Our American Land Current Issues Link Agricultural and ...

Our American Land

Current Issues
Link Agricultural and
Environmental Interests

Hal Hiemstra, president,
American Land Resource Association,

Washington, DC

Stop aad ask an Agriculture Com- way that we reduce agricultural sub-
mittee member in the halls of sidies and also benefit the environ-
ment, we have an opportunity to
Congress to name major national envi- cooperate."
ronmental groups. The member could
probably identify dozens—the Sierra This was typical of the exchanges
Club, the Audubon Society, the Natural between the conservation and en-
Resources Defense Council, and many vironmental communities in 1982. By
more. Next, ask what major issues late 1985, agricultural policy and its
these environmental groups typically impact on land management had
focus on. A few years ago, the mem- become a rallying point for many of
ber's response would probably be the the Nation's mainstream environmen-
conventional environmental areas of tal, conservation, and natural resource
air and water pollution and natural groups. Following successful coalition
habitat protection. Now, however, building in the late 19 70's on a wide
agricultura land policy might be as variety of environmental issues, these
likely an answer as protection of the same public interest groups turned
snail darter. their attention to the Nation's farm
policy and the upcoming 1985 Food
Beginning of Change Security Act, otherwise known as the
farm bill.
William K. Reilly, president of the
Conservation Foundation, recalls a Environmentalists Support
1982 meeting between a group of con- 1985 Farm Bill
servationists and USDA officials. Con-
cluding the meeting, Assistant Interest from environmentalists in the
Secretary John Crowell turned to the 1985 farm bill debates was driven by
group and said, "The need as we see obvious linkages between overproduc-
it is to downsize the U.S. agricultural tion—encouraged by massive farm
production machine. If you conserva- support programs—and poor manage-
tionists can help us do it in such a

258 New Directions

Our American Land

ment of much of our country's most and to remove millions of highly
erosive agricultural land. Their interest erosive acres from production.
was further fueled by an emerging
awareness that nonpoint source Conservation Coalition
pollution—primarily from agricultural Formed
runoff—was contributing to the
Nation's inability to achieve fishable Informal efforts to organize a "Con-
and swimmable water quality servation Coalition" were begun in
standards. 1983. By 1984, members of well over
20 national environmental, wildlife,
For years, representatives of conservation, legal defense, farmland,
environmental groups such as the forestry, and agricultural groups had
Natural Resources Defense Council had begun developing a unified conserva-
been urging the adoption of conserva- tion agenda. By early 1985, the Con-
tion "cross-compliance." The argu- servation Coalition was meeting
ment was that by conditioning farm regularly and cooperatively advancing
support upon the development and their unified conservation positions.
implementation of conservation plans, Conservation Legislation
Federal farm support dollars could be Emerges. Using skills honed in
saved and significant reductions in earlier environmental battles, Coalition
erosion rates would be achieved. members pressed their conservation
Those "radical" arguments went agenda before congressional agricul-
largely unheard until the Nation's tural committee members and staff.
economic farm crisis and skyrocketing The strongest conservation legislation
Federal support payments opened the since the 1930's was the result.
door for serious discussion about new Included was a 45-million acre Conser-
ways to control Federal farm vation Reserve Program (CRP), new
spending. swampbuster and sodbuster provisions,
and conservation compliance require-
As the issues of conservation and ments for all highly erodible cropland
the Nation's farm debt crisis became in the country.
the dominant agricultural themes in
1983 and 1984, environmental, con- Responding to the need to provide
servation, and natural resource groups alternate financing options for
seized the opportunity to inject con- America's farmers, the Conservation
servation planning into farm policy Coalition also supported the "farm
debates. Representatives of these debt restructure and conservation set-
groups knew that collectively they aside" provision of the 1985 farm bill.
could capitalize on the emerging Agricultural Land Policy on
budget-cutting, policymaking atmos- Agenda. The successes of the Conser-
phere. Congress appeared ready to vation Coalition have changed forever
reduce the costs of farm support pro- the way in which farm policy will be
grams, to provide financially pressed decided in this country. Members of
farmers with new financing options, the conservation community, par-

Current issues link Agricultural and Environmental interests 259

Our American Land

ticularly the environmental groups, Nation's surface water quality will not
now add soil conservation and agricul- improve significantly unless agricul-
tural land policy to their permanent tural sources of pollution are treated.
legislative agendas. The Sierra Club, Because agricultural nonpoint source
for example, even hired staff to pollution is best treated by modifying
address agricultural land policy issues. farm management practices, environ-
mentalists will likely push for
Environmental Concerns increased technical assistance to
farmers and increased monitoring for
Overproduction. To the environ- noncompliance.
mental community, wheat and corn
surpluses do more than signal Environmentalists have targeted
economic problems for the farm sec- support for funding of the Agricultural
tor. Surpluses also signal the overuse Productivity Act (APA) to encourage
of our agricultural land resources. In the increased adoption of low-chemical
turn, overused land resources signal agriculture in 1987. Passed as part of
long-term environmental problems. the 1985 farm bill, the APA encour-
Robert Healy, Thomas Waddell, and ages research into, and support for,
Kenneth A. Cook, all of the Conserva- new and alternative agricultural pro-
tion Foundation, report that 28 per- duction systems.
cent of the fertilizer and 40 percent of Wetland Drainage. The environ
the pesticides used in this country in mental and conservation communities
1986 went for the production of also will continue to combat wetland
surplus corn and wheat. Environmen- drainage for agricultural purposes.
tal groups are asking the obvious Wetland drainage has resulted in
question, Just where do all those farm significant losses of fish and wildlife
chemicals end up? habitat and aquifer recharge areas.
Agricultural Sources of Pollution. Despite reduced Federal farm program
Increased and more technically incentives to drain wetlands, this
accurate monitoring of ground water natural resource continues to be lost
continues to show direct linkages at annual rates measured in the hun-
between agricultural chemical use and dreds of thousands of acres. To curb
ground water contamination. Such the continued loss of wetlands, mem-
direct linkages will keep ground water bers of the Conservation Coalition
pollution and Federal agricultural used the sodbuster concept to include
policy high on the environmental wetland drainage provisions in the
agenda. 1985 farm bill.

Similarly, agricultural nonpoint Supporting Conservation
source pollution control continues to Legislation
gain attention within the environmen-
tal community. The Environmental A key question now facing environ-
Protection Agency and numerous mentalists is whether the Federal
national studies have shown that our Government will seriously carry out

260 New Directions

Our American Land

and defend the numerous conservation existing environmental problems.
provisions of tlie 1985 farm bill. Ground-water pollution control, for
Environmental groups have indicated example, might be a logical "next
that they will vigorously oppose step" in linking farm surplus reduc-
actions to repeal or dilute conserva- tions with environmental pollution
tion provisions of this bill. control.

Conservationists pushed hard for Future Cooperation
the rapid development of interim CRP
rules, and closely monitor the pro- Environmental groups continue to
gram's success. Coalition members pose new farm policy questions and
rigorously support long-term funding seek new ways to adjust farm policy
of the program and also will likely so that it will benefit both the farmer
support a 20-million-acre expansion of and the environment. Although farm
its original goal. and environmental groups may have
found themselves on opposite sides of
Considering CRP's success, environ- the fence in the past, the gates are
mental groups are beginning to ask now open and a new era of coopera-
whether Federal acreage reduction tion is underway.
targets could be linked to other con-
servation objectives and used to solve

Current Issues Link Agricultural and Environmental Interests 261