iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Farm Bill Conservation Programs Threatened By Anticipated Budget Cuts

Farm Bill Conservation

First Posted: 12/12/2011 12:17 pm Updated: 12/13/2011 11:41 am

On October 17, a massive dust storm hit Lubbock, Texas, adding to already significant agricultural and environmental devastation across the South this year. That same day, leaders of the U.S. House and Senate Agriculture Committees recommended cuts to the federal Farm Bill, including its conservation programs.

"While it's true we all need to do our part to help put our fiscal house in order, this storm should show why these cuts can't all come from conservation and why it's important that we keep a focus on natural resource protection on working farm and ranch land unless we want to see a new Dust Bowl," Joe Parker, president of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, said in a statement in October.

The Dust Bowl actually helped spur development of the first incarnations of the Farm Bill in the 1930s. In addition to funds to keep farmers afloat after their losses, the legislation also helped them avert future disaster by promoting more sustainable agricultural practices, such as maintaining patches of forests to protect soil and crops from the wind -- a strategy that offers additional benefits for wildlife and water quality.

As HuffPost reported over the last couple weeks, the Farm Bill that faces renewal in 2012 is a broad piece of legislation, with programs that influence everything from the cost of corn to how easily people can access carrots and cabbage. And while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Park Service do a lot to protect the environment, the bill constitutes the largest source of federal investment in private lands in the U.S.

Of course, the Farm Bill conservation programs have evolved a lot over the last 80-plus years. (The entire bill grew from 24 pages in 1933 to the latest version's 663 pages, put into effect in 2008.) The 1985 bill was the first to have a section devoted to conservation. "Thankfully conservation has been on an upward trajectory, and has become one of the larger pieces of the Farm Bill pie," David Degennaro, legislative and policy analyst at the Environmental Working Group, told The Huffington Post. "But it's looking like we're definitely going to see a reduction in conservation funding, and that's really misguided."

"We need conservation programs now more than ever," he said.

Approximately 40 percent of land in the U.S. is used for agriculture of some form or another, and plowing, grazing and other activities can be hard on the land. But the choice of where to grow what crops and with which tools can determine how much farming alters the soil, displaces wildlife, contaminates water or reduces the environment's natural ability to buffer against floods and drought.

As opposed to a monoculture, a diverse mix of crops or livestock generates greater ecological benefits, including more natural predators to combat insect infestations. Plus, if it is a bad year for apples, for example, a farmer can fall back on his sheep or lettuce.

Some experts suggest that limiting industrial food animal production could go a long way to reduce contamination of the air, water and soil. "While the Farm Bill provides relatively little direct support for this industry, the indirect support is substantial, most importantly the fact that it supplies the industry with below-cost animal feed," said Roni Neff, research and policy director at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for a Livable Future.

"We as taxpayers get a lot of out of ensuring the protection of the soil, water and species," said Dan Imhoff, co-founder of Watershed Media. "But the market doesn't pay you to take care of your land. It simply pays you for the crops."

The Farm Bill attempts to make up for some of this omission of the market. One redress is through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which pays farmers to remove environmentally sensitive land, such as areas most in danger of erosion or flooding, from production.

The agriculture committees' recent recommendation to the super committee, which failed to reach a budget decision before their deadline last month, lowered the amount of land that farmers can set aside through the CRP. Of more significance to the environment, experts suggest, is that while farmers may have had a financial incentive to participate in the program a decade or two ago, the recent surge in grain prices -- driven in large part by the demand for corn ethanol -- has swayed many farmers to put their land back into production.

"Farmers now have more incentive to plow under native prairie or wetlands," said Degennaro, adding that this push to use every available inch for corn often requires the use of more pesticides and fertilizers.

"People feel foolish not to go to max," added Ferd Hoefner, policy director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Dave White, chief of the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), told HuffPost that he plans to work with land owners who intend to exit the CRP to find green alternatives to simply plowing under their land, including preferential enrollment in other conservation programs under the bill.

An array of current programs defray the costs for crop and environmental protections, such as fences to keep cows (and their manure) out of waterways, or for education in pesticide-free crop management.

Mark Doyle, head of development management for Fishkill Farms in Hopewell JCT, New York, has received help from the Farm Bill and hopes for more in the future. He is working on plans for a facility to store and mix farm chemicals. "The better job we do of that, the less likelihood of it ever getting into the waterways," he told HuffPost. "Taking care of our resources -- water being chief amongst them -- is of paramount importance to the entire population, not just farmers."

