[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10460-S10461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1527. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to extend and 
improve the environmental quality incentive program; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of a 
bill that would amend and extend the Environmental Quality Improvement 
Program, EQIP, to make it more user friendly, and to make it more 
effective in it's on-the-ground implementation.
  EQIP is a voluntary, Federal cost share program administered by the 
United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, NRCS, and Farm Service Agency, FSA. The program 
was created to assist farmers and ranchers in implementing conservation 
management programs on private lands, lands that not only serve as the 
backbone of our Nation's food supplies but which also provide important 
habitat for America's wildlife, including many endangered species. It 
does this by providing technical, financial, and educational assistance 
to farmers and ranchers as they make capital improvements in irrigation 
and other water systems, address a wide variety of conservation 
problems, provide flood plain protection, support grazing lands 
conservation, and facilitate wildlife habitat protection programs.
  When everything works right, EQIP provides a tremendous benefit to 
producers and the environment. One example of this can be found in an 
EQIP-funded project underway in central Wyoming. This project, known 
locally as the Sand Mesa project, is allowing a group of Wyoming 
farmers to increase irrigation efficiency while also reducing pumping 
costs. They are doing this by replacing an aging canal system with a 
gravity-flow pipeline.
  Under the old system, the open air canals lost a lot of water to 
seepage and evaporation. The water savings from the new pipeline has 
turned out to be critically important in years, like this one, where 
drought is so prevalent in the West. The 14 miles of pipeline replaced 
11 miles of open canal and committed 5,000 acre feet of water for 
existing wetlands. In the first year alone the new system saved at 
least 22,000 acre feet of water. This translates into that much more 
water being available in Bull Lake and Wind River for other uses. The 
gravity-flow pressure is also adequate to eventually run all 36 
irrigation pivots on the new system, which will result in an even 
greater water savings.
  Why did this project work out so well? It wasn't because Washington, 
DC bureaucrats stepped in and told the community the best things to do 
with their money.
  Sand Mesa is a combined effort that unites the knowledge of local 
farmers with local technical experts who together are able to turn 
Wyoming's desert into fertile farmland. Together, the farmers and the 
technicians are designing a conservation and financial

[[Page S10461]]

plan that will allow them to make the most out of their limited 
environmental and financial resources.
  The inclusion of local expertise in establishing program priorities 
is one of EQIP's strongest assets. Local working groups are made up of 
individuals who represent a wide range of interests. The groups are 
made up of farmers, ranchers, representatives from conservation 
districts, agricultural organizations, environmental groups, Native 
Americans, and other local, state and federal agencies.
  Along with the State Advisory Committees, local work groups have made 
a conscientious effort to make sure limited EQIP dollars are put to 
their best use. They have not always been successful. The only existing 
authority these groups have is in identifying priority areas that may, 
if Washington, DC bureaucrats decide, receive funding. The result of 
this allocation structure is that funds are not always equitably 
distributed.
  In 1999 a group of my constituents in Powell, WY approached me with 
serious concerns about the way EQIP regulations took authority away 
from local experts. EQIP was created as a part of the 1996 Farm Bill. 
In establishing EQIP, the Farm Bill terminated four previously existing 
cost share, conservation programs and replaced them with the new 
program. The terminated programs had relied heavily on local input to 
manage all aspects of implementation. Because of this history producers 
had come to expect local expertise to play a bigger role in the new 
program. EQIP regulations, however, consolidated the decision making 
process at the Federal level and left out local input.
  My consitutents were concerned that an unusually large percentage of 
new EQIP dollars were being directed to applicants who did not 
necessarily require federal assistance to complete conservation 
improvements, while smaller, family-owned producers, who could 
sincerely benefit from the program, were being overlooked. Their fears 
were that funding decisions were determined more by politics and grant 
writing ability than by the greatest need or ability to maximize 
environmental benefit per dollar expended.

  In response to their concerns, I wrote a letter to former Secretary 
of Agriculture Dan Glickman and asked for his help in correcting these 
inequities. He forwarded my request to the Wyoming NRCS offices where 
NRCS Wyoming State Director Ed Burton organized a team that reviewed 
the EQIP allocation process. This team identified a number of 
legislative and administrative actions which, if they are followed, 
would ensure the program's most effective implementation.
  This bill is the result of their efforts. The bill addresses four 
areas that the Wyoming review team noted would require specific 
legislative fixes. First, the bill increases allocation flexibility by 
defining the phrase ``maximize environmental benefits per dollar 
expended'' in a way that gives the Secretary of Agriculture the ability 
to consult with local working groups in deciding what are the best ways 
to guarantee that limited EQIP funds can be directed to those ranchers 
and farmers who can provide the most effective use of the program's 
cost share program. The bill would simplify and streamline the current 
process to make the program less time consuming to field office staff, 
and less frustrating to producers.
  The bill also would allow farmers and ranchers the flexibility to use 
EQIP funds when they are needed most. Too often weather conditions or 
other unrelated reasons make it impossible for eligible applicants to 
conform to Federal fiscal calendars. By allowing funds to be available 
until expended, this bill would keep program dollars available on a 
real-world schedule and would allow producers to receive cost share 
dollars at current costs and not at the rate in effect when the 
contract was written.
  The third change this bill would make is to adjust the program to 
allow contracts from three to ten years. Current EQIP requirements 
allow five to ten year contracts only. EQIP payments are limited 
generally to $10,000 per person annually, and $50,000 over the 5 to 10 
year life of the contract. This is often much more than is required by 
farmers and could place an undue hardship on producers who do not have 
the ability or the desire to enter into long-term contracts. Three to 
ten year contracts, based on the producer's conservation plan, would 
allow greater flexibility to implement resource management systems.
  Finally, the bill would allow producers who are ready to begin work 
in the first year of the contract to immediately receive contract 
payments. Many producers who apply for EQIP are ready to install 
practices as soon as the contract is approved. Under current law, if 
practices are installed in the same year the contract is written, the 
producer must wait until the next fiscal year for their first payment. 
This delay can cause undue financial hardship, especially in an 
industry where cash flow is severely limited.
  I am proud of the efforts of the people in my State to make this 
program better and more efficient. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this bill and to support our farmers in their work to feed the world.
                                 ______