1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



used by our industry to promote wool and 

 lamb. Some of those funds, as a result of 

 changes in the Wool Act in 1985, are being used 

 to try and compete U.S. wools in the world 

 wool market. 



The Montana Woolgrowers Assodation and the 

 American Sheep Industry Association is 

 requesting that Congress renew the Wool Act 

 just as it is written. We oppose any changes that 

 might eliminate participation of the small 

 grower, and we also oppose limitations on 

 larger growers. We believe larger growers 

 should be paid on the merits of provisions of 

 the current act and not be penalized just 

 because they chose to raise 10,000, 15,000, or 

 more sheep. We ask for no changes in a pro- 

 gram that is working for the American sheep 

 producers. It is a non-cost program for the U.S. 

 Treasury and pro\ides monies for an industry- 

 supported self-help program. 



National Wildlife Federation 

 Tom France 



Director, Northern Rockies Natural 

 Resource Center 



I'm speaking on behalf of the National Wildlife 

 Federation (hJWF), the nation's largest conser- 

 vation organization with over 5.8 million mem- 

 bers and supporters, and the Montana Wildlife 

 Federation, with a membership of over 6,000 

 sportsmen and conservationists. 



While the purpose of this forum is to discuss 

 the 1990 Farm Act, all of us here today recog- 

 nize the impact of agriculture on wildlife and 

 the environment. Agriculture has dramatically 

 changed the face of the northern Great Plains in 

 the last 100 years, as tens of millions of acres 

 have been converted from short grass prairies 

 into monocultures of grain, and additional 

 millions of acres of wetlands have been drained 

 and put into crop production. This shift in land 

 use, while providing this nation and the world 

 with a great bounty of foodstuffs, has not come 

 without cost. Just as the northern plains are 

 astonishingly productive of food and fiber, they 

 can be equally productive of wildlife. While 

 Montana still has wildlife populations that are 



MoDtaoa Cbaptar, Son ind Water Contervatlop loclaty 



26 



the cn\-y of many states, the wildlife losses of 

 the last century are staggering. 



The 1985 Farm Act represented an important 

 step forward in reconciling the nation's need for 

 a sensible farm p>olicy with the national ambi- 

 tion of restoring wildlife populations and 

 protecting and enhancing the environment. As 

 we look forward to reauthorizing the Farm Act 

 in 1990, it is appropriate that we review how 

 the major conservation pro\isions have worked 

 and where additional protections are necessary. 



Swampbuster 



A major conser\'ation breakthrough in the 1985 

 Farm Act was the swampbuster provision, 

 under which all federal subsidies can be 

 terminated if wetlands are drained and the 

 acreage put into crop production. The purpose 

 behind this pro\'ision was to slow the pace of 

 wetland drainage which the U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture estimates is occurring at a rate of 

 300,000 to 400,000 acres annually with the 

 agricultural industry accounting for 90 p>ercent 

 of this loss. While swampbuster has undoubt- 

 edly saved some wetlands from drainage, a 

 number of problems have become evident with 

 both the statute itself and its implementation. 



First and foremost, under the law as written, 

 benefits are withheld only after drained wet- 

 lands are put into commercial production, not 

 when the wetland is actually drained. Some 

 producers have taken advantage of this loop- 

 hole by draining wetlands and then planting 

 the area to hay or other non-commercial crops. 

 There is suspicion that these acres will ulti- 

 mately end up in the commercial farmland base 

 because it is much more difficult to monitor 

 land use after wetlands have been ditched and 

 drained. Because the first purpose of 

 swampbuster is to prevent wetland drainage, 

 the statute must be amended so that federal 

 benefits are withheld at the time wetlands are 

 eliminated, not when crops are actually 

 planted. 



Beyond this weakness in the statute itself, there 

 have been other problems with how the law has 

 been applied. First, in the Dakotas and in 

 Minnesota, the Federation has documented 

 numerous instances in which local ASCS offices 

 have approved drainage requests by finding 



Augutt 28, 1888 