In Claryville, N.Y., Conor Crickmore is waiting on the new Farm Bill to know if he will get funding for a new irrigation system. The owner of Neversink Farm says it would be "designed to take conservation and run-off into account."

Even with the funds available today, however, many of the farmers hoping to participate in these voluntary programs are turned away. In California, more than half of farmers who apply for programs typically can't get access due to the lack of funding, said Jeanne Merrill, policy director for the California Climate and Agriculture Network.

On the other hand, farmers who accept certain government subsidies, including direct payments, are currently required to maintain some basic conservation practices. In the new Farm Bill, however, expanded crop insurance is expected to replace direct payments. Degennaro and other environmental advocates are concerned because qualification for crop insurance doesn't currently include the compulsory conservation components, and they warn that unless the safety net is coupled with compliance with risk-reducing measures, farmers may indulge in riskier behavior and greater environmental damage may result.

Overall, through a series of Conservation Effects Assessment Projects around the country, the USDA's NRCS is finding that Farm Bill conservation programs pay off. "In the Chesapeake Bay, if we didn't have it, erosion and sediment would be 50 percent worse than it is now," said NRCS's White. "We've seen the same thing in the Upper Mississippi and the Great Lakes."

But White noted that there's still a lot more to be done. To continue to tackle environmental challenges, his team's findings suggest, farmers need a combination of approaches, such as pairing terraces with nutrient management, to solve problems without exacerbating others.

"If program funding is cut, then we face the loss of ecosystem benefits, dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, billions and billions of dollars of lost revenue in tourism and fisheries, and millions of acres of wildlife," added Degennaro. "There is a lot at stake for conservation, beyond just doing right thing."

Experts suggest that the dust storm that pounded Lubbock in October could be a harbinger of things to come.

"Even though the Lubbock area experienced a bad dust storm, without established conservation practices in place, such storms would be more frequent, more destructive and more widespread," Salvador Salinas, Texas state conservationist for the NRCS, said in a statement.

The third of a series looking at how the next Farm Bill could affect the food system, the environment and public health.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

On October 17, a massive dust storm hit Lubbock, Texas, adding to already significant agricultural and environmental devastation across the South this year. That same day, leaders of the U.S. House an...
On October 17, a massive dust storm hit Lubbock, Texas, adding to already significant agricultural and environmental devastation across the South this year. That same day, leaders of the U.S. House an...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 54
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
09:07 PM on 12/13/2011
Ummm...ok...this article seems to promote more payments to farmers in farm bill programs such as CRP. Which way does the left want it? CRP payment are constantly being outed as part of those evilll subsidy payments. Just read www.EWG.ORG, they constantly include CRP in their "subsidy" math when they out some individual on the program. I watch this play out again and again. Direct crop subsidies get about 7% and conservation subsidy programs like CRP get about 7% of the new farm bill

