1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



taxpayers are paying farmers to idle some 

 fragile lands even while other lands v\'ith 

 equally unstable soils are going under the plow. 



This double dipping defeats the goals of the 

 1985 Farm Act in at least two ways. First, lands 

 being enrolled in the CRP program are not 

 initially as productive in terms of providing 

 either v\ildlife habitat or soil stability as native 

 rangeland. From a conservationist's perspec- 

 tive, we would be better off in most instances 

 paying farmers not to break out existing range- 

 land rather than paying them to restore lands 

 that have already been farmed. Secondly, an 

 important purpose of CRP was to reduce 

 production and thereby increase commodity 

 prices. This intent is defeated entirely when 

 new acreage is opened up and planted. 



The National and Montana Wildlife Federations 

 are also concerned with the quality of the 

 conservation plans being developed by SCS, as 

 well as the agency's failure to comply with 

 other federal statutes. The plans we have 

 examined offer little beyond mathematical 

 calculations concerning soil erosion rates and 

 prescriptions of doubtful effectiveness for 

 reducing these rates. There is virtually no 

 qualitative analysis and no serious evaluation 

 of other non-soil values, such as watershed 

 impacts or wildlife habitat. In short, there is 

 little justification for labeling these efforts a 

 "conservation plan." Perhaps most impor- 

 tantly, few, if any, requests to break out new 

 ground appear to have been forestalled through 

 the planning process. Under such circum- 

 stances, denying federal benefits whenever 

 fragile soils are broken out may be an appropri- 

 ate legislative remedy. 



While we have only begun our evaluation, and 

 fully intend to review more plans later this fall, 

 it is evident that SCS was given a gigantic task 

 in developing and approving conservation 

 plans prior to 1990. Under such pressure, it was 

 not possible for SCS to give serious considera- 

 tion to the full range of conservation p>ossibili- 

 tics through the planning process. As we look 

 to reauthorizing the farm bill next year, how- 

 ever. Congress should consider requiring a 

 review of such plans prior to their implementa- 

 tion. During this review SCS should make sure 

 that plans were developed in full compliance 



MonUni Ctiaptar, SoD and Water Contarvadon Society 



28 



with the National En\ironmental Policy Act 

 and other federal statutes. At this point, most 

 plans have been prepared in a statutory vac- 

 uum. 



NWF and NfWF are also concerned that Mon- 

 tana is not realizing the full benefits from the 

 CRP. As noted, some 2.5 million acres have 

 been enrolled in the program, but much of this 

 acreage has been planted not to native grasses 

 but to a monoculture of crested wheat grass, a 

 species of plant that offers little to wildlife. 

 There can be little justification for such prac- 

 tices, especially in light of the congressional 

 history behind the 1985 law which specifically 

 indicates that fish and wildlife benefits were an 

 expected byproduct of CRP. The next version of 

 the farm act should require newly eru-olled CRP 

 lands to be planted to a mix of native grasses. 



In this same context we must question the haste 

 to graze and hay conservation reserve acreages 

 during the last two years. While the statute 

 presently provides for allowing such practices 

 under drought conditions, wildlife suffered 

 severely during the drought of 1988 and needed 

 all available habitat during that hard summer. 

 Farmers, moreover, were paid up to $50,000 to 

 take lands in the CRP out of production, and 

 thus were compensated for keeping this land 

 idle. More disturbingly, some counties in 

 Montana were early on declared in drought 

 this year and CRP lands were again opened to 

 grazing and haying. While 1988 was perhaps 

 the exceptional year when rules had to be bent, 

 1989 is not such a year. Either the rules govern- 

 ing the drought declaration must be tightened 

 or the emergency provisions of the CRP should 

 be eliminated. Unless this occurs, it is a virtual 

 certainty that CRP lands in the northern plains, 

 where three years of low rainfall are common- 

 place, will be utilized in four or five years out of 

 the ten-year contract period. 



While the primary purpose behind CRP is to 

 prevent the cropping of highly erosive soils, we 

 do believe a calculated expansion of the pro- 

 gram is warranted. Farmers should be able to 

 enroll windbreaks and shelterbelts in the 

 program as well as restored wetlands and 

 associated upland areas. While the acreages 

 involved in expanding the program to include 

 these conservation practices would be small, the 



Aupuit 28, 1888 



