There is a lot to talk about following last Friday’s release of Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow’s draft Farm Bill, but hardly any time to talk about it. The bill is scheduled for mark-up tomorrow. Yes, that’s April 25. After the full mark-up, the Committee bill will move to the Senate floor for debate, probably sometime in May. We’ll have time, then, to do some thorough analysis. Today, however, we’ll try to give you a couple of bites to chew on, with accompanying actions to take. First up, conservation compliance.
What’s at stake?
In 1985, American taxpayers and farmers entered into a contract to provide a safety net for the country’s food producers in return for protection of critical natural resources. Known as “conservation compliance,” this policy requires farmers to follow conservation plans that limit soil erosion on highly erodible land as well as preventing destruction of wetlands and native grasslands. Farmers who willfully violate their conservation plans risk losing taxpayer funded benefits.
Today, this important connection is at risk. Taxpayer-funded subsidies for crop insurance are not currently linked to conservation compliance as they once were. In the current Farm Bill debate, Congress is considering eliminating Direct Payments, the major subsidy program that is linked to conservation compliance, and move some of those funds to support increased subsidies for crop insurance, which currently lacks compliance requirements. Unless Congress reconnects crop insurance subsidies to conservation compliance, a significant part of farmers’ incentive to follow conservation plans will disappear this year.
In order to ensure that the agricultural safety net works in harmony with conservation programs and responsible land uses, conservation compliance provisions should be strengthened and enforced.
Taking action
Congress must re-establish compliance requirements in order for farmers to be eligible for tax-payer funded subsides that help pay the cost of federal crop insurance as was required by the 1985 Farm Bill. This would ensure that all new crop and revenue insurance or other risk-management programs that make up a safety net for farmers do not incentivize environmental degradation.
Tell your Senator that you support a safety net for farmers as long as basic conservation practices that protect our soil and water are required. While crop insurance would still be available to farmers found to be out of compliance, NO taxpayer money should be used to reduce the premium costs for producers who drain wetlands or farm highly erodible soils without a conservation plan. Note: Phone lines are extremely busy on the hill today. Best to send an email or fax with your thoughts.
Suggested letter to be revised for your state:
Dear Senator [your senator]:
Because of the important role farmers play in our food system, taxpayers have supported a safety net for farmers for nearly 30 years, always in return for a guarantee that subsidized farmers will follow basic conservation practices in their fields.
As the Senate prepares to debate the Farm Bill in the Senate Agriculture Committee this week, I urge you to restore the link between taxpayer-supported subsidies for crop insurance and conservation compliance protections that will protect [your state here] water and land.
This action is especially important as Congress considers eliminating direct payments, the major subsidy program that is linked to conservation compliance, and moving some of those funds to support increased subsidies for crop insurance, which lacks compliance requirements. Unless you help to reconnect crop insurance subsidies to conservation compliance, a significant part of farmers’ incentive to follow conservation plans will disappear this year.
Farmers need crop insurance as part of their safety net and the public needs basic conservation practices on farms to make sure that quality farm land and water can support future generations as well as the current needs of our country. Conservation compliance in farming is absolutely essential to the continued prosperity of [your state here] agriculture, and to protect the productive capacity of our land.
Connecting eligibility for crop insurance subsidies to conservation compliance ensures public subsidies for farmer’s insurance premium payments align with the public’s interest in basic conservation of our soil and water.
Sincerely,
[your name]
[your address]
Senate Ag Committee Members:
