[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF USDA FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
ENERGY, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 19, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-12
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-481 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Dakota STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JIM COSTA, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana Louisiana
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
JOHN BARROW, Georgia KEVIN McCARTHY, California
NICK LAMPSON, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania,Chairman
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
Dakota Ranking Minority Member
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM COSTA, California STEVE KING , Iowa
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIM WALZ, Minnesota TIMOTHY WALBERG, Michigan
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JERRY MORAN, Kansas
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
Nona S. Darrell, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oklahoma, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota, opening statement.......................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Walz, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota, prepared statement......................... 45
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement................... 49
Witnesses
LaFleur, Mr. Jeff, Executive Director, Cape Cod Cranberry
Growers' Association, on behalf of New England Farmers Union
and National Farmers Union, Wareham, Massachusetts............. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 151
Jamison, Mr. Charles ``Jamie'', National Corn Growers
Association, Dickerson, Maryland............................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 158
Elworth, Mr. Lawrence, Executive Director, Center for
Agricultural Partnerships, Asheville, North Carolina........... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 163
Nelsen, Mr. Joel, President, California Citrus Mutual, Exeter,
California..................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 166
Foglesong, Mr. Steve, National Cattleman's Beef Association,
Astoria, Illinois.............................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 169
Wolf, Mr. Douglas, Wolf L&G Farms, LLC., on behalf of the
National Pork Producers Council, Lancaster, Wisconsin.......... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 177
Lail, Dr. Slade, American Tree Farm System, Plumbdent Farms,
Duluth, Georgia................................................ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 197
Nomsen, Mr. David E., Vice President, Governmental Affairs,
Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever, on behalf of Agriculture
and Wildlife Working Group and the American Wildlife
Conservation Partners, Garfield, Minnesota..................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 201
Grossi, Mr. Ralph, President, American Farmland Trust,
Washington, D.C................................................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 207
Sims, Mr. Olin, President, National Association of Conservation
Districts, McFadden, Wyoming................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 210
Beauduy, Mr. Thomas W., Deputy Director & Counsel, Susquehanna
River Basin Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania............... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 217
Cook, Mr. Ken, President, Environmental Working Group,
Washington, D.C................................................ 32
Prepared statement........................................... 221
Kemp, Ms. Loni, Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project,
Canton, Minnesota.............................................. 34
Prepared statement........................................... 260
Submitted Material
Adams, Laurie Davies, Executive Director, Coevolution Institute,
San Francisco, California...................................... 51
Dreher, Robert G., Vice President of Land Conservation, Defenders
of Wildlife, Washington, D.C................................... 58
Gieseke, Tim, The Minnesota Project, Canton, Minnesota........... 68
Witteman, Aimee, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 106
Robertson, Gordon C., Vice President, American Sportfishing
Association, and Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government
Affairs and Volunteer Operations, Trout Unlimited.............. 108
United Egg Producers, Alpharetta, Georgia........................ 110
Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa................ 117
HEARING TO REVIEW USDA FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:08 p.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim
Holden [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Holden, Costa, Space,
Walz, Scott, Salazar, Gillibrand, Kagen, Donnelly, Peterson,
Lucas, Fortenberry, Schmidt and Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Holden. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conversation, Credit, Energy and Research to review USDA farm
bill conservation programs will come to order.
The first business of the day, I will say to the ranking
member, is to recognize our newest member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Joseph Donnelly from Indiana. We welcome you to the
subcommittee, Mr. Donnelly.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an
honor to be here and I am very grateful for the opportunity.
Mr. Holden. Well, we look forward to working with you as
you are filling in for Mr. Boswell, who has numerous
responsibilities not only on this committee but in other
committees in the Congress, so we certainly do welcome you, and
even though I am from Pennsylvania, the part of Pennsylvania I
am from would always say ``Go Irish'' so we certainly welcome
someone from South Bend, Indiana to the------
Mr. Donnelly. Mr. Chairman, we are on the same planet.
Mr. Holden. I would like to welcome our witnesses and
guests to today's hearing. I hope this hearing will provide a
useful review of conservation programs in the farm bill. The
2002 Farm Bill was the biggest investment in conservation in
the history of farm bills. The conservation title dedicated
over $17 billion in additional investment for conservation
programs, an increase of 80 percent. While the budget may be
tight, I believe we need to see if we can match that in the
upcoming farm bill reauthorization. Conservation funds have
allowed many farms to meet environmental regulations in this
changing industry. Conservation programs assist our farmers and
ranchers in strengthening their environmental stewardship. That
is important for looking after the land and water that we will
pass on to future generations.
In the current farm bill, we funded the most significant
programs in order to preserve farmland and to improve water
quality and soil conservation on working land. We addressed
environmental concerns and sought to make conservation a
cornerstone of agriculture for producers in all the regions of
the country. Our Nation's farms and ranches produce far more
than traditional food and fiber. Well-managed agricultural land
also produces healthy soil, clean air, clean water, wildlife
habitat and pleasant landscapes, all of which are valued by
rural and urban citizens alike.
During this hearing, I hope we can answer many questions.
Are current conservation programs working for all regions? How
can we account for the rising cost of energy? How can we
support the diversity of crops across the Nation and how do we
stabilize and keep agricultural operations in business so that
they can continue to protect our environment? I look forward to
hearing suggestions that the witnesses may have as to what
Congress can do to ensure agriculture's continued role in
conservation.
I would ask all members of the subcommittee to submit their
opening statements for the record with a few exceptions, the
first being my friend and the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon and
welcome to today's hearing to review USDA's farm bill
conservation programs.
Today's hearing is the final conservation hearing this
subcommittee will hold before beginning to write the
conservation title of the next farm bill. The 2002 Farm Bill
provided the greatest funding increase ever for conservation
programs. The farm bill's conservation programs have
undoubtedly been a huge success, providing for benefits to
soil, water and air quality. We are proud of what we
accomplished in the 2002 Farm Bill and want to build on that in
the next farm bill. Our farm bill hearings over the last 15
months have given us a great deal of insight into how the
current conservation programs are working.
This subcommittee has been charged with trying to reach
consensus on what kind of conservation title should be included
in the next farm bill. This hearing will allow us to discuss
many of our conservation programs in depth and I am interested
to hear how you all think that the current programs are
operating, what changes need to be made in the programs and
their funding levels and whether current programs or new
programs are needed to meet producers' compliance with
regulatory standards. Specifically, I am interested in hearing
your thoughts on the CRP program, how that program has been
utilized or could be utilized in renewable energy crop
production, is there support for releasing the less
environmentally sensitive areas for production and replacing
those acres with more sensitive land. Additionally, I hope to
hear your thoughts on EQIP, which is vitally important in my
home State of Oklahoma. We are spending substantially on that
program today with an increased funding level from $200
annually in 2002 to $1,300,000,000 in 2007. We should examine
whether there are improvements or adjustments that need to be
made in the program to make it more effective for producers.
As I reviewed the testimony for today's hearing, I found
overwhelming support for conservation technical assistance.
Producers benefit greatly from the assistance they receive from
knowledgeable staff and committed local partners. There seems
to be a consensus among program users that technical assistance
funding is inadequate and the delivery system is the lifeline
to ensuring the success of conservation programs. So I look
forward to hearing more about this issue from our witnesses.
What we need to remember today is that we have a limited number
of resources in which to write the conservation title. We will
no doubt have lots of requests and advice and input on the best
way to spend that money allocated to us. However, it is
difficult to balance out all of the requests since all of the
ideas have so much merit. That is why we must focus on what is
working and what is not working and what is being done
efficiently and effectively and what is not. I look forward to
today's hearing and I am very pleased that you called it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Holden. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Peterson.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. I thank the chairman, and I want to thank he
and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue, and
you guys have attracted quite a crowd, so I think that shows
the interest there is in this area of the farm bill.
The conservation programs that we have been able to put in
place help our farmers and ranchers preserve their land and
also provide us with clean air, clean water and areas to
recreate, hunt, and fish. The 2002 Farm Bill demonstrated our
commitment to conservation by doubling the conservation
funding, and I think that is a very good thing.
This year is a little different. We are facing some
restrictions as we write this upcoming farm bill, both
budgetary and practical. The budget constraints have left us
without new money for the Wetland Reserve and the Grassland
Reserve Programs. Also, there simply isn't enough money to run
programs like CSP in the way that some people have been
suggesting. The workload constraints at USDA are another
restriction. We need to take a look at bringing in non-federal
partners to help provide technical assistance for existing
conservation programs.
But even with those obstacles, we will continue to have a
strong conservation title in the upcoming farm bill. I share
the concern of many of the witnesses about the backlog of unmet
demand for conservation programs. Looking past the opticals,
renewable energy production provides an unparalleled
opportunity for American agriculture. I believe we can blend
these two missions to preserve farmland and create wildlife
habitats while growing feedstocks for biofuels and using manure
to create electricity and synthetic gas.
I just want to say, there have been a lot of conservation
groups that have been working very hard for the last year, year
and a half and I commend them for the work that they have done
pulling together I think the biggest coalition we have ever had
coming behind some proposals that they have brought to us and
it is very helpful and I have to say I agree with most of what
they put together, but we are trying to resolve this budget
issue in the next couple weeks so that we know exactly where we
are.
In the commodity title of the farm bill, we have given up
$60 billion of spending that was there in 2002 that is not
there projected to be there in 2007. We get no credit for that.
Just like a lot of other things and the way we operate these
programs, when we take out our loans, we get charged. When we
pay them back, we don't get credit. So we feel like we have a
good case to make that by asking for $20 billion back out of
the $60 billion that we gave up, that is a reasonable thing.
And frankly, if we don't figure out some way to find the
offsets, we are not going to be able to do the things that you
guys are going to be talking to us about today. I told a lot of
people around the country that in my part of the world, we can
write a farm bill with the money we have and I can go home and
I won't get lynched. People in the commodity area are basically
telling us that even though they are going to spend $60 billion
less, they can live with it if we keep what is in place, it has
worked well in the past, and we have heard that around the
country.
But there are all these other opportunities and needs in
conservation, rural development, fruits and vegetables, food
stamps, renewable fuels. So all of you that are interested in
these areas of the farm bill, you need to help us, talk to all
your members of Congress, Senators and the leadership to help
us get the offsets so that we can have this additional money to
do a farm bill to take advantage of these opportunities that
are in front of us and to move this in the right direction. So
we are hopeful that process will come out positively.
So I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the
subcommittee for all of their hard work and I look forward to
hearing the witnesses.
Mr. Holden. The Chair would like to thank the chairman of
the full committee and we welcome our first panel to the table:
Mr. Jeff LaFleur, Executive Director, Cape Cod Cranberry
Growers' Association on behalf of New England Farmers Union and
National Farmers Union from Wareham, Massachusetts; Mr. Charles
``Jamie'' Jamison, National Corn Growers Association from
Dickerson, Maryland; Mr. Lawrence Elworth, Executive Director,
Center for Agriculture Partnerships, Asheville, North Carolina;
Mr. Joel Nelsen, President, California Citrus Mutual from
Exeter, California; Mr. Steve Foglesong, National Cattlemen's
Beef Association from Astoria, Illinois; Mr. Douglas Wolf from
Wolf L&G Farms, on behalf of the National Pork Producers of
Lancaster, Wisconsin; Mr. Slade Lail, American Tree Farm
System, Plumbdent Farms from Duluth, Georgia.
Mr. LaFleur, you may begin. I ask all witnesses to try to
keep their remarks to five minutes and submit the balance of
their testimony for the record.
Mr. LaFleur.
STATEMENT OF JEFF LAFLEUR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAPE COD
CRANBERRY GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF NEW ENGLAND
FARMERS UNION AND NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, WAREHAM,
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. LaFleur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lucas and
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Jeff LaFleur. As president of the New
England Farmers Union, the newest NFU chapter, I am here today
on behalf of the National Farmers Union, a Nationwide
organization representing more than 250,000 farmers, ranchers,
fishermen and rural residents. I also serve as executive
director of the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers' Association.
We believe the 2007 Farm Bill should build upon existing
programs while encouraging further investment in new efforts.
By coupling the environmental needs of our fragile farmlands
with the socioeconomic goals of our farming communities, the
new farm bill can do even more to create the opportunity to
reward stewardship, discourage speculative development of
fragile land resources and strengthen family farming in rural
communities.
