What does Iowa want
from the Farm Bill?

---

By Mark Ackelson and Duane Sand

This article was written and posted on INHF's website in August 2001. 

The Register's recent two-part series on federal aid to Iowa farmers (Aug. 12-13) does a good job of pointing out some problems with our current farm aid program-especially how the current payment structure may actually work against many family farmers.

However, the series could have gone much further in showing another key reason to revise the farm bill: It's a rare chance to stop funding environmental harms and start funding environmental benefits. Ideally, Conservation Security Act payments, as proposed by Senator Tom Harkin and others, would increase net farm income while supporting sustainable uses of farmlands.

Linking farm payments to conservation would benefit Iowa's farmers and non-farmers alike. The current farm policy is fundamentally flawed because the cropping of fragile and marginal lands, which is reinforced by today's grain subsidies, contributes to overproduction and low farm income. However, today's USDA typically spends 10 times more money for farm subsidies than conservation programs. A better balance of spending is Iowa's best hope for correcting our extensive soil and water problems.

There are several reasons conservation payments are more sustainable, both politically and environmentally, than the current subsidy system.

American farmers need conservation programs to help pay for environmental protection. Soil erosion is damaging the productivity of 29% (112 million acres) of cropland. Agriculture is the primary source of pollution of 60% of impaired rivers and streams, and 30% of impaired lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Agriculture impacts 57% of the threatened and endangered species in the contiguous 48 states. The ecological health of 35% (145 million acres) of range land is seriously threatened. Agriculture lacks profits to correct these problems or to even comply with current environmental laws in many cases.

Some farmers increase cropland, thus further depressing crop prices. Farmers plowed under 9.2 million acres of pasture, 1.5 million acres of rangeland, 1.9 million acres of forests, and 133,000 acres of wetlands, converting them to cropland during a recent 5 year period. This negated much of the public benefit from USDA reforestation, wetlands restoration, and Conservation Reserve Program. Grain subsidies ultimately encourage too much cropland. However, expanding conservation payments causes more landowners to be covered by the Swampbuster and Sodbuster restrictions on bringing land into production.

The United States has signed international trade agreements to now limit and, in the future, reduce production subsidies. Competing nations that offer no farm subsidies have good reason to challenge federal payments that enable more production, further depressing low commodity prices. Conservation payments are not limited by the World Trade Organization, but USDA subsidies that support production are currently limited to $19.1 billion per year.

As the Register series noted, the current distribution of subsidies benefits too few struggling farmers. In 1999, just 8% of participating farms received 47% of federal payments. Meanwhile, farmers that do not depend primarily on subsidized crops operate more than 72% of US ag land. USDA now pays up to $460,000 per year to large grain farms but gives no assistance to many family farms growing livestock or unsubsidized crops. The Register's series noted that the House Agriculture Committee voted to raise the limited to $760,000 in the next farm bill.

As a nation, we value food security. One long-term goal of farm policy is to support family farms to provide sustainable food security. And, as the Register article so clearly shows, supporting family farms creates an economic ripple-effect through their surrounding communities.

Meanwhile, Iowa and the nation are only beginning to address the costs of poor conservation: to communities trying to clean impaired waters, to farmers losing their rich soil, to tourists and residents looking for clean places to play, swim and fish. Iowa greatly needs a federal farm policy that rewards farmers who produce pure air, clean water, fertile soils, plentiful wildlife, and functioning ecosystems-in addition to food and feed grains.

Senator Harkin has helped put a viable farm proposal before Congress-the Conservation Security Act. Harkin's plan is getting a good response from farm leaders who are thinking ahead, including Farm Bureau, Farmer's Union, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers and the National Association of Conservation Districts.

As the Register's series points out, the current farm bill spends a lot of money for production subsidies. The new farm bill should reward farmers who produce the food we need while protecting the land we love-and who make it possible for future generations of farmers to do the same.

Mark Ackelson is President of Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. Duane Sand is the Foundation's public policy consultant.

For more information about this story or other Foundation news, e-mail Cathy Engstrom, Director of Communications, or call (515) 288-1846.


Back to the news archive