Testimony on behalf of the

**National Cattlemen's Beef Association**

With regard to

**Agricultural Conservation Programs**

Submitted to the

United States House of Representatives -- Committee on Agriculture

Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research

The Honorable Tim Holden, Chairman

Submitted by

Steve Foglesong

Chair, Policy Division

National Cattlemen's Beef Association

April 19, 2007

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.742361111111111in"
height="1.1631944444444444in"}

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Steve
Foglesong, and I am a cattle producer from Astoria, Illinois. I am the
Policy Division Chair of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
Producer-directed and consumer-focused, NCBA is the trade association of
America's cattle farmers and ranchers and the marketing organization for
the largest segment of the nation's food and fiber industry, and is the
only voice of cattle producers in Washington, D.C.

Cattlemen are true environmentalists. For centuries, we have been
stewards of our nation's land and resources. Our livelihood is made on
the land, so being good stewards of the land not only makes good
environmental sense, it is fundamental for our industry to remain
strong. Some of the cattle industry's biggest challenges and threats
come from the loss of natural resources. Our industry is threatened
every day by urban encroachment, natural disasters, and
misinterpretation and misapplication of environmental laws. The
conservation of our nation's natural resources is imperative, and cattle
producers have a vested interest in keeping land healthy and productive,
keeping water and air clean, keeping wildlife abundant, and keeping
ecosystems diverse. We strive to operate as environmentally friendly as
possible, and it is through the conservation programs in the Farm Bill
that we can achieve a partnership with the government to this end.

The goal of conservation programs is to achieve the greatest
environmental benefit with the limited resources available. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has numerous programs that are
currently utilized by cattlemen, and we know that these programs will be
a large part of the 2007 Farm Bill. I appreciate the opportunity to talk
about the cattlemen's position on these programs.

In general, NCBA's priorities in the upcoming Farm Bill are to:

1.  Support a reduction of the federal deficit while assuring funding
    for Farm Bill priorities, without agriculture bearing a
    disproportionate share of the reductions,

2.  Minimize direct federal involvement in agricultural production
    methods,

3.  Preserve the individual's right to manage land, water, and other
    resources,

4.  Provide an opportunity to compete in foreign markets, and

5.  Support equitable farm policy.

NCBA believes government policy should enhance the individual's right of
free choice in land use, soil conservation, water conservation, energy
use, and utilization of working lands conservation methods that are
based on sound science and economics.

Paramount to any discussion regarding conservation programs is the need
to protect individual private property rights. Federal conservation
policy should reflect both the U.S. and state constitutions and enhance
an individual's right to free choice regarding land, water, soil and
energy use, development, and conservation. The rights of private
landowners must be protected. NCBA opposes any federal policy that
results in the loss of private lands or water rights without specific
procedures of due process of law and just compensation. Agreements
involving individual private land and water rights must be the decision
of individual private property owners.

Within the Conservation Title of the Farm Bill, NCBA supports working
lands programs. This includes the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the
Conservation Security Program (CSP), and the Grassland Reserve Program
(GRP). The goal of conservation programs should be to maintain a balance
between keeping well-managed working lands in production and providing
for conservation of species and natural resources. Many producers would
like to enroll in various USDA conservation programs such as the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to reach environmental goals.
However, enrolling in these programs requires the producer to stop
productive economic activity on the land enrolled. We believe economic
activity and conservation can go hand in hand. As such, we support the
addition of provisions in the next Farm Bill that will allow more
working-lands programs that will have tangible benefits on environmental
quality, and help to improve our ranching lands.

Given the limited resources that are available, NCBA would like to see
overlap and redundancy in programs eliminated, and efficiency of
programs improved. The way to get the best value out of these program
dollars is to have the method of delivery as clear, concise, and quick
as possible. Consolidation and streamlining, as suggested in the
Administration's Farm Bill proposal, is one way to achieve that. We are
happy to work with the Committee to make sure any streamlining or
consolidation continues to serve the needs of cattle producers.