Mr. Chairman, I want to specifically mention NFU's strong
support for several existing programs. The Conservation
Security Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program should be fully funded. CSP is one of the most
innovative attempts to reward producers for conservation
practices on working lands and EQIP certainly has been a great
success. To make even better use of these limited funds though,
states should be permitted to set EQIP priorities based upon
local environmental challenges. Additionally, the successes of
these programs is based upon delivery of technical assistance
to the producers. NRCS staff, who normally provide technical
assistance, are now responsible for completing producer
payments. All payment paperwork should return to the Farm
Service Agency, namely the agency that excels in delivering
payments to producers.
In addition, NFU supports the development of a one step
conservation planning step for agriculture through NRCS. We
recommend a single conservation plan, a plan that should be
developed by the farm operator in conjunction with NRCS and the
local conservation district in order to secure compliance with
the myriad of land and water regulations established by various
Government agencies. NFU also supports Conservation Reserve
Program and it urges you to do all you can to ensure that CRP
is not reduced by the 39.2-million-acre cap.
I want to bring to your attention to two new initiatives
for the subcommittee's consideration. First is our desire to
seek a Nationwide buffer strip initiative. Buffer strips play a
key role in maintaining healthy productive farms as well as
protecting fragile and vital waterways throughout the country.
When designated appropriately, buffer strips help producers
maintain their best land and crop production and make good use
of marginal land. We urge you to consider a new Nationwide
buffer strip initiative that builds upon the proven success of
past buffer strip initiatives. Some would say this would be an
expensive endeavor. However, billions of dollars are spent by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal, state, and
local agencies to address water quality problems that could
have been alleviated proactively through the results of a
buffer strip initiative. NFU urges the subcommittee and the
full committee to work with the appropriate committees in
Congress to see if there are ways to institute such a program.
And finally, I want to mention NFU's innovative carbon
credit trading program. As we all know, there is a growing
public concern about global climate change. Our newly
established carbon credit program is a voluntary private-sector
approach to conservation that allows producers to earn income
on carbon credit market by storing carbon in their soil through
practices such as no-till farming. I am pleased to report that
our program, which began in October of 2006, has already
enrolled over one million acres. NFU aggregates the credits for
our members and then trades then on the Chicago Climate
Exchange. We believe that the carbon credit program and buffer
strip initiative could be established to work within existing
tier system of CSP or adopted as new tiers of participation.
Mr. Chairman, interactions with our Nation's natural
resources do not need to set agricultural producers in
opposition to the environment. As NFU members have demonstrated
for many generations, farmers, ranchers and fisherman are the
best environmental stewards and their astute understanding of
the natural world deserves to be recognized and rewarded.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the
opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any
questions the subcommittee may have.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. LaFleur.
Mr. Jamison.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES ``JAMIE'' JAMISON, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS
ASSOCIATION, DICKERSON, MARYLAND
Mr. Jamison. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today for the
conservation title of the next farm bill. I am Jamie Jamison
from Dickerson, Maryland, a member of the Corn Board for the
National Corn Growers Association. I grow corn, wheat, and
soybeans on my farm, which is located 35 miles outside of
Washington, D.C., in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
In 1969, my good friend, Bob Raver, planted the first no-
till corn in Montgomery County, Maryland. In 1970, I planted my
first no-till corn. A few years later, we planted no-till
soybeans and several years after that we planted no-till wheat.
I was not alone in this endeavor. As growers who wanted to keep
our farms alive, we all shared our mistakes and successes.
Thirty-seven years later, my son's turf operation is the only
tillage being done on our farm. We are 100 percent no till for
all of our crops. Our farm is always looking at problems and
how we can adapt to make our soils better and improve
production and profitability. We are farming sustainably. To
quote Dick Waybright of Mason-Dixon Farms, ``Change is
inevitable. Success is optional.''
All across the country, corn growers are making important
environmental gains through the use of farm bill conservation
programs to reduce soil erosion, improve water quality and
increase wildlife habitats. To continue this trend, we need
even greater emphasis on working land's conservation programs.
We believe the conservation title should be adequately funded,
environmentally sound based on sound science, implemented
nationally at the watershed level, performance driven,
simplified and streamlined to encourage more participation, and
targeted so that programs achieve greatest environmental
savings.
As you prepare farm bill legislation, we hope you are
mindful of the NRCS delivery system and its limitations. Every
farm bill since 1985 has fundamentally changed or added new
programs. This has pushed the NRCS system beyond its limits. We
commend Congress for providing a strong emphasis on
conservation in the recent farm bills, especially on working
lands. However, the 2002 Farm Bill was the most significant in
this regard in terms of complexity. After several years of
working through the kinks, we now have a good set of programs
that work on the ground. Instead of extensive additions or
complications, we encourage the committee to simplify and
streamline existing programs.
With respect to specific programs, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program is very popular and delivers effective
conservation program dollars to assist landowners who face
natural resource challenges on their land. Above all, EQIP
should preserve the full flexibility needed to adjust the
program over time to focus on evolving issues and to be based
on national, state and local needs.
The Conservation Security Program continues to be a work in
progress. Since its enactment, numerous legislative actions of
the CSP statute have resulted in funding cuts, creating a range
of implementation challenges. As a result, a number of corn
growers have expressed frustration with the program, describing
it as a moving target. Significant improvement is needed to the
application selection implementation process and fairly applied
to all eligible growers.
The Conservation Reserve Program is an important and well-
used conservation program for corn growers. NCGA supports the
full utilization of CRP at its authorized level. However, if
market forces indicate diversion from CRP, we encourage fragile
acres remain in the program and best management practices be
implemented on land returning to production.
In closing, each of the conservation programs utilized by
corn growers could benefit from more funding to increase
efficiency, enrollment opportunities, and environmental gains.
Any increase in funding should not come at the expense of the
farm safety net. We recommend that the farm safety net be
enhanced with conservation programs but not replaced by
conservation programs.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Jamison.
Mr. Elworth.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE ELWORTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIPS, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Elworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee for the opportunity to talk with you this afternoon
about some of the challenges specialty crop producers face in
making use of conservation programs. My name is Larry Elworth.
I am executive director of the Center for Agricultural
Partnerships. We are a nonprofit organization based in western
North Carolina. Since 2002, my organization has worked in 11
states with more than a dozen commodities to create more
meaningful access for specialty crop producers and other
farmers who by and large have not previously participated in
conservation programs and that includes small farmers, limited
resource and minority farmers as well.
There are a number of challenges that limit the ability of
those growers to participate in programs like EQIP. There is a
profound lack of knowledge among growers about the programs and
how to use them. There is a lack of appropriate program
opportunities suited to specialty crop production and there is
an overall lack of capacity to deliver these programs to
specialty crop producers. In the course of our work, we have
identified several measures that would significantly improve
their ability to participate in conservation programs and I
would like to at least take a moment to outline those ideas for
you now.
First of all, USDA needs to take leadership in creating a
higher profile for specialty crop issues so that innovative
ways of increasing access for specialty crop producers will be
encouraged. One important step in that process would be to
conduct an assessment of the problems that currently limit
specialty crop participation and to engage NRCS staff with
specialty crop organizations to develop a plan for addressing
them.
In addition, USDA needs to create and support more-
effective means for providing outreach and education for
specialty crop growers. This would help growers become better
informed customers for the programs and ensure that they can
also effectively use the program opportunities. The outreach
and education programs could be established through a specific
mandate in the Conservation Innovation Grants Program, through
cooperative agreements and partnership provisions, or through a
conservation education program that could be established in the
research title.
Of particular importance is providing direction in the farm
bill for USDA to develop and support more-effective technical
assistance options for specialty crop producers. Such
provisions would provide guidance for USDA to use mechanisms
such as cooperative agreements and partnerships with public and
private organizations to provide the necessary technical
assistance. This is especially important for specialty crop
producers since the technical service provider provisions have
proven to be wholly inadequate for their purposes. In addition,
the percentage of EQIP funds allocated to technical assistance
could conceivably be increased in states that are working
extensively with specialty crop producers.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, USDA needs to work with Congress
to ensure that there are adequate resources for conservation
planning with specialty crop producers. In addition to
providing sufficient funds for conservation technical
assistance, provisions could be included in the farm bill that
would allow the existing cost share and incentive payments
under EQIP to provide for the development of plans for specific
practices such as best management.
At the heart of these ideas is the recognition that even in
the age of computers and websites, conservation programs are
still delivered one-on-one by people on the ground. Working
with farmers who are new to these conservation programs makes
that effort even more labor-intensive. These measures would:
help increase our capacity to deliver conservation programs,
benefit an important and progressive segment of agriculture,
create significant resource benefits, ensure more equitable
access to federal conservation programs. Furthermore, these
measures would have relevance to other groups of farmers who
have been underserved by conservation programs as well.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify this afternoon and for your leadership on conservation
issues. I look forward to working with you and members of the
subcommittee in addressing these issues, and I will be glad to
answer any questions you have.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Elworth.
Mr. Nelsen.
STATEMENT OF JOEL NELSEN, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL,
EXETER, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Again, my name is Joel Nelsen and I am president
of California Citrus Mutual, a citrus producers' trade
association located in California. Our membership is 2,000
growers farming in excess of 120,000 acres of fresh citrus. Our
industry produces approximately $1.3 billion of commodities and
we are the number one ranked fresh citrus-producing State in
the Nation.
Today my testimony is on the conservation title of the
upcoming farm bill. There is not too much history to speak of
inasmuch as citrus growers and members of the specialty crop
industry in general have little to say about this title. We
just don't access it. Like so much of previous farm bills, we
simply have not been able to work within this program and those
aspects of this program that allegedly exist for commodities
such as ours.
I would like to note that the specialty crop growers
produce approximately 50 percent of the farm gate value of
total agricultural production in the United States. Our share
of farm bill activities, one more time, is very small. We will
make an effort to change that in the 2007 Farm Bill. I believe
strongly that the allocation of resources aimed at addressing
issues of concern to specialty crop producers must reflect the
value of their production to our economy as well as the dietary
needs of our Nation. We look forward to working with the
members of this committee, Congress, and the entire
agricultural community in writing such a vehicle.
You may be aware that our collective industry has formed
the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance in an effort to be more
active and therefore make the farm bill more productive for our
industry. We have no choice but to be engaged and try to make
our farm policy via the farm bill more balanced. In the past it
has been too narrow in its outreach to agriculture across the
Nation. That must change. Today competition from around the
globe and from Governments around the world mirror our farm
policy. That mirror, however, is for commodities produced in
their respective countries, all commodities, unlike our farm
bill policy, which favors a few.
To some extent, that has been our fault. We have avoided
entanglement with the Government as we move fresh fruit and
vegetables around the globe but now industries such as mine are
faced with global competition that is unfair, and a changing
societal perspective on how best to make our nutritious
commodities viable for the consumers. Again, our industry
presently accesses very little from the previous farm bill but
our competition in Spain, for example, realizes $1 billion in
direct subsidies.
The formula for access, the smaller pool accessible and the
number of subscribers all preclude the ability of an industry
such as ours to participate adequately in this program. This
program is a good program, ladies and gentlemen, and requires
more support from Congress. We wholly support EQIP in the
conservation title. We believe in the expansion of the EQIP
program. The existing program is oversubscribed and a majority
of the funds are mandated for one segment of agriculture. If
there are to be mandates, then they should be based on USDA's
nutrition pyramid or the percentage of revenue contributed to
the entire value of agriculture.
With a better-funded EQIP program, we can reward higher
levels of environmental performance, address local, state and
national environmental priorities, and utilize the most
efficient and cost-effective methods for producing fresh fruits
and vegetables in a more environmentally sensitive manner.
We believe resources of concern such as water quality and
air quality should be prioritized for consideration. To that
end, a specific air quality program must be established within
EQIP. Much like the Administration's farm bill proposal places
a priority on water quality, at EQIP, priority should be
applied to air.
If we do this, then we must do one more thing, and it, like
EQIP, is priority number one. Congress and USDA must recognize
that the economics of specialty crop farming are entirely
different than other aspects of agriculture. The adjusted gross
income calculations and limitations either eliminate our
industry from participation or reduce the value so as to make
the effort less than worthwhile.
Next, the whole area of technical assistance needs great
support in this title. Research leads to new and better ideas.
The cost of implementation and /or acquiring the knowledge to
implement is often left unsaid. Technical assistance can
contain incentives to spread the knowledge and educate the end
user, thus achieving the objective in a more timely manner.
The Emergency Conservation Program can be extremely
valuable for a producer as they recover from a disaster.
However, it too is limited in its application.
We will be suggesting new initiatives such as expansion of
this whole title for the integrated pest management activities.
Our industry has always been at the forefront of this type of
pest management program but other commodities haven't had the
luxury to be engaged in this more environmentally sensitive
matter. More support and more flexibility to benefit all
producers is necessary. Therefore, the expansion of the
Conservation Innovation Grant Program is something we will
support.
