1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



an issue with water quality. Because they're 

 higher-producing cropland, the operator will 

 require a higher incentive payment to convert 

 them from cropland. 



We'd also like to see CRP address other re- 

 source problems. One example is water quality. 

 A suggestion we've made through the conser- 

 vation districts to the national office of the Soil 

 Conservation Ser\ice is that recharge areas for 

 saline seep be eligible for CRP, whether or not 

 they're highly erodible. That has not been 

 approved at this jx)int. The recharge areas 

 should also be addressed because you'd only 

 have a marginal stand if only the discharge area 

 is seeded. At the end of the ten-year period you 

 would not have addressed the real problem of 

 salinity. 



Some other ideas that might be of interest 

 would be having the Agricultural Stabilization 

 and Conservation Services develop new pro- 

 grams for water quality and upxiate existing 

 Agricultural Conserv-ation Program cost-share 

 policies. The example being Special Practice 35 

 (SP-35) for the investigation and control of 

 saline seep. We'd like to see the cost-share level 

 for Special Practice 35 match or be very close to 

 that of the Great Plains Program for saline seep, 

 which is toxic salt reduction cost-share for 

 recharge areas. 



ASCS is just starting to cost-share water quality 

 sp>ecial projects (WQSP). This provides an 

 excellent opportunity to address nonpoint 

 source pxjUution problems and capitalize on the 

 Clean Water Act (Section 319) emphasis on 

 water quality. WQSP will provide an incentive 

 for individuals to investigate their salinity 

 problems and then implement reclamation 

 systems. We could design these systems to 

 address the multiple land ownerships and large 

 watersheds where many individuals have 

 recharge areas, but do not have the salinity. 

 Under the ACP Special Practice 35 program, 

 they may not qualify for any or adequate cost 

 share. And more and more as we work with the 

 salinity program, we see fewer people that 

 control both the recharge and discharge area. 



Public benefits from salinity control include 

 improvement of water quality, wildlife habitat. 



MoDtani Cbaptsr, SoO and Water Conttrvadon Society 



weed control, and less damage to infrastruc- 

 ture. There are many public dollars being spent 

 to rebuild roads and repair damage as a result 

 of salinity. Last, but not least, is the tax base 

 which would be protected. Currently individu- 

 als can reduce their state taxes if it's considered 

 marginal land. 



We need incentive-based conservation practices 

 in the farm bill because the quick and occa- 

 sional solutions do not work for water quality 

 problems. The key for salinity control is preven- 

 tion. Reclamation is often too late, too costly, 

 and takes too long. 



Montana Salinity Control 

 Association 

 Pete Purvis 



Supervisor 



CRP contracts are ten-year contracts. Some of 

 them are in their fourth year already and in six 

 years some of them will be running out. The 

 1990 Farm Program should address now what's 

 going to happen to these contracts at the end of 

 the ten years. It's time the farmers and the rural 

 people had some kind of an idea what was 

 going to happen with the CRP contracts when 

 they terminate. 



Perhaps we could have some limited grazing at 

 a reduced payment rate on CRP, probably 

 seasonal grazing. In Montana this would 

 probably work during the winter months, 

 especially when you have crop disasters such as 

 we had last year. The protection of rural 

 communities and small towns should be in the 

 next farm bill. 



We urge you to not write a whole new farm 

 program, but to build on the 1985 Farm Bill. It 

 took about three years to implement and 

 interpret the last one. I don't think we should 

 start all over with a brand new one now. We 

 should refine the one we've got and go from 

 there. 



21 



Aagutt 28,1883 



