Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- October '97

Some very good news on the Conservation Farm Option -- maybe. The orphan child of the 1996 farm bill's conservation title, while the last of the incentive programs to be implemented, appears to be nearing take-off. Of course, we have thought so before and been proved wrong, so we won't truly believe it until we see it. But here's the latest.

USDA appears to be ready to send a proposal to OMB that includes a financial proposal, a proposed rule, and the Request for Proposals. It then has to be cleared by OMB (which we have reason to believe will not be too long or painful a process) and returned for publication. If the final proposal stays true to the preliminary plan, the package will look like this:

• On the money front, USDA has agreed to SAC's recommendation that the unspent $7.5 million from 1997 be added to the $15 million available for 1998, for a total pool of $22.5 million. We had argued the $2 million limitation placed on CFO by the 1997 appropriations bill no longer applied once the fiscal year ended, and the legal and budget offices at USDA, upon review, agreed with our analysis.
• In another apparent victory for us, the tentative financial plan would set-aside $1.5 million for "payments to third parties" (i.e., nonprofits, Extension, etc.) for program implementation and monitoring/evaluation. There will also be $4 million set-aside for NRCS technical assistance, which seems too high but still would leave $17 million for payments to farmers.
• The rule would be a proposed rule with a 60 day comment period. We had argued for an interim final rule, and haven't completely given up yet. However, USDA will apparently agree to have the Request for Proposals issued with the proposed rule, so as not to lose time waiting on a final rule. If major changes are made to the proposed rule, this could get messy -- proposals may need to be rewritten in light of the changes. But chances are there will not be major changes, so this process, while less than ideal, may not be much worse than putting it out as a proposed final rule to begin with.
• We are told the RFP has changed very little compared to the draft we've had for months. So, groups and individual farmers with project proposals in mind should keep cranking, using the draft as a guide until we can get our hands on the final.

News has begun to trickle out of the Department on the first round of grants under the Fund for Rural America program. We've got a full list of grants under the Cooperative Value-Added Program (CVAP), but the list of recipients of the FRA "center" grants is still being treated as a state secret over at the USDA.

In the first year, the CVAP is parceling out $1.1 million to 18 different grants, 9 of which are in MSAWG states. Those 9 grants are:

• Iowa: Iowa State ($75,000) Program to develop and assist Value Added Agricultural Cooperatives; Chariton Valley Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. ($44,700) Feasibility analysis and Cooperative Structure for Value Added Switchgrass production.
• Kansas: KS Department of Commerce and Housing ($75,000) Market Development for a Dry Bean Cooperative; Kansas State U. Agricultural Economics ($75,000) Market Niche Identification and Education for Small Producer Marketing Cooperative.
• Michigan: Farmers' Educational Foundation ($75,000) Michigan Farmers Union Soy Marketing and Processing Cooperative.
• Minnesota: MN Dept. of Agriculture ($75,000) A Model for Value Added Cooperative Development in Minnesota.
• North Dakota: Traill County Economic Development Commission ($75,000) Rural Dakota Value Added Cooperative Development Project.
• South Dakota: South Dakota State U. ($75,000) New Value Added Products to Improve the Profitability of Corn Dry-Mill cooperatives.
• Wisconsin: Pri-Ru-Ta Resource Conservation & Development Council ($75,000) Superior Shores Agricultural Cooperative, Inc. fruit-dairy value added product development and marketing project.

If you're in a state with one of these projects, it's probably a good idea to find out more about it. In some cases, these efforts will make good partners or collaborators for your work on building farm and rural economies. In others, you might want to keep a close eye on just what the project means by rural development to make sure it's not promoting "cooperative" livestock factories or other plans to destroy a rural community in order to save it.

Both houses of Congress made halting progress on reauthorizing the statute for Agricultural Research. We've won a few, lost a few, and fought to a draw on several key issues, and will keep you posted as these bills move through the full House and Senate. Since I've plagiarized shamelessly from Ferd & Kathleen's memoranda on the subject, this may seem like deja vu all over again to some of you.

