[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10911-S10913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




COMMENDING SOUTH DAKOTA FARM, CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
                                 GROUPS

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer sincere thanks and 
gratitude for the cooperation and leadership demonstrated this year in 
South Dakota by a large coalition of farm, conservation, wildlife, and 
environmental groups in my great State. These groups have taken an 
almost unprecedented step to cooperate in solving a problem concerning 
the treatment of wetlands in the context of production agriculture in 
South Dakota.
  Their cooperation led to the adoption of a pilot project--the 
Conservation of Farmable Wetland Act of 2000--negotiated through 
Congress by Senator Daschle and me whereby farmed wetlands in a six-
state region can become eligible for enrollment in the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP).
  When it comes to conservation policy and the federal farm program, 
many issues are hotly debated. Perhaps nowhere has this become more 
evident than in the administration and policy implications of managing 
wetlands on farmground in South Dakota and the entire country. A real 
battle over the management of farmed wetlands has waged over the years 
between farmers--who own and farm the productive land where these 
wetlands are located--and conservation groups--who believe these 
wetlands should be maintained in their natural state.
  Earlier this year, over thirty South Dakota groups struck an 
agreement in principle regarding the treatment of wetlands with some 
constructive ideas to signify a cease fire of sorts in this battle over 
the management of wetlands. Their agreement in principle expressed 
support for financial assistance

[[Page S10912]]

for farmers and landowners who voluntarily chose to commit the wetlands 
on their private lands--primarily land in crop production--to 
conservation under CRP. The farmable wetlands targeted in their 
agreement are located in low-lying draws or waterways that run through 
crop fields and carry runoff and topsoil into creeks and rivers in wet 
years. In dry years, these wetlands are farmed. Currently, grass filter 
strips surrounding these farmed wetlands qualify for CRP, but not the 
actual wetland acreage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement in 
principle and name of every group signing the agreement be printed at 
this point in the Record, and that my statement continue in the Record 
at the conclusion of the agreement in principle and list of groups.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Agreement in Principle Between Central Plains Water Development 
 District; Clay County Conservation District; Clay County Farm Bureau; 
 Delta Waterfowl Foundation; Ducks Unlimited, Inc., East Dakota Water 
   Development District; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe; Izaak Walton 
 League, Kempeska Chapter; Izaak Walton League, South Dakota District; 
   James River Water Development District; National Audubon Society; 
  Sierra Club-East River Group; Sierra Club-Living River Group; South 
Dakota Association of Conservation Districts; South Dakota Corn Growers 
   Association; South Dakota Department of Agriculture; South Dakota 
     Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South Dakota 
  Department of Game, Fish and Parks; South Dakota Farm Bureau; South 
 Dakota Farmers Union; South Dakota Grassland Coalition; South Dakota 
   Lakes and Streams Association, Inc.; South Dakota Pork Producers 
    Council; South Dakota Resources Coalition; South Dakota Soybean 
 Association; South Dakota Stock Growers; South Dakota Water Congress; 
South Dakota Wheat Inc.; South Dakota Wildlife Federation; The Wildlife 
  Society, South Dakota Chapter; Turner County Conservation District; 
  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Vermillion Basin Water Development 
          District; and Vermillion River Watershed Authority.


                                purpose

       This memorandum is made by the organizations listed above, 
     hereinafter called the partners, to express support for 
     financial assistance to landowners who voluntarily choose to 
     maintain wetlands on private lands and retire them from crop 
     production in the Prairie Pothole Region of South Dakota, 
     North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Montana. The people of this 
     partnership are united in their belief that programs should 
     be available that compensate landowners who voluntarily 
     commit their wetlands to conservation. We offer specific 
     suggestions that certain wetlands be eligible for enrollment 
     under the USDA Conservation Reserve Program, continuous sign 
     up for buffers and filter strips and that incidental, after 
     harvest grazing be better accommodated on these filter strips 
     and buffers.