Now, as a native Californian and proud member of the
specialty crop industry, I must remind you that 4,000 of our
State's landowners are rejected when they apply to take part in
USDA's incentive programs. This represents 68 percent of our
farm families. Our State ranks 28th in conservation title
funding. Obviously it is not from a lack of applications. I
guess I can't say it any better than Secretary Johanns did on
November 2, 2005. ``Currently, program crops represent a
quarter of production value yet they receive virtually all the
funding. Ninety-two percent of the program spending was paid on
crops. The farmers who raised the other crops, 2/3 of all
farmers, receive little support from current farm programs.''
That says it all. We desire a more balanced farm bill and
farm policy. In conjunction with Congressman Dennis Cardoza,
and members of this committee such as Congressmen Salazar,
Costa and McCarthy, we have introduced H.R. 1600 to spotlight
the issues that we think need to be implemented within the
conservation title and the entire farm bill.
I thank you for your time and attention and look forward to
any questions you may have.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Nelsen.
Mr. Foglesong.
STATEMENT OF STEVE FOGLESONG, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
ASSOCIATION, ASTORIA, ILLINOIS
Mr. Foglesong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come here. Trust me,
it is the highlight of my mother's week, so she thanks you as
well. My name is Steve Foglesong. I am a cattle producer from
Astoria, Illinois. I am the policy division chair for the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
Cattlemen are true environmentalists. Generation after
generation, we have been stewards of our Nation's land and
resources. Our livelihood is made on the land and so being good
stewards of the land not only makes good environmental sense,
it is fundamental for our industry to remain strong. Some of
the cattle industry's biggest challenges and threats come from
the loss of natural resources. Our industry is threatened every
day by urban encroachment, natural disasters, misinterpretation
and misapplication of environmental laws. The conservation of
our Nation's natural resources is imperative and cattle
producers have a vested interest in keeping the land healthy
and productive, keeping water and air clean, keeping wildlife
abundant and keeping ecosystems diverse. We strive to operate
in an environmentally friendly manner, and it is through the
conservation programs in the farm bill that we achieve a
partnership with the Government to reach these goals.
NCBA is a strong supporter of working lands programs within
the conservation title of the farm bill. This includes EQIP,
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program--I hate acronyms so
I have to read them out for you--the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program, or the WHIP program, Conservation Security Program,
CSP, and the Grasslands Reserve Program, GRP. The goal of
conservation programs should be to maintain a balance between
keeping well-managed working lands in production and providing
for the conservation and enhancement of both plant and animal
species and our natural resources. Given the limited resources
that are available, NCBA would like to see overlap and
redundancy in programs eliminated and the efficient use of
scarce program dollars improved. Consolidation and streamlining
as suggested in the Administration's farm bill proposal is one
way to achieve that. We are happy to work with the subcommittee
to make sure that any streamlining or consolidation continues
to serve cattle producers.
The most popular program among the cattlemen is the EQIP
program. In the 2002 Farm Bill, EQIP saw a large increase in
funding. Even with that increase, there still remains a
substantial backlog of applications for the program. NCBA
supports increased funding for EQIP within the conservation
title so that the program is able to provide more producers
with financial assistance as they work to implement good
conservation practices and projects. Livestock production
happens largely without the benefit of a safety net like many
commodity programs have. Environmental concern is one of the
biggest threats to our industry. That said, NCBA supports the
continuation of the provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill that
devote 60 percent of EQIP funds to livestock. Although popular,
EQIP has a few problems we would like to see addressed in the
upcoming farm bill. I have detailed these problems more
thoroughly in my written testimony.
Cattle producers across the country participate in EQIP but
the practice of arbitrarily setting numerical caps that render
some producers eligible and others ineligible limits its
success. Addressing environmental solutions is not a large-
versus-small issue. All producers have the responsibility to
take care of the environment and their land and should have the
ability to participate in programs that assist them in
establishing and reaching achievable environmental goals.
Accordingly, all producers should be afforded equal access to
cost share dollars under programs like EQIP or other
conservation programs intended for working lands.
Another category of livestock producers excluded from USDA
by the EQIP program are custom feeders. USDA has decided that
these producers do not share the risk of ultimate sale price of
the animals that they feed and this exclusion for us is hard to
comprehend. These producers feed livestock on behalf of others
and are obviously agricultural operations. Their environmental
profile is identical to every other feeding operation. They
certainly share the risk of financial success on their
operations even if not for the ultimate price of the individual
animals that they sell. We urge the subcommittee to support
changes in law to eliminate USDA's exclusion of custom feeders
from EQIP.
Yet another sector of our industry that is excluded from
USDA from qualifying for EQIP is livestock markets. The vast
majority of livestock move through these markets where they are
held until they are bought or sold. Livestock markets are
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as CAFOSs,
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, and thus are held to
the same high environmental standards as other cattle feeding
operations. Livestock markets share similar resource concerns
with other livestock feeding operations and should be eligible
for Government assistance to address these concerns in the form
of EQIP.
The Grassland Reserve Program new in the 2002 Farm Bill
proved to be hugely popular but very unworkable for many
producers. NCBA supports continued funding for the GRP program
to help conserve our Nation's working grasslands but there must
be changes to the program. Unfortunately, many ranchers are
skeptical of participating in GRP because they simply don't
trust the Government. To solve this problem, the 2007 Farm Bill
should give USDA more flexibility to allow private land trusts
to hold and negotiate the terms of GRP easements.
When it comes to the implementation of USDA's conservation
programs, it is imperative that we ensure adequate support and
technical assistance to make these programs successful.
Resources must be allocated to maintain adequate NRCS personnel
at the local level to provide the technical assistance
necessary to implement successful rangeland conservation
programs. Ranchers need a dependable and qualified recognized
source of technical assistance in order to meet rangeland
conservation needs. USDA's conservation programs are a great
asset to cattle producers. We want to see them continued and
refined to make them more producer-friendly in delivering the
programs and resources to the local NRCS personnel and the
cattlemen they work with to get to these practices on the
ground to enhance the environment and the species of plants and
animals that live there. NCBA looks forward to working with the
subcommittee to ensure any revisions to the conservation
program to continue to serve the needs of the cattle producers
across the country.
Thank you for this opportunity. I would love to have the
opportunity to discuss and answer questions with you later.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Foglesong.
Mr. Wolf.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS WOLF, WOLF L&G FARMS, LLC, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, LANCASTER, WISCONSIN
Mr. Wolf. Good afternoon, Chairman Holden, Ranking Member
Lucas and members of the subcommittee. My name is Doug Wolf and
I am a pork producer from Lancaster, Wisconsin, and I am
testifying today on behalf of the National Pork Producers
Council. Like most everyone in agriculture, I have always taken
responsibility to conserve and protect natural environment
seriously, participating in many USDA and Wisconsin
conservation programs.
The challenges pork faces in 2002 remain with us today. We
are still waiting for EPA's CAFO rule, due out this summer. A
new issue which we just commenced a major study on is the
management of air emissions from livestock operations.
Together, pork expects to continue its needs for conservation
assistance under the 2007 Farm Bill.
Because there is a limit to the number of changes NRCS can
manage, NPPC encourages Congress to continue USDA current
conservation programs in the 2007 Farm Bill. However, this
doesn't mean we are satisfied with EQIP's performance. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Pork has received a paltry
three percent of the total financial assistance funds made
available by EQIP over the last few years. This is less than
the share received by goats, emus and ostriches, and we are
deeply disappointed. We believe that modest refinement with
little or no cost can provide improvements needed. First,
EQIP's funding and emphasis on helping producers address
regulatory requirements must be maintained. One improvement to
consider is support for producers wanting to purchase
individual tools on an a la carte basis for an existing
environmental management system. These include things like GPS
units, flow meters and injectors to help better manage manure
and its energy value. It should also include installation of
bio filters to improve air quality and lagoon covers to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Right now instead of appreciating the
cost-effective benefits these practices bring, producers are
subject to a full EQIP evaluation and penalized for previous
conservation investments.
Congress should also help NRCS develop at the state level
separate funding pools so that producers are evaluated fairly.
For example, AFOs should be in one category, row crops in
another, and specialty crops in another. Frankly, it makes no
sense for a hog farmer to be evaluated against a peanut farmer.
This is comparing apples to oranges. The program also needs to
be streamlined. One way is by recognizing the CAFO's state,
federal water quality permits is equivalent to an EQIP plan.
Finally, NRCS should continue to allow producers to use EQIP
funds for the development of CNMPs, comprehensive nutrient
management plans.
Regarding the Conservation Security Plan, I cannot
emphasize enough the need to develop a program that is
legitimately national in scope. Second, the program needs to be
simplified so that both the agency and the farmer understands
what it requires. It also needs to be more transparent for all
involved. One way to make the program more practical is to tie
payments to what it actually costs producers to adopt and
maintain practices. At the same time, you need to reduce the
number of tiers from 3 to 2. Finally, producers need more
certainty and predictability in order to participate. We simply
can't spend 80 hours on an application, wait an unknown time
period and learn that there is no funding available for the
program.
NPPC continues to support the Conservation Reserve Program
when it is focused on retiring lands of the highest
environmental and conservation benefits. We have significant
concerns with current CRP contracts that could be productively
involved in food, fiber, and feed production while still
conserving the associated soil, water and wildlife habitat. Not
surprising, this concern is only exacerbated by the dramatic
increase in demand for corn for grain ethanol. In order to meet
the country's future energy independence objectives, we must be
able to generate ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks. CRP
contract holders should be allowed to harvest biomass crops
such as switchgrass for energy production without the loss of
rental payments, taking environmental considerations into
account.
Finally, considering the Nation's focus on energy
independence, the 2007 Farm Bill needs to consider encouraging
greater use of biofertilizers such as manure.
Thank you, and we look forward to working with the
committee, and I will answer any questions.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Lail.
STATEMENT OF SLADE LAIL, AMERICAN TREE FARM SYSTEM, PLUMBDENT
FARMS, DULUTH, GEORGIA
Mr. Lail. Hello, my name is Slade Lail. I am a dentist from
Duluth, Georgia, and the owner of Plumbdent Farms. It is a
midsized tree farm in middle Georgia. I am here today as a
representative of the American Forest Foundation and the
American Tree Farm System. This organization represents nearly
90,000 family forest owners across the Nation. Overall, there
are about 10 million family forest owners, over 600,000 alone
in Georgia. Of these 600,000, at least in Georgia, we grow
Georgia's highest valued crop and add about $23 billion to the
State's economy yearly.
Just as important as these financial figures are the
environmental effects that our forests provide for us. The EPA
estimates that 70 percent of the U.S. watersheds flow through
private forest lands and most of the threatened watersheds all
depend upon good forest stewardship to help protect drinking
water. Forests obviously also provide wildlife habitat for
endangered species and some of the most prized game species.
About 75 percent of all hunters and anglers pursue their sport
on private land and that is just part of the story.
Markets for wood are shrinking and the value of our land is
making it almost impossible to justify further investment in
forestry. As many of you may know, a major change is occurring
in forest ownership. Large timber companies are selling off
property at a rather alarming rate. They are taking thousands
of acres, breaking them up into 200-, 300-, 400-acre tracts and
selling them to people like myself from urban areas. It is a
great getaway, great hunting. The problem is, most people from
the urban areas do not have the knowledge regarding how to
properly manage these forests.
For some owners of property such as this, the opportunity
to earn a return on investment through development makes a lot
of sense and that is a great thing for some people to do but
many family forest owners want the opportunity to consider
other choices to continue good forest stewardship and forest
conservation and that is why I am here in front of you today.
First of all, in many cases, we are already doing the right
things. Forestry spending through EQIP totals about $20 to $25
million annually. Congress and NRCS from the leadership to the
state conservationists have done a lot to include forest owners
in EQIP and other programs like WHIP. Specifically, on my
property, I have used EQIP funding for controlled burning,
obviously reducing undesirable tree species, helping the timber
growth, also reducing fuel on the ground for spread of
wildfires throughout the year, especially from now until the
end of the summer, also water bar control for water erosion,
helping to improve water quality. These are just a couple of
things I have been able to utilize through EQIP.
But many forest owners in most states have been unable to
access this EQIP funding and other NRCS programs. It is mostly
cultural, I understand. Obviously the NRCS was brought up from
its infancy for a different reason for farmers and it is
organized to do that and it does it very well. But there needs
to be help for family forest owners as well to get in the door
in every state so their conservation needs can be considered
along with other rural landowners.