Senate Action: The research title passed the Senate Ag Committee just before August break. As Ferd reported in the previous Washington Report, this is one well-mixed bag. Along with reauthorization of the Fund for Rural America and modest improvements to the Precision Ag Federal Handouts title (more on the P-Ag bill below), the bill cooks up a brand new "Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems." Funded to the tune of $780 million over five years, the IFFAFS will open Uncle Sugar's coffers wide to genome mapping, biotech, precision ag, whiz-bang food technologies, and new uses and products for ag commodities. Yes, these are all areas where corporations are already spending millions on R & D, in the expectation of turning more than a tiny profit on their investment. Yes, this would be pretty much straight up corporate welfare. And your point would be???

One small piece of good news is that Senator Harkin was good on his word and included a paragraph in the Committee report under the IFFAFS on organic research, under the section discussing the need for new and alternatives uses for ag and forest products. It reads:

The Committee is aware that the organic foods sector has grown at an average rate of 20 percent for the last seven years and more than 10,000 U.S. farms are engaged in some form of organic production. The Committee is aware of a recent study by the Organic Farming Research Foundation that found that less than one tenth of one percent of USDA research is pertinent to organic production. The Committee intends that organic production research be eligible to compete for this funding.

The full Senate should take up the bill early in the last week of October. If it does, it means all issues have been negotiated and the bill will pass without amendment or debate once the Manager's amendment containing all the negotiated settlements is accepted. As far as we know, all issues are settled.

The biggest issue stalling the bill was whether funds would be available to pay for the extension of the Fund for Rural America through 2002 and the new "Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems." All of the money ($300 million for the Fund and $780 million for the Initiative) will be retained in the bill! The child welfare bill that has been competing for the money will be funded from a cap on administrative expenses on Medicaid, with the Food Stamp administrative cap paying for the research bill.

All of the amendments filed by Senator Feingold have been settled. On the most important -- which would have added ICM/IPM/IRM research and research improving the viability of small and moderate size dairy and livestock operations to the list of priority uses of the "Initiative" -- we gained a partial win. Neither was added to the first year (FY 98) funding priorities, but the small and moderate size farm piece was made a priority for the outyears (FY 99 and following).

Hence, the first year would have the original five priorities of Senators Lugar and Harkin (genome mapping, biotechnology, new uses and products, food safety/technologies, and natural resource management including precision agriculture). In the second year and following, the Secretary can continue these priorities or add or subtract priorities. If he adds or changes priorities, he must include one on research to help small and moderate size dairy, livestock and crop producers. We will have to fight hard to retain (and maybe improve) this provision in conference.

Another accepted Feingold amendment to the overall bill will authorize a new "coordinated program of research, extension, and education to improve viability of small and medium size dairy and livestock operations." This provisions calls for research and education on low-cost production practices and management systems, management-intensive grazing systems, integrated crop and livestock systems to reduce costs and prevent pollution, economic and market feasibility studies to identify new and expanded consumer opportunities, and technology assessment to identify specific needs of smaller livestock producers. The funding can come from reprogramming existing funds, as well as from new appropriations.

Sen. Feingold also had several amendments to the precision ag sections of the bill, which are detailed below.

Assuming Senate passage of the bill, the House Agriculture Committee will take up its companion bill next week. It remains unclear whether the Republican leadership will insert the money into the bill or not. If not, the House bill will have no Fund for Rural America extension or new Initiative. We will be keeping close track as the plot develops next week, looking for opportunities to improve the House bill and the situation for the conference committee between the House and Senate later this fall.

House Action:House Action: The House Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research passed their bill, H.R. 2534 on Sept. 26. Full Committee markup is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 29, although staffers have told us that the markup will not be held until after the full Senate moves Lugar's bill.. They're holding off because the House bill does not include the $780 million IFFAFS, although Subcommittee Chair Larry Combest (R-Tex.) would like it to. Because the House is caught up in its own internecine bloodletting over unfunded mandates, Combest can't even get at the money Chafee, Lugar, et al are tussling over. With me so far? Combest believes it'll be easier to include the money if it comes over in the Senate bill. Easier, but not a slam dunk – if you can picture 435 Honorables sitting still with $780 million lying on the floor, you've got one heck of an imagination. Beats soap operas any day, with a big ol' stick.

