U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–561 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–564

OVERSIGHT OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS OF

THE 2002 FARM BILL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, 

AND RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 11, 2004

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

ZELL MILLER, Georgia 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

HUNT SHIPMAN, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

LANCE KOTSCHWAR, Majority General Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Oversight of Conservation Programs of the 2002 Farm Bill ................................ 01

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 02

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 05

Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from Vermont ............................................. 04

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S. Senator from Arkansas ........................................ 19

WITNESSES 

Panel I 

Little, James R., Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 07

Knight, Bruce I., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 09

Panel II 

Christopherson, Al, President, Minnesota Farm Bureau; on behalf of

American Farm Bureau Federation ................................................................... 21

Gallup, Gordon, on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers; 

National Cotton Council; National Corn Growers Association; American 

Soybean Association; and the U.S. Rice Federation .......................................... 26

Hansen, John K., President, Nebraska Farmers Union; on behalf of the

National Farmers Union ..................................................................................... 23

Nelson, Jeffrey W., on behalf of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Congressional

Sportsman’s Foundation; Pheasants Forever; International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies; The Izaak Walton League, The Wildlife Society; 

and Wildlife Management Institute ................................................................... 28

Petty, David, on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; National 

Chicken Council; National Pork Producers Council; National Turkey

Federation; and the United Egg Producers ....................................................... 29

Thicke, Francis, Member, Iowa State Technical Committee; on behalf of the 

Sustainable Agriculture Coalition ...................................................................... 31

Wilson, Bill, President-Elect, National Association of Conservation Districts ... 24

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Christopherson, Al ............................................................................................ 103

Gallup, Gordon .................................................................................................. 121

Hansen, John .................................................................................................... 112

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued

Knight, Bruce .................................................................................................... 73

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche ...................................................................................... 42

Little, James R. ................................................................................................ 46

Nelson, Jeffrey .................................................................................................. 124

Petty, David ...................................................................................................... 138

Talent, Hon. James .......................................................................................... 44

Thicke, Francis ................................................................................................. 150

Wilson, Bill ........................................................................................................ 116

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OF THE 2002 FARM BILL 

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL

REVITALIZATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in room 

SD–628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, [Chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Senators Crapo, Talent, Harkin, Lincoln, and Leahy. 

Senator CRAPO. If everybody would take their seats, the hearing 

will come to order. 

I’m going to start just a couple of minutes early because—and I 

see we have our witnesses here—we’re going to be under a pretty 

tight time constraint today. We will be having a vote at noon, 

which means we have only 2 hours for nine witnesses. I’m going 

to start now, and I expect we will have other members arriving 

shortly. I have had a number of them express an interest or concern and so I expect them to show up. 

I will also remind all the witnesses that, because of our tight 

time constraints, we’re going to be very careful to follow the clock. 

That is, we are giving you 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. 

We ask you to try to do it in 5 minutes or less, so that it will give 

us plenty of time for questions and interaction. 

I always tell the witnesses, the time will be up before you’re done 

saying what you had to say, and we encourage you to pay attention 

to the clock and then get your extra points in during the question 

and answer period. 

I want to say that we are very pleased today to have Bruce 

Knight, the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

and James Little, the Administrator for the Farm Service Agency, 

here to testify on the programs and the progress they have made 

since the 2002 Farm bill was signed into law. 

Following their testimony, we will hear from individuals representing those affected by the conservation programs, and I appreciate the widespread interest in this hearing. I look forward to 

their insight and will introduce them when we bring up that panel. 

2

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY,

CONSERVATION, AND RURAL REVITILIZATION, COMMITTEE 

ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator CRAPO. Nearly 2 years ago, the President signed the 

Farm bill into law, and at that time he noted the importance of the 

conservation title. The importance of these conservation programs 

in helping producers meet newer and higher environmental standards and enhancing their ability to protect wetlands, water quality 

and wildlife habitat cannot be overstated. 

I agreed then, and I still agree. I continue to assert that the 

Farm bill is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that Congress deals with. The conservation programs result in real significant environmental benefits. The success of these 

voluntary incentive programs in addressing environmental concerns is a testimony to the farmers and ranchers who make a living 

off the land and have long been the stewards of these resources, 

and the employees at the USDA who are faced with the task of implementing these programs. 

The bill provided an historic 80 percent increase in conservation 

spending and made a point of addressing effective conservation on 

working lands. It increased funding, made major changes to existing programs, and created significant new programs. The conservation title to the 2002 Farm bill was a tremendous step forward in 

meeting the public demands for cleaner air and water, greater soil 

conservation, increased wildlife habitat, and more open spaces. 

I also have the privilege of serving as the chairman of the subcommittee in the Senate that has jurisdiction over fisheries, wildlife and water. Based on that experience, I cannot overstate how 

important these farm bill programs are to all three issues. For 

those struggling to comply with the Clean Water Act requirements, 

to those facing demands for assistance with wildlife habitat, farm 

bill conservation programs get money and technical assistance on 

the ground and into the hands of landowners. 

In Idaho, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program has 

been making significant inroads to address watershed concerns, 

and we have an EQIP contract in almost every TMDL planning watershed. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game credits the Conservation Reserve Program in Idaho for having the biggest population of Columbian sharptailed grouse in the country. 

USDA has announced a program to address salmon habitat restoration through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. With the 

majority of Pacific salmon habitat in Idaho, this will be helpful to 

our continued efforts to address the habitat needs of anadromous 

fish. 

Many in my State have also indicated that the WHIP program 

will be crucial in sustaining conservation efforts to prevent the 

need to list the western sage grouse. I appreciate NRCS’ efforts to 

support both sage grouse and the salmon efforts. 

Also to be commended is the work that the RCND councils are 

doing throughout the State. Their proactive efforts to combat noxious weeds is crucial to long-term stewardship. I could go on and 

on about the work being done through the Farm bill programs, 

from the use of farm and ranchland protection programs, to the 

3

Wetlands Reserve Program at Henry’s Lake, to how the ground 

and surface water program can benefit irrigated agriculture and 

our precious water supply. While I use Idaho as an example, these 

successes are indicative of work occurring throughout the country. 

Two years after the bill was signed into law, there are also challenges and questions that remain. I hope to delve more deeply into 

those issues when we have an opportunity to question the witnesses, but I would like to highlight a few right now. 

The Grassland Reserve Program is the most over-subscribed program in Idaho. Yet, we haven’t seen the final rules for this program. I understand there may be some news on that today. 

Ranchers in Idaho see this as a crucial program for addressing 

the protection and restoration of native grasses. Our weed experts 

see it as critical for addressing noxious weed problems. Our biologists see it as important for nesting habitat. I appreciate your making funding available for the program through notices, but a final 

rule will provide the guidance for implementing this important program. 

Also, I am still concerned that we have not been able to resolve 

the technical assistance issue. Congress was clear in waiving the 

section 11 cap, but 2 years later, we are still working to find a fix. 

I appreciate the massive effort on behalf of USDA to reduce TA 

costs, but even with a reduction, a discretionary account is not the 

way to fix this. 

There is a great deal of optimism associated with the Conservation Security Program. Some see it as a replacement for farm programs. Others, like myself, see it as a supplement or a complement 

to our existing conservation toolbox. Like any program that has not 

been implemented but holds the promise of paying out billions of 

dollars, CSP has piqued the interest of potentially eligible producers, and as we wrote it in the Farm bill, just about everyone 

is eligible. 

With this level of excitement, there is also discontent. There is 

a strong concern that the USDA is proceeding in a manner that is 

not consistent with the Farm bill. I am aware that a 15 percent cap 

on TA, requirements to not rank applicants and Congress’, split 

personality on funding caps makes writing a rule difficult. My bottom line is that I want a program that addresses the intent of our 

legislation, a working lands program that supports ongoing stewardship and creates an incentive for more stewardship. 

One reason producers support the conservation title is the ability 

to assist them in meeting regulatory burdens. There are concerns 

that the programs ranking systems do not adequately weight assisting producers with increasingly stringent regulatory mandates. 

These are just a few of the concerns that I have heard from farmers in Idaho. I will raise these and other questions when the opportunity arises. 

However, while there are concerns overall, the farmers in Idaho 

are pleased with the progress being made in our conservation programs. It is clear that the conservation programs of the Farm bill 

enjoy support from all sectors of the agriculture community and the 

public. From the bipartisan support of policymakers to the farmers 

and ranchers who use the programs, to the public that reaps many 

4

of the benefits, support for these programs and for the work being 

done is strong and is sustained. 

On that note, I just want to point out in closing that today in 

Idaho, high school students are participating in the Idaho 

Envirothon 2004. The Idaho event is sponsored by the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts, and like the other programs 

across the country, it promotes natural resource education in a fun 

and interesting environment. They are learning about many of 

these farm programs and the benefits derived from good stewardship. 

These Idaho students are competing for the opportunity to represent Idaho at the Cannon Envirothon International event later 

this year. More than that, they are fostering an interest in environment and natural resources, and developing a knowledge base that 

they will take with them into the future. 

With that, I have concluded my opening statement. Senator 

Leahy, I see that you have arrived and are ready, so I will turn 

the podium over to you for your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate you 

holding this hearing, and also to Senator Lincoln and Senator Harkin for being here. 

We went through a great deal when we wrote the 2002 Farm bill. 

To say ‘‘a great deal’’ is an understatement. I remember all the 

weekends and all night long sessions we had in doing it. We included a much needed boost of new funding of national conservation assistance for working farms, working farms and forests, funds 

that would protect open space and fertile soils and wildlife habitat, 

water and air quality. 

One of the most important additions to this Farm bill was the 

regional equity requirement that requires under-served States receive at least $12 million in conservation assistance. That is something that I had authored and thought it was very, very important, 

because I knew how well it would be used. Chief Knight, I want 

to thank you again for implementing this provision. 

There are some other bright spots in the 2002 Farm bill. Funding 

for the Agriculture Management Assistance program, the AMA program, has doubled. Even with the additional funding in the Farm 

bill—and we put in significantly additional funding—my own State 

of Vermont continues to have a $2 million backlog, which is because of extremely low allocations. 

Now, there is still time to change this year’s allocation. I would 

ask the USDA to make a good faith effort to reprogram much needed funding. I will be happy to work with you, and my staff will be 

happy to work with you. We have time to do it. 

I have visited a number of the areas where it might be used. We 

are a very small State and I tend to know everybody in the State. 

I know how well it would be used. Please work with us to do it. 

The Farm bill also included historic funding increases for important working lands conservation programs, but the combination of 

Presidential budget cuts and the diversion of mandatory program 

funds have reduced funding for producers. What I worry about is 

5

the family farmers and ranchers offering to restore wetlands, or 

offer to change the way they farm or improve air and water quality, get turned down when they seek conservation assistance. They 

can’t just do it by themselves. Most ranchers and most farmers 

can’t do it by themselves. They need the assistance. 

Now, we have come a long way with the passage of the 2002 

Farm bill. Historic funding has begun to make a real difference in 

rural America. USDA has done a commendable job in implementing the law, but there is a lot more to be done. I have read 

the testimony, and again, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you for 

doing this. 

On a personal note, I regret that I am not going to be with you 

in Coeur d’Alene. My wife is giving the graduation address at a 

school of nursing that weekend in Vermont, and as she is the one 

with Canadian ancestry, I had better be where she’s giving the 

graduation address. 

Senator CRAPO. We’ll miss you. 

Senator Harkin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IOWA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

you and the Chairman of the full committee for having this hearing 

to examine the implementation of the conservation title of the 2002 

Farm bill. 

I join in welcoming all our witnesses. I especially want to thank 

two from Iowa, David Petty, representing our livestock producers, 

and Francis Thicke, representing the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 

With good reason, we celebrated the enactment of the conservation title’s historic increases in funding, expansion of programs, 

and creation of several new and innovative programs and initiatives. In fact, President Bush specifically mentioned the conservation provisions as a reason for signing the Farm bill 2 years. I remember. I was there. 

Despite some progress, far too much of the praise and promise 

associated with the conservation title remains unfulfilled and unrealized. The first disappointment was the White House’s seemingly 

willful misreading of the Farm bill, to block funds dedicated to conservation technical assistance. To make up the shortfall, over $210 

million has already been redirected to technical assistance from 

funds that should have gone directly to producers to conserve soil, 

water, wildlife and other resources. 

The Grassland Reserve Program still struggles for lack of final 

regulations. Though the Wetlands Reserve Program, the WRP, is 

a huge success story in helping restore wetlands on agricultural 

lands, the President’s budget once again calls for scaling it back by 

50,000 acres next year. 

In EQIP, there needs to be a more equitable distribution of 

funds, geographically and among types of operations. To help livestock producers meet environmental challenges, we provided in the 

Farm bill a 60–40 split of EQIP funds between livestock and crop 

6

practices. The actual split now is closer to 65–35, and the funds 

have not been distributed equitably. 

For example, swine operations make up about 22 percent of all 

confined livestock operations, but I was just made to discover that 

swine got only 7 percent of the EQIP cost share funds that went 

to confined livestock. 

The largest new initiative in the Farm bill, of course, is the Conservation Security Program. It has drawn tremendous interest and 

support across both the agriculture and conservation environmental communities. I compliment Mr. Knight here. I have a story 

here that quotes you, Mr. Knight, as saying that CSP is one giant 

leap for conservation. Well, that’s true and I agree with that. 

I believe it’s more of a giant leap for all of agriculture as a whole. 

If properly implemented, true to the law, CSP will reward all types 

of agriculture producers who voluntarily make the required effort 

to protect and enhance water, air, soil, wildlife and other resources 

on working lands, as Senator Leahy said, on working lands. 

The proposed CSP regulations have drawn a firestorm of over 

14,000 comments, virtually all of them critical. For starters, the 

proposal to rotate signups among watersheds means a producer 

would have only one chance every 8 years to enroll. I will be getting into a discussion with you, Mr. Knight, about that. Once every 

8 years. For example, let’s say you have just about made the cutoff, 

you were the next person in line, and you didn’t make it in that 

watershed. You have to wait eight more years to sign up again. 

That just doesn’t seem right. 

Proposed CSP payments are so drastically reduced that even the 

best stewards will see little reward for signing up. Producers seeking to increase their stewardship would inexplicably have to install 

and maintain high level water and soil conservation practices before they could apply for help through CSP. That would be especially tough on young, beginning and limited resource farmers. 

In short, the administration’s CSP proposal allows only a few 

producers to apply, and then offers so little reward that most will 

avoid the program. The proposed rule turns Secretary Veneman’s 

description of CSP on its head by failing to reward the best or to 

motivate the rest. That’s what Secretary Veneman said. They 

wanted to reward the best and motivate the rest. 

In addition, the administration advocates capping CSP funding 

at $209 million for fiscal 2005, and limiting it in later years, so 

that, at best, only 5 percent of our Nation’s farmers and ranchers 

can participate over the next 8 years. Five percent. 

Regrettably, the administration seems determined to release a 

CSP rule in June that disregards the overwhelming comments 

against the proposal. At the least, it should be an interim final rule 

which can more easily be modified to correct the likely errors and 

shortcomings. I hope that Mr. Knight and Mr. Little will take back 

to USDA the fact that the administration, I believe, faces a real 

credibility gap with producers in the conservation programs, and it 

is critical, Mr. Chairman, that we fix these without delay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin. 

I should note that I have been given a note that Senator Coleman has had a death in the family and, therefore, he probably 

7

won’t be able to attend the hearing. He did, however, want us to 

indicate his interest in the hearing and to let everybody know that 

he’ll be paying close attention to the testimony that we receive 

today. 

As I indicated when we started the hearing, we are going to be 

under a very tight time constraint today because of the vote that 

will occur at noon, which gives us only 2 hours for nine witnesses. 

Again, I remind the witnesses to stay very close to your 5 minutes 

allocated for your remarks, to give us time for interaction. If you 

forget to watch the clock, I will lightly rap the gavel to remind you 

to do so. 

With that, why don’t we go ahead and start with you, Mr. Little. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LITTLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM 

SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. LITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to talk about the 

conservation programs authorized by the 2002 Farm bill. 

CRP helps protect soil productivity while it improves water, air 

quality, and wildlife habitat. Countless lakes, rivers, ponds and 

streams across America are cleaner and healthier today because of 

the Conservation Reserve Program, the premier conservation program on private lands at USDA. 

From the onset of the program in 1985, CRP has resulted in substantial reductions in soil erosion. By 1990, the water quality and 

wildlife benefits generated by CRP were widely recognized, and 

over 33.9 million acres of highly erodible land were enrolled. From 

1991 through 1995, an additional 2.5 million acres were entered 

into the program. 

The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 

capped the program at 36.4 million acres. At that time, the Agency 

developed several tools to maximize the conservation benefits produced by CRP. An objective environmental benefits index, or EBI, 

was implemented to rank CRP enrollment offers nationwide based 

on potential environmental benefits. 

FSA also began the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program 

signup at that time to target enrollment of highly valued buffer 

practices, such as filter strips, riparian buffers, grass waterways, 

windbreaks, and similar practices on working lands. These measures are often established along streams and rivers to keep sediment and farm chemicals out of the surface water. Practices implemented under Continuous/CRP also reduce gully erosion in fields, 

protect groundwater, recharge areas for public water supplies, and 

enhance wildlife habitat on field borders and wetland areas. 

Through CRP, farmers and ranchers have achieved their personal conservation goals voluntarily, reducing soil erosion by over 

442 million tons per year. Our Nation’s waters are much cleaner 

due to the reduced sediment in nutrient loadings. Over 1.5 million 

acres of streamside buffers and 3.9 million acres of wetlands in adjacent tracts have been enrolled. This has dramatically increased 

migratory waterfowl numbers. 

A recent estimate by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

indicated that over 2.5 million additional ducks per year are attributable to CRP. CRP has also significantly enhanced many other 

8

wildlife species and is a key tool in the restoration of threatened 

and endangered species, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest, 

the prairie chicken in Texas, and the sharptailed grouse in Idaho. 

CRP is also a key tool in protecting our Nation’s water supplies. 

Buffers adjacent to streams and rivers reduce the potential for nutrients, pesticides and pathogens from contaminating water used 

for human consumption. This reduces water treatment costs and 

the need for costly filtration systems. CRP is used to protect public 

wells from impacts associated with the leaching of nutrients and 

pesticides. 

FSA has implemented a number of administrative measures to 

improve program delivery. During the most recent CRP signups 

held last spring, FSA developed a new software tool in close collaboration with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to 

automate the EBI and to provide geo-spacial information system 

support in many counties. Over the last year, the GIS tool reduced 

the time required for farmers to submit offers, saved farmers 

$160,000 in participation expenses, and helped FSA reduce administrative costs for CRP by over $7 million. 

In October 1997, FSA implemented the Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program, a partnership between the Federal Government, State and local governments. CREP targets some of our Nation’s most critical resource areas and provides for locally tailored 

conservation measures and incentives under the CRP program umbrella. 

Currently, FSA has 29 CREP partnership agreements in 25 

States. Each CREP project is developed at the grassroots level, 

with strong support of the community. 

In addition to CRP and CREP, FSA also offers the emergency 

conservation program in the Grasslands Reserve Program. ECP 

provides emergency cost share funding to producers to rehabilitate 

farmland damaged by natural disasters and for emergency water 

measures during drought. The Grassland Reserve Program is another voluntary program administered jointly by FSA and NRCS. 

It helps landowners restore and protect grasslands, including 

rangeland and pastureland, while maintaining the areas grazing 

lands. 

Where is the CRP heading for the future? First, I am pleased to 

announce that the CRP final rule is now at the Federal Register 

and should be published this week. We are currently evaluating 

when the next CRP general signup will be, but we expect to have 

that evaluation to be completed this summer. 

Looking to the future, we are working aggressively to quantify, 

using sound scientific methodologies, the benefits of conservation 

measures implemented through the CRP. We are also sponsoring, 

in consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey, in hosting a conference this June to provide a scientific and technical forum to review ongoing and planned research projects. With over 16 million 

CRP acres expiring in 2007, now is the time to be looking to the 

future. 

CRP has built its success through the momentum of partnerships 

and ultimately this is a personal issue for us all, and at the end 

of the day we should all be supporting conservation for ourselves. 

9

This concludes my oral testimony and I would be glad to take 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Little can be found in the appendix on page 46.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Little. 

Mr. Knight. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the 

conservation provisions included in the 2002 Farm bill. 

Two years ago this week, almost to the day, President Bush 

signed the Farm bill into law, representing what many have acknowledged, an unprecedented conservation commitment to working lands of America. 

Today, I am pleased to provide an update on the conservation investment you made for farming and ranching families across the 

Nation. I am especially proud to report that the men and women 

of the Natural Resources Conservation Service have accomplished 

objectives that few, quite frankly, believed were possible. To date, 

roughly $3.3 billion in conservation dollars have successfully 

reached farmers, ranchers, and other customers. In addition, NRCS 

has published rules for ten major programs, issued six requests for 

proposal, and has three new rules under review, and will have implemented each of these rules by the end of the fiscal year. 

During this time frame, the agency continued to make gains in 

other aspects of the mission. This year alone, NRCS assisted four 

million farmers and ranchers, mapped or updated 22.5 million 

acres of soils, and distributed more than one million publications. 

Throughout the Farm bill implementation, we have made program 

and allocation data more accessible to the public, and have greatly 

streamlined program delivery. 

In fiscal year 2003, NRCS worked closely with FSA to improve 

CRP program efficiencies that resulted in an additional $38 million 

allocated back out to States through other conservation programs. 

I believe the strong cooperation between our agencies is making a 

real difference, both for our respective agencies and, most importantly, customers. 

Mr. Chairman, I can report that, overall, the Farm bill conservation title has been extremely popular. The flexibility and innovation that was integrated into the legislation is working well for all 

of us. As an example, the EQIP backlog for fiscal year 2002 requests was over 70,000 unfunded applications, totaling roughly 

$1.5 billion. The backlog for fiscal year 2003 requests was 108,000 

unfunded applications, totaling more than $2.06 billion. Specifically, the new ground and surface water conservation provisions 

are being met with an excellent response from farmers and ranchers and saving significant quantities of water nationwide. 

Also, a few weeks ago, as an example of helping farmers with 

threatened and endangered species issues, we announced the availability of $3.5 million in WHIP funding for salmon habitat restoration. Under the farm and ranchland protection program, many new 

10

entities are coming forward and leveraging new projects, greatly 

expanding our ideas about what is possible under that program. 

I need to clarify for the record that the acreage protected is now 

nearly 328,000 acres to date. Further, today the Secretary announced the release of the Grazing Lands Reserve Program interim 

final rule. We anticipate that that program signup will be able to 

be initiated shortly. 

A new program that has gained a lot of attention and interest, 

of course, is the Conservation Security Program. We in the administration are enthusiastic and committed to the prospects of CSP 

and look forward to making the program available on farms and 

ranches across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, the single most misunderstood aspect of CSP is 

the budget for the program. When the President signed the 2002 

Farm bill into law, the Conservation Security Program was estimated to cost $2 billion over 10 years. Later, CBO estimated the 

program would obligate $6.8 billion, and Congress subsequently 

capped it at $3.7 billion. Then, under further revisions in the law, 

Congress placed a cap on expenditures of $41.443 million for this 

fiscal year, and the CBO score is now under $9 billion. 

Mr. Chairman, there have been a lot of numbers floating around. 

I would just like to point out that our approach, which will result 

in an estimated $13.4 billion in CSP contracts over 7 years, is higher than any estimate that has come out to date. 

We have attempted to design the program in a way that provides 

funding obligations in a similar way the Conservation Reserve Program obligations are structured. For example, the President’s budg- et request of $209 million for CSP in fiscal year 2005 will provide 

about $1.7 billion in funding over the life of contracts to farmers 

and ranchers. In addition, our recently announced watershed approach and payment structure will ensure that CSP is all about environmental performance and enhancements. It is not an income 

transfer program. 

I would note for members of the subcommittee that the CSP base 

payment is just one of four components of a CSP participant’s payment. We are proud of what we have accomplished and look forward to making funding available to producers this year. As we 

look ahead, it’s clear that the challenge before us will require the 

dedication of all available resources, the skills and expertise of the 

NRCS staff, the contributions of volunteers, and continued collaboration with our partners. 

I thank the Chairman and members of the subcommittee for the 

opportunity to appear here today, and for your ongoing support and 

attention to implementation of the 2002 provisions of the Farm bill. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight can be found in appendix 

on page 73.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Knight and Mr. Little. We appreciate both of you making the effort to be here today. 

Mr. Knight, you actually answered my first question. My first 

question was going to be when do you expect to have a final rule 

on the grasslands program. I appreciate the fact that that rule will 

be out today and I will forego other questions on that until we have 

a chance to review the rule. We appreciate that news, however. 

11

I’m going to go with my questioning immediately into the EQIP 

program. Helping producers meet an increasingly stringent environmental standard was a priority of mine when we crafted the 

Farm bill. The significant increase for EQIP and the lifting of size 

caps was a direct result of the need to address regulations on animal feeding operations and requirements for developing comprehensive nutrient management plans. 

However, disbursement of the EQIP that I have seen for fiscal 

year 2003 doesn’t appear to reflect a priority on addressing air and 

quality regulatory changes. For example, pork producers in Idaho 

have indicated to me that confined operations receive very little of 

the EQIP livestock funding, and that pork producers received only 

a small percent of that funding. I understand that fiscal year 2003 

was a transition period, so I’m interested in what steps USDA is 

taking in 2004 to make sure that those facing significant water and 

air quality regulatory challenges, like our pork producers in Idaho, 

are going to get adequate assistance from EQIP. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, one of the real challenges of having 

attempted to implement these programs in a much more transparent manner is that the results of that transparency sometimes 

come back to haunt you. We have a goal in the case of livestock 

of 60 percent. It looks like we’re doing—that about 65 percent of 

the EQIP funding has gone to livestock. As we have all found, we 

have a surprisingly low amount of the total EQIP dollars actually 

going to assist pork producers, perhaps as little as 10 percent or 

less of the total dollars in this past year. 

We are now in the process of going through to see what are the 

reasons for these net results and what are some of the changes 

that could be put in place. 

One of the things I have stressed with all of the NRCS employees 

is that we should be providing the service to all of our customers 

in a size-neutral manner. The debate on the size and complexity of 

the farm operations, in my view, was settled by Congress, and so 

we’re attempting to implement these programs in a size-neutral 

manner. 

We have to look at what are the potential barriers. We have 

looked at some of those things. We are reviewing issues such as 

portable equipment being available for EQIP funding. This is one 

of the things that we think can provide greater assistance out 

there, in ensuring that we’re properly responsive on these issues. 

The other thing that we’re trying to fully assess is if, in the ranking processes, because of the higher level of regulations that pork 

operations presently operate under, if that isn’t one of the reasons 

why pork operations do not appear to be ranking as high as the 

dairy or beef operation. 

We are very earnestly looking at how the programs are being implemented, to ensure that there are no inadvertent barriers to participation by any producer, regardless of the type of livestock or the 

type of structure for that operation. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I appreciate your indication of your 

understanding that Congress settled the question of whether size 

matters. There is some concern out there in the field, if you will, 

that perhaps that understanding has not filtered all the way 

through the system yet. I appreciate your acknowledgement of that 

12

and would encourage you to be sure that that approach is understood and implemented. 

By the way, NRCS has never before collected and reported information that breaks out by livestock species the EQIP applications 

and contracts. It is my understanding that it was done on an ad 

hoc basis for 2003. While it results in questions like mine, this 

transparency is very helpful. 

I was wondering if you could make collecting and reporting this 

information a standard procedure. 

Mr. KNIGHT. We’ll be very pleased to take a look at what we can 

do to be able to break it down by species. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

I see that my time has expired. Senator Harkin. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank both Mr. Little and Mr. Knight for their stewardship and 

for being here today for this hearing. 

You have covered the swine portion, Mr. Chairman, pretty adequately, so I won’t go into that. I thank you for that and appreciate 

your taking a look at that and finding out why we have such a 

huge imbalance there. 

I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I would like to go right to 

the CSP program and discuss that with you, Mr. Knight. While I’m 

pleased that it appears USDA is preparing to move forward with 

enrolling producers in CSP this fiscal year, I do have some serious 

concerns, as I mentioned in my opening statement, with the ranking system being used by USDA. 

In reading the recently issued notice on selecting certain watersheds in which to offer the CSP, I see it says that, ‘‘If there are 

no funding restrictions, all watersheds could be eligible.’’

Mr. Knight, if CSP funding remains without a set dollar limitation, will CSP be open to producers in all watersheds each year? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Senator Harkin, I would like to be able to get the 

program fully operational this first fiscal year and to be able to 

evaluate what our costs of delivery are, what the costs of implementation are, and how many contracts we will be able to do to 

really be able to make a good estimate of how far you can go. 

The operating restriction that has driven us to look and embrace 

the watershed approach, however, is the 15 percent limitation on 

technical assistance. That has us inclined to continue to utilize a 

watershed approach in future years as we move forward on implementation of CSP. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, my question had to do with the statement, ‘‘If there are no funding restrictions, all watersheds could be 

eligible.’’ I’m just asking you, if the funding remains without a set 

dollar limitation, will it be open to producers in all watersheds 

each year? 

Mr. KNIGHT. The 15 percent technical assistance is the operating 

limitation on——

Senator HARKIN. Well, let’s jump right to that. You state that the 

statutory cap on technical assistance forces you to limit offering to 

CSP producers, such as rotating among watersheds, restricting eligibility, et cetera. 

I have looked into this assertion and, quite frankly, I don’t think 

that’s correct, Bruce. Several factors will keep TA costs below 15 

13

percent without restricting CSP, as you propose. First, you use the 

technical assistance cost of EQIP as your benchmark. I don’t think 

that’s valid. 

First, is it correct that EQIP covers just new practices, while 

CSP covers both maintaining existing practices and new practices? 

Is that not correct? In other words, EQIP covers just new practices, 

and CSP covers both new and existing. 

Mr. KNIGHT. That is correct. 

Senator HARKIN. OK. The second part, is it not correct that the 

technical assistance cost associated with maintaining existing practices is much less than with totally new practices? Obviously, if 

you’ve got practices that you’ve been maintaining, the technical assistance would have to be a lot less. 

Mr. KNIGHT. In theory, you should have certain cost savings. 

However, the costs of oversight and implementation would be very 

similar between a new practice and an existing practice, because 

you’re still out there doing spot checks. 

Senator HARKIN. That’s just some oversight, but that’s not really 

technical assistance if you’re maintaining something that has already been approved by you. In other words, to get into the CSP, 

they have a practice, they’re maintaining it, they’re now in the 

CSP, and I don’t understand why it would cost so much in technical assistance. 

Mr. KNIGHT. With all of our programs, program integrity and 

oversight are part of our technical assistance calculation. That is 

included in the technical assistance costs of all of our programs. 

Senator HARKIN. You don’t need any engineering or construction 

oversight. 

Mr. KNIGHT. You still have spot checks, ensuring that what has 

been promised in the contract is delivered. Especially since these 

are contracts that will be management intensity and not practice 

intensity, there is an unknown quantity as to the amount of oversight that will be necessary. 

Senator HARKIN. Let’s keep going then. Is it correct that EQIP 

includes very expensive technical assistance for costly waste transport and storage practices, such as waste storage facilities and lagoons, which are not eligible under CSP? Is that correct? 

Mr. KNIGHT. It is correct that those items are not eligible under 

CSP. That particular instance does give you a good example of 

where using a percentage of the total dollars is not the most accurate estimate of technical assistance costs, because sometimes the 

highest technical assistance costs are on your smaller contracts because they tend to be very labor intensive with a lot of hours per 

dollar expended, versus some of the larger livestock waste management which, yes, they have engineering costs, but you may be amortizing the technical assistance costs over several hundred thousand dollars rather than just a couple of thousand dollars. 

Senator HARKIN. It seems to me that the total technical assistance, if you’re talking about under EQIP, where you’re building 

and constructing, which is not allowed under CSP, that engineering 

kind of technical assistance, that construction type of technical assistance, that’s what you do under EQIP which you don’t need 

under CSP. Yet you’re factoring it into your CSP in terms of saying 

the 15 percent gives you a limit. 

14

Now, what I would like you to do is I would like to see you take 

a look at the EQIP, take out the engineering and construction 

costs, and then what is the technical assistance percentage. Well, 

I don’t know, but I’ll bet you it is much less than 15 percent. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Senator, I am sitting down with my staff this afternoon to go through the estimates once again, and I will be pleased 

to ask that question and check on that. 

Senator HARKIN. Please ask that question, because we have been 

down this road—I have looked at this. You keep saying the 15 percent limits you. I’m telling you, Chief Knight, that is not right, simply because you’ve got maintaining practices and that’s going to 

cost a lot less. You don’t have any construction or engineering technical assistance, which sucks up a lot of money technical assistance-wise in EQIP, which you don’t have under CSP. 

Now, third, I have here a chart. I have here the NRCS planning 

process on the steps that they have to go through. Phase I, Phase 

II, Phase III. There are nine steps, OK, for NRCS? 

Isn’t it correct that the NRCS begins charging EQIP technical assistance only when they get to step 8, when they get to step 8, after 

all this has been done? Under CSP, you’re going to start charging 

from step 1. That’s what I understand. NRCS is going to start 

charging from step 1 for technical assistance. Under EQIP, they 

only do it from step 8. Why don’t you do it from step 8 for CSP? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We have a nine-step planning process—— Senator HARKIN. That’s right. I have it right here. 

Mr. KNIGHT. My interpretation is that the first seven steps are 

generally program neutral. At that point in time in which it is obvious which program a producer is intending to apply for or participate in, that is when we try to start doing the accounting to that 

particular program. 

If a producer is looking at total comprehensive goals and objectives, that is program neutral planning. If a producer insists that 

they are applying for WRP, you have to start with step 1. If they 

insist that they are EQIP, you have to start there. The neutral aspects up to step 7 should be neutral and would be assigned to the 

conservation technical assistance account and then transferred over 

to that. 

In the case of CSP, for those producers that utilize our program 

neutral planning to get to a watershed that they are not yet eligible for signing up in, that will largely be done, I would anticipate, 

under the CTA account. 

One of the things I may want to put into perspective for everyone 

is that our EQIP technical assistance costs 3 years ago were 28 

percent. Then we got them down to 25, and last year we came in 

at 24 percent. That is why it is a considerable task, a herculean 

task, to bring TSP in at a 15 percent cost. It’s not a challenge that 

I’m not willing to attempt to do, but it is a herculean task. 

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if you want another round, but I know my time is up. 

Senator CRAPO. I would like to ask another question or two and 

then we can come back for another round. 

Senator HARKIN. That will be fine. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Knight, as I indicated in my opening statement, I believe that the conservation programs of the Farm bill—

15

and, Mr. Little, this could be a question you could comment on as 

well—I believe the conservation programs in the Farm bill are 

probably the most environmentally beneficial things, if you look at 

one piece of legislation that Congress adopts, that we do here in 

Congress. 

I would like to get your perspectives on whether this is working. 

In the context of this question, I also happen to chair the committee that governs the Endangered Species Act. Under that Act, 

we spend a lot of effort stopping harmful activities toward species. 

It seems to me that the conservation title of the Farm bill, however, focuses on incentivizing beneficial activities toward the environment and toward species, things that go beyond just stopping 

harmful activity but actually incentivize things that help promote 

habitat and strengthen our environmental heritage in this country. 

I would like to have your comments, or at least your observations, on both your parts about that. 

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my opening comments, the Conservation Reserve Program itself is a voluntary program and it helps our Nation’s farmers and ranchers implement 

conserving applications that are going to help them reach their 

goals and help the Nation reach additional goals to conserve our 

natural environment for the future. 

As I mentioned, we are seeing an improved environment through 

the reduction of phosphorus and nitrates into our drinking water 

systems, helping filtration of sediment into wells and into our 

drinking water. It has also helped to improve the habitat with endangered and threatened species, including the sharpbilled grouse 

in Idaho. 