Which way do you guys want it? CRP or no CRP? Yes or no? "Yes" to CRP means money payments to farmers. It is that simple. Get it? If you say yes...then stop the endless bee-chin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Craig Bovia
Vermont, 1791, women can vote, no slavery allowed
11:01 AM on 12/13/2011
Whatever is passed, it will probably end up doing US harm in the Future.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swanderman
self unemployed
07:20 AM on 12/13/2011
Cut ALL subsidies to Agra-business, corporation formed farms & any holding more than 9,999 acres.
Do not allow them to expand their acreage beyond it's current border, or acquire farmland under entities. If they can't profit on what they have at that, then they're a business that should fold just like any other business. Allow the family farmer his subsidies for set aside land & a huge bonus subsidy for reduction of fertilizer run-off.
06:35 AM on 12/13/2011
I am a farmer who has spent a life-time healing worn out land that resulted from farming "like our grandfathers". . If we are going to cut, then cut subsidy programs, not conservation. Let me propoase a radical solution: With $4+ gas, we don't need ethanol subsidies and grain program subsidies. What we need is a fossil fuel tax, or a cap-and-trade system that will pay me to sequester carbon. No-till farming is our only sustainable program.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Craig Bovia
Vermont, 1791, women can vote, no slavery allowed
11:04 AM on 12/13/2011
Hey Neal, A common-sense solution. No way it will get through our current Washington.
F/F
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
maveet
AussieByChoice
06:15 PM on 12/14/2011
Thank you neal, for the post and the work you do. F&F
06:17 AM on 12/13/2011
Why are we humans hell-bent on destroying the only 'home' we have??? I just fail to understand the reasoning. Money isn't everything and since we don't have the means to escape to another planet - which we would mess up too eventually, what purpose does all this destruction serve?
09:19 PM on 12/12/2011
We need sustainable agriculture. That's the bottom line. No other excuses. The loss of conservation programs is a threat to the food supply of both the US and the world.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justkeepswimming
09:30 PM on 12/12/2011
Farm Bill conservation programs don't promote sustainable agriculture, they just prevent the worst kind of fence-to-fence farming you'd see otherwise. As it is, if crop prices get high enough, farmers will still plant every square foot, because the profits are higher than the conservation payments. The land will still produce as long as you bathe it in chemicals.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
09:29 AM on 12/13/2011
You need to read about conservation programs because sustainable agriculture is exactly what they promote. It isn't a free program, it just costs me less to be a good steward of the land. It pays about 1/2 of the cost, to plant a fence row. The contract runs for 15 years. If crop prices get high enough, there is nothing I can do about it, because I have a contract that runs for 12 more years. I am planting 2000 more trees this coming spring, what are you doing for your fellow american children's legacy?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deweaver
Scientist, businessman, semi-retired
08:07 PM on 12/12/2011
Pure special interest pleading to maintain a subsidy in the face of record profits. Just nail them for "non-point source" suspended solids, nutrient pollutions etc. like we do other businesses. We don't pay Intel to clean up it's environmental problems, why should we pay farmers and farm corporations?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justkeepswimming
09:31 PM on 12/12/2011
Having worked on non-point source water pollution in farm country for over a decade, I'd love to see your miracle solution for "nailing" farmers. How exactly do you propose we do that? Are you familiar with the case law on the Clean Water Act and the regulations in place in farm states?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deweaver
Scientist, businessman, semi-retired
06:18 PM on 12/14/2011
Like they do on industrial sources and aquaculture sources (a form of agriculture that is subject to NPDES permits), you sample with flow proportioned autosamplers and mandate the installation of flow measuring equipment on all discharge water. Like fish farmers, you can force them to channel their discharges to a point for measurement or have many measuring stations. If the law is a problem, just change it to be the same for all. The farmer/ranchers can prevent cows from shitting in the river by keeping them out of the river. Just because it would cost them money is no reason not to make the law equal for all polluters. When you have flows coming across the farm, you do just like you do with fish farms, measure the input and output and look at the added SS, NPK, etc.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
04:54 PM on 12/12/2011
Well isn't that special, allowing big agra off the responsibility hook.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:00 PM on 12/12/2011
We should move the SNAP program to Health and Human Services, do the same with the food monitoring services, transfer all National Forests to the states, and end all subsidies. Then we could abolish the Dept. of Ag altogether. It's the second biggest "Sacred Cow" in the gov't after the DOD.
photo
asiclilpup
Tax the rich Feed the Poor.
07:26 PM on 12/12/2011
I've gotta say no to transferring the National Forests to the states. That'll be another natural resource we'd lose.
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
07:34 PM on 12/12/2011
The Federal Government took over control of the forests from the States because the States were doing a bad job of managing them. You don't really think the States would do any better now, do you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Just4theHalibut
08:51 PM on 12/12/2011
Depends which states and who is running them at the time. Since that seems to be a crapshoot, I have to go with the Feds.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:01 AM on 12/16/2011
No they didn't. The National Forests in the West were carved out of federal lands before the lands were turned over to the states. The ones in the East were created on lands purchased by Congress to create them. They were NEVER owned or managed by the states. Look at a map of federal lands. East of the Mississippi they comprise less than 10% of the land of any state. West of it they are 40% - 50% or more. The Feds treat all the western states like they were colonies or conquered territories and the people out there are darn sick of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chaotician101
03:40 PM on 12/12/2011
Oh get serious; most so-called farm aid goes to agri-business which needs its subsidies about as much as the Oil Industry! If "farmers" are so short sighted that they refuse to invest in "good" farming practices to protect ans save their primary resource..land... then let it blow to their neighbor who might actually take care of it! Our agri-business is essentially a mining operation; using, abusing, and destroying its resources...and moving on!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
wllmpartridge
beam me up Scotty
05:12 PM on 12/12/2011
Ahmen. Leave it to the Republican Congress to preserve taxpayer subsidies to agri-business and destroying any pretense of a free market while cutting conservation measures. All subsidies to corporate greed should be cut and the savings invested in conserving soils and water for future generations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeff MacDonald
Rights and privileges are not the same.
03:35 PM on 12/12/2011
Preserving the land and helping farmers is very important, unless you would prefer eating imported rice.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
03:23 PM on 12/12/2011
Don't over analyze this bill. Think first, what things will yield both long and short term benefits to the 1%?