The other part of the problem is of course money. I know
there is not a lot to do what we need to do now and especially
for what is coming down the pike.
By assuring that all players, federal and state level, can
come to the table and agree on a long-term strategy, we can
identify the highest priority forest conservation needs and
determine how and through which programs we can address them,
set benchmarks for progress so we will know what works and what
does not work, and whether we have accomplished the goals we
have set for ourselves. Whether this is enacted through
conservation title or a forestry title, comprehensive planning
and transparent priority setting will benefit farmers as well
as forest owners, whatever crop they grow.
There is much more I could say about this, the need to
generate renewable energy from the forests or the need to
develop ecosystem markets from environmental products that we
can't from chip and saw but I guess to summarize, I would like
to say that the funding through EQIP needs to be open to all
landowners and equitable disbursement of the funds as well. I
don't believe this is something that should be seen as an us
versus them, not about farm states versus urban, red, blue,
commodity versus timber. I think it is something that we are
all in this together. I think we all share the ultimate goal
here to keep rural America vibrant, a vital and growing part of
our economy, our environment and our natural life.
Thank you.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Lail.
The Chair will remind members that we anticipate having two
votes in the near future and also that we will recognize
members in order of seniority as long as they were here at the
beginning of the hearing and after that according to their time
of arrival. I know Mr. Costa, who has to chair another
subcommittee, and Ms. Herseth Sandlin, who also just left to
chair another subcommittee, do have questions that they are
going to submit for the record. Particularly since Mr. Nelsen
is from Mr. Costa's district. So we will make every
accommodation that we can.
Mr. Costa. He is, and we do appreciate his hard work and
the effort of the citrus industry. I have some questions we
will submit for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Holden. Without objection. And I thank our witnesses
for their testimony today and I just want to follow up on
Chairman Peterson's and Ranking Member Lucas's opening comments
where they pretty articulately identified the problem that we
are facing with this budget. My father used to say everybody
wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die, and that is sort
of what we are looking at here as we try to build on what we
did in the last farm bill which I think everyone was pretty
proud of. I know I was, and Frank was chairman of the
subcommittee at the time and he also was, so we want to do that
but we are not sure what our final resources are going to be
and all of you identified some programs that you very much like
and have enjoyed over the last five years and have asked us to
build on those.
I would like to ask you, are there any areas that you can
identify of conservation programs that have not worked as we
face this pay-go situation where we might have to move money
around within agriculture? I would open up for anyone on the
panel to suggest some areas where maybe there should be a
disinvestment as opposed to reinvestment. These are the
questions we are going to have to face. Okay. That is what I
thought the answer was going to be.
Moving along, the EQIP program many of you if not all of
you cited how important that is and how successful it has been,
and we have been approach as we begin to write this farm bill
to make some changes, a lot of what you suggested now, and I
guess probably, because we can't ask every question of
everyone. Maybe Mr. Elworth , Mr. Foglesong, and Mr. Nelsen,
could address how you think the 60-40 split is going and how
you think we should proceed in the future. I would be
particularly interested, Mr. Nelsen, to hear what you have to
say about specialty crops.
Mr. Nelsen. Here we will have our first disagreement, no
question about it. I don't believe the 60-40 split works. It is
as simple as that. The California specialty crop industry has
many challenges and pressures on it. Our contemporaries in
Texas and Florida, who we have networked with on a continuous
basis, they too express frustration about the inability to
access that program in a sufficient dollar amount, let alone
have a number of their applications approved for any dollar
amount. The formulas for accessing it, the dollar values
associated with it. It just doesn't work for the economics of
the specialty crop industry. There is a mandated split on that
program that does not benefit an industry of our scope and size
across the country.
The challenges that we are facing, particularly in
California in our San Joaquin Valley, which is the number one
agricultural area in the world, has to do with air and water
quality. There are fewer acres in production but there are more
challenges as more people inhabit it. Society wants us to
change the method in which we do farming. In my particular
case, if we are taking out a grove of citrus, which we have
done, summer oranges as an example, there is no way to destroy
it. We can't burn it. We can't have controlled burns. You can't
chip it because our wood is not sufficient to do it. So we need
the innovations through research, the technical assistance
through this conservation title, and then finally, we need the
ability through EQIP to start transitioning our farms and our
equipment to access the equipment so we can chip a grove.
Thirty-five thousand acres have been removed from the citrus
industry in the last five years to satisfy consumer demand for
certain commodities. That is piled-up wood, ladies and
gentlemen, because we can't access the EQIP program to destroy
that wood in a manner more efficient for what society wants us
to do. I could go on and on but I think that answers your
question to the degree we--EQIP has to be modified from our
perspective. It has to be funded better from our perspective so
that we across the country in the specialty crop industry can
access it.
Mr. Holden. Mr. Foglesong?
Mr. Foglesong. Mr. Nelsen and I, even though we are sitting
next to each other, probably are not going to agree. Being the
cattle trader that I am, I was going for 75 percent.
Mr. Holden. I was going to say, that was a meeting I had
earlier this morning.
Mr. Foglesong. You have got to go somewhere, but that is
our perspective and I guess the reality, the way I look at it
anyway, I view the EQIP program as the first thing that
livestock producers really from a Government program
perspective ever really got. My neighbors are all corn growers
and I don't mean to be negative to anybody but they have beat a
path back and forth to the mailbox for a long time to get that
check and we are kind of in a different situation there. This
was the first program where we really had the opportunity to
participate in a Government program directly and we really like
that and I am sure from the pork producers' perspective as
well, and I am a pork producer as well as beef producer. So we
really had an opportunity to do some stuff that we needed to do
from an environmental perspective and we think 60-40 is as low
as we want to go, but we will negotiate.
Mr. Holden. Thank you.
Mr. Elworth, would you like to add something?
Mr. Elworth. Yes, just quickly, Mr. Chairman. We are
nowhere near the point with specialty crop producers that we
would even have to worry about the 40 percent. The
participation has been very limited. NRCS is just now at a
position where they can actually track specialty crop
participation. So really, before we would want to address the
60-40 split or any targeting of the money, we would really want
to address the issues of access. Our growers don't know about
these programs. We need to make sure our growers know about the
programs and how to use them, how to access the technical
assistance and actually have access to the ability to plan,
know the programs well enough to apply correctly, to rank high
enough and I only aspire to having a problem with the current
allocation.
Mr. Holden. Mr. Jamison, the Susquehanna River runs through
the largest city in my district, the state capital of
Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, so I obviously hear an awful lot
about the problems in the Chesapeake Bay. As a producer in the
region, I was just curious, do you believe that farmers are
engaged in the policy of the cleanup? Do you believe you have
been given the opportunity to have input into the proposals
being put forth?
Mr. Jamison. In Maryland, we are heavily engaged. As you
are probably aware as in your State, we have a mandatory
nutrient management plan and we have to participate and we have
to be in compliance as do your producers and we have certain
programs in this state that we implement. We have cover crop
programs that we are using that have been funded by, as they
call it in Maryland, the flush tax, imposed on sewage systems.
So that is part of our cleanup as we sit here and take a look
at it. As in your State, animal agriculture is extremely
important to both our States. How do you take care of some of
the manure situations that arise from that without getting into
those various watersheds that go through your State and my
State?
Mr. Holden. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and since we have come
out swinging, let us just keep going, guys.
I will start with Mr. LaFleur and Mr. Jamison. Let us talk
about CRP and the cap at 39 million acres, the approximately 37
million acres in the program, and I most assuredly will come
over to Mr. Foglesong and Mr. Wolf here in a moment. Your
observations--and I realize you may not be in areas where CRP
is a major player but nonetheless, on behalf of your groups,
what do you think of the 39 million acres? Up, down, sideways?
Mr. Jamison. It is our policy that we support the
enrollment at its full capacity and we want it on the most
sensitive, environmentally sensitive grounds, and not on the
more productive grounds.
Mr. LaFleur. Certainly you are right. I am not a CRP expert
by any means, but NFU wants to see CRP lands stay certainly at
that 39 million acres cap and also see the focus remain on the
environmentally sensitive grounds. But also we want to see the
fact that CRP acreage not certainly be utilized for feedstock
production but develop markets for feedstock production so this
way we don't develop a chicken-and-egg situation where we do
have no market for--there is no market for--if there is a
market, there is going to be feedstock production. If there is
no market, then there won't be feedstock production. But we do
want to see producers be able to produce switchgrass and such
for feedstock.
Mr. Lucas. Back for a moment to Mr. Jamison's point about
sensitive acres. Do you both support the concept of allowing
land perhaps that arrived in the '80s that might not be defined
by the modern definition as environmentally sensitive as other
lands, do you support the concept of those kind of productive
acres coming out and making room then for land with a higher
environmental sensitivity going in?
Mr. Jamison. Personally, I think it has to be number one
what this agency thinks, but also what the landowner wants to
do to a point. They could come out if you have got better and
you set the criterion for that, for more environmentally
sensitive lands, and what are those, and obviously that is a
debate on itself.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Foglesong, Mr. Wolf, if you would care to
touch on this subject, I think you might have an interest in
it.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, we have worked on this for quite a while
now, probably for over a year. Our opinion, if I can speak for
the NPCC, is that we think the CRP ground is important but it
has to be in a sensitive area as you had just asked. The ground
that doesn't meet the sensitivity level needs to be taken back
out. We need production of grains. Our biggest fear is the day
that we can't feed our livestock, and the animal welfarists
that we are, we want to make sure that we have enough feed to
make sure our animals are well taken care of. So we have no
problem with the 39 million acres but it needs to be the
sensitive ground and not the good ground.
Mr. Foglesong. From our perspective, looking at it strictly
from an environmental standpoint, if those lands are sensitive,
they need to stay in. From the cattle feeder perspective, I
want to plant corn fencerow to fencerow, you know, whatever it
takes, but the reality of it is, there is a balance in there
that we need to meet, and if some of those lands that you
mentioned before that were put in later that aren't as
environmentally sensitive can come out and go back into
production and make room for other land that didn't get the
opportunity to get in there, we would be all about that.
Mr. Lucas. Exactly, and I think that is a critical point.
The 39 million acres is a number that I believe most of our
colleagues in Congress will support. Certainly there are lands
though that came in the '80s when it was more of an economic
issue than an environmental issue that just perhaps 1, 2, maybe
3 million acres that a good trade-out would be the appropriate
thing to do. With you, Mr. Foglesong, discuss for a moment,
expand if you would about the custom feeder and livestock
market issue in EQIP.
Mr. Foglesong. Okay. I wasn't involved with the original
case on this but the problem is custom feeders don't
necessarily take part in the risk of owning those cattle. You
know, they feed them, they run a hotel and they get paid, you
know, yardage and they take care of their feed bill but they
actually don't own them. Very seldom though are there custom
feed yards that don't own some of the cattle in that yard but
because they are custom feeders, generally speaking--and part
of the deal is, through the tax code, how they file their
taxes. They don't necessarily file it as a Schedule F and that
is probably from a corporate--I am not sure what all that is
about. But because of the way they manage their business, they
are excluded from the EQIP part of it. Somebody who is not a
custom feeder right across the road that is feeding all their
own cattle, owns a feed yard, he does qualify for it. You know,
we have got the same environmental concerns regardless of how
you get paid. It doesn't make any difference from that
perspective. So our perspective is that we need to make sure we
include those custom feeders because some of those are really,
really large yards that have the opportunity and can certainly
use that EQIP funding to take care of some of these
environmental problems.
Mr. Lucas. One last thought, Mr. Chairman, and my time is
expired, but we have all talked about the merits of CSP and how
we would all like to participate and make it available to
everyone. Listening very carefully to Chairman Peterson's
comments about the budget situation, he is trying, I think, to
prepare all of us for a challenge that lies ahead of us in the
next few weeks but in hearings last year in this very
Subcommittee, we had very credible witnesses who pointed out in
order to make CSP available to everybody, CSP to everybody, it
would take $10 billion more a year. That is a lot of money and
I am not sure where you could come up with that, even in the
best of times let alone the challenges we face now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Holden. The chair thanks the Ranking Member and
recognizes Mr. Kagen from Wisconsin.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf, you have testified as others have about the
difficulties in navigating the conservation programs and
getting financial assistance, so what changes specifically
should we create? How do we make it easier for you to access
the money you are all seeking?
Mr. Wolf. To me, I think it would be a streamlining, just a
simpler application would work much better. Things get too
complicated. They try and create--maybe is a sorting mechanism
but I think they could just do things simpler, simplify the
questionnaires.
Mr. Kagen. One form will fit all?
Mr. Wolf. I would think you could do that. I really do.
