A look at conservation in the 2002 Farm Bill

By Brad Redlin
Center for Rural Affairs

Much has been made of the expected 80 percent increase in conservation spending allocated in the 2002 Farm Bill (now Public Law 107-171). Although some controversy has surfaced as to whether the statement is an impressive fact, or merely a clever spin (as a percentage of overall spending, this bill's conservation spending is actually lower than that of previous bills). Debate over the legislation's orientation might best be placed in the "what's-done-is-done" category as we move on to assess the details.

Specifically, the numbers for the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Title II, end up as a $9 billion increase over current program spending for a total of $17.1 billion from the 10-year allocation of federal funding for agriculture. It is also noteworthy that conservation spending since 1985 has so heavily shifted to land retirement that just 7 percent of current total costs are for working lands. The shift in costs over the six-year life of the new bill is projected to raise that total to 40 percent.

Increases do, in fact, abound in the new conservation title, but just two programs have the greatest potential to impact U.S. agriculture in dramatic terms. The new Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the radically transformed Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) could invite lasting change to farm country, but they are anything but complementary.

Green payments

For the first time in history, federal farm law contains a program consisting of "green" payments. The CSP provides incentive payments to agriculture producers who adopt and maintain conservation practices on working lands. Rather than traditional federal programs that base payments on crop production, and thereby provide an incentive to overproduce, this new program pays on practice rather than production. Both existing and new conservation practices on any farm and ranch are eligible for this three-tiered system of increasing rewards for increasing environmental management. Additionally, a program based on conservation practices is not subject to any restrictions or limitations under international trade agreements.

Perhaps the greatest victory achieved by CSP supporters was the designation of the program as an entitlement program. This unexpected but dearly sought outcome means that funds must be there for any farmer or rancher who voluntarily enters into a CSP contract. Unlike what has become characteristic of so many conservation programs, no waiting lists or empty budgets will stand in the way of good intentions.

Theoretically, this could make the budgeted $2 billion grow larger in actual application. But for many supporters such an occurrence would be welcome evidence of the viability of revamping all farm policy in the future. While CSP is yet a still-forming first step, it is a vehicle that could demonstrate a better way than traditional, big-producer biased, commodity-based supports.

Opening the door

EQIP has long been a productive and popular program, so popular that its allocations were so routinely exhausted that just one in five who qualified for a contract actually received one. An increase in funding was the goal of all, but the bump in the budget from the current $2 million to an eventual $1.3 billion annually was not the only change. Most prominent was the removal of the restriction on confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) receiving EQIP dollars for building waste storage structures.

In combination with this open door for factory farms came the rewriting of EQIP payment limitations. Previously the cap for a minimum five-year contract was $50,000, the new rules change the five-year minimum to one year and set the maximum payment limit at $450,000 for any entity obtaining one or multiple contracts between now and 2007. So where CAFOs previously were not eligible for any money, they may now receive upwards of half a million dollars of taxpayer funding to cover a basic business expense.

And so we have a conflicted conservation title. But where the policy seems to strike out in opposite directions, the gravest concern focuses on which side will progress the furthest.

NOTE: Brad Redlin is a federal policy analyst at the Center for Rural Affairs located at Walthill, Nebraska. He can be reached at (402) 846-5428 or by e-mail, bradr@cfra.org.