Most importantly, what it’s doing is helping, particularly with 

the Conservation Reserve Program. We’re seeing partnerships 

being developed between the States and the Federal Government, 

along with local interests. We have 29 CREP agreements in place 

now in 25 States, and we’re also having several in line that are 

going to be helping come on line in Minnesota, Indiana, and Maryland in the very near future. 

These are all partnerships that are really helping private landowners. A good percentage of the rain that helps supply our water 

system falls on private lands. The partnership that we’re seeing on 

private lands is helping us all see a cleaner environment. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Knight. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Certainly we have a recent success that should be 

noted in the aspect of your question. That is, on Earth Day, Secretary Veneman announced that we have essentially achieved no 

net loss of wetlands from agriculture. As a matter of fact, as a result of the National Resource Inventory, the NRI that NRCS does, 

we have now realized about 131,000 acres net gain in wetlands, 

largely as a result of voluntary, incentive-based actions, both the 

Conservation Reserve Program and WRP. 

As a result of that, President Bush laid out a challenge that I 

know NRCS and FSA and all of us in agriculture and throughout 

the administration are anxious to leap to that challenge, and that 

is to do, over the next 5 years, another million acres of wetlands 

restoration, a million acres of wetlands enhancement, and a million 

16

acres of wetlands protection. We believe that virtually all of this 

can be done by continuing to use these voluntary, incentive-based 

programs, and done in conjunction with working lands conservation. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. I just want to highlight 

that, it seems to me, the programs that the two of you administer 

show the effort under the Farm bill from us to address some of 

these issues that are so critical—water quality, air quality, species 

conservation, habitat improvement and the like. It’s important as 

we talk about these things to make sure the public understands 

the scope and the reach of these activities. 

Just before I began this hearing, I was at a press conference with 

Environmental Defense, who are engaging right now in a broad 

new program to try to focus on this exact type of thing—that is, 

providing incentives for positive activities for the environment as 

opposed to focusing on penalties for harmful activities. We need to 

focus on both, but we need to remember the benefit of these programs. 

I also think it’s important for us to note that in the Farm bill 

we had an increase in focus, and it’s represented by the CSP program that Senator Harkin is championing, which was essentially 

making sure that, in addition to our programs that focus on taking 

land out of production and developing habitat and so forth, we now 

have significant new resources focusing on operating lands so that 

we can have the incentives for improvements that these programs 

provide the incentive for. Again, I thank you both for that. 

Senator Harkin, I want to try to get the next panel on by 11 

o’clock, if I possibly can, so if you can take just five or 10 minutes, 

that would be fine. 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I just want to point out why this 15 percent thing is nonsense. If there is a problem, it’s manufactured. Basically, I had this 

chart here. EQIP covers only new practices, as I said, and CSP covers new and existing. EQIP covers many structural practices, lagoons, holding ponds, other intensively engineered way structures 

that require extensive designs and increase the amount of technical 

assistance. 

That is not true under CSP. All I have heard under CSP is 

you’ve got oversight. Again, I pointed out that technical assistance 

costs should be charged only when the producer enters the program, the same as EQIP. 

I would say right now, Mr. Chairman, if someone comes into 

their local office and says they want to sign up for EQIP. EQIP is 

not charged technical assistance from that moment on. There is no 

charge on EQIP until they get to step 8. As I understand it, if you 

walk in and say you want to sign up for CSP, then they start 

charging it right away. I’m saying it ought to be the same. 

Again, that’s where this 15 percent rule is being manufactured 

somehow, because it is not the same as EQIP. The 15 percent payment I don’t believe in any way limits the program. 

Now, there is another chart here I wanted to show. I am also a 

little upset with how this is being implemented, Mr. Chairman, in 

disregard of the clear law that we passed. Here is Tier 1, Tier 2 

17

and Tier 3, and here is the extent, the required treatment, rental 

rate, base payment, contract limit. 

Now, we said in the law that under Tier 1, for example, or Tier 

2, you had to address at least one resource concern. You are now 

saying you’ve got to do two. You have to do soil and water. We 

didn’t say that in the law. Again, I am pointing out that the proposed regulations that they’re using is not in accordance with what 

we passed in the law. 

Also, we specified a rental rate limit, 5, 10 and 15 percent. We 

specified that in the law. What does the regulations provide? Onetenth of that, five-tenths of a percent, 1 percent, and 1.5 percent. 

That’s what they have provided. 

It just seems to me, Mr. Knight, that at least in those two instances, the proposed rules don’t comport with the law. 

Mr. KNIGHT. We certainly have a number of lawyers who do believe that we are fully within the legal authorities in how we have 

moved forward with the proposed rule. We are under evaluation of 

the proposed rule, and we have had a number of suggestions within 

the rule of how to make improvements and all of those are under 

due consideration at this time. We are looking at the rental rate 

limits to see if there are adjustments that can or should be made 

and are able to do that. 

However, it is important to note that, especially in this first year, 

we are in a zero sum game, so the more generous the program implementation is per contract, the fewer total contracts we are able 

to do under the cap that we currently have to operate under. We’re 

trying to find that right balance between how generous the contract 

should be and the number of contracts that we should be able to 

do. 

We are currently estimating in this first year to be able to write 

between 3–5,000 contracts, which we would estimate to obligate 

about $400 million worth of funding, which expresses our commitment because, by using the CRP example as a means of doing the 

obligations, we are able to go beyond that $41 million restriction 

that was placed on the cap. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, this is from your office, by the way. I 

didn’t draw this up. This is NRCS. You have developed the chart 

and yet, what is in the proposed rules doesn’t comport with the 

chart that your own department came up with on that. I hope you 

will take a look at that and we’ll keep talking about this. 

Last, these base payments are so low, I just don’t know how 

you’re going to get people in this, since you have already said that 

producers have to have already met NRCS quality criteria levels 

for both soil and water before they can even get into the program. 

Then you get the base payments down so low—What if I’m a beginning farmer. I don’t know how beginning I am, but I’m a farmer 

and I want to get in the CSP program and I want to start doing 

conservation practices. I haven’t met that soil and water, but I 

want to do that. I don’t have the wherewithal. I don’t have enough 

money to do that. I want to get in and start doing this. 

What you’re basically saying is, since I don’t meet both the soil 

and water criteria levels, which are pretty high, I’m out. I’m just 

out. How can you ‘‘motivate the rest,’’ as the Secretary says, when 

I can’t even get in? 

18

Mr. KNIGHT. The key thing is that, with this program, this is the 

completion of our conservation toolbox. For many producers, this is 

the completion of the conservation toolbox. For many producers, 

this fits above all of our other programs. For many producers, if 

they have a specific practice-based orientation, they may want to 

go first to EQIP. That may be their first need as they’re moving. 

That is a good example of where a beginning farmer may be better 

able to be utilized. 

The second thing that I would like to point out as it pertains to 

those base payments, the base payments are one of four components that make a producer’s total payment. There is a base payment level, there will be a maintenance payment level, there is also 

for many producers a one-time-only practice payment level, and 

then there will be the enhancements. Our clear intent is to make 

a majority of the payments through enhancements that purchase 

the additional conservation that we are trying to achieve through 

the Conservation Security Program. 

Senator HARKIN. I understand that. That’s in the law, that the 

enhancement payment is part of it. Before you can ever get to the 

enhancement payment, you have got to get in. You don’t get an enhancement payment if you’re not in the program. It seems to me 

what you’re doing is you’re going to pick a few people in a watershed, and selected watersheds, and then that watershed will not be 

eligible for 8 years. 

Let’s say you’ve got a watershed in Arkansas and you have a few 

people that meet the criteria, but you have someone just underneath it, just right under the cutoff point. They don’t make it. They 

have to wait 8 years to get in the program again. 

Mr. KNIGHT. The tough thing about the watersheds is that that 

is the only way we could bring the cost of delivery in total down 

to a manageable level. In this very first year, if we rolled out with 

a nationwide signup and you had, of the 1.8 million farmers and 

ranchers who are potentially eligible for the program, if you only 

had 500- or 700,000 of those producers go in and need an hour of 

service from the agency, we would have spent the entire $41 million allocation just in going through that processing point without 

ever having implemented CSP. 

Now, I am quite aware that earlier you had pointed out that I 

should look and see if that should be part of the program-neutral 

planning, which would be assigned to the CTA account and not to 

the CSP account. It would be important for me to point out that 

even if we went down that path, we still have to pay the $41 million out of somewhere. We would be providing $41 million in less 

service through the Conservation Technical Assistance account if 

we utilized the methodology that you’re talking about. There is a 

challenge of which levels of conservation service are you no longer 

providing if we go down that particular path. 

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, you have been very indulgent 

and I appreciate it. This is a very important program and there are 

some real problems out here. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that none of the experiences I’ve ever had, going back as far as I have been involved in 

this committee or in agriculture, of 1.8 million farmers jumping in 

to sign up for anything all at one time. 

19

Look at the CRP program. You hold it out there and a few farmers come in, and then the few farmers look and see what their 

neighbors are doing and see if it applies to them. 

It seems like we’re always taking the worst case scenario, the 

idea that 1.8 million farmers are going to rush to the door in the 

first year. There is no history to show that that’s true. Some farmers will come in and want to sign up, and the next year, as I said, 

other farmers look at their neighbors and say, well, I might do 

that, and then, after 3 or 4 years, then you will start developing 

people coming in. This idea they’re all going to rush your doors in 

the first year, I don’t think there is any history to show that that 

has ever happened. 

You have been very indulgent, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

it. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Harkin. We will continue to 

work with you as we work with the administration to assure we 

get the implementation of our entire conservation title accomplished as Congress intends it. 

We have been joined by our Ranking Member, Senator Blanche 

Lincoln from Arkansas. 

Do you have any questions of this panel, Blanche? 

Senator LINCOLN. I can just submit them. 

Senator CRAPO. OK. We will submit questions to this panel. 

Senator Lincoln is going to make an opening statement, but I 

would like to excuse this panel and have the next panel begin coming forward so that we can save as much time as possible since 

we’re going to be under such a strict time constraint. With that, we 

will excuse this panel and ask the next panel to come forward. 

While that transition is taking place, Senator Lincoln, please 

take over and share any of your thoughts with us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. A special thanks to the panel that is leaving 

us. I will submit my questions in writing, in the hope that we can 

certainly work through some of the implementation of the conservation programs in the Farm bill. 

I want to start by saying a very special thanks to Chairman 

Crapo. It is really a delight and a pleasure to share this subcommittee with you. I am so proud that you have brought up this 

very worthwhile hearing to focus on the implementation of the conservation provisions of our 2002 Farm bill. 

It is a bill that I worked very hard on, as did other members of 

the Ag Committee. I support it because of it’s importance to my 

State’s rural economy and our way of life. I am delighted that you 

see the importance of this issue and continue to bring about the 

worthwhile conversation that we need to have. 

Indeed, probably the most notable part of the legislation we did 

deal with was its historic increase in the conservation component. 

As a member of a 7th generation Arkansas farm family that enjoys 

hunting and fishing and other outdoor activities, I know well the 

importance of the conservation programs. It really does allow our 

farmers and our producers to not only be good stewards of the land, 

but to be good stewards of the Government as well. 

20

To be able to utilize these programs that help them take the unproductive lands out of cultivation or improve the lands that they 

have in cultivation in a way that helps them maximize what 

they’re doing, for not only providing the safest, most abundant and 

affordable food supply to the world, but also in providing to their 

families as well as conserving the land around them, allowing them 

to be the good stewards of the land that they want to be, is a critical component for our agricultural community. 

Environmentally, the conservation programs safeguard millions 

of acres of American topsoil from erosion, while improving air quality, increasing wildlife habitat, and protecting ground and surface 

water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. 

Economically, the benefits are immeasurable. These programs 

not only increase net farm income, they preserve soil productivity, 

they improve surface water quality, they reduce damage from 

windblown dust and increase uses of wildlife. It is just overall an 

incredibly important component of our overall production and agricultural component of this Government. 