Ferd described the House mark-up as a circus. Most of the members gave conclusive proof that they have only vague knowledge of research and extension, confused Smith-Lever with Hatch, and generally didn't let ignorance counsel silence. Into this knowledge vacuum, the land grant guys had issued marching orders to reject any changes in formula funding, even though they were based on the NAS Land Grant study. Once again, the land grants are boldly building a bridge to the nineteenth century. How effective were they? Eva Clayton and Earl Hilliard – both active members of the Congressional Black Caucus – not only voted against but spoke against making 1890s schools eligible for Extension 3d Funds, among other long overdue reforms to the formula. Sigh.

The "New Initiatives" section in the House bill includes language inserted by Rep. Dooley (D-Cal.) on "high-value ag production" research (can you say "wine"? I thought you could), and directives by other members on precision ag, and research pork (not to be confused with "pork research," this is where all the home state folks get their gravy, whether it's prickly pear, deer tick, or other geographically targeted research). On a happier note, this section included the Thomas Jefferson Initiative for Crop Diversification, sponsored by Rep. George Brown (D-Cal.) and pushed by Rob Myers, former director of SARE, to establish a center to coordinate research on new and nontraditional crops.

Both the House and Senate agricultural research bills contain sections authorizing new "precision agriculture" research and education programs. But the hard work of MSAWG and Campaign grassroots supporters headed off the real threat from this Fertilizer Institute-backed initiative. In early versions, the precision ag initiatives deleted references to sustainable agriculture as an emphasis for the National Research Initiative, earmarked 40% of NRI funds for precision ag, and required researchers to report only positive results to precision ag trials.

The precision agriculture sections of the bill are still far from perfect. Campaign and MSAWG grassroots networks worked hard at generating calls to Senate offices in support of a set of amendments by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to the Senate Committee bill. Two of these amendments were included in the final deal Senator Feingold worked out with the committee:

• Striking a great blow for academic freedom, "costs" as well as "benefits" can now be talked about in educational (extension) grants under the precision ag title.
• A new grant category was added for research on whether precision agriculture technologies are applicable and accessible to small and medium size farms and for the study of methods of improving the applicability of precision agriculture to the farms.

These precision agriculture sections of the two research bills would not directly provide funding. If it passes and gets signed into law, proponents would still have to return in following years to try to get it funded through the annual appropriations process.

Here's the deal. Next time Margaret Krome calls you, say in your weariest voice, "Gee, Margaret, didn't we do appropriations last year?" Trust me, she'll love it.

In fact, we've got a lot to be happy about in this appropriations cycle, and Margaret's hard work has a lot to do with that. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), SARE-Professional Development Program (SARE-PDP, aka. Chapter 3), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), Rural Cooperative Development Grant programs and others avoided budget cuts this year. Outreach to Socially Disadvantaged/Minority farmers and Farm Credit got small increases, though not as much as we'd advocated. The Women, Infants and Children (WIC – Food Stamps and related nutrition programs) Farmers Market Nutrition Program got a pretty good increase. Finally, the mandatory-funded programs -- Conservation Programs, Fund for Rural America, and the Community Food Security Act – were left intact by the appropriators.

While this was an excellent outcome, it's hard not to be a wee bit disappointed by it. In the middle of the process, the President and Congress struck a budget deal that actually increased the money available for discretionary spending in the near term, while tightening up in the "out years." We pushed the appropriations committees to allocate some of this windfall to the programs we back. No such luck.

We're getting a jump on next year's cycle with a comprehensive funding proposal to the USDA. We hope that this effort will induce the administration to improve its initial funding requests for SARE, SARE-PDP, ATTRA, and research on integrated farming systems. We'll keep you posted on how this proposal fares with Mr. Rominger.

Regardless, our success in this tough appropriations season was due in no small measure to the tireless work of Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and MSAWG grassroots supporters, under Margaret's equally indefatigable direction. If you made calls or wrote letters this year, thank you; it couldn't have happened without you. And if you didn't, well, there's always next year!

