Farm Bill Conservation Title Shortchanges Environmental Stewardship

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Scott Faber, 202-230-1899, sfaber@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – May 22, 2007) - A proposal to renew USDA conservation programs provides too little funding to meet America’s environmental challenges, according to Environmental Defense, a national environmental organization.

“The conservation title considered today by the Conservation Subcommiteee of the House Agriculture Committee provides far too little funding to meet America’s most pressing environmental challenges,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “By failing to increase overall conservation spending, the committee’s proposal will perpetuate farm policies that reject — rather than reward — farmers and ranchers when they offer to share the cost of clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat.

Faber applauded Reps. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John Salazar (D-CO) and Steve Kagan (D-WI) for proposing amendments to increase conservation spending.

The conservation proposal considered today by the Conservation Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee would increase funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), but would make new funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) contingent upon a special reserve included in the budget resolution and would postpone new enrollments into the Conservation Security Program until 2012.

The proposal also includes important reforms to conservation programs, Faber said, including reforms to CSP that will simply the innovative conservation program and ensure it generates more new environmental benefits.

“This proposal includes promising ideas that have little promise of being implemented without significantly more funding,” Faber noted. “In particular, the House proposal reforms USDA’s two primary working lands incentives programs — the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) — to provide more environmental benefits and better reflect local environmental priorities, and the proposal promotes the use of ‘cooperative conservation’ agreements to bring local farmers together to meet local environmental challenges. While the committee’s proposal provides a road map to a healthier environment, the bill provides too little fuel to reach the destination.”

“In particular, the proposal provides far too little funding for CSP and no mandatory funding for programs to restore lost wetlands and grasslands,” added Faber. “The next Farm Bill should make CSP available to all farmers who meet high environmental standards, should expand the Wetlands and Grassland reserve programs, should expand the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and should provide more resources to improve air quality.”

“Farmers and ranchers manage more than half of the American landscape, so agriculture has a dramatic impact on America’s air and water quality, the pace of sprawl, and the fate of our rare species,” said Faber. “Expanding and improving USDA conservation programs will not only help the environment but will help many more farmers and regions receive their share of federal farm spending.”

“Today, two out of three farmers who offer to provide a healthier environment are turned away because of our misplaced spending priorities,” concluded Faber. “By failing to provide more resources for voluntary USDA conservation programs, this proposal would do little to address the nation’s $3 billion conservation backlog.”