The dual benefits are critical to the long-term sustainability of 

American agriculture and to life in rural America, and it provides 

a much needed bridge between an adequate farm safety net and 

the resources that are truly necessary to conserve our land. I applaud the chairman for working with all of us on very, very important issues like conservation programs. 

We thank the witnesses for being here today. I do have questions 

for both panels, so if I do have to excuse myself, I would like to 

be able to offer those for the record. 

We do encourage all of you to work with us as we begin to work 

through the implementation of the intent of the law that we passed 

in 2002. Again, we worked very conscientiously together to craft a 

piece of legislation that would benefit everybody involved, both 

Government as well as individuals and communities, as well as the 

environment. We look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lincoln can be found in the 

appendix on page 42.] 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman. It’s a delight to work with you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln. It is 

truly my privilege to work with you. We have a great bipartisan 

relationship here and we get a lot of good work done. 

I definitely agree with your comments. I have said many times 

that the most important environmental legislation that we do in 

this Congress is in the Farm bill. It certainly has a tremendous impact. 

Senator LINCOLN. With that, let us go to our second panel. Our 

second panel is composed of Mr. Al Christopherson, who is president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau; Mr. John Hansen, president 

of the Nebraska Farmers Union; Billy Wilson, president-elect of the 

National Association of Conservation Districts; Gordon Gallup, representing the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Cotton 

Council, the Corn Growers, the Soybean Association and the Rice 

Federation. 

Also is Mr. Jeff Nelson, Director of Operations of the Great 

Plains Regional office of Ducks Unlimited. He, is also representing 

a number of other groups here, including the Sportsmen’s FoundaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 093359 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\93561.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
21

tion, Pheasants Forever, the International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, the Izaak Walton League, the Wildlife Society, 

and the Wildlife Management Institute. 

We also have David Petty from the National Cattlemen’s Beef 

Association, also representing the National Chicken Council, National Milk Producers Federation, the National Pork Producers 

Council, the National Turkey Federation, and United Egg Producers. Also Francis Thicke, who is here representing the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you all. As you have heard me say, we’re 

under a very tight time constraint, so please pay attention to the 

5-minute limit, speak quickly, and we’ll have a little bit of time to 

get into dialog with you before they call that cloture vote. As I indicated, unfortunately, we’re facing a time deadline at noon with a 

cloture vote that I believe is going to be called fairly timely. 

With that, why don’t we start with you, Mr. Christopherson. 

STATEMENT OF AL CHRISTOPHERSON, PRESIDENT,

MINNESOTA FARM BUREAU; ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Al 

Christopherson. I produce corn, soybeans and raise hogs near 

Pennock, MN. I am president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, as 

you are aware, and a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to share some of our thoughts on the status of the conservation provisions of the Farm bill. 

We have made great strides in improving our environment over 

the past last three decades. By nearly every measure, our environment and natural resources are in better condition than any other 

time in our lives. The Farm bill has led the way by providing willing producers with tools to adopt and continue conservation practices. For the most part, the programs have been very popular and 

well received by farmers and ranchers. 

Building on the gains over the last three decades requires new 

programs such as the Conservation Security Program to deliver the 

kinds of conservation the public now desires. We strongly support 

the CSP, but we have numerous concerns with the proposed rule. 

For example, we contend that CSP should be available to all ag 

producers rather than only in a few targeted watersheds. We also 

believe that the final rule should reflect the mandatory status of 

the program. If CSP is implemented consistent with congressional 

intent, it will deliver enormous benefits to all Americans. Now, 

there is broad support for CSP within agriculture, and we look forward to a revised rule and its implementation as soon as possible. 

We also strongly support the EQIP program and the improvements made by Congress in the 2002 Farm bill. We are concerned 

that NRCS has not been monitoring EQIP projects or providing 

animal feeding operations with the assistance to meet their regulatory requirements. Specifically, we understand that EQIP provided $483 million in assistance to all agricultural operations in 

fiscal year 2003. Of the $483 million, $314 million was provided to 

22

livestock operations, of which $105 million was directed to animal 

feeding operations. 

This is troubling. If these numbers are correct, we believe the allocation within the livestock sector does not place enough emphasis 

on confined animal operations and their associated regulatory compliance costs, which was a major intent of Congress. The situation 

is particularly vexing because, in promulgating the revised animal 

feeding operations rule in 2003, EPA, in part, justified the heavy 

regulatory burden on producers by reference to EQIP funds available for producer assistance. 

With regard to the Wetlands Reserve Program, President Bush 

noted the role that the incentive-based program such as the WRP 

played in achieving the goal of no net loss, and specifically lauded 

the response of farmers and ranchers to such approaches. One recommendation we have is that prior to a landowner being allowed 

to place a parcel of land into the WRP, the adjoining landowner 

should be notified and assured that they will not be affected by any 

change in drainage patterns. We have seen first hand instances 

where a landowner’s participation in the WRP has altered the 

drainage on adjacent farmland and resulted in wetlands violations 

and land use restrictions and those types of things. 

The Farm Bureau has advocated for increased conservation funding in technical assistance in the 2002 Farm bill. As local, State 

and Federal environmental regulations has increased, cost sharing 

and technical assistance are essential to addressing public concerns 

relating to the environment. We are troubled by the ongoing shortfall of technical assistance funding for both CRP and WRP. These 

shortfalls will result in a cut for EQIP and other programs in order 

to deliver CRP and WRP. 

We believe that every program should cover its own technical assistance delivery costs. It is also important that NRCS maintain 

adequate career manpower resources for program delivery. It will 

be necessary to utilize technical service providers to supplement 

these resources. We support the use of third party technical service 

providers to ensure adequate delivery of the needed services. 

We recognize the challenges the NRCS faces with limited Government manpower for program delivery. The situation is compounded by the increasing regulation which has made conservation 

planning significantly more complex and time-consuming. 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer these brief perspectives on 

some of the conservation programs of the Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002. These programs provide great opportunity 

to agricultural producers and great benefit to the nonfarm public. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christopherson can be found in 

the appendix on page 103.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson. You 

were right on time. 

Mr. Hansen. 

23

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. HANSEN, PRESIDENT, NEBRASKA 

FARMERS UNION; ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS 

UNION 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am John Hansen, President of the Nebraska Farmers 

Union. 

Our National Farmers Union represents over 260,000 independent, diversified, owner-operated family farms and ranches 

across the Nation. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today and to discuss the conservation programs of the 2002 

Farm bill. 

In the interest of time, let me get right at our list of conservation 

considerations. 

Our National Farmers Union policy, set by our members, strongly supports public funding for soil and water conservation programs 

and the necessary technical support to properly implement them. 

We believe that the 2002 Farm bill is a long overdue step forward 

in conservation funding, while providing new initiatives and the expansion of existing programs. I am actively involved in helping 

make these conservation programs work. As a member of the Nebraska State Technical Committee, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program subcommittee, and the Conservation Security 

Program subcommittee, I am actively involved in making these programs, as are my Farmers Union counterparts around the country. 

The good news is that conservation program funding has increased. The bad news is the funding for the necessary technical 

assistance to help our farmers and ranchers put often complex conservation systems into operation simply has not kept pace with 

dramatically increased workloads. 

Our local governmental entities in Nebraska that are responsible 

for soil and water conservation and our natural resource district 

system used over $1 million of local property tax revenues last year 

to help fund additional clerical staff to help support NRCS implement Federal conservation programs, yet we are still falling behind. We ask for your support to increase additional funding for 

NRCS technical support staff. 

Our farmers and ranchers want to use conservation programs to 

protect and enhance our natural resources. However, demand for 

these programs far exceeds current funding. In Nebraska, there 

was approximately $263 million in requests for EQIP programs, 

and yet there was only $28 million worth of funding actually that 

was accepted. That is 11 percent of the program demand. 

CRP continues to be a heavily utilized program by Nebraska producers, with 1.1 million acres currently enrolled. CRP is then used 

as the base for many additional programs and is considered to be 

the single most important program for protecting our soil, water, 

fish, and wildlife resources. For example, in Nebraska our Game 

and Parks Commission has invested over a million dollars a year 

in three programs that enhance CRP acres. 

I am encouraged that we are expanding conservation programs 

for grazing lands, restoration and protection, which in my judgment has been lacking. Because of the diversity of our State’s regional resource needs, State and local advisory committees are proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 093359 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\93561.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
24

viding a great service by helping us tailor our programs to meet 

our local resource needs. 

Farmers Union strongly supported the new Conservation Security Program included in the 2002 Farm bill. We think it is appropriate to financially reward good resource management. We are 

very concerned that USDA’s proposed CSP implementation plan 

that uses targeted watersheds is not consistent with the original 

intent of Congress for a full-scale nationwide program. 

In summary, the National Farmers Union feels it is important 

that Congress: one, recognize the importance and popularity of conservation programs among farmers and ranchers nationwide as a 

tool to protect and enhance our Nation’s soil, water, and wildlife; 

two, that we fully fund all those conservation programs included in 

the 2002 Farm bill; three, that we fully fund technical assistance 

for implementing all farm bill conservation programs, including the 

use of mandatory funds to achieve this goal; and four, that we ensure the newly created Conservation Security Program is implemented as intended by Congress and not be diverted or restricted 

by the USDA rulemaking process. 

We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee and the Senate, in the days ahead to help 

fulfill the promise of the expanded conservation provisions provided 

in the 2002 Farm bill so that our farmers and ranchers do have 

the tools that we need to help protect our soil and water resources 

for the generations yet to come. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen can be found in the appendix on page 112.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. Wilson. 

STATEMENT OF BILL WILSON, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. I am Bill Wilson. I am president-elect of the National 

Association of Conservation Districts and live in eastern Oklahoma. 

NACD represents 3,000 conservation district members and a little 

over three million cooperators in this country. 

We strongly support incentive-based approaches to private working lands conservation, so you might imagine how excited we were 

when the 2002 Farm bill added authority in those areas. We 

strongly support that and, in fact, our members are locally led in 

conservation. That’s what we’re about. That theme was repeated 

throughout the Farm bill and we were excited about that as well. 

I want to thank this subcommittee for your leadership in developing this farm bill, and we look forward in future farm bills to 

work with you. As we know, and as has been said already, this has 

been the largest private working lands effort that we have seen 

come out of this Government and this Congress ever, and we applaud the bill. 

We have been involved with farm bill conservation programs 

from their very beginning, our members have, for 60 years. In fact, 

many of our members are helping implement this farm bill through 

the offering of technical assistance and as technical service proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 093359 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\93561.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
25

viders, so we are intimately involved here. We are direct partners 

with NRCS at the local level and our members are housed in the 

same office with their staff, so we certainly have a vested interest 

in making this farm bill a success. 

We are concerned, however, that the budget request in 2005 

starts to reduce the funding levels that were committed to in this 

farm bill. EQIP would be reduced nearly 20 percent, as you know, 

$215 million below the authorized level, the WHIP program by 

more than a 31 percent reduction, and the WRP program by 

around a 20 percent reduction. The budget request caps the CSP 

program at an arbitrary level instead of fully funding at its national program provision, and it provides no Commodity Credit 

funding for the small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which in 

my State is a very important program and a real concern that we 

have. 

We applaud the Senate budget resolution, the language that attempts to address the technical issue situation with the WRP and 

the CRP programs. In the past, taking their technical assistance 

from the donor programs, as has been stated earlier, that takes 

money away from producers that could be used out there to implement conservation on the land. We applaud the Senate budget resolution language and support that. We hope that can stay in. 

The CSP program is one that we are really excited about. It truly 

does take conservation to the next level in this country in our 

mind. It gives the American taxpaying public security that the conservation practices that they fund will be in place, and that they 

will receive the benefits that are intended and that they are paying 

for rightfully so should happen. 

We are concerned about the watershed approach, though. In the 

rule that is being written now, it is too limited. It might be a way 

to start understanding that there’s a $41 million limit on the program in this year. We need to remember that that rule was written 

before that cap was lifted in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, so 

in our comments to the agency, we have encouraged them to not 

go the watershed approach, at least in the final version, and we 

have encouraged them in our testimony to look at coming back in 

a year and doing a final rule and to go ahead and implement this 

year’s program under an interim final rule. 

