SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 3102 words

COMMITTEE: SENATE AGRICULTURE,NUTRITION & FORESTRY

HEADLINE: 2002 FARM BILL

TESTIMONY-BY: ROBERT L. EDDLEMAN,, PRESIDENT ELECT

AFFILIATION: SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY

BODY:
July 31, 2001

Statement of Robert L. Eddleman, President Elect

Soil and Water Conservation Society

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

U. S. SENATE

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar and distinguished members of the committee, it is indeed a pleasure to come before you to talk about the important issue of conservation in the next farm bill. Next week, I will begin a term as President of the Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS). I am also fortunate to serve as a Supervisor of the Marion County Soil and Water Conservation District and on the Council of the Hoosier Heartland Resource and Conservation and Development Area in Indiana. My commitment to care of the land and other natural resources began when local USDA technicians helped my father develop a conservation plan for our erosion scarred Southern Indiana farm and continued in 4-H club and FFA work. It has continued through a career in soil and water conservation and my current efforts in retirement. My knowledge of the farm and producing food began during the recovery period following the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. I remember the large gullies and acres and acres of land laid to waste by soil erosion. I have experienced sitting in the seat of a 1940s farm tractor as it sled into a gully as I tried to shape it into a grassed waterway. I have witnessed the miraculous recovery of those same acres as a result of the cooperation and effort made by government, educational institutions, farm organizations, conservation groups and Soil and Water Conservation Districts. You will recall that Mr. Craig Cox, Executive Vice President of the Society, met with you on March 1 and June 28, 2001 and discussed the Seeking Common Ground For Conservation project being carried out by SWCS to help stakeholders and policymakers shape the conservation provisions for the 2002 farm bill. I do not intend to repeat his testimony today but will build on a few of the key recommendations to come out of the effort. During that testimony Mr. Cox stressed that the goal of the next farm bill should be to add balance to conservation policy that relies too heavily on programs that take land out of production and a farm policy that relies too heavily on supporting the income of a minority of farmers who produce a handful of subsidized commodities.

Since his testimony, the Society has completed the Seeking Common Ground Report - An Agricultural Conservation Policy Report. You have received copies of the Report for detailed study. The report contains 22 recommendations. These recommendations are based on the results of five regional workshops attended by a similar number of agricultural, fish and wildlife and water resources organizations. Participants were asked to develop specific recommendations for reform of conservation and farm policy that would help get conservation on the ground. The final recommendations are the Society's, based on the input from the workshops and deliberations from a policy advisory group. The recommendations represent our best judgment of the policy reforms that hold the most promise for addressing the hopes and concerns raised in the workshops.

Conservation entered farm policy in the 1930s during a time of crisis - economic and ecologic. The role of conservation then was largely to serve agriculture by developing and managing soil and water resources as a means of enhancing agricultural production and rural development. The resulting victory over widespread waste and degradation of our land and water resources is among our most significant accomplishments of modern conservation. That victory is now largely overlooked, forgotten and not even known by many. The challenge for agriculture and conservation has changed but is still large. Environmental performance is becoming a key determinant of the commercial viability of agriculture. Producers operating animal feeding operations or irrigating cropland or pasture are facing fundamental questions about the environmental sustainability of their operations.

Agriculture cannot escape the consequences of its environmental effects anymore than agriculture could escape the effect of land degradation in the 1930s. That is not because agriculture is bad, but because it is big and complex. Existing conservation programs and policy can meet this new challenge just as the challenge of the 1930s was met. But they must be updated and dramatically strengthened. Participants at our workshops agreed, almost unanimously, that expanding the reach of existing USDA conservation programs was the first priority to overcome the conservation assistance gap and should be the minimum expected from legislative action in the next farm bill. A combination of increased funding and programmatic reforms were recommended to achieve this objective with increased funding being the most important factor by far.

I'd like to focus my remarks on our first goal - focusing assistance on working land - and what that means for conservation policy in the next farm bill.

Technical Services

Shifting the focus to working land means technical services - research, education, technical assistance - has to become a much more important component of our conservation programming. Conservation on working land is much more complex than simply taking land out of production. The Conservation Reserve Program, for example, entails only 26 conservation practices nationwide. While in my state alone, Indiana, there are over 200 individual conservation and management practices that need to be integrated into conservation systems that keep land and farms in production but in a more environmentally sound way.

We recommend that funding for USDA's existing agricultural conservation programs be doubled to $5 billion annually, with most of that money going to technical services and financial assistance to working land - double funding for technical services, triple funding for financial assistance on working land, increase funding for land retirement and restoration by 30 percent.