At the end of September, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced plans to introduce a bill later this fall to bring focus to animal waste problems nationwide. The bill would set national standards which states and localities could strengthen, but not fall below. The details of the bill are still be worked out, but among its positive features will be:

• Mandatory nutrient and manure management plans for all concentrated animal feeding operations.
• Strict land application/agronomic rate requirements, with a prohibition on indefinite storage without wastewater treatment.
• Inclusion of poultry, not just dairy and livestock.
• No loopholes to allow evasion of requirements by claiming "zero discharge."
• Regulating by beneficial ownership, rather than site-by-site, and possibly lowering the CAFO threshold from 1,000 animal units.
• Responsibility lodged with the contractor or integrator, not just the operator.

Each of these features responds to major deficiencies in the current rules and regulations under the Clean Water Act. However, the Harkin bill will lodge total responsibility for animal waste and nutrient management plans with USDA. Currently, USDA plays a large role in setting standards and providing technical assistance, but permitting, inspection and enforcement responsibilities belong to EPA and the state resource agencies. The Harkin bill is silent about EPA's role.

The proposed bill could create an unworkable dual structure, overlaying a USDA regulatory role on top of the EPA one. Both SAC and the Clean Water Network's Feedlot Work Group have strongly opposed this aspect of the proposed bill. Hopefully, a future version of the bill will correct this major flaw.

The Harkin bill will also likely include a boost in EQIP funding and a package of EQIP revisions to increase incentives for alternative practices and clamp down on herd size limit and payment limit loopholes.

The lonesome prairie it ain't, but the new SAC offices have quite a bit more space than our previous walk-in closet of an office. We've moved up one floor from the single room SAC office that Ferd had sublet from the National Council of Churches' Suite 108 since 1988 (and used in his previous incarnations since 1978!), to Suite 211 in the Methodist Building. Our mailing address remains the same. As noted above, we're delighted to be sharing the office with Kathleen Merrigan of the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. Within the next few months, we should have the place filled to capacity, with two additional staffers to join Ferd, Kathleen and me.

The new office is well-suited to host various Sustainable Aggies as they pass through our nation's capital. Since we're right across the street from the Capitol building and the Senate offices, it's an ideal base of operations for Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture or other folks in town to work the Hill and USDA. Gone are the days when I'd get a pained expression on my face whenever anyone asked to stash a garment bag in a corner of the room. Still better, Ferd and I no longer have to take turns breathing. We've even got extra desk space and phones available. Ask nicely, and we just might be able to find you a chair.

Care to come out and play? As you have hopefully heard by now, the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition will shortly be hiring an additional staff member as a Policy Associate. The new Associate will take over some of the federal policy duties that Ferd has been handling, most likely in issue areas that match the successful candidate's strengths. Hey, even superheros get tired. The job will include policy analysis, research, development and education, as well as a fair amount of representation of SAC before Congress and work on administrative reform at USDA and EPA. This job will be based in our new, improved Washington D.C. office, with a salary of $30,000 plus, depending on qualifications. And if you think you'll miss Midwest cold and snow, don't forget the flurry of mid-winter MSAWG meetings you'll be required to attend – fly in, fly out, pack a nice winter coat. No shoveling required. If you're interested, get a copy of your resume, a cover letter and writing sample to us before October 31.

At the same time, Wallace's Kathleen Merrigan is also looking for a Policy Analyst, who will also be based in this office. And here I was just getting used to having a little elbow room. The duties, salary and benefits are quite similar to the position listed above, although there will be slightly less representation, and a little more research, analysis, and office manager-type work associated with this job. While we are intending to pool resumes for the two jobs, it's not going to hurt you much to send a second copy of your resume and a cover letter to Kathleen at either her fax (202) 544-0774 or e-mail at merrigan@access.digex.net.