We think, and they have told us from the beginning, that this 

is an important program and we need to do it right, so our encouragement is let’s implement under an interim final rule, come back 

a year from now with perhaps another comment period and do a 

final rule, because we, too, want to get this program right. 

Our concern is the rule is too restrictive. It’s complex in its eligibility requirements, it is way below the funding level that was in 

the law for base payments, and the cost share payments and maintenance payments as well. We believe that the 15 percent cap on 

technical assistance levels is adequate if, in fact, the rule and the 

law is implemented according to the statute. We think that 15 percent is adequate. 

The decisions on these issues will have a major impact on whether or not the program is seen as rewarding good stewards and providing the incentives that make it worthwhile to participate. Now 

that the funding cap has been lifted, as I said earlier, in the OmniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 093359 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\93561.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
26

bus bill for 2005, we urge the administration and the agency to rewrite the rule and to make it as it was intended in the statute. 

There has been a tremendous increase in workload for NRCS and 

its partners, and as I said, we’re doing what we can to have our 

members help deliver that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield for questions if there 

are any later. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the appendix on page 116.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Gallup. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON GALLUP, BOARD MEMBER,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS; ON BEHALF 

OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, THE

NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL CORN 

¿GROWERS ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN SOYBEAN

ASSOCIATION, AND THE U.S. RICE FEDERATION 

Mr. GALLUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. My name is Gordon Gallup. I’m an Idaho producer of 

wheat and barley, a board member of the National Association of 

Wheat Growers, and the chairman of the National Association of 

Wheat Growers Environmental Policy Committee. 

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to present 

testimony on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers, 

the National Cotton Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the US Rice Federation, and the American Soybean Association. 

May I ask the committee’s permission to make our written statement a part of the record? 

Senator CRAPO. Without objection. All written statements will be 

a part of the record. 

Mr. GALLUP. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, passage of the 2002 Farm bill marked a giant 

leap forward in advancing private land conservation efforts in this 

country. At the signing of the bill, President Bush called it ‘‘the single most significant commitment of resources toward conservation 

on private lands in the Nation’s history.’’ Thanks to your efforts, Mr. Chairman, and members of your committee, programs such as EQIP and WRP were expanded and the 

CRP was continued under a slightly higher cap. Under the new 

programs created, the Grassland Reserve Program, which can help 

enroll two million acres to restore and improve natural grassland 

range and pasturelands, has been a fairly smooth implementation, 

I would say. 

The other new program, the Conservation Security Program, has 

been one of the most anticipated programs among producers of all 

title II programs, the one that I had hoped would allow me to embrace new technologies on my own operation, allowing me to become more productive and efficient, the working lands program to 

reward those producers who had engaged in state-of-the-art conservation practices already, in addition to providing financial assistance and encouragement to all producers to upgrade their conservation practices. 

27

Unfortunately, when the draft regulations were published, the 

program outlined in these drafts appeared to be far different than 

what the program suggested in the statute. This is due, in part, to 

the complexity of the program and the changing directions from 

Congress from the original mandatory spending program with unlimited scope. 

While we don’t fault the NRCS or the USDA—in fact, we commend them for grappling with such a difficult issue, and it’s been 

a tough one—the draft regulations with inconsistent farm definitions, priority watersheds, enrollment categories, ranking with enrollment categories and unwarranted reductions in base payments 

and cost share amounts is designed to limit participation rather 

than to encourage participation. 

Some have suggested that a person is more likely to win the lottery than to be eligible to participate in the CSP program. I’m very 

unlucky at the lottery, too, or I wouldn’t be farming. This is because the administration, by their own admission, is viewing this 

as a capped entitlement program with limited resources to meet 

our enormous demand. However, beginning in fiscal year 2005, 

CSP will be returned to its original design as an uncapped mandatory spending program, and I would suggest that the current draft 

rules remain as an interim rule until final rules can be drafted to 

reflect the program as described in the law. 

Again, in the larger conservation picture, there remains the problem of how conservation technical assistance is accounted for. With 

the cost of CRP and WRP being paid for by every other conservation program, this needs to be changed to ensure that each conservation program pays for its own technical assistance. 

We understand that there is some language in the Senate 

version of the pending budget resolution that would direct this to 

be corrected, and we would appreciate this, assuming the final 

budget resolution is adopted. 

We would hope that the funding disbursements for these programs, particularly the CSP, would be administered through the 

Farm Service Agency. 

Mr. Chairman, these are the important principles that remain 

priorities for the implementation of the farm law to continue. We 

believe that each conservation program should pay for its own technical assistance; second, we believe that the Conservation Security 

Program should be implemented and funded as originally intended 

by Congress in the 2002 Farm bill; and finally, we will continue to 

oppose any attempt to amend, alter or divert funding away from 

farm bill programs as authorized by Congress and signed into law 

by the President nearly 2 years ago. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallup can be found in the appendix on page 121.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Gallup. 

Mr. Nelson. 

28

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY W. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF

OPERATIONS, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC; ON BEHALF OF THE 

CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN’S FOUNDATION; DUCKS

UNLIMITED; PHEASANTS FOREVER; THE INTERNATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES; THE IZAAK 

¿WALTON LEAGUE; THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY; AND THE

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. 

As noted in the introduction, I am the Director of Operations for 

Ducks Unlimited at the Great Plains Regional office in Bismarck, 

ND, which covers an eight-State region, including South Dakota, 

Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota. As the chairman noted, today I 

represent a coalition of seven wildlife organizations, representing 

hundreds of thousands of concerned conservationists. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today. Your 

subcommittee should be proud that in many ways America’s landscape is healthier and more productive than it has been in decades. 

The money being spent on conservation programs through the 

Farm bill is a great investment for future generations and is producing measurable benefits for fish and wildlife. Our ongoing partnerships with producers, FSA and NRCS are both appreciated and 

productive. 

In light of time constraints today, I will simply give some very 

brief examples of the dramatic results of the Farm bill’s conservation title, particularly focused on the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, and outline some of the challenges we face. 

CRP is extremely well-received by producers and has had clear 

measurable benefits to wildlife. As illustrated in this first chart to 

my right, increased grassland cover results in improved nesting 

success for five species of prairie waterfowl. In Montana and the 

Dakotas alone, 4.7 million acres of CRP resulted in 12.4 million 

ducks added to the fall flight between 1992 and 1997. The program 

is producing measurable benefits for many other species as well. 

Some claim that CRP leads to economic decline in rural areas. 

Based on chart 2, it is clear that since CRP was enacted in 1985, 

the rate of farm loss has actually slowed. Recent studies in North 

Dakota back this up. 

CRP is a very popular and effective program. Therefore, we respectfully request that it be fully funded, reauthorized, and/or expanded in the next Farm bill. 

Demand for the WRP, the WRP, is three times greater than the 

250,000 acres annually authorized. WRP provides potential feeding 

habitat for wintering waterfowl, wild turkey, and a myriad of other 

game and nongame fish and wildlife species. Its benefits are well 

documented in our written testimony. 

Importantly to this program, we understand that the final technical service provider rule is due out this summer. We look forward 

to its release. Technical assistance should be provided for restoration so that WRP can fulfill the 2002 Farm bill goals. We support 

the Senate resolution calling for TA funds to be available through 

the CCC, and recommend enrollment and restoration of all authorized acres for WRP before the end of fiscal 2007. 

29

A wide variety of fish and wildlife have benefited from WHIP 

projects, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, because it fills 

critical conservation gaps, helping to respond to the Endangered 

Species Act needs, and benefiting other species that could be headed toward listing. Demand for the program outpaces funding, however. Unfunded WHIP applications in fiscal 2003 totaled $40 million, including $1.5 million of unfunded applications just in Idaho. 

We recommend full funding for WHIP at authorized levels. 

We applaud the establishment of the Grassland Reserve Program, GRP. Most native grasslands in the heart of the U.S. have 

been converted to cropland since the 1800’s. Once plowed, they are 

expensive and nearly impossible to restore. GRP would help prevent conversion, conserving wildlife habitat in the process. 

Demand for GRP funding is also overwhelming. In South Dakota, applications for funding total $150 million, but only $1.4 million 

was allocated to the State. In North Dakota, less than 1 percent 

of 471 applications could be funded. Due to the overwhelming demand, increased funding should be considered in upcoming years 

and in the next Farm bill. 

Finally, maintaining an effective Swampbuster remains vital to 

achieving the overall net increase in wetlands that the President 

committed to in his Earth Day speech 3 weeks ago. Studies referenced again in our written testimony point to the high value of 

wetlands protected by this program. Swampbusters should be 

maintained and enhanced in the next Farm bill, including better 

enforcement, as suggested in a recent GAO report. 

In conclusion, the challenge we face is to provide funding and 

support for these programs at levels already authorized. Moreover, 

demand remains strong from producers for the expansion of several 

popular program that offer tremendous returns to the American 

taxpayer, both fiscally and in terms of conservation. We remain 

committed to assist in any way possible to meet these challenging 

demands. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present our 

view of the outcomes, benefits and importance of this farm bill and 

its conservation programs. Please do not hesitate to call upon us 

for any reason regarding any of these important issues. 

I would be happy to answer questions if there is time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson can be found in the appendix o page 124.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Petty. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID PETTY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL CHICKEN 

COUNCIL; NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION;

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL; NATIONAL

TURKEY FEDERATION; AND THE UNITED EGG PRODUCERS 

Mr. PETTY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am David Petty from 

Eldora, IA. I am a farmer and rancher with a diversified crop and 

livestock operation. 

I would like to note that we recently received an award from 

NCBA, the national environmental stewardship award, as well as 

from EPA for environmental excellence. We do use a lot of conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 093359 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\93561.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
30

servation practices in our operation and these programs are very 

important to me personally. 

Today I am here representing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, of which I’m a member, and I am here representing the 

pork, dairy, beef and poultry industries. The testimony today will 

include all of those as well as the livestock. 

We are very grateful to you and the members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing and allowing us an opportunity 

to provide to you our views of the implementation of the conservation title of the 2002 Farm bill. We cannot stress enough how important it is to our producer members for the conservation title to 

be implemented well and effectively, and we welcome your commitment to this objective. 

We know the members of this subcommittee understand better 

than anyone the significance of the economic contribution that livestock producers make to the U.S. agricultural sector. Livestock receipts were a little more than $100 billion last year, and consistently they average over 50 percent of the total agriculture receipts. 

We are the single biggest customer of the U.S. feed crop producers 

and our single largest expense is the feed we purchase for our livestock. Without a doubt, livestock agriculture is value-added agriculture. 

Environment Quality Incentive Program. Livestock producers 

made it a top priority to work together in the 2002 Farm bill process to ensure that the EQIP program was well funded and properly 

structured. They were and continue to be seriously alarmed by 

water and air quality regulations being imposed on AFOs. While 

EQIP has been able to help some AFOs in 2003, more help is needed. Our written testimony goes into considerable detail on these 

items, but I will mention a few of them here. 

We believe NRCS should set aside EQIP funds at the State level 

for the specific purposes of addressing animal feeding operations. 

Producers seeking assistance with costly regulation requirements 

should not be ranked lower than they would otherwise if they had 

not done a good job addressing the manure issues in previous 

times. Many thousands of livestock producers need and want comprehensive nutrient management plans, and EQIP is not helping 

enough for this. If EQIP can’t work, then we need NRCS to find 

some other ways to help the producers get the CNMPs that they 

are desiring to get. 

Mobile and portable equipment that is effectively and economically used for transferring manure from these AFOs to better utilize it as a nutrient also needs to be considered as cost share equipment, which at the present time it is not. APOs application for 

EQIP assistance to install air quality protection and odor reducing 

systems must be given higher priority than they presently are. 

We are deeply concerned that the Department excludes custom 

feeders from EQIP. EQIP was intended for everyone, but they are 

not eligible. 

We support a budget resolution this year that would provide 

funds to CRP and WRP to pay for their own technical assistance, 

rather than drawing in $60–100 million from EQIP, and we support Congress passing subsequent authorization legislation that 

31

would direct USDA to use these new funds in the base line to pay 

for CRP and WRP financial technical assistance. 