Mr. Kagen. Speaking as an allergist, I have to encourage
all of you to be more successful because I have seen patients
allergic to cranberry, corn, citrus, beef, pork, and the trees
produce enough pollen this time of year to stimulate
fundraising for many a candidate.
So Mr. Lail, about trees, should the Government consider
redefining tree as an agricultural product?
Mr. Lail. I don't know as far as an agricultural product
but it is definitely a crop. It is a long-term crop. It is not
a year-to-year crop. We are talking initially 15 years on up to
35 years of age but yet it is one that has to be taken care of
on a year-to-year basis. That is why we have our interest with
EQIP in maintaining that forest as the tree timber grows.
Mr. Kagen. We have a lot of forests in northern Wisconsin
and most of the loggers and the mills are having a major
economic problem right now, so how do you think this bill could
help them?
Mr. Lail. I don't know. I am not an expert on the subject.
I wouldn't feel comfortable answering that.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nelsen, you mentioned fair trade. What can we do to
help you get fair trade, balanced trade?
Mr. Nelsen. Well, in our H.R. 1600, sir, we have addressed
that rather extensively on how we can improve the farm bill to
assist specialty crop producers as it relates to trade. But so
many of the programs that we are speaking of today are being
mirrored over and we know extensively about what is going on in
Spain and in other countries, and in those countries, Spanish
citrus farmers are getting greater assistance for their
irrigation programs. The cost of underwriting low-volume
irrigation is being underwritten by their Government. The fees
associated with land transfers as generations change, that is
being underwritten by the Government. The replacement of trees
to more suitable varieties of citrus, take for example, our
summer Valencia orange versus the Mandarin tangerine that you
call it. That is being paid for by the Spanish Government in
Spain. We are losing market share as a result of those costs
being absorbed by their farm bill and those are direct out-of-
pocket expenses for us presently. So that is the type of
activities that if we initiate through our farm bill the
ability for us to remain competitive or become more
competitive, then we can fight the battles in the marketplace,
but our costs are so much greater than our competitors overseas
through their farm bill programs, through their conservation
title, that we are losing ground, sir.
Mr. Kagen. You mentioned your expenses in your business and
overhead, and being a small-businessperson, I understand what
overhead really means. Would it be a fair statement that your
health care expense and your energy expense are two of your
largest expenses in all of your businesses?
Mr. Nelsen. Oh, don't get me started there. Most
definitely. Our health insurance rates and our employees, all
14,000 of them, are covered by health insurance to some extent
or another. We have a workers' comp program in California that
we just got modified. Our energy costs are a major component
both from nutrients and soil amendments to both moving the
equipment in and out of the field and transporting, candidly,
approximately 60 million cartons of product around the country.
We do that every winter. Then there is another 40 million
cartons of citrus during the summer, spring and fall that we
move in addition to that. Energy costs are a major component of
our problems.
Mr. Kagen. Well, I am going to work real hard for all of
you to try and reduce your health care costs. It is an unfair
advantage for Europe and Central and South America where they
don't even have it, so I will be working real hard, and I yield
back my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Kagen.
We still have about 12 minutes left in the vote, so Mr.
Space.
Mr. Space. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief,
given the time constraints.
I would like to thank you gentlemen for being here today. I
come from southeastern Ohio, Ohio's 18th district, which is
very diverse agriculturally. We have got beef cattle, dairy,
hog, poultry, grain, fruit, just about all that the Midwest has
to offer. Recently we did a tour, spoke with hundreds of
farmers, so dozens of farms, and the overwhelming reaction to
the conservation program has been positive but one of the
things we tried to do was identify potential weaknesses and I
think perhaps Mr. Foglesong, you might be the best person to
answer this although feel free to jump in. One of the
complaints that we received in our farm tours about the EQIP
program was that the technical standards applicable to certain
projects were such that it was more expensive even after
consideration of cost sharing to apply for and receive and the
funds than just to do it on their own. I had a couple of
farmers, for example, that put in manure pads that were able to
do so less expensively and not take advantage of the EQIP
monies, and given our budgetary constraints that we have
discussed and we are all aware of, I am just curious as to
whether you feel that perhaps some of the plan of operations or
the technical standards applicable to EQIP funds are especially
onerous or could be modified to make those programs more
affordable and attractive.
Mr. Foglesong. Somebody fed you this question because it
falls right into my--my personal experience with the EQIP
program has been less than stellar. In a number of cases, it is
a whole lot easier for you just to build your own deal and not
take any of the cost-share dollars at the end of the day, and
in Illinois we have got a deal called the Illinois Livestock
Management Facilities Act that supersedes everything as far as
the construction of buildings, uses engineering standards that
have been scrutinized and the standards that we get from NRCS
are higher than that and just continues to drive those costs up
to the point where you are just better off not to do it, and
that is probably the biggest issue that I personally have run
into, that and faulty engineering and science on what this
could cost. You know, there is nobody that is any better at
delivering these programs and figuring out what he needs on his
own place than the guy that is probably running it, and when we
get into situations that we have gotten into as we are getting
fed information, and I don't know where they have come up with,
you know, what their standards are but they spend so darn much
money, you can't afford to do the project. I will give you a
quick example. We were supposed to put water tanks on a 1,200-
acre parcel that we have at my place. We are supposed to put
them every 800 feet. Now, I got cows that walk miles. If you go
west of the river very far, it is nothing for them to walk 2
and 3 miles to get a drink of water, but in my State they
wanted us to build them and, you know, we were going to spend
$3,000 per site on all these. Terrible. It is a total waste and
we walked away from it because it didn't make any sense to
spend your money and mine, you know, on doing something that is
totally ridiculous. Those are the kinds of things that really
get us in a jam.
I guess the other probably biggest problem with the EQIP
program, cattle producers as a group deal on a very sound
principle, you know, a deal is a deal, and if you shook hands
on a deal, that is the way it is going to be, and the problem
that we have, and what I would expect would be that same
standard should be applied when I am dealing with my own
government, and in a number of situations here, that has not
been the standard. Those standards have changed or they changed
the deal after the fact and that keeps an awful lot of cattle
producers from wanting to do business with their own
government.
Mr. Space. Thank you, Mr. Foglesong.
I yield back.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Space.
Ms. Gillibrand, we have 10 minutes left in a vote so we
have time to proceed if you would like to.
Ms. Gillibrand. Sure. We had the opportunity to talk to the
head of the agriculture for the President and talked about his
proposal about what the President wanted to do and one of the
things he talked about was the consolidation of a lot of these
programs, of these conservation programs. What is your opinion
of that consolidation suggestion made by the Department of
Agriculture and what is your thoughts on whether that will be
efficient or not? Because one of my big concerns is that we
have such a tremendous backlog right now and I just think that
may continue to affect that negative, so I would like your
impressions and thoughts and guidance on that.
Mr. Nelsen. Let me try that if I may. Presently, the
Department of Agriculture is reorganizing its foreign
agricultural service. This is a double-edged sword. The issue
of reorganization and simplification sounds good and I think
all of us as businesspeople would be supportive of that. It is
the implementation of that effort that creates the problems.
Right now the jury is still out whether or not shifting the
boxes in the foreign agricultural services from 8 to 12 is more
efficient. They argue it does. We are sitting here from our
side of the spectrum suggesting let us wait and see. I want to
believe what the Administration says and what the Secretary of
Agriculture believes will truly come out and become a more
efficient program, easier applications, quicker turnaround time
in terms of the applications and the rewards but the
implementation of it is a very critical component of that.
Ms. Gillibrand. And when you talk about implementation,
what are you exactly referring to? What would you like to see
different in the current administration of these programs?
Mr. Nelsen. I believe some of these programs, I won't say
several because I am not familiar with them all but I believe
some of these programs can be combined so that you can have one
senior management and enough of an implementation team to
actually work on more than one program at a time. We get so
insulated in our efforts and job justification comes into play
that we can reduce our overhead. These are smart people. They
are well meaning people, they are well-intended people and they
work hard but sometimes you do have to shake some things up. So
from my perspective, we are supporting this effort. The
specialty crop industry will support the efforts, Citrus Mutual
will support the effort, but we are going to have to maintain
our engagement as a stakeholder to see that no slippage occurs.
Mr. LaFleur. Certainly from a producer's perspective, one
of the complaints that I hear quite frequently is the fact that
there are so many alphabet soups, different programs out there
and some of them do overlap. I think that there is a need to
try to consolidate some of them, and in particular, especially
when we do have producers that are going forward on multiple
programs, and in my testimony I mentioned the fact, the
requirement of one conservation plan but we have had situations
where a producer may be going in for, let us say EQIP and then
also going in for CRP or such and they have to develop multiple
plans for the same agency, so there is definitely opportunities
in the management perspective to try to consolidate some of
this and make it easier for the producers to understand and
thus access and also reduce the workload for the staff in the
field.
Mr. Elworth. I would just add that producers are often not
necessarily aware of what the acronym of the program is that
they are using. They are much more concerned about the practice
and the relationship on the ground but I think Jeff is right.
It would certainly help staff at the field level to administer
these programs. Sometimes they are juggling 2 or 3 different
programs in the space of trying to meet the needs of a producer
and they also really, because of the additional work for them,
as do many things in this farm bill, makes it less likely they
will get out in the field to actually see a farmer and his
operation.
Mr. Jamison. There will probably be some producers upset
with it but the reality of life is, as the Chairman mentioned,
Mr. Peterson mentioned, where is some of the money coming from
and if it can be done where you can have multiple programs run
by one set of individuals, I expect in the end, whether we like
it or not, it is probably going be a reality of life being
driven from a budget standpoint.
Mr. Foglesong. One thought that I had, the local guys
really do a really good job of being able to deliver those
programs but sometimes they have so many programs that they are
having a hard time grasping them, and they need a toolbox, and
the bottom line on all these conservation programs is to get
those practices delivered to the ground, you know, and if they
jut have that toolbox and have the flexibility to work you in
and out of different programs with different structures so you
didn't have to spend so much time in the office doing a
mountain of paperwork and actually deliver those programs,
their 4-day workweek would be a lot more productive.
Ms. Gillibrand. Thank you very much.
Mr. Holden. The Chair thanks Ms. Gillibrand and thanks all
of our witnesses for their testimony and their answers today.
We are in the midst of four minutes left in a vote so we will
dismiss the first panel and convene the second one as soon as
we return from votes.
[Recess]
Mr. Holden. I would like to welcome our second panel: Mr.
David E. Nomsen, Vice President of Government Affairs,
Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever, on behalf of Agriculture
and Wildlife Working Group and the American Wildlife
Conservation Partners, Garfield; Minnesota; Mr. Ralph Grossi,
President, American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Olin
Sims, President, National Association of Conservation Districts
from McFadden, Wyoming; Mr. Thomas W. Beauduy, Deputy Director
and Counsel for the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and my
landlord in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Mr. Ken Cook,
President, Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C.; and
Ms. Loni Kemp, Senior Policy Analyst, Minnesota Project,
Canton. The chair would ask all witnesses if they could try to
keep their comments to five minutes and reserve their entire
statement for the record.
Mr. Nomsen, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID E. NOMSEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS, PHEASANTS FOREVER AND QUAIL FOREVER, ON BEHALF OF
AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE WORKING GROUP AND THE AMERICAN
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PARTNERS, GARFIELD, MINNESOTA
Mr. Nomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
Committee, my name is Dave Nomsen. I am from Garfield,
Minnesota. In my role at Pheasants Forever, I serve as co-chair
for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership's
Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group. As if we don't have
enough acronyms for all of our great programs, I am going to
add a couple of new ones for you here in the next moment or
two, the AWWG partnership. I also serve as the vice chair of
the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, basically a
coalition of basically all of our Nation's hunting and fishing
and sporting organizations, and I am excited to talk to you
today about some common priorities that all of the members of
these two coalitions have concurred upon.
It has been a long process. It has been a couple of years
in the works but through the Agriculture and Wildlife Working
Group, there is about 16 organizations in that particular
coalition, hunting and fishing groups and conservation
organizations, national land protection organizations and
others, and we went through a process of taking input from
farmers and landowners, from foresters, from Department of
Agriculture personnel, Congressional staff, resource
professionals at state and federal agencies, and the results of
that effort are published in a document entitled ``Growing
Conservation in the Farm Bill.'' The American Wildlife
Conservation Partners, as I mentioned, is a large coalition of
conservation and hunting organizations. There is about 41 total
members of that particular coalition and I am excited to tell
you today that 36 AWCP member organizations have signed on to
these same priorities that I am going to briefly review in just
a moment.