                               background

       The Prairie Pothole Region of South Dakota, North Dakota, 
     Minnesota, Iowa and Montana is a unique region of diverse 
     wetlands on an agricultural, prairie landscape. Wetlands in 
     this region function as habitat for wildlife and they retain 
     runoff waters, sediments and pollutants. They interact with 
     ground water and they play a role in protection of the 
     quality and quantity of water used in homes, farms, ranches 
     and industry throughout the region and beyond.
       Most wetlands in the region are small, temporary wetlands. 
     They typically hold water for only a few weeks after spring 
     runoff and for short periods of time after heavy 
     precipitation events. Many non-depressional wetlands in the 
     region are the headwaters of major streams and rivers that 
     reach across the North American continent. When they are dry, 
     most temporary wetlands in agricultural fields are farmed.
       The Prairie Pothole Region is also a region of deep rich 
     soils and is recognized worldwide for its strong, diverse 
     agricultural industry and abundant wildlife resources, which 
     are second to none.
       For decades wetland interests have often differed with 
     agriculture and other development interests. While wetlands 
     are valuable to society for the functions they provide, the 
     cost of maintaining these values is often borne by those who 
     own or farm the land. In the Prairie Pothole Region, most of 
     the land is privately owned by farmers and ranchers, some 
     whom find wetlands to be a hindrance to the efficient use of 
     their land for cropping. In recent years they have been bound 
     by legislation which prevents them from converting wetlands 
     for agricultural development while retaining Federal farm 
     benefits.
       The USDA Conservation Reserve Program, established by the 
     Food Security Act of 1985, provides annual payments to 
     landowners who voluntarily retire qualifying lands from 
     agricultural production for 10 or 15 years. Later farm acts 
     provided for continuous CRP sign ups for environmentally 
     sensitive lands and lands that contribute to water quality 
     improvement such as riparian buffers and filter strips around 
     wetlands.
       In the Prairie Pothole Region, continuous sign up CRP for 
     filter strips and buffers has not been widely used. One major 
     obstacle to participation is that present USDA rules allow 
     enrollment of a buffer or filter strip around a wetland, but 
     have no provision for including the wetland acreage within 
     the buffer or filter strip to be enrolled for payment. While 
     this may be appropriate for lakes, rivers and deep permanent 
     wetlands, it is not a good fit for the small frequently 
     farmed wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region.
       In the prairie states, like elsewhere, farmers and ranchers 
     typically move livestock into harvested grain fields to feed 
     on waste grain and other crop residues. In fields where there 
     are CRP filter strips or buffers, livestock grazing after 
     harvest also graze the dormant grass of the filter strips and 
     buffers unless they are fenced out. To avoid the need for 
     this fencing, present USDA rules permit incidental grazing on 
     buffers and filter strips, in conjunction with after harvest 
     grazing of crop residues, for no more than two months. CRP 
     payments are reduced by 25% for years when such grazing takes 
     place.
       In many years, winter weather sets in soon after harvest is 
     complete and two months is an adequate time limit for after 
     harvest grazing and incidental filter strip and buffer 
     grazing. During open winters, however, when little or no snow 
     falls, crop residue grazing may take place for more than two 
     months. During these winters, incidental livestock use of 
     those portions of fields enrolled in CRP filter strips and 
     buffers could put the operator out of compliance with CRP 
     rules.
       Under the present rules, a person may enroll land around a 
     wetland in a filter strip or buffer, but the wetland within 
     must be excluded from the rental payment, even if that 
     wetland is one that is frequently farmed when dry and the 
     owner may be physically able to farm it, no payment is made 
     for the wetland acreage.
       To make the wetland protection measures of the continuous 
     sign up CRP wetland buffer and filter strips more effective, 
     USDA rules need to be changed so that frequently farmed 
     wetlands are included in the continuous sign up CRP program 
     in addition to the surrounding filter strip or buffer.