In mid September, the Center for Rural Affairs organized meetings for sustainable farmers from around the country with USDA personnel to discuss plans for a Revenue Insurance system and agricultural research priorities. Fly-in participants included Glen Anderson (California organic almond grower), Ron Rosmann (Harlan, Iowa highly diversified farm), Kevin Brussell (Casey, Illinois organic farm with more stuff going on than I can keep track), and Mark Wilkes (Texas organic cotton grower). Juli Baker and Kim Staritsky organized the event.

The top priority of the effort was to sit down with USDA Risk Management staff, in order to head off some of the problems for sustainable farmers that are emerging in the new Revenue Insurance proposals. Juli reports that these meetings went quite well, and made considerable progress toward gaining recognition of sustainable practices as risk management tools in their own right. The USDA participants also began to see that crop insurance "best practices" requirements discriminated against farmers who choose practices other than the prescribed sprays or other conventional methods to control weeds and insects. They also reacted positively to discussions about "whole farm" coverage under the revenue insurance plans.

Fly-in participants also met with Agricultural Research Service mucky-mucks in Beltsville, Maryland. Although there was a certain degree of cross communication – ARS representatives seemed to think they were already doing quite a few of the things they were being asked to do – the sustainable ag participants reported that they started to open some eyes there, and may have made some progress that further contacts can build upon.

This was also a good opportunity for several of the farmers to meet with their representatives, and coincided with a Washington, D.C. meeting of the USDA's Small Farm Commission. Kevin Brussell testified before the Commission's public hearing on behalf of the Illinois Sustainable Agriculture Society and the SAC, and did a fine job laying out the issues, both by pointing out the ways that overall USDA policies are biased toward large scale, industrial agriculture, and calling attention to the link between small farm survival and sustainable farming systems.

The USDA's National Commission on Small Farms, announced with great fanfare and precious little direction by the Secretary last summer, is finding that the deadline for its report is receding like the horizon when you run toward it. With an original flush of extreme optimism, the Commission was to have reported back by September 30. Now, that same report is expected by the end of January. Meetings of the commission so far have tended to give ample chance for anyone and everyone to say their peace and then some, with far less time devoted to figuring out the body's mission, and how they intend to achieve it.

Still, we expect the report to reflect the hard work of a lot of very good people, both on the commission and among those who've testified before it. While the first draft of the Commission's report apparently included a staggering 200 priority recommendations (it's a little hard to picture anything being a priority in a list that exhaustive), we understand that the list has been narrowed somewhat, and should reflect a very strong agenda for USDA to make a real contribution to the health and longevity of moderate-scale farms in this country.

However, the open, ominous question remains; should an ideal report, clear of vision and strong of heart, land with a thud on the Secretary's desk, will he do anything with it?

As reported in the August Washington Report, a provision in the Senate research title would eliminate emergency haying and grazing of CRP in return for allowing for managed haying and grazing on a regular schedule, with a payment reduction equal to the value of the forage obtained. We strongly support the basic concept, though have worked for revised language to accommodate management-intensive rotation grazing and to eliminate the payment reduction in the case of partial field enrollments under the Buffer Initiative.

As of this writing, unfortunately, the provision will likely be stripped from the research bill if and when it goes to the floor due to the very active opposition from the National Cattlemen, American Farm Bureau, National Association of Conservation Districts, and most (but not all) of the national wildlife organizations. Repeated attempts to overcome this opposition and work out compromise language have failed. So for now, it appears we are headed back to the year in and year out debates every spring over which areas of the country will be declared emergencies and under what terms CRP land will be hayed or grazed.

The 16th sign-up begins this week and continues through November 14th. Efforts by SAC to force USDA to make major changes in the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) for this 16th sign-up have reaped only small rewards. The EBI is the instrument used to decide which offers are accepted into the CRP. We argued vigorously for a new version of the EBI's water quality factor and the cost factor, plus several other changes.

First, the small victories. While the old cost factor (the cheaper the land, the more points awarded) was left in place, up to 15 additional points were added for bids that are below the maximum rental rates for the land in question. We argued that at least 50% of the cost factor points should reward competitive bids on a local level. Less than 15% of the bids in the 15th sign-up were below the maximum available.

