Voluntary soil and water conservation programs “aren’t leading to clean water, clean air and a healthy environment,” says the Environmental Working Group in unveiling a database that tracks federal conservation spending to the county level. EWG says Congress should require farmers to perform more stewardship work in exchange for farm supports, and focus scattershot conservation programs on the practices with the greatest payoff in the areas with the greatest need.
“Currently, conservation programs spread money and effort too thinly,” said EWG, which made its name, and some enemies, during the debate on the 2002 farm law, with its farm subsidy database. It was the first to link farm payments to their recipients. EWG said it spent seven years and filed 28 Freedom of Information Act requests to get USDA figures for spending on the land-idling Conservation Reserve, green-payment Conservation Stewardship, cost-sharing Environmental Quality Incentive, and Wildlife Habitat Improvement programs.
Since 1985, farmers have been required to prevent erosion on fragile land and to preserve wetlands and grasslands to qualify for crop subsidies, the so-called conservation compliance rule. The requirement was expanded to cover federally subsidized crop insurance policies in the 2014 farm law.
“A stronger conservation compliance provision should be the top priority for Congress as lawmakers draft the new farm bill,” said EWG. “It’s past time to ask farmers to do more in return for the billions of dollars taxpayers send them each year.” Nearly $30 billion was spent in the past decade on USDA’s conservation programs, which traditionally have been voluntary since they involve work on private land. “Congress should require all subsidized farmers to do more to curb polluted runoff from flowing into America’s rivers, lakes and streams and to protect our drinking water.”
With its programs that include financial assistance, USDA is more popular among farmers than the EPA, which is often painted as the regulatory bogeyman of the government.
“USDA conservation programs should spend money only on practices that are the most effective in curtailing the most important causes of serious public health and quality of life threats,” said EWG. At present, hundreds of “practices” qualify for USDA conservation money. The list should be pared severely, said EWG. “Moreover, conservation dollars should be concentrated on cooperative projects designed to get landowners to collaborate in deploying the right conservation practices in the right place.”
The watershed approach to conservation — coordinating work to improve conditions in a watershed — is gaining in popularity. The AGree farm policy project recommended two years ago that half of USDA conservation funding should be put into “producer-led cooperative conservation projects in areas with significant resource concerns.” The 2014 farm law launched the Regional Conservation Partnership Program to tackle problems, with local groups joining USDA in paying for the work. Some $260 million was allotted for RCPP this year, a small part of overall conservation spending.
It may prove difficult to narrow the list of conservation priorities and the activities that would be eligible for USDA funds. EWG highlighted water quality issues. Other groups erosion, air quality or wildlife habitat. From a political standpoint, a shorter list of priorities may reduce support among lawmakers for programs that offer little or no help for their areas.