                            recommendations

       The partners recommend to the USDA that continuous sign up 
     CRP rules be amended to allow wetlands with a cropping 
     history, regardless of size, to be enrolled in the CRP along 
     with adequate buffers and filter strips to protect the 
     quality of water entering and leaving the enrolled wetlands. 
     We also recommend that restrictions on duration of incidental 
     grazing of filter strips and buffers, associated with after 
     harvest grazing, be removed and that payment rates be 
     adjusted for those years when grazing occurs.
       These rule changes will allow participating landowners to 
     realize a degree of compensation for income lost by leaving 
     these wetlands uncultivated when dry and will allow farm 
     operators to graze crop residues in certain years without 
     fencing out buffers and filer strips enrolled in continuous 
     enrollment CRP. This suggested change does not imply that 
     filter strip or buffer grazing be allowed during the growing 
     season, nor on other CRP acres.
       We further recommend that USDA modify their specifications 
     for filter strips around wetlands and buffer strips along 
     riparian areas to make them more compatible with today's 
     farming practices and machinery. We recommend that maximum 
     allowable widths of these strips be adjusted with 
     consideration for farmability of adjacent cropland and to 
     protect wetlands and enhance wildlife habitat.
       We recommend that USDA re-evaluate soil group rental 
     payments for wetlands, filter strips and buffers for the 
     continuous sign up CRP. Present rental rates do not 
     adequately address the true value of wetland soils which are 
     on the low end of rental payment schedules. Present soil 
     rental rates do not take into account severance factors 
     associated with the relatively small acreage that would be 
     enrolled in a wetland/filter strip continuous CRP.
       We recommend that selected members of the partner agencies 
     and organizations listed in this agreement shall have input 
     into USDA policy before final CRP rules are issued to assure 
     that these recommendations are considered.


      south dakota crp-wetlands agreement in principle signatories

       Roger Strom, Clay County Conservation District.
       Jerry Schmitz, Clay County Farm Bureau.
       Lloyd Jones, Delta Waterfowl Foundation.
       Jeff Nelson, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
       Jay Gilbertson, East Dakota Water Development District.
       Wes Hansen, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe.
       Ken Madison, Izaak Walton League, Kempeska Chapter.
       Chuck Clayton, Izaak Walton League, South Dakota Division.
       Darrell Raschke, James River Water Development District.
       Genevieve Thompson, National Audubon Society.
       Jeanie Chamness, Sierra Club, East River Group.
       John Davidson, Sierra Club, Living River Group.
       Gerald Thaden, South Dakota Association of Conservation 
     Districts.

[[Page S10913]]