The new 15 points is likely to be out of a total of over 200 total cost factor points, so its impact will likely be small. At least they implicitly recognized the merit of our argument, but it may be too little, too late. The EBI cost factor will continue to severely penalize the Corn Belt and Lake States.

The other good, but minor changes we advocated for include the addition of 10 points for post-CRP contracts or easements that extend CRP benefits, some improvements for rare and native habitat, and increased thinning for existing CRP pine plantations to receive maximum points.

Now for the big disappointments. No changes were made to the water quality factor, meaning there is still be no effective targeting of CRP to enhance water quality, other than the continuous sign-up for buffer practices. Add this deficiency to the cost factor problem, plus the incredible weighting of the EBI to farmed wetlands, pine plantations, and large land blocks in both the 15th and 16th sign-ups, and the result is clear. By and large, the EBI will select for wildlife benefits, including wetlands, plus pine plantations. Enrollments will continue to be highly concentrated in the western Plains and a few places in the Southeast. And, despite all of the Secretary's claims to the contrary, USDA will have failed to target the very largest conservation program (almost 90% of the total federal conservation incentive budget) to pressing soil and water problems.

If your head's still spinning from trying to make sense of the previous section, you probably need a copy of the latest out of the Center for Rural Affairs' Conservation Options Hotline. Duane Hovorka has written a very effective guide to help farmers pull together successful CRP bids. Entitled Bid to Win: Tips for Maximizing Your CRP Bid., the guide gives a good, understandable overview of the system USDA will be using to evaluate bids, and how farmers can tailor their proposals to maximize their prospects. Bid to Win is a "must read" for farmers who will be bidding land into the CRP, and for those of you who'll be fielding increasingly worried calls as the November 14 deadline approaches. Call Duane on the Conservation Options Hotline at (402) 994-2021 today to get your very own copy or email him at: dh43048@navix.net.

The Land Stewardship Project is relieved to announce that "Making the Most of Freedom to Farm: Innovative uses of Flexible Planting Rules and Conservation Programs" is finally out. The guide, at long last finished by yours truly, outlines strategies for farmers who are looking to use their new planting flexibility to adopt more diverse, integrated farming systems. It includes introductory-level chapters on whole-farm planning, new conservation programs, crop rotations, integrating livestock into a farm, and tillage alternatives. Each chapter includes an extensive list of sources of additional information (organizations, print materials, and internet resources) that should point readers toward someone who actually knows what the heck they're talking about. Copies of the report are available directly from LSP for $4 shipping and handling, or contact me for information about multiple copies. (See New Farm Program Option Guide for more information and Making Sense of Federal Programs for an excerpt.

All through the summer, intense press scrutiny followed fish kills by Pfisteria piscicada (dubbed "the cell from hell" by the North Carolina researchers who first documented its voracious habits, and drew out the link between pfisteria outbreaks and excessive livestock waste in waterways) in several rivers that feed the Chesapeake Bay, along with injuries to fishermen, waterskiers and others. Maryland and national politicians have been elbowing past one another for months in a struggle to look proactive in dealing with the problem, which seems to be linked with large-scale broiler chicken production on the Eastern Shore of the Bay, and other confined poultry and hog operations on the Virginia side. A notable exception to the outpouring of concern has been my own Virginia Governor George Allen, whose reluctance to even acknowledge a problem could not possibly have anything to do with the massive campaign contributions he'd gorged on from mega-hogger Smithfield Foods.

On October 20, Vice President Gore, Secretary Glickman, and Maryland Governor Parris Glendenning (decked out in checked flannel shirts that gave it the surreal feel of a Lamar Alexander rally) alighted at the confluence of two major Chesapeake Bay tributaries to announce that USDA would approve Maryland's plan to use the new "Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program." The Enhancement Program allows states to devise a comprehensive plan to set aside riparian buffers, floodplains, wetlands or other lands that protect water quality, with the state kicking in at least 20% of the cost of the program. Once a state's plan is approved, farmers who offer land that meet the plan's criteria could be automatically enrolled in the CRP. In addition to Maryland's proposal, Minnesota and Illinois have submitted similar plans for the Minnesota and Illinois rivers, respectively. Maryland's plan would pay farmers as much as $250 million to take 100,000 acres out of production on land that borders the Bay and its tributaries.

