Complete list of press releases
WEST VIRIGINIA: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows West Virginia Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in West Virginia would receive $18,037,253 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For West Virginia’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
WASHINGTON: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Washington Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Washington would receive $10,968,581 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Washington’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
VIRGINIA: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Virginia Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Virginia would receive $18,575,900 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Virginia’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
VERMONT: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Vermont Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Vermont would receive $8,283,516 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Vermont’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
UTAH: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Utah Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Utah would receive $24,358,434 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Utah’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
TENNESSEE: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Tennessee Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Tennessee would receive $8,675,993 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.orgBased upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Tennessee’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
SOUTH CAROLINA: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows South Carolina Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in South Carolina would receive $10,279,307 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For South Carolina’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
RHODE ISLAND: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Rhode Island Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Rhode Island would receive $1,279,274 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Rhode Island’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
PENNSYLVANIA: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Pennsylvania Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Pennsylvania would receive $12,920,165 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Pennsylvania’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
OREGON: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Oregon Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Oregon would receive $17,730,402 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Oregon’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
OKLAHOMA: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Oklahoma Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in Oklahoma would receive $1,949,912 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For Oklahoma’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
NORTH CAROLINA: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows North Carolina Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in North Carolina would receive $33,392,817 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For North Carolina’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
NEW YORK: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows New York Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in New York would receive $18,785,058 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For New York’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
NEW MEXICO: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows New Mexico Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in New Mexico would receive $17,338,705 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For New Mexico’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.
NEW JERSEY: As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows New Jersey Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.orgSharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in New Jersey would receive $2,470,688 more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payments - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as USDA data shows they are doing this year. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For New Jersey’s two senators, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
Alabama$27,947,656Alaska$1,326,730Arizona$9,921,190California$10,922,894Colorado$20,326,568Connecticut$3,057,138Delaware$3,645,395Florida$26,021,150Georgia$13,223,343Hawaii$4,101,699Idaho$8,624,625Kentucky$17,716,677Maine$13,534,158Maryland$5,113,399Massachusetts$4,117,188Michigan$925,796Mississippi$4,758,553Missouri$5,979,201Montana$18,509,533Nevada$7,785,134New Hampshire$3,371,618New Jersey$2,470,688New Mexico$17,338,705New York$18,785,058North Carolina$33,392,817Oklahoma$1,949,912Oregon$17,730,402Pennsylvania$12,920,165Rhode Island$1,279,274South Carolina$10,279,307Tennessee$8,675,993Utah$24,358,434Vermont$8,283,516Virginia$18,575,900Washington$10,968,581West Virginia$18,037,253Wyoming$21,295,176For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.