Please let me add that having done several farm bills, and
I am really pleased to be here before you today representing
not only the most comprehensive array of conservation
priorities offered by this group but it is supported by the
largest coalition of groups that I have ever had a chance to
testify for here on farm bill conservation programs.
I am not going to review each of the priorities. Certainly
you can look through those in my testimony. But our priorities
are built upon a number of proven successful programs. I am
talking about things like CRP and WRP, the Grasslands Reserve
Program that has had tremendous interest and has a huge
backlog, the Wildlife Incentives Program. We talk about a new
program for access. Many members of our particular
organizations are concerned about access to lands for
recreational opportunities, hunting and fishing and that type
of thing, and we see that as an opportunity to not only provide
access but also to do management for fish and wildlife
resources on those same acres at the same time. We have
recommendations regarding the Conservation Security Program,
the Farm and Ranchland Protection Programs. We talk about
biofuels and how it may or may not fit with conservation and
offer some guidance on how to do conservation-friendly
biofuels, especially cellulosic renewable biofuels programs. We
talk about a new provision to help save threatened remnant
prairies, especially mid-grass and short-grass prairies that
are being converted at an alarming rate, and we also address
that in our testimony.
So let me conclude by just saying on behalf of these
literally tens of millions of members of our organizations and
others that we thank you for the opportunity to testify here
today. We certainly look forward to building upon the successes
of the 2002 Farm Bill, a very comprehensive array of programs,
some new programs, and we certainly think that is our challenge
to do that once again and we look forward to working with you
in that process. Thank you very much.
Mr. Holden. Thank you.
Mr. Grossi.
STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST,
WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Grossi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Ralph Grossi. I am a third-generation
dairy and beef producer from north California but I am here
today in my capacity as President of American Farmland Trust, a
position I have held for 22 years.
The farm bill's incentive-based conservation programs are
critical to cleaner water, improved air quality, expanded
wildlife habitat and the protection of land for future
generations. We have some proposals and improvement that I
would like to review for you.
The first is to increase an investment in environmental
quality. You have heard here about the thousands of farmers who
are turned away each year for a lack of funding in the
conservation programs but increasingly many farmers are simply
not bothering to apply for conservation programs due to the
lack of funds and the confusing and often redundant application
process. The Nation must do better in matching financial
commitment with this high level of interest among farmers. This
is especially critical as we enter an era of intensifying
pressure on productive farmland due to the growing renewable
fuels industry. As more producers forego their traditional
corn-soy rotations and as marginal lands are brought into rural
crop production, increased soil erosion along with additional
fertilizers and other nutrients can be expected. While we are
pleased to see farmers have this new economic opportunity,
increases in working lands conservation funds are needed to
mitigate the negative environment consequences of this
expansion. Specifically, we urge you to increase the authorized
funding for the Environment Quality Incentives Program.
Secondly, we think there are ways to improve the
effectiveness of cooperative conservation. To improve on the
current a la carte approach to conservation, a competitive
grants program should be established to promote multi-producer
collaborative conservation efforts. Cooperative conservation
partnerships will improve the effectiveness of existing
conservation programs by focusing conservation implementation
and by attaining critical mass.
Thirdly, increased conservation by leveraging dollars. The
2007 Farm Bill should create a conservation loan guarantee
program to help farmers and ranchers finance conservation
measures on their lands. This new program would fill a void in
the current system for farmers unable to qualify for cost-share
assistance whether because of the lack of cost-sharing dollars,
different needs compared to the current year's conservation
priorities or because the producer exceeds cost-share caps. A
loan guarantee program would also help producers amortize their
share of conservation system costs if some cost-share became
available at a later date. This is particularly helpful to
socially disadvantaged farmers. Government-guaranteed private-
sector loans with a reduced interest rate for producer
borrowers would provide a highly leveraged way for federal
dollars to boost implementation of conservation practices.
Specifically, we have proposed that USDA be given the authority
to guarantee up to $1 billion of loans with additionally
authority to buy down the effective interest rate to qualified
buyers.
The fourth recommendation is of course the Farm and
Ranchland Protection Program. This is a critical program to
helping preserve working farms and ranches across the country
in the face of increasing urban pressure. A growing web of
bureaucrat rules and regulations has beset this program, making
it difficult for some state and local programs to utilize
available funds. The 2007 Farm Bill should eliminate
duplicative requirements and streamline the program to make it
more responsive to the many diverse Farm and Ranchland
Protection Programs at the state and local level. Specifically,
reforms to FRPP would allow those state and local programs with
proven track records of success in protecting farms and ranches
to receive funding in the form of grants. They should also be
given the authority to use their own well-established
procedures and policies in the execution of their projects.
Another important issue is the Farmland Protection Policy
Act. Passed in 1981 as part of the 1981 Farm Bill, it was
landmark legislation. Unfortunately, the application of the law
has fallen short of what was originally envisioned. federal
projects and actions have contributed to the direct and
indirect conversion of valuable and irreplaceable agricultural
lands across the country. We should reform the FPPA to
strengthen its original intent and make sure that the impacts
of federal actions on agricultural lands are adequately
addressed in the planning and assessment process.
And finally, we urge you to strengthen stewardship rewards
programs for all farmers and ranchers. In 2002, our Nation
committed to a new vision of farm support, a way to support
those farmers who are good stewards of the land and who inspire
others to reach higher levels of environmental performance. I
am of course talking about the Conservation Security Program.
During the course of the last five years, this program has
unfortunately not fulfilled its promise. I believe, however,
that the concept of a rewards program is valid and has very
broad support among farmers and the general American public. I
urge the Committee to again examine the ideals behind CSP,
recommit to needed funding and find a more workable green
payments program as an additional stream of income to reward
producers for their stewardship of our Nation's natural
resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Grossi.
Mr. Sims.
STATEMENT OF OLIN SIMS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, McFADDEN, WYOMING
Mr. Sims. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lucas, distinguished members of
the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Olin Sims. I am
president of the National Association of Conservation
Districts, known as NACD, another acronym for us to work with,
and a rancher from McFadden, Wyoming. On my family operation,
we run a 700 cow-calf operation on 22,000 acres of deeded
private state and federal leases in southern Wyoming.
Across the United States, nearly 3,000 conservation
districts are helping local people to conserve land, water,
forests, wildlife and related natural resources. NACD believes
that every acre counts in the adoption of conservation
practices. We support voluntary incentive-based programs that
provide a range of options, providing both financial and
technical assistance to guide landowners in the adoption of
conservation practices.
The 2002 Farm Bill assisted producers across the country,
but in my area, the conservation programs are the farm bill. My
access to farm bill programs and assistance has been limited to
conservation programs and I am happy to have had the
opportunity to participate in several of the program.
This past fall our ranch installed two miles of stock water
pipeline and tanks that allowed us to alleviate impacts to
riparian areas, control invasive species and better manage our
rangeland resources to alleviate the chance of overgrazing.
This was all done working with my local conservation district
and the NRCS that provided the technical assistance prior to
entering into an EQIP contract.
We are currently working with the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department to use livestock grazing as a land treatment for elk
habitat enhancement on a nearby wildlife habitat unit. The
project has allowed us to demonstrate the beneficial importance
of livestock grazing as a management tool to improve wildlife
habitat by incorporating the abilities of private landowners in
managing public resources.
The comments on the conservation title of the farm bill
that I provide to you today are based on recommendations
approved by our board of directors which includes one member
from all 50 states in the U.S. Conservation districts have a
unique role in conservation program delivery. Our members and
conservation district employees work with landowners, federal
and state agencies to deliver programs, technical assistance,
and guide local decision-making. We listen to our customers
regarding program implementation. NACD's recommendations focus
on a priority for working lands conservation programs.
We believe there should be consolidation and/ or
streamlining of programs to ease program delivery, making them
easier for producers to understand and apply for and easier for
field staff to administer. All working ag lands should be
eligible for these programs including non-industrial private
forest land, fruits and vegetables, livestock row crop and
small production lands that may border urban areas.
To this end, we recommend two working lands conservation
programs, a modified EQIP program and a streamlined CSP
program. NACD recommends combining the programmatic functions
of the cost-share programs of the WHIP program, the Forest Land
Enhancement Program and the Ag Management Assistance Program
and the working lands components of the Grassland Reserve
Program into an enhanced EQIP program.
The existing CSP program should be modified into a top-
level conservation program for the best of the best in natural
resource protection on their operation. This upper-level
program should have clearly defined criteria so producers can
plan ahead, know what the requirements are to participate and
should be available nationwide.
NACD supports maintaining the two land retirement programs,
the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve
Program. The CRP program should continue to focus on special
initiatives, continuous sign-ups and CREPs. CREPs have been
very successful in leveraging state dollars for additional
natural resource protection.
The WRP program has been successful in the restoration of
wetlands, improving water quality and wildlife habitat.
NACD supports retaining the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection
Program and including elements of the Healthy Forests Reserve
Program. The FRLPP has been very successful in the Northeast
and we need to continue to ensure that this program works in
other parts of the countries, includes forest lands and works
in coordination with state programs.
We also support reauthorization of the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program, the Great Lakes Basin Program and
continued authorization of the RCND counsels.
The Conservation Technical Assistance Program outside the
authorization of the farm bill allows NRCS offices at the local
level to work with conservation districts, landowners and state
and local agencies to address local resource concerns. CTA
assists in farm bill conservation program delivery by working
with landowners and operators up until the point which they
commit to a farm bill program. Technical assistance is utilized
once again in the plans for program design, layout and
implementation. CTA is also critical to working with landowners
and operators that may have smaller operations and may not be
typical USDA program customers and need added assistance to
prepare them for participation in conservation financial
assistance programs.
The 2002 Farm Bill was a hallmark for conservation in this
country and we hope the 2007 Farm Bill will maintain this
commitment to conservation. Conservation districts believe that
every acre counts from a conservation perspective and that the
farm bill needs to bring its conservation benefits to all
producers on all ag lands.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Sims.
Mr. Beauduy.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. BEAUDUY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND COUNSEL,
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Beauduy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lucas,
Subcommittee members, Chairman Peterson. We appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to present testimony on this
important issue.
By way of background for the members, the SRBC is a federal
interstate compact commission. In our basin, we are monitoring
and assessing water quality, and on the water quantity side, we
regulate allocations, diversions and consumptive uses.
The basin itself is a fairly large basin, one of the
largest in the east. It is home to some of the best productive
ag lands in the United States and provides over 90 percent of
the freshwater flow to the upper Chesapeake Bay and 50 percent
of the freshwater flow to the bay overall.
As is the case in other regions of the country, agriculture
is central to the fabric of our basin. It comprises 21 percent
of the land resource base of the basin and is significant
economically, environmentally and culturally. Coupled with
forest lands, which comprise 69 percent, these open-space lands
comprise 90 percent of our land resource base and define the
basin's rural identity.
The conservation programs administered by USDA,
particularly as they were expanded by the 2002 Farm Bill, have
become critical both to sustaining agriculture and
simultaneously minimizing its impact on the water resources of
the basin. This holds true for the receiving waters of the
Chesapeake Bay as well. As you know, we have got a nutrient
problem both in the basin and baywide, and the conservation
title is critically important to our nutrient reduction
strategy.
Reducing the nonpoint source nutrient loads, particularly
from agriculture, because it is a major contributory source, is
central to that reduction strategy.
I will admit to you, unlike most of the other organizations
presenting testimony here today, that the commission has not
been actively engaged in the current deliberations over the
provisions of the 2007 Farm Bill but what we are engaged in is
the act of management of water sources in a significant eastern
United States river basin, and from that vantage point, we
understand and support the efforts to enhance both
programmatically and financially USDA's conservation programs
under the 2007 Farm Bill.
We can appreciate your challenge in sorting through the
emergence of various regional proposals, especially given the
desire to bring fruition to a truly national farm bill and
something that is within budget, I might add. We appreciate
that very much.
Coming from this region, it is obvious and easy to embrace
a proposal like the Van Hollen proposal or other regional
proposals that would benefit the region uniquely, but in the
interest of time and because we are really here to try to offer
a bottom-line perspective on what we think is important not
just for our basin but for the country, I would like to just
divert from my written comments, Mr. Chairman, and just speak
to an issue that we think captures it fairly well.
It doesn't seem appropriate for the region to expect that
the obligation to reach its nutrient reduction goal should be
carried on the back of the farm bill exclusively. Ag didn't
cause the problem exclusively and shouldn't be looked at to
exclusively solve it either. Having said that, we do think it
is appropriate to rely on the conservation title to assist the
ag community in the region to meet its portion of that
obligation.