       Ron Olson, South Dakota Corn Growers Association.
       Darrell Cruea, South Dakota Department of Agriculture.
       Nettie Myers, South Dakota Department of Environment and 
     Natural Resources.
       John Cooper, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 
     Parks.
       Michael Held, South Dakota Farm Bureau.
       Dennis Wiese, South Dakota Farmers Union.
       Ron Ogren, South Dakota Grassland Coalition.
       Don Marquart, South Dakota Lakes and Streams Association, 
     Inc.
       Mari Beth Baumberger, South Dakota Pork Producers Council.
       Lawrence Novotny, South Dakota Resources Coalition.
       Delbert Tschakert, South Dakota Soybean Association.
       Bart Blum, South Dakota Stockgrowers.
       Rick Vallery, South Dakota Wheat, Inc.
       Chris Hesla, South Dakota Wildlife Federation.
       Ron Schauer, Wildlife Society, South Dakota Chapter.
       Dennis Johnson, Turner County Conservation District.
       Carl Madsen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
       Amond Hanson, Vermillion Basin Water Development District.
       Lester Austin, Vermillion River Watershed Authority.
       David Hauschild, Central Planes Water Development District 
     and South Dakota Water Congress.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, given that over thirty groups and several 
more individuals were active participants in this historic agreement in 
South Dakota--it is impossible to aptly recognize every single one that 
deserves credit for this achievement. However, I cannot overlook the 
efforts of two real champions of this agreement and pilot project--two 
individuals who worked closely with me to make sure their idea 
developed from a South Dakota agreement to a six-state pilot project 
that the 106th Congress enacted and that the President will sign into 
law.
  Paul Shubeck, a Centerville, South Dakota farmer and Carl Madsen, a 
Brookings, South Dakota private lands coordinator for the Fish and 
Wildlife Service developed this plan and helped negotiate its path 
through Congress.
  Paul Shubeck greatly impressed me with his ability to shepherd this 
proposal, not only within a diverse coalition of South Dakota groups 
who normally do not tend to agree on wetlands matters, but also at the 
national level where he consistently advocated on behalf of the 
American family farmer who just wants a chance to produce a crop on his 
land and protect the environment all at the same time. Paul's drive and 
ability to compromise were key to the success of our pilot project.
  Carl Madsen was a real source of passion for this project and 
provided us with a sense for the big picture--how our pilot would and 
could work in South Dakota and other parts of the United States. Carl's 
deep knowledge of wetlands and conservation policy provided us with 
critical technical assistance to ensure this pilot project was a 
credible, practical program.
  Many, many more individuals and groups in South Dakota and the United 
States provided direct assistance to this effort Mr. President, and I 
want them all to know I am deeply grateful.
  Earlier this year Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I urged 
Secretary Dan Glickman and the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) to implement the South Dakota agreement in principle on an 
administrative basis. While USDA was supportive of the concept, they 
were reluctant to implement such a program without a clearer 
understanding of the purpose and implications of the program.
  In response, on July 7, I brought a top USDA official to a farm near 
Renner, South Dakota where we met with several groups and individuals 
to discuss how to conserve these critical wetlands yet compensate 
farmers for taking the wetlands out of crop production. It was there 
that some suggested a pilot project would be the best route to take. 
Then, on July 27, Senator Daschle and I introduced S. 2980 to create a 
South Dakota pilot project permitting up to 150,000 acres of farmable 
wetlands into CRP.
  Once S. 2980 was introduced, national conservation, wildlife, and 
farm organizations took interest and requested that we expand the pilot 
to cover more than South Dakota. The proposal adopted by Congress is 
the result of weeks of negotiations between Senator Daschle, myself, 
USDA, Senator Lugar who serves as the Chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, and several national groups who now support the 
pilot. The changes resulted in expanding this program to the Prairie 
Pothole Region of the United States, including South Dakota, North 
Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Montana. It is limited to 
500,000 acres in those states, with an assurance that access be 
distributed fairly among interested CRP participants.
  I truly believe this pilot project will provide landowners an 
alternative to farming these highly sensitive wetlands in order to 
achieve a number of benefits including; improved water quality, reduced 
soil erosion, enhanced wildlife habitat, preserved biodiversity, flood 
control, less wetland drainage, economic compensation for landowners 
for protecting the sensitive wetlands, and diminished divisiveness over 
wetlands issues.
  Moreover, the pilot project is consistent with the purpose of CRP, 
and, if successful, could serve as a model for future farm policy as we 
look toward the next farm bill. I believe Congress will be unable to 
develop a future farm bill without the support of those in the 
conservation and wildlife community. I am a strong supporter of 
conservation programs that protect sensitive soil and water resources, 
promote wildlife habitat, and provide farmers and landowners with 
benefits and incentives to conserve land. I have introduced the Flex 
Fallow Farm Bill Amendment to achieve some of these objectives. It is 
my hope that the success on our pilot project can serve as a model to 
once again bring conservation groups together with farm interests in 
order to develop a well-balanced approach to future farm policy that 
protects our resources while promoting family-farm agriculture.
  Finally, I fully understand the successful adoption of this wetlands 
pilot project--no matter how important--will not put an end to the 
ongoing debate over the management of wetlands on farmland. Yet, I 
really hope that everyone engaged in the debate considers how effective 
we can be when we cooperate and compromise on this important issue.

                          ____________________