The Conservation Security Program. A number of members of 

our agriculture committee were excited by the enactment of the 

Conservation Security Program as part of the 2002 Farm bill. 

Other groups are leery of the new program for fear that it would 

prop up inefficient producers and hurt the overall efficiency of the 

industry. Our overall goal is to create a regulatory and business 

environment in which our members can thrive and produce the 

food needed for America and the world. We will be particularly 

supportive of these concepts of CSP that promote the economic efficiency of producers. 

The program needs to be fixed in many ways, some of which I 

will highlight: 

Enrollment in the program should not be limited to a few watersheds across the country. Producers should not be required to address significant water and air quality concerns prior to getting enrolled in the program. All resource concerns, particularly air quality, should be accorded equal weight with soil and water for the enrollment of this program. 

Limits of feedlot participation in the program for base payments 

and for watershed selection should be eliminated. The lower payment rate that is proposed in the rule will reduce producer interest, and they certainly won’t be knocking the door down. 

In the Grassland Reserve, we certainly support that as it was intended, just keeping grasslands in grasslands versus tearing them 

up. We certainly applaud the NRCS for the work they have done 

through WHIP, helping with the sage grouse and keeping that 

from being listed, and we support the technical services. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Petty can be found in the appendix on page 138.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Petty. 

Mr. Thicke. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS THICKE, MEMBER, IOWA STATE 

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE SUSTAINABLE 

AGRICULTURE COALITION 

Mr. THICKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Francis Thicke. I am a farmer from southeast Iowa. 

In the past I farmed in Minnesota, and actually, in the meantime, 

between, I spent some time in grad school and came and worked 

for the USDA in Washington, where I helped write the conservation programs in the past. I would like to tell my friends I’m a ‘‘born again farmer.’’ Our farm that we are now farming in Iowa was in corn and soybeans. It was very eroded. It’s hilly land, the farm, and we planted 

it basically in grasses and in conservation crops. As Dave Petty’s 

farm, farms can be transformed drastically. Dave is a little modest. 

He has won a lot of awards for his work in grassland conservation 

and cattle and livestock grazing. 

Like Dave, we get many visitors to our farm that look at what 

we’re doing and would like to change. They would like to change 

from what they’re doing. They don’t like only monocropping, as you 

32

see a lot of in the Midwest. They are afraid to do that. They are 

really afraid to make these changes. They are dependent upon the 

commodity programs and they don’t see how they can make these 

changes. 

The Conservation Security Program can really come to the aid of 

farmers today. If properly implemented, we could see a big change 

in American agriculture, from monoculutre, from resource degradation—one that we don’t hear about from agriculture, resource degradation. We could make it into resource enhancement. I like to 

think that my whole farm is a buffer strip. People like to put buffer 

stripes on their farm. Dave’s farm is a buffer strip that actually 

buffers for water and soil quality and air quality. We can really enhance our resources, not just try to maintain them. That is, if we 

can implement this program properly. 

How many have heard of the Integrated Crop Management Program, or the Integrated Farm Management Program, or the Conservation Farm Option in the nineties? Nobody. They all died. They 

all died because they got strangled from bureaucratic rule writing, 

some of them did, and for other reasons as well. 

Now the time is right. We had 14,000 comments on this program. 

Farmers are excited. They are looking for something out here. Of 

course, I’m not going to mention all the things that are wrong with 

CSP. Fourteen thousand comments came in and we have heard 

them already here. 

Just a few of them I will mention, though. A 90 percent reduction in payment rates, that means that a 10 percent payment rate 

for these base payments. That means in some cases it’s like less 

than a dollar an acre. Farmers are not going to sign up for that. 

It is actually ridiculous. For pastures, it’s much less than for cropland. For pastures, for resource conserving uses, it’s less than for 

cropland, which is more resource degradating. 

The rotating watersheds, the mysterious rotating watersheds 

that Senator Harkin talked about, you may have to wait 8 years 

to sign up if you don’t quite get in in 1 year. The low cost share 

rate for the Conservation Security Program versus EQIP and other 

programs. A prohibition on renewing contracts, the convoluted categories and ranking systems. What’s going on here? It’s really convoluted. Again, I don’t want to see this program strangled by this 

bureaucratic rulemaking. 

From my experience at USDA, we have writing rules and we 

don’t have conservation minded NRCS people working the way 

they would normally work. We see here a political process. We 

have the ‘‘tail wagging the dog.’’ The tail here is the NRCS, and 

the dog is being wagged by some political process. What I see here 

is actually the long arm of the Office of Management and Budget 

of the White House. We can talk to Chief Knight until we’re blue 

in the face, but it really isn’t going to make a difference as long 

as this is a political process. 

For example, the 15 percent technical assistance thing is really 

a facade. That assumes this budget cap, which Congress has taken 

off, as you well know, and now that is still assumed to be driving 

the process. I would like to think of it as the one domino that 

knocked all of the other dominos down. All these problems at CSP 

are a result of this alleged budget cap, which doesn’t exist. I guess 

33

I would suggest that the next time you bring an OMB budget examiner to one of these hearings here. 

Now, Chief Knight has said that he has several lawyers that 

have said NRCS is within the law. Well, frankly, I could find several lawyers that can tell you just about anything. Congress has 

said no cap, no ranking criteria, has specifically said no ranking 

criteria, no cap. What part of ‘‘no cap’’ don’t they understand? I 

don’t get it. 

Basic junior high civics is that there are three branches of Government. Congress makes the law and the Executive branch enforces the law. What’s happening here is they’re trying to rewrite 

the Farm bill. Are we going to have to use the third branch, the 

Judicial branch, to stop this? 

I would ask you Senators here to make this happen, because this 

program could get strangled like other programs have in the past. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thicke can be found in the appendix on page 150.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Thicke. 

To the entire panel, I want to thank you. You were all very good 

at staying within your time limits, which has helped us tremendously. 

Before I proceed with my questions, I want to make a request on 

behalf of Senator Talent, who was here but had to leave for another hearing, and who wanted to have his statement submitted for 

the record. Without objection, it will be submitted. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Talent can be found in the 

appendix on page 44.] 

Senator CRAPO. I have just a couple of questions. The first one 

I will direct to you, Mr. Gallup, although I would welcome input 

from any members of the panel who have a thought on this. 

Noxious weeds are one of the big threats that we are facing right 

now in our environment. Fortunately, they are one problem where, 

when addressed early can be managed in an affordable way. That 

and the severe threats that they pose is one reason that we made 

weed treatments eligible for cost share assistance under the Farm 

bill programs. I’m seeing more conservation spending being used to 

address these threats. 

Do you agree that these threats should be and can be addressed 

effectively through the conservation programs of the Farm bill? 

Mr. GALLUP. They definitely have been, and are being. These 

conservation programs help us tremendously through the conservation tillage where weeds have definitely been under control. We are 

seeing a little bit on the rangelands, and that’s probably our worst 

areas right now of the noxious weeds, but we’re getting them under 

control, also, through the natural processes. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. Again, I’m going to toss 

out a couple of questions here and anybody on the panel who is interested is welcome to respond. 

Another area that we tried to address in the Farm bill was to 

try to make sure that those who are facing an increased regulatory 

burden under Federal environmental laws got increased weight in 

their applications under various farm bills. I would like to know 

your thoughts about whether that’s a good idea and whether it’s 

34

working. Even further, there is a notion that has been suggested, 

which I am at least evaluating, which is, namely, that areas where 

there is designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species 

Act would be given additional weighting in the application of the 

farm programs. 

Would anybody like to jump in on those issues, for or against? 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. The first one you talked about certainly is being addressed and should be under these programs. In my conservation 

district where I live, we have a number of integrated poultry and 

swine producers that are under certainly stringent Federal regulations. 

In my State, we lead the Nation in State regulations on those 

types of operations as it relates to water quality issues. We are the 

first State, to my knowledge, that actually requires those producers 

to have a license, and that requires them to go to school, if you 

will, for continuing education, so many hours a year to maintain 

that license to stay in business. 

In my particular district, we have really, over the past Farm bill 

and this farm bill, been able to assist those producers in complying 

with those environmental regulations. It has been very helpful to 

them to do that. That is certainly a very important aspect of these 

programs. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Does anybody else want to jump in? Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would say that in Nebraska we 

have 67 percent of our EQIP dollars going to livestock operations. 

I have been involved in doing conservation work now for 30 years 

as a local public official, or involved in these kinds of issues and 

discussions. 

It seems to me that, within the ag community, you get a very 

opinionated response with a lot of diversity over whether or not the 

traditional conservation programs that are geared toward lands 

and conservation, wind and soil erosion, whether or not those dollars ought to be put in the same pool and compete with specific 

water quality problems that are the result of CAFOs, that that’s 

not the traditional view of what conservation was supposed to be 

about or should be involved in. Yet, water quality is important. 

It seems to me that, as I’m helping to administer these programs 

and give advice at the State level, perhaps we need to take a look 

at different kinds of criteria for livestock. 

My personal view—and it’s not the view of the organization—is 

that we struggle with this whole business of whether or not we 

ought to be using public tax dollars to subsidize the waste management problems created by vertical integrators who are, in fact, unfairly competing against traditional livestock producers. That argument goes on. 

I hope that that argument and area of disagreement doesn’t jeopardize our opportunity to move forward with general soil and water 

conservation programs as a whole, and that the Farm bill presented the opportunity to do that. I would hate to see us end up 

having to short that opportunity after we have spent all of this 

money and all of this education, for all of these years, trying to get 

farmers to the point where they actually want to put conservation 

35

on the land. I would hope that we wouldn’t short them when we 

provide incentives for them to do it. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Thicke. 

Mr. THICKE. We have to be careful not to go too far in using conservation funds to help with regulatory burdens. In Iowa, in the 

State Technical Committee, when we saw the EQIP funds be allowed to go to CAFOs, we saw a huge difference in the number of 

participants. It went from hundreds of participants in EQIP down 

to—I don’t remember the numbers any more, and maybe Dave 

does. It was almost to 25 percent or so. All that funding was funneled into a few producers, large producers, and people have to 

question that. As was mentioned, do we really want to fund commercial organizations that have to meet a regulatory rule anyway? 

We should probably use that money instead to help those who are 

not yet regulated but we can get up to a higher level of functioning. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Nelson, and then Mr. Gallup. 

Mr. NELSON. I will just quickly add, of course, we’re all concerned about those species that have reached the threatened or endangered level. One other thing to think about is targeting groups 

of species that are maybe sliding toward that level of listing and 

try to target programs to keep those from getting to the point 

where these kind of regulatory options need to be considered. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Gallup. 

Mr. GALLUP. Mr. Chairman, in thinking about endangered species, the only reason I would prioritize them higher on the list 

would be to help and assist the farmer that is impacted by that, 

because the cost is enormous sometimes to meet those. I would say 

they need some help so that they can be viable still. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Christopherson. 

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Any time you get into the issue of targeting, you have to be careful so that you don’t lose sight of what 

the initial activity of Congress was. If, indeed, it was dealing with 

conservation issues as it relates to clean air, clean water, et cetera, 

then size really becomes irrelevant, even though, yes, while the dollars per individual site may increase, but supposedly so should the 

impact. That is the first thing you need to be careful of. 

Second, we, as producers, are operating in the real world, where 

we have to pay our bills, and any time you slap on regulatory requirements or anything like that, there is a cost that we have to 

pay. 

Now, let me say first of all that farmers in most cases are willing 

to shoulder some of that, and we can be innovative in how we address some of those issues to meet those goals. At the same time, 

the reality of it is, if you’re going to put a level of expectation on 

producers, you need to be a little careful. Otherwise, you will turn 

them off and you will get less participation than what you would 

have gotten initially without any program at all. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Petty, did you want to jump in here? 

36

Mr. PETTY. Yes. Mr. Chairman, remember that one of the original intents of EQIP was to help producers to come into compliance 

with regulations and preventing them from needing further assistance down the road. We have a lot of producers in the feedlot scenario, farmer producers, small by national standards, but who 

truly need to have more EQIP money. If we had more EQIP money, 

we could solve a lot of things. 