Weakness in this nation's technical services infrastructure is the single greatest impediment to meeting the conservation needs of landowners and the public's desire for environmental quality. Conservation at its heart is ecological and economic knowledge applied to the design and management of farm and ranch systems. Ultimately, farmers and ranchers do conservation - public programs do not. Timely, accurate and appropriate advice and information from technically trained advisors in the public and/or private sector is the key to successful conservation. Without it, financial aid is likely to be wasted or, worse, misdirected. In many cases good technical advice alone is all that is needed to help producers implement conservation systems that promote economic as well as environmental returns. Substantial progress could be made, even with no financial aid, if the right information and knowledge were available to producer, along with some assurance that technical support would be there when they need it.

Dealing with the cost of conservation only makes sense after the producer understands what needs to be done and how the conservation system will work in tandem with his or her production system and goals.

Our report recommends that since technical assistance is at the heart of working land conservation, that at a minimum, the new farm bill fix the section 11 cap on technical assistance and mandate that every conservation financial assistance program pay its way for technical assistance. That currently is not the case. In my home two county work team area, two technicians are dealing with nearly 350 grassed waterway and filter strip projects on a daily basis and are of necessity ignoring many other conservation concerns of producers. The same situation occurs across the nation.

We think this issue is so critical that we recommend Congress ask the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive plan that outlines an investment plan for Congress and the nation to ensure farmers and ranchers have direct access to the technical assistance they need from all appropriate sources. Too often, we think of technical assistances as simply a cost of delivering financial assistance - that is wrong. We need to think of and invest in technical services as the fundamental conservation program in its own right. I recall the local technicians coming to our farm and helping my father understand the background to the erosion scars on our land and how soil conservation practices and basic plant management techniques could heal those scars and make the land productive and profitable. The opportunity to do that in today's environment of rushing to install financial assistance programs prevents that from happening and the result is more costly and less effective conservation and environmental benefits.

I am sorry to say that the bill passed last week in the House Committee takes us in the wrong direction. If passed, that bill would reduce farmer and ranchers access to the science-based assistance they need, rather that expand it. And it would cut into critical science and technology infrastructure on which all conservation programs depend. Although we applaud the increased funding of conservation programs, particularly the increase in EQIP, the bill contains several provisions that reduce the benefits taxpayers and agriculture should reap from the increased spending. The two most troubling provisions include -

1. Moving EQIP and other conservation programs under the control of FSA. We think this in poor conservation policy. Conservation programs should be in the hands of the scientists, technicians and policy makers with the background and experience to base conservation policy and programs on sound science. Such a provision opens wounds that in most parts of the country are healing since the last farm bill. Arguing over turf just distracts us from our real job of getting conservation on the ground. It doesn't serve farmers or taxpayers well.

2. Cutting the CCC funding that can be used to provide technical assistance to implement CCC funded conservation programs takes us in exactly the opposite direction we recommend in our report. The funding caps in the house committee bill cut technical assistance funds significantly from current levels. As I said in my remarks, technical assistance is not just the cost of delivering the financial assistance to the farmer; it is the essence and heart of conservation. Technical assistance should be the horse that delivers the financial assistance cart.

A sound conservation title requires more money and better policy. The house bill provides more money but not better policy. I encourage you to correct this.

Financial Assistance to Working Land

There are three basic compartments in the conservation tool box: (1) technical services - research, education and technical assistance - that we have talked about; (2) financial assistance on working land - integrating conservation into the food and fiber production system used by farmers and ranchers; (3) financial assistance for land retirement and restoration - shifting the primary focus on working land from food and fiber production to habitat restoration or protection of critical natural resources. Today, the toolbox is unbalanced. In 2000, land retirement and restoration accounted for 85 cents of every financial assistance dollar spent by USDA and most of that assistance went to crop producers in the Great Plains. Most of the new investment in conservation should be used to reach those producers who want to keep working the land, rather that retire it.

We also need to at least triple current funding that helps farmers integrate conservation practices into the production systems they use to grow our food and fiber. We need at least $1 billion dollars for programs like EQIP that help farmers produce a better environment at the same time they produce our food and fiber. But in addition to money, we need the authority to focus those dollars on the critical problems and most promising opportunities that will produce the most return to taxpayers who are footing the bill.

