This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

news of farm bill

FYI,

Lee Stone
Bastrop, TX

_________________________________________
Lee --

After debating for more than a month, the members of the Farm Bill
conference have settled their differences and have delivered a final bill.
While we still do not know all the fine print, we have a pretty good
picture of what they are sending back to the House and Senate for final
approval.
Thank you so much for all your help these past months. It's been quite a
roller coaster, and unfortunately we did not come out anywhere near where
we hoped we would. After the Senate suceeded in passing the strongest
conservation title ever, much of that strength was negotiated away in
conference.
You have probably read press reports of the conference agreement. As I
said, the details of the agreement are still sketchy, but here is what we
know as of now:

The 2002 Farm Bill will last six years, including this year (FY02).

Virtually all of the payment limitations or other limitations in the Senate
bill were dropped:
** The Dubin amendment, which limited subsidies to land already with a crop
history, was dropped.
** The Senate payment limit, which limited subsidies to $275,000 per year,
was dropped in all but name.  The nominal new subsidy is $360,000 but in
effect this limit does not apply to loan (i.e., price) guarantee programs.
** The limitation on integrator ownership of livestock was dropped.
** The money that may be directed at CAFO's is raised at a minimum to
$450,000 (almost double the House figure).  There may also be new loopholes
to allow multiple contributions to large CAFO corporations although we are
not sure at this point.

New conservation spending is nominally $17.2 billion, but $250 million of
that is actually devoted to dam reconstruction.  The remaining program
spending amounts we know only for ten years (as you remember, the conferees
were speaking in ten-year terms because the House passed a ten-year
bill).  We do not know how much of this will be allocated in the six years
actually covered by the bill.

Here are the conservation numbers of the conference bill:
** $1 billion for FPP - down from $2.4 in the Senate bill
** $9 billion for EQIP - up from the Senate bill
** $2 billion for the Conservation Security Program (CSP) - we don't know
how CSP will be changed to accommodate this reduction from $3.4 billion **
1.35 million acres of wetlands -- we assume, but cannot confirm, this will
be over 6 years.  This would be an effective improvement over the house of
only 150,000 acres per year if it is allocated entirely in the first 6
years.
** The grassland program is 2 million acres, but only half is for permanent
or long-term easements.  We believe this half is by acres, but cannot
confirm so.  If the half is by money (meaning half of the funds can be put
into permanent easements), then the percentage in permanent or long-term
easements will be much smaller.
** $500 million for water conservation improvements, as in the House bill,
but with no guarantee that the conserved water will be used for the
environment.  There was an agreement for $200 million for desert terminus
lakes that was like the Reid provision in the Senate bill, but the House
challenged this at the end, and this issue remains open over the weekend.
** All of the regional programs, including the Chesapeake Bay nitrogen
reduction program and the Klamath program, have been dropped.
** $700 million for WHIP (compared to $1.5 billion in the Senate bill).  We
are not sure how this will be distributed, i.e., over 6 years or over 10
years.

On the positive side, we believe, but are not sure that the Partnerships
and Cooperation language (also referred to as "Super CREP") has
survived.  We don't know about any other important details.
We will provide a more detailed analysis when it becomes
available.  Obviously, the bill looks a lot closer to the House bill than
the Senate bill (and in some ways even worse than the House bill), and this
is disappointing.  Environmental Defense expects to oppose the bill on
final passage.

Thanks again for all your help. I will let you know what position we take
on final passage, and then next steps.
Suzy

Suzy Friedman
Environmental Defense
202-387-3500 x3376 (v), 202-234-6049 (f)
sfriedman@environmentaldefense.org
Agriculture Reform Campaign Website -- www.privatelandstewardship.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index