a) Conservation

b) Abusive use of the land, water and air, to yield maximum yields, followed by a demand for more chemicals to be poured on the land, followed, in the long term, by an increase in the cost of food.?

Not a difficult question. Follow the money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
05:48 PM on 12/12/2011
I'm one of the 1%. I paid money to restore a wet land that was tiled in the 1930's, with government subsidies, so that USA could plant wheat for the war effort in europe.

Government response to my voluntary rehabilitation of our natural resources? They raised my property tax because they said I now had a pond. I beat them in court, talk about short sighted.

But go ahead and think that government is your friend, go ahead and believe the park sitters when they say it's the 1% that is causing the problem. Join the short sighted.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
06:16 PM on 12/12/2011
stuart100s

I can well understand you positon. You never go one single benefit out of anything the United States Government has ever done.

I suggest you check our www.worldometers.info. You will see that arable land is disappearing a good rate. This is your chance to make some money buying real estate from the few remaining small farmers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Just4theHalibut
08:56 PM on 12/12/2011
Property tax is a local, usually county issue. The article is about Federal subsidies.
photo
4everright
My heart went boom
03:09 PM on 12/12/2011
when you have a government that is clearly too big...cuts need to be across the board and they need to be significant. Too bad if your handout won't be there next year, it probably never should have been there to begin with.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
05:40 PM on 12/12/2011
It is not a hand out. It is obvious that you don't understand that they are giving me back some of my own money. I own land that borders a mile of a river that provides the drinking water to tens of millions of people. I pay property tax on that land. I filter the runoff from farm fields (cow manure) and this is environmentally sensitive, highly erodable land. There is a good chance that your drinking water comes from this river. I could rent this land for a profit and contribute to the problem, or I could put it with the government, have to do work to protect this land, get less money and not cover the property tax on the land. You are going to be the worse for the loss of this resource. Go ahead be short sighted, just don't blame someone else when you need to buy bottled water, look in the mirror.
photo
asiclilpup
Tax the rich Feed the Poor.
07:30 PM on 12/12/2011
The long term policies of governments long past are why we still have farm lands today. I am sick of the cuts across the board argument. Preservation-NOT CONservation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
02:43 PM on 12/12/2011
It is shocking how much damage this administration is doing to the environment, while professing to be concerned about global warming. From its' deliberate failure to keep invasive species from 20% of the worlds fresh water supply, to Solyndra, and now poluting our drinking water.

When global warming causes droughts (already occuring), you have cow waste in your drinking water, and topsoil blows away, remember which environmental president caused it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ohohyeah
04:25 PM on 12/12/2011
Reagan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
05:58 PM on 12/12/2011
Reagan never claimed to be an environmental president. This president ran on energy, environmental, and social causes. He failed on each. Reagan said he was conservative, ran as military friendly, and brought down the evil empire. I thought I was getting something different this time.
photo
asiclilpup
Tax the rich Feed the Poor.
07:32 PM on 12/12/2011
Now remember which administration is trying to do something about it even thru the stumbling blocks of the repubietea potty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
09:19 AM on 12/13/2011
My understanding is that the cuts to conservation are being made by the Democrats, but that shouldn't matter. This is too important to the future, your childrens future. How many species of ducks will disappear? How many sights will your children miss? The current administration ran on a conservation agenda, and has disappointed me. Give your talking points if you must, but look into your heart, is this what you voted for?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
susanbsbi
Slave to 3 cats
02:17 PM on 12/12/2011
This conservation bill should not be touched. If congress has a budget problem it has to handle, let them take a pay cut back to 2007. Let congress start paying for their families portion of the health insurance, like the rest of the Americans have to. Reduce their staff back to the 2007 levels. Why does a congress person need a staff of 20?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
wllmpartridge
beam me up Scotty
05:30 PM on 12/12/2011
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell