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

Re: update on contact your Senators

Thank you for the update, Bill.  I've passed the information on.  Looks like
the Senator's pressure has already affected administration, for what it's
worth.

Lee Stone

on 5/14/03 11:01 AM, William McGuire at mcguiw@mdc.state.mo.us wrote:

> My understanding of the issues is ...
> 
> 1.  The Administration has expressed an intent to limit CRP enrollment
> in the current sign-up to 2.8 million acres (the amount in the
> President's FY04 budget proposal).  This enrollment target would leave
> plenty of enrollment space for CCRP and CREP.
> 
> 2.  Due to complicated actions/interaction between and among Congress,
> the Office of Management and Budget, theJustice Department and USDA, the
> decision was made in federal FY03 to use funds from 4 conservation
> programs (EQIP, WHIP, FPP and GRP) to fund technical assistance for all
> conservation programs (including CRP, WRP, CSP and a couple of special
> EQIP programs).  While this is not equitable and will, hopefully, be
> corrected in federal FY04, the funding diverted from these programs for
> technical assistance is gone and will be spent on technical assistance
> for the programs, regardless of the size of the CRP sign-up.
> 
> 3.  In the case of GRP, it is exceedingly unlikely that any money could
> be spent out of federal FY03 funds anyway since a rule hasn't been
> issued for the program and reportedly won't be until late summer or eary
> fall (far too late to have a sign-up and obligate FY03 funds).  In any
> event, GRP is an acreage cap (not spending cap) program so diverting
> funds means little except that it is not a good precedent to expect
> funding from one consevation program to fund technical assistance for
> other conservation programs.
> 
> 4.  Regarding the impact of CRP on rural economies, USDA just went
> through an extensive process to produce a Programmatic Environmental
> Impact Statement for CRP.  It is my understanding that this was
> conducted by a non-USDA entity and with plenty of opportunity for public
> review and input.  Economic issues were explored in this document (let
> me know if anyone would like to review it and I can advise how to get a
> copy - it is large).  If memory serves me correct, the economic
> influence of CRP wasn't found to be significantly detrimental to local
> rural economies in an overall sense although it may shift spending among
> sectors of the local economy (i.e.less spending on seed/inputs for
> cropland planting but more spending on grassland management,
> hunting/fishing recreation, etc.).
> 
> Food for thought ...
> 
> Bill 
> 
>>>> leeprairie@austin.rr.com 05/14/03 09:41AM >>>
> Hello, Prairie folks,
> 
> National Audubon and Environmental Defense are asking people to
> encourage
> their Senators to sign on to a letter from Senator Conrad Burns to the
> Sec.
> of the USDA by the end of the day May 15th.  Senator Leahy and other
> advocates for agriculture conservation programs have already signed
> onto the
> letter.  An explanation and more details are provided below.
> 
> After asking around, I do believe the action the letter calls for is a
> good
> thing for prairies.
> 
> If you think otherwise, please do let me know.  The details are pasted
> below, as well as a copy of both the letter to USDA and Burn's letter
> to
> fellow Senators urging them to sign on.
> 
> Lee Stone
> Bastrop, TX
> 
> 
> MORE INFORMATION ON WHY:
> 
> While Senator Burns is generally concerned that the current unlimited
> general sign up for CRP that USDA has opened will impact rural
> communities
> by taking too much currently farmed land out of production, he is also
> concerned about the impact on the other Farm Bill programs that
> prairie
> people care about.
> 
> USDA has called for an unlimited general sign-up for CRP that will
> strip the
> Farm Bill of funds for other programs, including Grassland Reserve.
> While
> the general CRP is extremely important and valuable, these targeted
> enrollments are also of great value and offer both greater flexibility
> and
> higher payments. The 2002 Farm Bill only provides 7 million additional
> acres
> for CRP, and most of these acres could be used up during the current
> unlimited general sign-up which will convert currently used farmland
> into
> planted reserved fields.  Unlimited general sign-up does not protect
> existing prairies at all.  The Senators' letter will urge the USDA
> Secretary
> to limit the sign up to 2 million acres until a study that is already
> underway (on the financial impact to rural communities) is completed.
> Adopting 2 million acre cap on this general sign-up will limit the
> impact of
> the sign-up on funding for EQIP, FRPP, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
> Program, and the new Grassland Reserve Program.  And that is why I am
> forwarding this request to you.
> 
> This unlimited general sign-up for CRP will or has already diverted up
> to
> $150 million this year from important working lands conservation
> programs
> like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Farmland Protection
> Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and Grassland Reserve
> Program.
> 
>> *******************************************************************
> Senator Burns' letter to his colleagues asking them to co-sign his
> letter:
> 
> May 7, 2003
> 
> Dear Colleague:
> 
> Please join the attached letter urging the U.S. Department of
> Agriculture to
> place a 2 million acre cap on the current general sign-up for the
> Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
> 
> As you know, CRP enrollment in rural states has produced significant
> environmental benefits but has also reduced the number of active
> farmers
> contributing to rural economies. The 2002 Farm Bill included a
> provision
> to study the economic impacts of CRP on rural communities. While I
> support
> the current general sign-up, I believe a 2 million acre cap is
> reasonable in
> light of the fact that this study is not yet complete.
> 
> In addition, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for FY 2003 included a
> provision that permits USDA to use funds from working lands incentive
> programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the
> Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program to pay for the cost of
> enrolling
> farmers into CRP. USDA estimates that more than $107 million will be
> diverted from EQIP in FY 2003 to pay for the cost of the general
> sign-up,
> and that more than $27.5 million will be diverted from FRPP. Adopting
> 2
> million acre cap on this general sign-up will limit the impact of the
> sign-up on funding for EQIP, FRPP, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
> Program,
> and the new Grassland Reserve Program.
> 
> Finally, an unlimited cap could leave few CRP acres for buffers and
> the
> Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) until the next Farm
> Bill.
> USDA has pledged to reserve only 2 million acres for buffers and CREP
> -- far
> less than expected demand over the next few years.
> 
> Please contact Sara Hagedorn at 224-5059 in my office if you wish to
> join
> this letter.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Conrad Burns
> United States Senator
>> 
>> *******************************************************************
> The actual letter to USDA
> 
> May 7, 2003
> 
> The Honorable Ann Veneman
> Secretary
> United States Department of Agriculture
> 200 A Whitten Building
> 1400 Independence Avenue SW
> Washington, DC  20250
> 
> Dear Secretary Veneman:
> 
> We urge you to immediately establish a 2 million acre limit on the
> general
> sign-up for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
> 
> As you know, some rural communities have already been impacted by the
> enrollment of productive farmland in the CRP. An unlimited enrollment
> could further undermine the economic health of these communities. A
> study of
> the economic impacts of CRP, which was required by the 2002 Farm Bill,
> has
> not been completed.
> pyments. The 2002 Farm Bill only provid
> What's more, an unlimited enrollment could also deprive the program of
> sufficient acres for buffers and other targeted enrollments that
> address the
> needs of working lands. Only 2 million acres of CRP has been reserved
> by
> USDA for buffers and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program --
> less
> than expected demand.
> 
> Finally, an unlimited enrollment would drain funds from working lands
> conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives
> Program, the
> Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program,
> and the
> Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program to pay for the cost of CRP
> technical assistance. USDA estimates that $107 million and $27
> million, respectively, will be diverted from EQIP and FRPP to help pay
> for
> CRP administrative costs.
> 
> We urge you to quickly establish a 2 million acre limit on the CRP
> general
> sign-up.
> 
> Thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent matter.
> 
> Sincerely,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *******************************************************************
> forwarded from Suzy Friedman, Staff Scientist/Ag Policy
>> Analyst with Environmental Defense in Washington D.C.  Suzy is a Farm
> Bill
>> expert and does a great job of looking after our (Audubon's)
> interests in
> D.C.:
>> Suzy Friedman,
>> Environmental Defense
>> 202-572-3376 (v), 202-234-6049 (f)
>> sfriedman@environmentaldefense.org
>> www.privatelandstewardship.org
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
> message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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