The farm bill's effect on Iowa's landscape

This map was prepared by Duane Sand, INHF's public policy consultant..

Because billions of dollars and millions of acres are beyond most people's personal experience, we overlaid a bar graph onto a map of Iowa's counties. In reality, different land uses are scattered around the state, but this map groups them to show how many Iowa counties each land use would occupy. If you imagine the distances across your own county or across the state, you'll get an idea of how the next farm bill can have both positive and negative (often unintended) consequences for Iowa's natural heritage.

Grasslands lost: According to the USDA's most recent National Resources Inventory, Iowa lost over one million acres of pasture between 1982-1997. Most was plowed because grain production is more profitable than pasture. The current farm bill compounds the problem by subsidizing corn and soybeans but not pasture. Loss of pasture increases soil erosion, degrades water quality and reduces species diversity in some of our best native landscapes.
 

Grasslands gained (CRP): While some farmers are rewarded for plowing grasslands, others are paid to restore them. Since the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was added to the 1985 farm bill, the USDA has placed 10-year contracts on 1.8 million acres to restore soil conservation, water quality and wildlife habitat. Most CRP sites are restored to grasslands, though some is also put into wetlands or trees. USDA pays an average of $98.60 per acre per year to keep the highly erodible land uncropped, and more farmers apply to the program than can be accepted under current funding. The program is basically sound, but it has some unintended consequences. Because eligible land must have been cropped for at least two years, some farmers break previously unplowed grassland and plant rowcrops-just to qualify for future CRP payments. The next farm bill determines the amount of funding for CRP and whether it will give priority to different places in order to increase conservation benefits or to cut costs.
 

Grasslands at risk: Farm policy should do better at protecting existing grasslands (mostly pasture) rather than paying to restore those that have been plowed. Congress has set soil conservation requirements on grasslands that are converted to cropland, but this Sodbuster provision needs to be stronger.
 

Highly erodible cropland: When farmers plants crops on slopes designated "highly erodible" by USDA, the current farm bill requires that they use soil conservation techniques or risk losing subsidies (other than crop insurance). However, soil erosion continues to reduce long-term productivity on much of this cropland. One solution is converting some of this highly erodible cropland to grass cover, which would help protect the soil and improve water quality. The USDA could provide even more incentives-and enforcement-to fully protect the soil for future generations.
 

Wetlands at Risk: Current USDA Swampbuster provisions require farmers to protect their existing wetlands to remain eligible for farm subsidies (other than crop insurance). Some factions are making a serious attempt to allow more wetlands drainage in the next farm bill. This change could put many of Iowa's wetland acres at risk of drainage. Water quality and wildlife would suffer from such a change.
 

Wetland and floodplain easements gained: USDA has established wetland and wildlife habitat on 106,600 acres of former cropland through the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Under this program, farmers are paid to relinquish cropping rights on floodprone ground. Unlike the CRP program which uses 10-year contracts, WRP easements are usually permanent. Purchased WRP conservation easements average roughly $1,000 per acre nationally. The WRP program must be reauthorized in the new farm bill or there will be no budget for more easement purchases.
 

Other Iowa land uses
Though the previous categories show some of the most obvious effects of the farmbill on Iowa's landscape and water, arm policy does or can affect other areas as well.

Forest land: Despite few incentives to help landowners with reforestation and wildlife habitat, Iowa gained 321,900 acres of forest cover on former croplands and pastures and other rural lands between 1982 and 1997. More should be done for long-term management of our forests and marginal lands because of the wildlife, recreation and clean water benefits they produce. The proposed Conservation Security Act provides incentives for long-term management and protection of forests.

Developed land: Iowa has 1.7 million acres in cities, towns, housing developments, highway and rural roads. Congress is likely to fund more farmland protection easements as a means to slow urban sprawl and encourage local land use plans.

Prime farmland: About half of Iowa's land area is cropland that is not highly erodible. This fertile land is also an important natural resource: a rarity in the world and worthy of good stewardship. This land needs conservation practices to minimize soil erosion and protect water quality. Iowans need the help of all our farmers to keep sediment, nutrients, and pathogens from our lakes, streams, and drinking water sources.

In sum, all Iowans, farmers and nonfarmers alike, are affected by federal farm policy-as are our wildlife and water. Now is the time to let your congressman and senators know what you'd like the next farm bill to do.