We all know the cost of regulation affects business and
sometimes substantially. Performers in regions of the country
where nutrient impairment has reached a high enough level that
they are confronting the regulatory implications of a TMDL,
targeted assistance is vital to keeping those operations in
business. I realize you aren't going to throw money at the Bay
Region just because it is the Bay Region but I do think it is
appropriate for you to consider directing funds and
facilitating greater program participation to any area of the
country, including the Bay Region, where farmers are facing an
acute and heightened need due to a formal nutrient impairment
designation and the obligations that come along with that
designation and as a result having a TMDL hanging over the
heads of that industry. It is vital to the sustainability of
agriculture in those areas that it receive special assistance
in order to be able to meet that burden and be competitive.
All farmers face burdens but this class of farmers faces
even greater ones. As someone who lives and works in one of
those areas and someone who appreciates how important it is to
maintain our regional agricultural base, we honestly believe
that going the extra mile in the conservation title for any of
those farmers anywhere in the country is sound public policy.
Finally, in discussing programs designed to address water
quality concerns, the commission believes that consideration
should be given to an issue that traditionally had been on the
water quantity side of the house. We believe that ensuring
programmatic coverage to acreage known as critical aquifer
recharge areas is important not only in a quantitative sense
but a qualitative sense as well. Geologically, these areas have
a very high recharge productivity. They are land surface areas
that are responsible for a disproportionately large fraction of
the groundwater recharge in a given area. Delineation and
protection of these areas are significant not only for regional
groundwater availability but for the maintenance of base flow
of streams.
During low flow conditions, that base flow is critical for
aquatic health, water supply and importantly, for the
assimilative capacity related to water quality. Also, because
of their high recharge productivity, they can unfortunately act
as aggressive conduits for surface contaminants including
nutrients to the groundwater aquifer. That degraded groundwater
ultimately discharges as base flow and adds to the nutrient
load that we are trying to address.
For all these reasons, we believe such areas genuinely
constitute environmentally sensitive areas and are worthy of
consideration, whether in CREP or any of the other conservation
programs under consideration. I think it would be appropriate
to include them to advance the water quality objectives that
the conservation title is intended to address. Importantly, it
would also advance a truly integrated approach to water
resource management.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present these
comments and look forward to questions from the members.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Beauduy.
Mr. Cook.
STATEMENT OF KEN COOK, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP,
WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to summarize my remarks today. I have had the
opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee on many
occasions in the past. It has been a while though. My staff is
through carbon-dating techniques trying to determine just how
long it has been, but I very much appreciate the opportunity to
be here today.
I was struck in this panel and in the one that preceded it
with the number of original ideas, strong ideas, both for
refocusing and improving our conservation programs and also by
the number of ideas and proposals to expand them. We aren't
short of ideas. We aren't short of applicants but we have been
short of money, and one of the things to I think point out as
we consider the upcoming farm bill debate is the number of
times over the past decade and a half or more that conservation
programs that have been authorized in the farm bill have been
cut deeply, billions and billions of dollars, and I think that
helps explain some of the ambition you are hearing from this
panel and the one before to try and do something for voluntary
incentive-based programs that you see widely supported.
I have two general points to make in my testimony. The
first is just how incredibly important conservation is to the
members of this Subcommittee. We have heard from two panels
about how important it is to farmers and the environment. Well,
the numbers we present in our testimony suggest it is also a
big deal economically to agriculture. That wasn't the case 20
years ago when this Subcommittee established the Conservation
Reserve Program. It wasn't really the case even in 2002 when
Mr. Lucas pushed through gigantic increases in the EQIP program
but it is getting to be true now. It would be even truer if we
hadn't seen so many cuts over the years.
Just a couple of numbers to mention. The members of this
Subcommittee alone just in the last three years, their
districts have received $1.6 billion through the conservation
programs, $1.6 billion, 162,000 beneficiaries of those programs
and we break it down member by member. It is just about $10,000
apiece on average over those three years between 2003 and 2005.
That is money that is supported by and large by the entire
conservation and environmental community and lots of people in
agriculture.
To look at it in a little more detail by a few districts,
we have seven districts on the Committee who received more than
$100 million over just the past three years. In terms of the
number of recipients, seven districts had over 10,000
beneficiaries, and as I mentioned earlier, an average of about
$10,000 over those three years. In some districts, it is much
more. We can only imagine how much more it would have been over
time again if we hadn't seen some pretty significant cuts year
in and year out.
The second point to make has been made already. When you
tabulate the unfunded requests for voluntary conservation
efforts, $3 billion in the latest year that we had data for,
2004, $3 billion across the United States. There is no need to
make the point that farmers are interested in conservation.
They are going to the USDA office, they are making their
requests. The money is not there.
I was also asked to address in my testimony the
Conservation Security Program. I come at this from the
perspective of my experience of the 1985 Farm Bill when my
uncle, Paul, asked me when he heard about the Conservation
Reserve Program. He had 1,000 acres of hay and pastureland, he
had a cow-calf operation and he wondered just exactly why it
was that those fellows a few counties north who had plowed out
their land, planted it to corn, gotten commodity program
benefits, were then going to be paid to plant it back so that
it looked like the fields all around his operation. These are
tough questions, Mr. Chairman. How do you reward stewardship as
Ralph so eloquently said and at the same time efficiently use
taxpayer dollars? I think the Conservation Security Program was
the first effort on a large scale to try and do that.
I want to commend to you the most recent evaluation that I
have seen done of the program by two very distinguished
experienced organizations, the Soil and Water Conservation
Society and Environmental Defense. They did point to a number
of problems that the program has had. Funding has complicated
dramatically the way the program was implemented. We have spent
a lot of money so far and under the contracts we now have in
place we will spend it in the next few years for practices that
according to the report were already in place. These are very
important policy questions to ask as we seek to figure out a
way to both reward people who have done the right thing all
along and also make important gains in conservation by
providing support to farmers to make the changes they need to
protect the environment.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Ms. Kemp.
STATEMENT OF LONI KEMP, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, THE MINNESOTA
PROJECT, CANTON, MINNESOTA
Ms. Kemp. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
conservation title of the farm bill. I represent the Minnesota
Project, and we are members of the Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition and the National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture.
I have been asked by the Subcommittee to focus my remarks
on the Conservation Security Program and I would also like to
touch on renewable energy implications for the environment, and
I draw your attention to some other recommendations that I have
included in my written testimony.
The significant question for the next farm bill is, what do
we want for the future of agriculture? Will the policies you
enact this year enable us and our children to produce healthy
food, a safe environment, clean energy and vibrant rural
communities.
I believe that the conservation title of the farm bill is
possibly our Nation's most important environmental law. The
farm bill determines how half the Nation's land is cared for
and that is the land for which farmers and ranchers are the
stewards. So this is where the fate of water quality lies in
the farm bill, so too the fate of wildlife habitat, and even
the long-term food security of our Nation. Add to that the huge
positive contribution agriculture is poised to make towards the
most pressing issues of our time, national energy security and
global climate change, and we see that these conservation
programs are essential to our Nation's future.
I just arrived from Canton, Minnesota, and I can tell you
that there is optimism in the countryside these days. Farmers
believe they can help the country move toward homegrown
renewable energy while they take care of the environment. I see
a fundamental shift in the American perception of farmers. Of
course, they produce our food and fiber but now they are also
being called upon to produce clean water, renewable energy and
a more stable climate.
But why is the Conservation Security Program so important?
It is unique in the toolbox of conservation programs that we
have for our working lands. It is unique because it requires
farmers to actually solve their resource problems to a
sustainable level. CSP focuses on the whole farm. CSP is the
only program that is focused on outcomes, allowing farmer
innovation to determine the best way to meet and exceed
explicit conservation goals and CSP is trade neutral. It
creates a new paradigm for farm programs, a green payments
program that rewards all farmers for their stewardship rather
than production, and it has proven to be effective and popular.
So far some 20,000 farmers have enrolled 16 million acres in
the Conservation Security Program, securing over $2 billion in
long-term commitments to excellence in land care. These are
impressive numbers, however, there is a flipside. You are all
aware that Congress has cut some $4 billion from CSP's funding
and it has not been offered to all farmers by a long shot. Even
as we sit here today, the fate of the 2007 sign-up for CSP
hinges on whether the conferees will restore the funds for the
2007 sign-up in that bill. That is the conferees on the
supplemental appropriations bill. This on again, off again
approach must come to an end and we hope this Committee will
see that it happens.
Today we are issuing the first comprehensive assessment of
how CSP is working in a report called the Conservation Security
Program Drives Resource Management. I believe you all have
copies and there are copies for the press over there.
Complementing the study that looked at data, we actually went
out and decided to look at the program, how it was working on
the ground. Along with collaborating organizations in the
Midwest, 67 in-depth interviews with farmers were held and with
NRCS staff who actually had to implement this program, and what
we found is that CSP is indeed proving to be a catalyst for new
conservation practices. The majority of farmers are adding
practices in order to be eligible. They are adding practices
when they sign up and take on more enhancements and they are
adding a lot more when they get a chance to modify their
contracts.
We do think there are a number of fixes that are needed for
CSP, as you have heard from some other people, and foremost
among those is that Congress must provide adequate and
protected funding. This is our top recommendation and you are
undoubtedly hearing it from farmers and ranchers all over
America. Other fixes that are needed are regular sign-up
periods, transparency, increased use of full-fledged
conservation planning, streamlining and better technical
assistance.
So turning to another farm bill priority, I would like to
share a few thoughts on the implications of renewable energy
for the environment and of course this Committee handles both
of those topics as well as research, so this is the perfect
place to talk about it.
The most important thing is for you to focus on the
transition to the next generation of biofuels to help
accelerate our shift to perennial cellulosic biomass energy.
This is an opportunity--you keep asking about where is the
money going to come from. This is an opportunity truly to kill
two birds with one stone in a sense because perennial
cellulosic biomass by nature is going to contribute
dramatically to some of the conservation needs that we have
because it holds the soil in place, sequesters carbon, provides
wildlife habitat and requires no tillage in the case of
perennials and it is an especially effective solution to
climate change. First of all, producing biofuels causes no net
carbon to be emitted when the fuel is burned. Secondly,
perennial crops hold carbon in the soil and capture it, and
then thirdly, if we can convert to using biomass as the fuel
source for our corn ethanol plants and displace the coal and
natural gas, that is a triple winner.
The Conservation Security Program is an ideal framework
from which to help farmers begin to establish perennial biomass
crops through enhancement payments. You could create cellulose
crop sheds so that these farmers are working in areas where
plants are likely to be built and we could ramp up cellulosic
ethanol facility planning as well.
So in summary, to make CSP as strong as possible, we ask
that you fund it fully and extend sign-up opportunities to all
who can meet the high standards and create clear and more
streamlined implementation methods, and further, try CSP as a
policy framework for perennial biomass energy feedstocks.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Mr. Holden. I thank our witnesses for their testimony and I
would first like to follow up with the same question that you
probably heard me ask the first panel, and that was following
up on Chairman Peterson's opening statement and Ranking Member
Lucas's about the budget restraints we are going to face, and
Mr. Cook, you bring up another concern that this Committee has
had for a long time and that is of the appropriators getting
their hands on some of the money that we authorize. Well, that
is an age-old problem. I remember, and so does Ranking Member,
Mr. Lucas, when we were sitting so far down we couldn't even
see Kiki D'Ogartz, we could just hear him, but we could hear
them complaining about Jamie Witten for taking the money away
from the authorization funds, and that is a problem that is a
reality. So these are the facts that we must face.
So saying that, following up on the same question that I
put to the first Committee, all of you have identified programs
that you believe in, that you think are working well and that
we should reinvest in. Living within the pay-go situation as we
must, any suggestions where we could move money around and
disinvest in any conservation program that is currently in
effect? We are going to have this conversation with or without
you so you might as well be in it, so------
Mr. Nomsen. I would be happy to be in this conversation
because it is an important one, and if you look through the
slate of priorities that I offered as my testimony, obviously
you will see that there is a--it is an aggressive list. There
are new items on the list. There is expansion of programs. We
think it is justifiable when dollars spent on conservation are
an incredible value for the American taxpayer. There are items
on that list, however, that also generate savings. For example,
the sound saver provision that we were calling for. We are in
the process of finding out exactly how much right now and we
look forward to sharing that in more detail, and as you are
waiting for your final numbers and kind of how it looks, we are
also in the process of adding up what our list looks like and
at that point in time perhaps it would be a good time to sit
down and have further discussion about the pool of dollars that
we have in comparison with the pool of programs and ideas and
you will certainly see us talk about the success of proven
programs that have worked well in the past. Mr. Chairman, I am
thinking in particular about programs--you still have the
number 1 CREP in the Nation in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Holden. Yes.