The most popular program among cattlemen is the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program, or EQIP. This financial cost-share program rewards
and provides incentives to cattle producers for their environmental
stewardship. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
assists producers in the development of long range conservation plans,
and then offers incentives through cost sharing for the landowner to
incorporate best management practices to accomplish the objectives of
the plan. EQIP is the best, most effective way to get conservation
projects and practices implemented on the ground for cattlemen.

In the 2002 Farm Bill, EQIP saw a large increase in funding. Even with
that increase, there still remains a substantial backlog of applications
for the program. NCBA supports increased funding for EQIP within the
Conservation Title, so that the program is able to provide more
producers with financial assistance as they work to implement good
conservation practices and projects. Livestock production happens
largely without the benefit of a safety net, like many of the commodity
programs have. Environmental concerns are one of the biggest threats to
our industry. That said, NCBA supports the continuation of the provision
in the 2002 Farm Bill that devotes sixty percent of EQIP funds to
livestock.

Although popular, EQIP has a few problems we'd like to see addressed in
the upcoming Farm Bill.

Many ranchers have complained that the time and paperwork required to
apply for EQIP funds makes the program an unattractive and burdensome
program. Understanding that funding is limited, one method to realize
more dollars for the end users of conservation programs would be to make
the program more user-friendly and less arduous. We understand that the
verification of records in order to ensure that appropriate
qualifications are met is very important, but achieving a more efficient
application method and accountability system would result in more
dollars being spent on actual conservation. NCBA supports streamlining
on a larger scale, between overlapping programs, as well as within the
programs. A streamlined and efficient overall program is key to making
the most of taxpayer's dollars.

Cattle producers across the country participate in EQIP, but the
practice of arbitrarily setting numerical caps that render some
producers eligible and others ineligible limits its success. Addressing
environmental solutions is not a large versus small operation issue. All
producers have the responsibility to take care of the environment and
their land and should have the ability to participate in programs that
assist them in establishing and reaching achievable environmental goals.
Accordingly, all producers should be afforded equal access to cost share
dollars under programs such as EQIP or any other conservation program
intended for working lands.

Another category of livestock producers excluded by USDA from EQIP are
custom feeders. USDA has decided these producers do not share the risk
of the ultimate sale price of the animals they feed. This exclusion is
difficult to comprehend. These producers feed livestock on behalf of
others and are obviously agricultural operations. Their environmental
profile is identical to every other feeding operation. They certainly
share the risk of financial success on their operations, even if not for
the ultimate price of the individual animals they sell. We urge the
Subcommittee to support changes in law to eliminate USDA's exclusion of
custom feeders from EQIP.

Yet another sector of our industry that is excluded by USDA from
qualifying for EQIP is livestock markets. The vast majority of livestock
move through these markets, where they are held until they are bought or
sold. Livestock markets are regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), and are held
to the same high environmental standards as other cattle feeding
operations. Livestock markets share similar resource concerns with other
livestock feeding operations, and should be eligible for government
assistance to address those concerns in the form of EQIP.

NCBA believes changes in EQIP contracts should be implemented to make
this program more attractive to producers. Currently, ranchers are
assessed unreasonable penalties associated with the cancellation of an
EQIP contract. These penalties can be up to 20 percent of the total
financial and technical assistance obligated to the participant, even if
little work has been performed by NRCS. NRCS should not require an
applicant to sign a contract until the final cost of the contract is
known and approved by the producer. Producers should also be allowed to
periodically review and revise the terms of multiple year contracts to
adjust for inflation and the rising costs of materials over time, when
justified. Finally, NRCS should provide a least-cost alternative to
applicants when engineering for the government's share.

NCBA also believes that additional management tools should be available
for range restoration within EQIP. In addition to mechanical treatments,
modern recovery techniques, which have proven to be safe, efficient, and
cost effective, should be available for range restoration within EQIP,
including the use of herbicide.