Despite some background rumblings – Eastern Shore farmers have not used the CRP very much, and seem generally skeptical about the whole thing – the USDA, Maryland, and VP Gore's green team seem to be charging ahead as though this will eliminate all of the harmful side effects of intensive poultry and livestock production, along with excessive application of nitrogen and phosphorous to cropland in the Chesapeake watershed. It won't. With USDA personnel and local officials in a "teachable moment" here, we are working to get across the message that farming systems that don't produce excessive runoff in the first place should at least get equal billing with efforts to keep the effluent of large scale excretors out of the waterways.

After nearly four years as Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Paul Johnson will be leaving USDA, effective November 8, and returning to his Decorah, Iowa farm. Johnson has been a good friend to this organization, with a good working relationship with Ferd and others, and an open door to us, even when we were taking NRCS to task over one thing or another. He was the featured speaker at our July 1995 MSAWG meeting in Lafayette, Indiana, which was something of a coup, since we got him there before Purdue University. Nyah Nyah Nyah!

Though we will miss Paul here in Washington, D.C., this may be as much "hello" as "goodbye" for MSAWG. Reliable sources report that, when someone mentioned to him that he'd be back in the Midwest in time for the November MSAWG meeting, he was more than a little curious about when and where the meeting would be held. Hopefully, we will continue to have the opportunity to confuse the Kansas Rural Center's Paul Johnson with Iowa's for years to come. We should be so lucky.

Loni Kemp offered the following report on the Clean Water Network's effort here in D.C. this past weekend:

The Clean Water Network held its annual meeting in DC October 18-20. MSAWG was well represented by farmers and staff from many of our organizations. We kicked off the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act with a remarkable press conference with Vice President Al Gore, Carole Browner of EPA, Sec. Dan Glickman, and Rep. Oberstar of Minnesota. After celebrating cleanup successes for point sources, the focus was largely on the unfinished business of ag non-point sources. Gore challenged Congress to reauthorize the Clean Water Act next year. He also announced a directive to USDA and EPA to quickly develop a joint action plan on nutrients, including a commitment to set nitrate and phosphorus water quality standards. He also announced a new wetlands goal of 100,000 acres net gain every year.

Glickman, noting how much times have changed that he was here celebrating the Clean Water Act, emphasized sustainable agriculture(!). He remarked that it used to be a fringe movement, but now sustainable farmers are becoming mainstream out in the countryside . Both Gore and Glickman warmly thanked retiring Chief Paul Johnson.

Major actions at the Network conference included:

• A meeting with EPA's head of water, Bob Perciaseppe, where we pushed for a stronger administrative strategy on feedlots, promised for late October.
• A day-long mini-caucus on feedlots in which we hammered out mutual positions for strong feedlot legislation.
• A meeting with Sen. Harkin to push for strengthening of his bill, due to be introduced by late October. He seems receptive to keeping all regulatory functions at EPA rather than USDA, and was at least interested in a moratorium on new feedlots while the permit backlog is cleared up.
• Rep. Oberstar said he intends to hold hearing in early 1998 on his runoff bill and push the House to vote it up or down.
• The overall strategy of the Clean Water Network will be to simultaneously push for administrative reforms and individual pieces of legislation (such as feedlots, runoff, beaches, etc.) and hope that in late 1998 bills can be packaged together into a comprehensive Clean Water Act.

Pfisteria outbreaks in the Chesapeake Bay, coming on top of years of our work on feedlots, are bringing about remarkable momentum for action in Washington. The constant barrage of TV ads touting the safety of Maryland seafood would make any congressman nervous (not to mention making the Governor and other Maryland politicians turn a little green at the thought of eating yet another crab cake in front of yet another TV camera. – Brad). Call Loni Kemp for more information, or e-mail her at lkemp@tc.umn.edu

• July '97

Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- October '97