Mr. Nomsen. And while I can't quite pronounce Schuylkill
County------
Mr. Holden. You are close.
Mr. Nomsen. It was close? That is good. And, you know, Mr.
Lucas, looking at you, I think about the--we have a wonderful
example of EQIP doing good things for fish and wildlife in the
State of Oklahoma where we have a quail habitat restoration
initiative going. So it is one of those examples of things that
we can do to get more conservation out of current programs too
and I think that is also part of the discussion that we have to
have.
Mr. Holden. Anyone else care to add anything to it? Mr.
Sims.
Mr. Sims. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I guess I
would make this comment from our organization, that our members
are very much aware of the realties of the day of the federal
budget, and we had a long discussion at our recent annual
meeting about that particular issue, and the message that I
delivered to you today is, we are not asking for any new
programs. We do believe that there are ways to go through and
make adjustments within the programs that we do have to find
some savings, okay, and so I guess I would offer that. Are we
willing to disinvest in conservation? Certainly not. Are there
ways to improve? I believe that there is.
Mr. Holden. And Mr. Sims, you suggested several different
consolidations and we would like to pursue that as a
Subcommittee. We are also a little bit concerned, at least I
am, I don't mean to speak for the Ranking Member. Sometimes
when you do that, a program loses its identity and ends up
being in a situation where you can't participate to the level
you would like to.
Mr. Beauduy, thank you for your comments, and I appreciate
your comments concerning our friend's from Maryland
introduction of a bill that for our region there is no question
about it, that it would be a very good thing. But within the
political reality that we have to live, you know, 100 percent
of that is just not possible. So what would you think would be
one or two of the most important things that we could do in
this farm bill for the Chesapeake Bay region, Susquehanna River
Basin Commission's authority?
Mr. Beauduy. Well, as I indicated, we--number one, I
appreciate the concern that you just expressed, Mr. Chairman,
and I understand that you and the members of this Subcommittee
and the Full Committee need to exercise an amount of leadership
and statesmanship that rises above any regional parochialism,
and it is appropriate that you do that. Having said that, we
still believe, and not being a student of conservation programs
and actively involved in their implementation, I can offer
specifics perhaps following this Committee hearing, but I will
tell you in a general sense that to the extent that whatever
the funding levels are for the programs, there is some priority
given, and this is irrespective of region of the country, to
wherever agriculture is facing a TMDL, because of the
heightened burden that puts on agriculture in that region, that
they be given some priority for participation and for funding.
Mr. Holden. Thank you.
Mr. Grossi, you mentioned in your remarks the Farmland
Preservation Program, which is very important in Pennsylvania
and Maryland and New York but not all that important in Mr.
Lucas's district or I bet Mr. Ellsworth's district not all that
important. As we look to reauthorize that, I remember being in
New York at a Full Committee field hearing last year, hearing
that there needed to be some changes made to it and I know that
people in Pennsylvania have brought some recommendations to me,
and you might have mentioned this in your remarks but if you
could elaborate a little more on some tweaking we need to do to
the Farmland Preservation Program?
Mr. Grossi. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. First, I
would say that while it may not be real important in Mr.
Lucas's district now, it will be at some point. There are now
27 states with state farmland preservation programs and the
State of Texas is the most recent to add a statewide program.
This issue of fragmentation and sprawl into agricultural areas
and the breakup of ranches is an issue even in rural areas of
this country. The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, as
you know, has expanded significantly in the 2002 Farm Bill with
authorization at almost $100 million a year. That program is
the most efficient in leveraging non-federal resources of any
of the conservation programs. There are about 2-1/2 dollars of
non-federal money applied to those projects for every dollar of
federal money so the nearly $100 million annual appropriation
from the Federal Government is effectively getting $350 million
of conservation on the ground. We are very proud of that and we
think it probably offers a model for some of the other programs
as you move forward, and I could come back to that if you would
like. But there have been significant problems with this
program and one of the largest problems is that these farmlands
protection programs are very oriented to the unique
circumstances of different states and different localities.
Agriculture is different in different areas of the country and
so the program that works well in Pennsylvania won't work well
in Texas, likewise in Vermont versus California. These programs
have been designated and customized for those states. You
cannot then put an overlay on top of it of a one-size-fits-all
set of regulations that forces all those states to rewrite
their programs simply to meet some federal set of rules. So we
are suggesting some changes that would allow those states that
qualify, that have a proven track record of protecting land,
monitoring that land, understanding how to work with farmers,
give them some flexibility to operate within the rules that
they have developed over the last 25 or 30 years and allow
those programs to receive a grant instead of so that they would
be not having to comply with all the rules in the federal rule
that has been published by USDA. That doesn't mean all programs
would be treated that way. Those that don't have a proven
record that still need to prove themselves would have to live
by the federal rules, and we think that is a fairly
straightforward way to deal with this problem. There are other
issues related to the implementation but we are prepared to
offer some language that has been worked on by the
commissioners of agriculture in many of these states that they
now have an agreement on how they think the program should be
fixed, and we will be glad to work with your staff on helping
put that language together.
Mr. Holden. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Ranking Member.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I was pleased to
hear the panel use the phrase ``a gigantic increase in
conservation spending in the last farm bill.'' Chairman Holden
and I were extremely proud of what we were able to successfully
make happen five years ago, and we have moved forward from
there.
Let me put the question to the panel and in particular
perhaps Mr. Nomsen and Mr. Grossi, the question I asked the
earlier panel and that is about the Conservation Reserve
Program, CRP. There is discussion about whether the acreage
should be increased, decreased, what should be done. I
personally have taken the perspective that I view the 39
million acres as a minimum number. I view the program though as
one where we need to have flexibility in that many of the acres
date back to the hold mid enrollments of the 1980s where
perhaps land that became a part of the program did not meet
what we would now define as the necessary environmental
sensitivity goals.
Could you touch on the subject, your perspectives and
whoever on the panel would care to about the potential to allow
some of that less environmentally sensitive land potentially to
come out and then using that space to bring in property of a
more sensitive nature? Your perspective, anyone?
Mr. Nomsen. Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lucas, let
me offer a couple of thoughts on that. I think that is an
important topic and I also was pleased today to hear
essentially no one talk about reductions to the program, and as
you know, we are still calling for a long-term goal of a 45-
million-acre CRP. We need to remember a couple things. One,
first of all, it is a voluntary, incentive-based program. We
already have a little over three million acres expiring this
year right now and I think that is an important thought.
I want to address your specific question about a pool of
additional acres that may be able to come out of the program,
and I would certainly offer all of our group's assistance to
refine and discuss and define what the size of that pool of
acres may be, how large is it, where are those acres. I would
certainly encourage the Committee to at that particular point
encourage leaving CRP buffers in place on those particular
fields. I think the last thing we need to do is go back to a
fencerow-to-fencerow farming situation and leaving buffers in
place, we can certainly do some very good things for water
quality, soil erosion and they will have some limited wildlife
benefits, so let us have that discussion, and I want to thank
you for also calling about the other aspect, and that is the
benefits from CRP, especially the wildlife benefit, all of the
benefits from CRP. They come from the fact that we do have a
newly fully enrolled program and so I appreciate your thoughts
talking about having a program that works out there, that is
successful, and farmers and landowners, they receive enough
economic compensation to encourage them to continue to apply at
strong rates and participate in the program. So let us have
further discussion on that area. Thank you.
Mr. Grossi. I would just add, Mr. Lucas, that for those of
us who were here in 1985 and when CRP was a dream, we can look
back now and feel quite good about the accomplishments of the
program, particularly in how it has evolved from a largely
supply management /conservation program to a true environmental
program, and we like that trend and we would encourage you to
do things to continue on that path. That is, let us make sure
the CRP really is focused on the highest quality or the highest
environmental benefits just as you said earlier, particular
attention to continuous sign-up and the CREP provisions, and we
are willing to talk to you about creative ways that we might
utilize all of the baseline. Like other conservation programs,
CRP has unused baseline in the budget and so, you know, we like
to think about how we can put that money to work for a real
environment benefit. So we very much are supporters of the
program and would like to see it continue to be focused more
and more on the highest environmental benefits.
Mr. Lucas. And I appreciate that, and coming as a successor
to the old Soil Bank Program of the 1950s, we have a strong
legacy. In the early CRP just as in Soil Bank, it was more of,
as you use the phrase, a supply management program that
happened to create, generate some wonderful environmental
benefits. I just see as a voluntary program if commodity prices
continue at their range and the feedback I get from the
livestock community and, for that matter, the grain-producing
community, some of those three million acres will come out. I
guess I am sending through this hearing a message down the
street that if those acres come out, we need to bring acres
back in, not as contracts expire because producers will have
the right to do that, to take their acres out, and then not
replace those. That would be unacceptable to the wildlife
community, unacceptable to the sportsmen's community, I think
unacceptable to anybody out in the countryside who really
thinks about this, but there is always a danger in the way that
bureaucracies work.
Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me, I would like to ask
Mr. Cook a question.
Mr. Holden. Sure.
Mr. Lucas. Can your group as famously always been very
sensitive to where taxpayer dollars are spent in these farm
bills and how the monies flow and where they wind up and there
are some issues, and I don't even like to use that phrase,
payment limitation, that will be in the jurisdictions of other
Subcommittees. They will have to sort through that. But for
just a moment let us talk about conservation and the dollars
that come through the farm bill and where they go. As I said,
your folks famously do lots of analysis on these things. Do you
have any opinions on when it comes to conservation, should
there be a means testing of a sort? Should there be payment
limitations on what any individual can take from the program,
should your outside income be reflective of that? Do you have
any general observations on those kinds of issues?
Mr. Cook. Well, Mr. Lucas, we have always said just as when
we publish our web site, we put the names of everybody who gets
conservation payments and who gets disaster payments in every
commodity program. I don't think it is fair even though I am a
proponent of conservation spending to leave those issues off
the table on any of these other matters of public policy that
come up, whether it is payments limits, setting limits on
individual programs, considering means testing or anything
else. I think conservation just at the beginning of that debate
ought to be on the table.
Mr. Lucas. I mean, some will argue in this Committee, I
suspect, depending on how the number looks in a few days or a
few weeks, how dismal it might be, that whether it is a banker
or a doctor or a member of Congress, if you have the ability to
do your conservation practices from your own pocket, is it fair
to allow them, us, they, whoever to participate at the same
level as producers or small property owners who just really
cannot economically afford to spend that kind of money without
the assistance that comes from cost share?
Mr. Cook. Believe me, we will be sympathetic to that debate
and considering that just as we are open to the idea that there
are people who may be receiving commodity program benefits now
who can well afford to operate. Maybe they are an absentee
investor or owner. A new database we will be producing in about
three weeks from USDA's data, the so-called section 1614 data,
is pretty eye opening in terms of the number of beneficiaries
in these programs. My concerning today was to talk about the
importance of these conservation programs and the importance of
looking at ways to refine them, but I do think this is part of
the debate and I also think it is part of why we have so many
new people coming forward saying I have been left out of the
programs in the past and I have got to find who is lobbying for
the goat and emu industry and get with them because they have
evidently been very successful.
Mr. Lucas. In a profession that makes far more money to be
a media person perhaps or something where you can afford to do
things that the rest of maybe cannot. I am not taking a
position. I am just asking for some input, some advice because
in spite of these rather dramatic increases in resources over
the last five years, as soon as Chairman Holden and I met what
we thought was the backlog five years ago and people realized,
by golly, you just might be able to qualify for that, it might
really be there, the backlog exploded exponentially. So there
will be some of these topics of discussion in the coming days,
weeks and months about how to stretch those precious resources
to maximize our input. Thank you.
Mr. Holden. The Ranking Member yields back.
They called for a vote now, so before we thank the panel
for their testimony today, Mr. Beauduy, a question I forgot to
ask, I am not sure if you can answer it or not, do you have any
idea how much money the Federal Government spends on
conservation in the Chesapeake Bay region annually?
Mr. Beauduy. No, I can't. I have that number available but
I didn't bring it with me. I do know that when the last cost
analysis was done, they looked at an $18 billion need, a
shortfall of about $12 billion, and that was a projection, an
8-year projection from 2002 to 2010. Of that $6 billion, I
believe $4.5 billion was federal dollars.
Mr. Holden. Thank you.
The Chair wishes to thank the witnesses for their testimony
today.
Under the rules of the committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional
material and supplementary written responses from witnesses to
any question posed by a member of the panel.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]