One of the reasons EQIP is so popular among ranchers is the fact that it
is a working-lands program. We believe that conservation programs that
keep land in production and do not artificially limit its use are best
for the ranchers and for reaching the goal of conserving our resources.
Other working-lands programs that we support include the Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) and the Grassland Reserve Program
(GRP). These programs help keep landscapes in tact, keep producers on
the land, address resource concerns, and mitigate mounting environmental
pressures. WHIP's cost-sharing and technical assistance provisions
provide assistance to conservation-minded landowners who are unable to
meet the specific eligibility requirements of other USDA conservation
programs. A healthy wildlife population is generally a sign of a healthy
ecosystem, which is conducive to a healthy cattle operation.

The Grassland Reserve Program, new in the 2002 Farm Bill, proved to be
hugely popular. NCBA supports continued funding for the GRP program to
help conserve our nation's working grasslands. Unfortunately, many
ranchers are skeptical of participating in GRP because they simply don't
trust the government. To solve this problem, the 2007 Farm Bill should
give USDA more flexibility to allow private land trusts to hold and
negotiate the terms of GRP easements. A major benefit of this approach
is that if a private land trust negotiates and holds an easement, they
can enforce and manage the easement at little ongoing cost to the
public. The interest in conservation from the ranching community is
tremendous -- we just need more flexibility in current programs to make
them workable.

We also believe that third parties should be able to use their own
easement template for a GRP easement, as long as it includes the
necessary grassland conservation restrictions. This would make the
program more acceptable to landowners, allow land trusts to apply their
expertise in perpetual easement management and administration, and
enable GRP dollars to potentially be combined with dollars from other
conservation programs.

GRP easements should have the ability to be transferred to other
qualified organizations in the event of dissolution or if they are
unable to fulfill their easement monitoring responsibilities. NCBA asks
the Subcommittee to provide the ability to transfer GRP easements to
non-profit organizations before handing over to the government in cases
where the original easement holder is unable to fulfill its monitoring
and enforcement duties. Landowners are very wary of an easement
automatically defaulting to the government. We understand that the
government must protect their interest in the easement, but we urge the
Subcommittee to build flexibility into the program to allow the easement
to be transferred to another qualified land trust before it reverts to
the government.

The Grassland Reserve Program has been very successful in helping
landowners restore and protect grassland while maintaining the acres for
grazing and haying. This is in huge contrast to programs such as the
Conservation Reserve Program or CRP. Considering the fact that 28
million CRP contracts will expire over the next five years, and
considering the fact that the 2007 Farm Bill will be dealing with less
funding than in 2002, we believe that the CRP is one of the programs
that should be considered for reevaluation and savings.

The CRP is a program designed for the purposes of reducing soil erosion,
protecting water quality, enhancing habitat for wildlife, and decreasing
overuse of lands not suited to farming. These are worthy goals, but we
believe the USDA should consider targeting the program to acres that
would produce the most significant environmental benefits. Emphasis
should be placed on enrolling buffer strips, grass waterways, and only
the most environmentally sensitive portions of farms so that program
dollars provide the most benefit to the public. We discourage the
enrollment of entire fields or farms; a practice that we believe
adversely affects local economies, makes it difficult for beginning or
disadvantaged producers to enter farming and ranching, and may not
provide the level of environmental benefits that we believe should be
the focus of the program.

With the current program, NCBA is opposed to haying and grazing on lands
enrolled in the CRP program except under a few limited conditions. These
conditions include:

(1) In case of drought or other emergency situation declared by the
    Secretary of Agriculture, including emergencies caused by fires on
    private or public rangelands;

(2) In the case of incidental grazing in conjunction with grazing
    contiguous crop residue or stubble on lands enrolled in continuous
    sign-up CRP or the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP),
    or

(3) In the case of a USDA determination that maintenance or management
    is required on land enrolled in CRP to maintain plant health and
    proper resource management.

We believe that in all instances of haying or grazing on lands enrolled
in the CRP, continuous sign-up CRP, or CREP, the payment should be
reduced by the value of the forage harvested or grazed. NCBA believes
that managed grazing on CRP lands should be permitted during the primary
nesting season where State Technical Advisory Committees recommend it
under an approved plan.

While NCBA does not support grazing of CRP lands as part of a continuous
grazing program, we do support haying and grazing to maintain plant
health and proper resource management when determined by the NRCS or
FSA, with reductions in payments whenever appropriate.

