The Atlanta Journal and Constitution | August 16, 2001 | By Bob Dart
Washington -- A bipartisan group of lawmakers from the cities and suburbs wants the federal government to help farmers stay in business rather than sell their land to developers.
The House coalition has proposed changes to the new 10-year Farm Bill that would switch some federal funds from traditional crop subsidies into conservation programs. The change would reward small farmers for fighting the sprawl of subdivisions and shopping malls.
For the past decade, 360 new people a day have arrived in metro Atlanta, building on the region's reputation as the most sprawling city in the country. During that time, the population of the region jumped to 4.1 million people, according to the 2000 census.
Horse farms and agricultural acres on the suburban fringe have been converted into subdivisions, apartment complexes and shopping centers to meet the demands of the newcomers. Many of the new developments pay homage to the places they displaced, with names that include such words as "plantation" or "forest."
When Congress returns from its August recess, debate will resume on the sweeping legislation that will set federal agriculture policy and cost taxpayers an estimated $171 billion over the next decade. Technically, current farm policy expires at the end of September.
The 1996 Farm Bill, dubbed the "Freedom to Farm" legislation, was supposed to wean farmers from federal subsidies. But Congress responded when prices for corn, wheat and other commodities declined and farmers were hit with droughts and floods. Federal farm program payments grew to $19 billion in 1999 and to a record $32 billion in 2000.
Uneven distribution of funds
Federal funds are not distributed evenly to all farmers, however. Traditional subsidies go only to growers of "commodities," including grains, soybeans and cotton. No federal subsidies or price supports go to farmers who grow fruits and vegetables or who raise livestock.
While there are no direct subsidies for peanuts, tobacco and sugar cane or beets, those growers are effectively guaranteed a base price through federal controls on production. Dairy farmers are protected through federally enforced regional compacts.
Just 15 states get 74 percent of all U.S. Department of Agriculture spending, said Scott Faber, a spokesman for Environmental Defense, a group seeking more federal funding for conservation. Many of these states are sparsely populated but are home to large commodity growers.
But these states also wield disproportionate power on Capitol Hill and include the Democratic and Republican leaders of both the House and Senate, from Missouri, South Dakota, Illinois and Mississippi. Another of the states is Texas, home of President Bush.
The key to whether agricultural policy can be changed to promote conservation and fight sprawl, Faber predicted, is whether lawmakers "from the other 35 states will rebel" and buck their party leaders.
Thus far, 120 House co-sponsors have signed onto a bill authored by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) that would shift some subsidy funds to help farmers, ranchers and foresters who engage in conservation.
"My legislation will not only benefit farmers with economic assistance but will benefit their communities by protecting watershed areas, enhancing drinking water and preventing unbridled sprawl that gobbles up our precious farmland," Kind said.
Since 1992, spreading cities and suburbs have taken over farm, pasture and forest lands at a rate of 2.1 million acres a year, according to a natural resources inventory by the Agriculture Department.
The changes have widespread impacts, according to environmental activists. For example, pavement generates 16 times more runoff than farmland. Sprawl spawns pollution from car exhausts, for example, as commuters drive farther between homes and jobs.
Introducing his "Working Lands Stewardship Act" this summer, Kind said the legislation will help farmers survive financially and serve as a green barrier against sprawl.
Kind's proposal would double spending on conservation to $5 billion a year. That amount would include $500 million to acquire development rights from farmland in the path of sprawling development. Farmers would be paid to sign deed restrictions agreeing to keep their land in agriculture.
Promoting profitability
Often, farmers are forced to sell out to developers because taxes increase as property values rise. Under cultivation, land on the edge of suburbs might be worth $1,000 an acre. But developed as a subdivision, it could be worth $10,000 an acre.
The proposal also includes $10 million in programs to promote the profitability of produce farmers who live around urban areas. For instance, the bill would help farmers learn to sell directly to consumers -- in local markets and even through at-home delivery -- to give the growers higher prices than they would get selling to traditional middlemen.
Farmers could get $5,000 a year for three years to convert their operations into "organic" farms. Organic produce fetches higher prices for the farmer.
The measure contains funding for a national campaign to encourage consumers to buy locally grown produce. And it requires the Education Department and the Defense Department to ensure that locally grown fruits and vegetables are acquired by public schools and military bases.
Other provisions reward farmers and foresters for practicing sound conservation.
"The Farm Bill deliberation may, in some sense, only be getting started," said Brad Lubben, a Kansas State University agricultural economist.
"Some groups and legislators have championed the idea that support dollars should be shifted from commodity programs toward conservation and other priorities," Lubben said. "There will necessarily be some negotiations and compromise if both increased safety net and increased conservation programs are to be passed in the next Farm Bill."
Staff writer John McCosh contributed to this article.
Copyright 2001 The Atlanta ConstitutionThe Atlanta Journal and Constitution:
