricity or water service. Universal access, affordable rates, and minimum speed standards need to become baseline requirements rather than aspirational goals. Public investment should flow directly to communities through streamlined processes that don’t require expensive consultants to navigate.

Some areas have started building municipal broadband networks rather than waiting for private providers. These community-owned systems typically offer better service at lower cost than corporate alternatives, and profits stay local instead of flowing to distant shareholders. The Rural New Deal would support this model through grants and technical assistance that help communities build their own networks.

Beyond broadband, the pillar emphasizes rebuilding the physical infrastructure that allows rural producers to process and market their goods locally. Independent meat processing facilities, grain mills, vegetable processing operations, and similar enterprises need capital and regulatory support to establish themselves and compete with corporate operations.

The proposal calls for grants and zero-interest loans specifically targeted at these types of facilities, with priority given to operations that serve multiple small producers rather than single large companies. This creates the foundation for regional supply chains that keep money circulating locally instead of extracting it to urban centers.

Community-based value chains would aggregate products from small farmers and reduce transportation costs while increasing local access to fresh food. A county-level food hub, for instance, might collect produce from dozens of small farms, handle basic processing and packaging, and distribute to schools, hospitals, and grocery stores within the region.

This cuts transportation costs, reduces waste, and provides stable markets for producers who can’t individually meet the volume requirements of large buyers.

The infrastructure pillar also addresses transportation by calling for expansion and repair of rural rail lines and roads. Rail service particularly matters for moving bulk commodities like grain and timber, where trucks become cost-prohibitive over long distances.

Restoring branch lines that once served rural areas would reduce shipping costs for agricultural products while taking truck traffic off deteriorating rural roads.

Water infrastructure deserves special attention. Corporate control of water resources has become a serious problem in many rural areas, where private equity firms and large agricultural operations buy up water rights and leave local communities struggling to access enough for basic needs.

The Rural New Deal calls for policies that ensure equitable access to water and reduce corporate ownership of critical water resources.

Why This Infrastructure Investment Matters Now

Rural communities can’t build functional economies without the basic infrastructure that makes commerce possible. High-speed internet isn’t a luxury anymore. Processing facilities aren’t optional extras. Decent roads and rail service aren’t conveniences. They’re fundamental requirements for rural areas to participate in regional and national markets.

The infrastructure gap also creates a vicious cycle. Young people leave because opportunities require connectivity and mobility that rural areas don’t provide. As population declines, political influence shrinks and infrastructure investment becomes even harder to secure. Communities that need the most help become the least able to advocate for themselves effectively.

Breaking this cycle requires treating rural infrastructure as a national priority rather than a series of local problems. When the federal government invested in rural electrification, it didn’t ask each farming community to figure out how to attract private power companies. It recognized that universal access required public investment and coordination. The same logic applies to broadband, processing facilities, and transportation networks.

There’s also an environmental dimension. Distributed processing infrastructure reduces the distance products travel from farm to consumer, cutting transportation emissions and preserving freshness. Regional food systems reduce packaging waste and food loss.

Regenerative agriculture practices become more economically viable when farmers can process and market their products locally rather than shipping everything to distant corporate buyers.

The infrastructure pillar creates opportunities for rural innovation in building materials and renewable energy. Research and development support for products like hempcrete blocks, structurally insulated panel systems, and other energy-efficient building materials could create new manufacturing sectors in rural areas while advancing climate goals.

These aren’t pie-in-the-sky ideas; they’re proven technologies that need investment to scale up production and distribution.

Local Implementation

Counties and municipalities can start pushing for infrastructure investment without waiting for federal policy changes. Economic development councils should prioritize recruiting or creating the processing facilities and value-added operations that serve local producers.

A feasibility study for a regional food hub or meat processing plant creates the foundation for pursuing grants and attracting investors.

Local officials need to be aggressive about demanding better broadband service from existing providers and exploring alternatives when private companies don’t deliver.

Municipal broadband networks work well in many places, but they require political courage because telecom companies fight them aggressively. The potential benefits justify the political risk.

Transportation infrastructure requires coordination between counties and state departments of transportation. Rural areas need to push back against funding formulas that shortchange them relative to urban corridors. Every county has roads and bridges that need repair or replacement, and these infrastructure needs should be documented and advocated for loudly at the state level.

Procurement policies offer immediate opportunities for building regional supply chains. Schools, hospitals, and government agencies that commit to sourcing food and materials locally create stable markets for rural producers and processors.

A county might start by setting a goal that 20% of food served in government facilities comes from regional sources within three years, then work backward to figure out what infrastructure needs to exist to make that possible.

Party organizations can frame infrastructure as a practical economic development issue rather than an abstract policy debate. Voters understand that you can’t run a business without reliable internet, that farmers need local markets for their products, and that roads matter for getting anywhere.

Democrats who champion infrastructure investment speak directly to rural economic anxieties in ways that resonate across political divides.

Building What We Need

The broadband mapping saga in Washington illustrates everything wrong with how we approach rural infrastructure. Seven years to figure out who has internet access and who doesn’t. Billions in federal funding stuck in bureaucratic processes. Private companies that prioritize profits over coverage. Rural communities left waiting while their economies stagnate.

We could have spent those seven years actually building networks and connecting people. We could have treated broadband like a public utility and made universal access the baseline requirement. We could have supported communities that wanted to build their own networks instead of forcing them to wait for private companies that never showed up.

The same logic applies to every other infrastructure need rural areas face. We know where processing facilities need to exist. We know which roads and bridges need repair. We know what water systems require investment. The question isn’t what needs to be done; it’s whether we have the political will to treat rural infrastructure as the national priority it actually is.

The fourth pillar of the Rural New Deal provides a framework for making those investments systematically rather than continuing the piecemeal approach that’s failed for decades. Implementation will take years and require sustained advocacy at every level of government.

But the alternative is watching rural communities continue losing the infrastructure that makes economic activity possible until they can’t function at all.

Every day we delay costs rural America more opportunities, more young people, more economic vitality. The infrastructure we need won’t build itself, and private markets have proven they won’t provide it without public investment and oversight. Time to stop mapping the problem and start building the solutions.

---

Next week: How revitalizing small town centers can create economic opportunity and give young people reasons to stay.