SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1961 words

COMMITTEE: SENATE AGRICULTURE,NUTRITION & FORESTRY

HEADLINE: 2002 FARM BILL

TESTIMONY-BY: GEORGE DUNKLIN, JR., RICE FARMER

AFFILIATION: DEWITT ARKANSAS

BODY:
July 31, 2001

Statement of George Dunklin, Jr. Rice Farmer, DeWitt Arkansas

Before

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee

United States Senate

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is George Dunklin, Jr. I am a rice farmer from DeWitt, Arkansas. I am also a conservation expert and the soil, water and wildlife habitat conservation practices that I employ in my farming operation have been the subject of numerous journal articles.

I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today on behalf of the U.S. Rice Producers' Group, a charter member of the USA Rice Federation. I serve on the Conservation Committee of the U.S. Rice Producers' Group. USA Rice represents all segments of the U.S. rice industry through its charter members - the U.S. Rice Producers' Group, Rice Millers' Association and USA Rice Council. Through As USA Rice, producers, millers and allied industries are working together to address common challenges, advocate collective interests, and create opportunities to strengthen the long-term economic viability of the industry. The U.S. Rice Producers' Group Conservation Committee is comprised of rice producers and conservation technical experts from all six rice- producing states. The Rice Millers' Association also endorses this testimony. Economic Background Situation

Mr. Chairman, before I turn to the conservation issues at hand, I would like to address the state of the farm economy in the United States today. We recognize that you and the members of your committee are fully aware of the critical economic situation faced by U.S. agriculture today. I would like to thank the Committee for your support for the recent budget resolution, increasing the agriculture budget baseline and providing sufficient budgetary resources to provide additional economic assistance for crop years 2001 and 2002 and beyond, if necessary. I also thank you for authorizing the supplemental AMTA payments for the current crop year.

U.S. agriculture in general, and rice producers in particular, are facing continued low prices and declining income. Prices for energy-related products, including fuel, natural gas and fertilizer, have increased substantially, placing rice producers in a further cost-price squeeze. This is occurring while aggregate rice exports remain stagnant and farmers face growing costs due to increased environmental and pesticide use regulations.

Negative cash flow projections have caused bankers to reduce or even refuse credit for spring rice planting. This hesitancy on the part of lenders is not unfounded. Our economic analyses indicate that rice is the only major commodity for which net market returns after variable costs for the 2001 crop will be negative, if government payments are excluded.

In short, if Congress had not provided rice producers with further immediate assistance, consideration of any long-term farm policy would have been in all likelihood unnecessary for many rice farmers who would be forced out of business before the new farm policy can take effect.

Conservation

Mr. Chairman, rice producers play an important role in conservation and stewardship of working lands. For example, winter and growing season-flooded rice fields provide important habitats for migratory waterfowl, shore birds and other wetland dependent species. Rice growers currently provide about 775,000 acres of enhanced waterfowl, shore bird and wildlife habitat at their own expense. That area is equal to twenty five percent of the total area planted to rice in the United States. Attached to my testimony are further examples of best management practices that address improving soil, water and air quality as well as improving wildlife habitat.

Mr. Chairman, we recommend that your committee adhere the U.S. Rice Producer's Group has proposed the following conservation policy guidelines that rice producer representatives from each of the six rice-producing states have endorsed:

(1) Support for existing programs including the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, conservation technical assistance, etc. and maintaining existing funding for these programs. However, new conservation funding should be targeted towards land that is in production or considered in production.

(2) Support for funding and maintenance costs not only for practices already being implemented that enhance the environment, but also additional practices that may be encouraged through higher payments.

(3) There should be no payment limitations on conservation program payments.

(4) Compensation for conservation practices will in no way be a substitute for existing or future farm safety net programs including production flexibility contract payments, marketing loan gain/loan deficiency payments, counter cyclical program payments, or any other farm income support payment program.

(5) All conservation payment programs will be voluntary and incentive-driven.

(6) Any measure of the environmental benefit of conservation practices compensated for under a conservation program will be science-based.

(7) Conservation programs should clearly enhance the rural economy and maintain property rights.

(8) Conservation programs should be WTO consistent and should be designed and implemented to be defined as "Green Box" measures.

(9) Conservation programs should be administered primarily at the local level, with primary administrative oversight exercised by the Farm Service Agency, with technical support from the National Resource Conservation Service and State Advisory Committees. Any new conservation program advisory committees should be comprised primarily of agricultural producers.