CRP acres must be properly maintained at a higher level into the future.
Problems exist due to noxious weed invasion, as well as proper growth
control of desired species. This required management is often very
costly and in many instances could be accomplished through very
prescriptive haying and grazing. These two practices have proven very
effective and efficient on private and federal lands.

Emergency use of CRP lands during a disaster declaration due to drought
or fire on private or public rangelands is important to ranchers. By
allowing emergency use of these lands, many livestock producers---who
otherwise may have been forced out of business as a result of a
disaster---are able to stay in business. We support the continued
allowance of CRP lands for this reason at the designation of the
Secretary of Agriculture through state advisement. We also support
payment reductions when CRP lands are used in cases of disaster.

Because of a recent court decision, grazing on CRP has been limited to
once every ten years. NCBA believes that managed haying and grazing is a
valuable tool in the maintenance of CRP acres, both to manage the forage
as well as to reduce fuel loads and to keep plant communities vibrant.
We are concerned about these recent judicial actions aimed solely at
wildlife concerns that do not take into consideration the environmental
benefits of haying and grazing of land under CRP contracts, and ask the
Committee to clarify their intent in the law.

Another program the Cattlemen support is the Conservation Security
Program. CSP was a new program in the 2002 Farm Bill that rewards those
of us that have been conservationists and have spent time and money in
the past improving our land, water, and wildlife habitats.  CSP also
provides an incentive to those who have not participated in conservation
programs to become involved and improve their operations which in turn
will benefit the environment.  NCBA is a strong supporter of CSP, but
believes that necessary revisions are needed for the program to reach
its full potential.

Producers are frustrated with the implementation of CSP through the
watershed approach. In a given year, eligibility for the program may
depend upon which side of the road an operation is on. Not knowing from
year to year which watershed will be eligible does not allow producers
time to prepare all of the documentation and paperwork necessary to
apply for CSP. We have heard from our members that rangeland, as a
general rule, ranks lower in CSP, and therefore is at a disadvantage.
NCBA believes that keeping rangelands healthy is imperative, and would
hope the CSP program would reflect that. We look forward to working with
both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees as they work to make
the revisions to this program and bring it to its full potential for
natural resources and producers.

When it comes to the implementation of USDA's conservation programs, it
is imperative that we ensure adequate support and technical assistance
to make these programs successful. Resources must be allocated to
maintain adequate NRCS personnel at the local level to provide the
technical assistance necessary to implement successful rangeland
conservation programs. Ranchers need a dependable and recognized source
of technical assistance in order to meet rangeland conservation needs.

USDA's conservation programs are a great asset to cattle producers. We
want to see them continued and refined to make them more
producer-friendly and more effective in protecting the environment in a
sensible manner. NCBA looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to
assure any revisions to the conservation programs continue to serve the
needs of cattle producers across the country. Thank you for the
opportunity to express NCBA's views with you here today.

**Steve Foglesong**

Steve Foglesong is the owner of Black Gold Ranch located in Illinois.
With his wife and children, he operates a cow-calf, stocker, feedlot,
and replacement heifer development program. He attended the University
of Illinois where he received a bachelor's degree in animal science.

Steve is active in many agricultural organizations. He is a member and
past president of the Illinois Beef Association, and is currently
serving as Vice Chairman of NCBA's Policy Division. He was appointed to
the Cattlemen's Beef Board by the Secretary of Agriculture and also
served on the Beef Check-off Working Group.

He has held other positions within NCBA including Membership and
Association Services Committee Chairman, Region III Vice President, New
Marketing Initiatives Committee member, and member of the Blue Ribbon
Commission. While serving in these roles, Steve provided strategic
direction for resource development to achieve the goals and objectives
of the industry's Long Range Plan. He also helped guide the coordination
between NCBA, state affiliates, beef councils and other industry
organizations.

Steve, and his wife, Linda, have raised four children, Nate, Drew, Cole
and Kaitlin. In his spare time, he continues to work on enhancing the
wildlife habitat on the ranch and participates in local groups such as
his county cattlemen's association, school board, and Extension.