In my state, water quality is the most pressing concern, both for producers and taxpayers. This is the case in most parts of the country. We have the opportunity in the next farm bill to create the biggest, most effective, agricultural water quality program in the U.S. Programs like EQIP, if properly structured and complemented with the right technical assistance could prevent the need for taking regulatory action to address the legitimate concerns taxpayers have about the quality of their drinking water, the safety of their beaches, and the health of their streams, rivers, and lakes.

We think it would be a serious mistake to miss this opportunity.

Reform of conservation programs is our first priority, but most of the money going to working land goes through traditional farm programs themselves, not conservation programs. Unfortunately, those traditional programs don't do as much for conservation as they could or should. We think its time to add a new tool to farm programs--a tool that merges economic support with conservation-- that rewards farmers for good stewardship rather than for producing a particular commodity.

We recommend investing 3 billion dollars in a new farm and ranch based stewardship program that would pay farmers for their services as land, water, and wildlife managers. Unlike our conservation programs, this program would reward producers simply because they want to make a commitment to stewardship. It would, in a sense, level the playing field for good stewards by rewarding producers who are already doing a good job and want to do better, not just those that are facing a critical conservation problem or challenge.

Flexibility

Conservation is a national interest, but like health care and education, it depends on local leadership. State and local taxpayers, in several states invest more resources in conservation than USDA does. State and local leaders, whether they work in the private sector or in federal state, or local government agencies need greater authority over the way USDA programs operate in their states.

Because working land conservation is so much more complex and site specific than land retirement, flexibility in delivering assistance and implementing programs is essential. Each farm and ranch is different and needs tailored, high-quality assistance. We need to make sure we build into our conservation programs the flexibility to adjust their provisions to meet the needs of states and local communities. We recommend you consider building on the innovations in CREP to allow the secretary to enter into agreements with states to provide more flexibility under all conservation programs. Such state agreements could pull together all of our conservation programs and allow us to work with them as we do tools in a toolbox.

We need to make the needs of the land and the needs of the landowner the focus of conservation. Meeting those needs is what conservation planning and conservation technical assistance are all about. We recommend that producers conservation plans, not the rules and regulations for multiple programs, should be the driving force behind conservation. Making the plan the focus of conservation would simplify matter for producers and administrators, and would ensure a better return to taxpayers.

Specific recommendations we make concerning flexibility include:

Expand the state agreement approach used in CREP and WHIP to cover all USDA conservation financial assistance programs. Provide states that complete an approved comprehensive state conservation plan greater flexibility and more money to tailor USDA programs to their plans. Fund implementation of state plans in part by pooling a portion of the funds appropriated each year for all USDA conservation financial assistance programs into a Conservation Partnership Fund administered by USDA.

Strengthen and reform state technical committees and expand their authority to recommend modifications to rules, funding allocations and priorities for all USDA conservation programs.

Emphasize conservation-driven farm or ranch planning rather that program-driven planning, and make farmers and ranchers who complete an approved comprehensive farm or ranch plan automatically eligible for financial assistance simultaneously under multiple USDA conservation programs for appropriate practices in their plan.

Encourage states to develop and implement a "one-plan" approach to conservation on farms and ranches-make the one-plan an optional element of the comprehensive state conservation plan and make additional technical and financial assistance available from the USDA Conservation Partner Fund to states using the one-plan approach.

In closing, I'd like to complement you Mr. Chairman for your Conservation Security Act. We think the CSA is the most interesting proposal for reform of farm programs we have seen to date. I'd also like to thank Senator Lugar for his thoughtful work on the conservation title of the farm bill that we understand will be introduced as a bill soon. We have also reviewed the proposals introduced by Senator's Crapo, Thomas, Lincoln and Hutchison. It appears to us that this Committee has proposals in front of you that could be fashioned in to a farm bill that achieves the balance in farm and conservation policy that we think is so important. Take together, Mr. Chairman, the Conservation Security Act and Senator Lugar's working land legislation would address most of the recommendations for funding and reforms advocated by the Soil and Water Conservation Society. There are elements of all the other proposals in front of you that would add significantly to the farm bill that you will formulate.

We are very encouraged by the seriousness with which you are considering conservation and farm program reform. It is our fervent hope that the Senate Agriculture Committee will come together - as it has in the past - to fashion a coherent and credible conservation title. We are depending on your collective leadership.

I thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar and members of the Committee for inviting SWCS to testify today ant this important hearing. The farm bill will be the single most important conservation and environmental legislation before Congress in the next year. SWCS is anxious to help you in any way as you take on the task of protecting and enhancing America's working land.



LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2001