Winter and growing season-flooded rice fields provide important habitats for migratory waterfowl, shore birds and other wetland dependent species. Rice growers currently provide about 775,000 acres of enhanced waterfowl, shore bird and wildlife habitat at their own expense.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that these principles are equitable and well reasoned and should form the building blocks for the conservation title of the new farm bill.

The new farm bill should encourage producers to establish and maintain wildlife habitat by offering incentive payments to farmers who voluntarily implement certain approved practices. These environmental/conservation payments should be in addition to, and not as a substitute for, other income support provided under the new legislation.

Payments should be made available not only to producers who begin to invest in such habitat protection, but also to those who have already implemented important wildlife habitat protection initiatives.

Rice producers support maintaining existing funding for our existing conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, and conservation technical assistance. However, we believe that new conservation funding should be targeted towards land that is in production or considered in production. In addition we support funding and maintenance costs not only for practices already being implemented that enhance the environment, but also additional practices that may be encouraged through higher payments.

We believe that all conservation payment programs need to be voluntary and incentive-driven. These payments should be based on science-based best management practices that can demonstrate environmental benefits., and that compensation for conservation practices should in no way be a substitute for existing or future farm safety net programs. As such, we do not support the increase in funding to fund increased enrollments in CRP proposed in the Concept Paper.

In order to strike a better balance between conservation dollars devoted to retiring land vs. working land we do not support increasing the Conservation Reserve Program from its current level of 36.4 million acres. We would instead prefer that such increased conservation funding be targeted to production-based, incentive-driven payments to producers, rather than to increased land-idling payments.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that a careful balance must be struck between expenditures for payments to farmers under the farm income safety net and expenditures for conservation payments made under various existing and potential conservation programs. We urge you and members of the committee to recognize that both paths of federal support for farmers serve critical needs for the United States: the farm income safety net ensures a plentiful, low cost supply of food and fiber for not only the United States but food security for the rest of the world as well. Conservation programs can also provide for important societal benefits in the form of clean water, clean air, soil and forest conservation, improved wildlife habitat and species preservation.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we sincerely appreciate your leadership in drafting a conservation title of the next farm bill that helps producers to increase the conservation and environmental benefits in America. We look forward to working with you and members of the committee as you develop forward-looking conservation proposals in the new farm bill. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Attachment I:

Summary of Rice Production Conservation Measures

Type of Practices Environmental Benefits Water Management Practices Efficiency Measures Return Flows/Tailwater Recovery Systems Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife Drill Seeding/Reduced "Pre- Seeding" Use Water, Energy Zero-Grade Systems/Laser Leveling Water, Energy, Soil New Varieties (Reduced Water Demand) Water, Energy Underground Piping Water, Energy, Soil Permanent Outside Containment Structures Water, Energy, Soil Conservation Holding Periods Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife Water Control Structures Water, Energy Aquifer Recharge/Replenishment Water, Energy, Land Concrete-Lined Ditches Water, Energy, Soil Quality Protection Return Flows/Tailwater Recovery Systems Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife Pesticide Use Reduction Water, Air, Fish, Wildlife Pesticides Ground Applications (vs. Aerial) Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife, Air Conditionally Restricted Applications Fish, Wildlife, Air Filter Strips Water, Soil, Fish, Wildlife Pesticide Management Holding Periods Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife Supply Aquifer Recharge/Replenishment Water, Energy, Land Reservoirs Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife Delivery Systems Improvements Water, Energy Return Flows/Tailwater Recovery Systems Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife Monitoring Pesticide Loading Fish, Wildlife, Water, Air Pest Trapping Fish, Wildlife, Water, Air Flow Evaluation Water, Energy, Fish, Wildlife Soil Management Practices Erosion Minimization Measures Non-Tillage Practices Soil, Energy, Air, Wildlife Flooding (Growing Season and Winter) Soil, Air, Wildlife Straw Incorporation into Soil Soil, Air, Wildlife Revegetation of Sloughs, Ditches, Borders Soil, Wildlife Nutrient Management Measures Straw Incorporation into Soil Soil, Air, Wildlife Winter Flooding Soil, Air, Wildlife Burning Soil Air Quality Management Practices Residue Disposal/Use Measures Straw Incorporation into Soil (vs. Burning) Soil, Air, Wildlife Cutting and Baling (vs. Burning) Soil, Air, Natural Resource, Energy Smoke Emissions Monitoring Air Burning Plans (Smarter Burning Decisions) Air Smarter Burning Techniques Air Particulate Emissions (Diesel Exhaust and Soil) Measures Non-Tillage Practices Soil, Energy, Air, Wildlife Cleaner-Burning Farm Equipment Air, Energy Zero-Emission Equipment (Electrification) Air, Energy



LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2001