Being that we don’t, it goes back to the local level of deciding 

what the priority and what the ranking criteria is. If it turns into 

being some social issue that becomes involved in there, and if the 

social issue becomes too strong, then the ranking criteria does not 

justify what is really going to get the most ‘‘bang for the buck.’’ Consequently, a lot of the producers with livestock are not getting 

the help that they need because of the social issue. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Senator Harkin, I have a lot of other questions, but I know we’re 

going to run out of time here. You can take the rest of the time 

up until noon, or until they call the vote, if you would like to do 

that. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, 

let me thank you for holding this hearing. I want to thank all of 

our panel for being here today. 

There are about three different areas I want to cover. First, Mr. 

Wilson, from the NACD, I assume you were in the room when I 

had an exchange with Mr. Knight about that 15 percent cap and 

why it’s different than the EQIP program. I believe in your statement you basically address that, at least in your spoken words here 

today, and I wanted to have you say again. 

Is the 15 percent cap an impediment in implementing the CSP 

program? 

Mr. WILSON. In my view, Mr. Harkin, and in the view of our association, our members, it is not a problem if the rule is written 

more in line with what the statute says. It becomes a problem 

when the payment limitations are put on that they’re suggesting, 

and certainly the conservation practices that are numbered and 

named in CSP by the list don’t list construction, if you will, or the 

engineering type practices. The last one leaves it to the discretion 

of the Secretary to be able to fund any practice that she deems necessary, or he, whoever it might be. 

It is our belief that the intent of the law was to not implement, 

design and implement practices, but was to make incentive payments available to those people who had those practices in place 

and to give the public, as I said in my comments, some security 

that the practices they helped pay for with their tax dollars will be 

maintained over a period of years and, consequently, the outcomes 

that they expect and are willing to pay for will be realized. 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that. I will be talking more with 

Mr. Knight about that. That 15 percent cap, as I said earlier, is a 

manufactured problem. It’s not a real one. 

I want to go to you, Mr. Petty. Again, I thank you for being here 

and for your statement. One of the things you touched on and we 

have to make clear also is that, in these conservation programs, we 

don’t have just one conservation program that has a border here 

and a border here, and then another one has a border here and a 

37

border here. These aren’t all segmented out. They overlap. Almost 

every one of these programs, whether it’s WRP or CRP or WHIP 

or anything, they all overlap on one another. There is probably a 

central core of each of them that’s unique to that program, but on 

the edges, they can go into one or into the other. We have purposely designed these programs that way, understanding that you 

may not fit into one little niche but you may fit in that gray area 

where maybe both of them will apply. 

Now, the EQIP program, for example, in terms of livestock operations, has been a good program. We’ve got some problems in that 

in terms of the split, and we talked about that earlier. Hopefully, 

we’re getting closer to a good split on it. It was never intended that 

the CSP program would not apply to livestock production. It may 

not apply to waste structures that’s EQIP. It didn’t mean that it 

wouldn’t apply to other things in terms of feedlots and things like 

that that could be eligible for CSP on a working land. These are 

working lands, and to the extent they’re carving those out of CSP 

really upsets me. 

I’m really glad that you pointed that out, that this should be eligible also under CSP. We were all there when we wrote the law, 

and there is nothing that excluded that at all. I wanted to make 

that point, to make it very clear that maybe some people thought 

the livestock producers weren’t included, and that was never our 

intention. It is not in the bill anywhere. We wanted to cover everyone who was a producer in any way. 

Also, the other thing you mentioned about soil and water on 

CSP. Here again is where CSP can come in for a livestock producer. As you know, in Iowa we have concern with air quality. We 

all recognize that. CSP would handle it because it addresses air 

quality. Again, this is one area in which the way the Department 

is moving on this would exclude you from meeting air quality 

standards and qualifying under the CSP program. 

Am I stating it fairly correctly? 

Mr. PETTY. That’s the way the rules are coming out. 

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, this was never intended that 

way. I didn’t get into that with Mr. Knight before. We didn’t have 

enough time. This is one area where we’ve really got to have this 

final rule that’s different than what they’re proposing. 

One last thing, Mr. Petty. You mentioned that USDA excluded 

custom feeding operations from EQIP. Can you explain your understanding for the basis for this policy and the impact on the livestock industry? 

Mr. PETTY. I’ll try, but I’m not sure I understand it, either, why 

they did it. 

They are saying that a custom feeder is not an agriculture entity, 

and they are just as much as everyone else. They’re not a part of 

an agriculture entity, and in their Schedule F they’re not filing 

that way. It doesn’t make a bit of sense to me because, in the beef 

industry, there are more and more custom feeders all the time and 

there are a lot more individual producers that are doing some custom feeding in their own operation just to help supplement their 

operations. It was probably just an oversight. 

Senator HARKIN. Again, Mr. Chairman, I guess this is something 

that really need to be corrected. Custom feeding operations ought 

38

to be included. I have no understanding of what their rationale is 

for taking them out. Again, hopefully, we can prepare a letter and 

try to find out what their thinking is on this. I don’t know if they 

have followed through on it, and maybe they will change their proposed regulations on that. 

Mr. Gallup, give us a look to the future. CSP is fully funded and 

we move ahead on this as it is supposed to, a national program. 

What does the future look like in terms of farmers, no matter 

whether they’re in Idaho or—is it lentils you grow? 

Mr. GALLUP. Potatoes. 

Senator HARKIN. Potatoes and all that kind of thing, and in my 

State, corn and beans, and wheat in your area, what does this 

mean? Just give me some idea of what it might mean for the future. 

Mr. GALLUP. For me in the future, what I was looking at when 

I first heard CSP, I thought this is going to give me the ability to 

go in and use the technologies that are out there, that right now 

are cost prohibitive for a wheat farmer with $3.80 wheat and a 

drought. To me, it gives me the opportunity for variable rate technologies to be put on the farm, which in turn helps in several ways, 

applying fertilizer better, puts in it less concentrated areas so that 

you have less ability to leach that into the water and so on. You’re 

applying the fertilizer as it’s needed for the type of soil you have, 

those types of things where the GPS technology is out there. Yield 

monitoring can help you with those types of things that are really 

cost prohibitive for a farmer like myself. 

That is what I had hoped to see CSP accomplish. 

Senator HARKIN. Anybody else? 

Mr. PETTY. I’ll take a shot at that. 

When I first saw CSP come out, I went straight to the local office 

and told them, I said I’ve been in there a lot of times and do a lot 

of different conservation practices, and I said we can use my place, 

and if there’s something else I need to be doing out there, let me 

know so that we can get it in place. 

You know, they came up, the DCs, and as near as they thought, 

we had everything just totally in line and they couldn’t recommend 

another thing that maybe I could be doing along the way. I thought 

this is great. This really fits me, to finally get some recognition for 

some waterways that I had put in that a lot of other people had 

been farming straight through and putting sedimentation straight 

into the water, all these different good practices. 

I had bordered the river for seven miles, and I’m not in a watershed. You explain that to me. I’m probably at about year nine, so 

as it looks right now, I don’t think I’ll ever be eligible for CSP. 

Senator HARKIN. You were the type of people that we had envisioned—and we talked about this a lot in the development of the 

Farm bill—that in the past, it seems that every time we had a program, the bad actors got in and the people that had been doing it 

were carved out. In fact, we know in the past that a lot of people 

tore up things just to get in the program. We didn’t want that to 

happen. This is an excellent example of what we’re talking about. 

Mr. Christopherson, before my time runs out, I want to give you 

a chance. 

39

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. You identified something in your opening 

statement regarding things happen as we notice what our neighbors are doing. I view the CSP program as an opportunity to get 

some examples out there for other people to see. 

Each of us recognize there are things on our own farms that we 

would like to change, like to improve, like to address. Basically 

farmers are stewards of their land and they like to be good stewards, but at the same time we sometimes lack—again, it goes back 

to the technical assistance that we sometimes don’t get. We are 

forced into a program to in many cases accept money for some 

grand scheme, and we think, because farmers are innovative, we 

think that with a little bit of technical assistance, a little bit of— give us the numbers and we’ll work with them. 

A program like this was an example of where we saw or I saw 

an opportunity to get some ideas on the ground out in practice and, 

hopefully, a lot of my neighbors would participate. That was what 

I thought was going to be exciting about the whole thing. 

Senator HARKIN. Right down the line. I know we’re running out 

of time. 

Mr. HANSEN. Senator Harkin, of course, I’m Norwegian so I have 

a different take on almost everything. My view was, as you look 

through these traditional conflicts within conservation, I looked at 

the Conservation Security Program as an opportunity to actually 

reward those folks that have been good resource managers, had 

been doing the right stuff, and in a lot of cases had been sucking 

up the financial costs and paying them out of their own pocket 

rather than getting Government incentives to be encouraged to do 

the right thing that they were already doing a lot of. They were 

already being good resource managers and we wanted to try to let 

almost everyone in who was doing that and then, after we had rewarded them, help give them additional incentives to move them 

up to even higher levels of resource management through the 

tiered system. That was my take. 

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Gallup. 

Mr. GALLUP. Senator Harkin, I’ve been a dyed in the wool no-till 

farmer since 1985. I’ve got neighbors next door to me who still tell 

me that it will not work on my farm. A lot of it is because of the 

cost of the equipment to get started. I was dumb enough and young 

enough at that age that I sold everything I owned and bought a 

no-till drill, so it had to work. It works. 

That is what my whole vision, too, of this program would be, to 

help those neighbors get involved in something that I have seen 

conservation-wise on my place, that erosion is almost nonexistent. 

Senator HARKIN. You got it. That’s what we’re trying to get to. 

I have two left, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Thicke. 

Mr. NELSON. I didn’t comment a lot in my testimony about CSP, 

mostly because we’re waiting for it to be implemented to see what 

kind of wildlife values it does have. We anticipate good things. 

I would just say that I totally agree with your point about this 

rewarding good stewardship as opposed to only having programs 

that reward those who maybe did the wrong thing and need help 

getting back to where they ought to have been in the first place. 

Having said that, we continue to see thousands of acres being 

plowed up, of native prairie, in many areas. I don’t know if some 

40

of the other farm programs are taking the risk out of that, but I 

would certainly like to see programs that prevent that from happening and reward those who keep those kinds of areas intact. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Thicke. 

Mr. THICKE. It seems to me that diversity is really the key thing 

when you look at the law, diversity of crops, not just in Iowa where 

we see all corn and soybeans, but we need to get more resource 

conserving crops in there. 

Mr. Chairman, you spoke earlier about noxious weeds. Ralph 

Waldo Emerson defined a weed as ‘‘a plant whose value has not yet 

been discovered.’’

[Laughter.] 

We need to look at the whole system. If we begin to use more 

rotations, then these things fall out, some of these problems fall out 

as we begin to do this. Dave and I have discovered that cows really 

do like to graze and they don’t have to stand in feedlots, so we can 

use the whole system in the CRP program. 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate all your testimonies and thank you 

very much for what you have been doing in the past. I thank all 

the organizations who are represented here. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s clear that conservation is the hallmark of the 

last Farm bill. It is something that we just have to continue oversight on and continue to work with the administration to make 

sure that all these programs are implemented and funded in a way 

that makes them work. 

Could I just close on this note. Talking about money and the 

Farm bill and how things have changed, in this 3 years since the 

Farm bill passed, we have saved over $15 billion in payments that 

would have gone out. Why? Because prices are high so we had the 

countercyclical programs. It was $15 billion that we were allotted 

to spend, could have spent, but we didn’t spend. It seems to me 

that, if we’re asking for a couple of billion to implement all these 

conservation programs, and to do it right, we’re still saving the taxpayers a lot of money. This idea that somehow we have to cut this 

down because we have a deficit—and I know we have a deficit; 

we’re all trying to reduce that. Agriculture has done more than its 

fair share of helping out. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin. 

I share your views on those issues. This is a critical part of the 

Farm bill and a critical part of our effort in our economy, as well 

as in terms of our stewardship over the environment. 

We are 10 minutes into that vote that we were talking about, so 

we have about 5 minutes to get there. I want to again commend 

all of our witnesses for following the time restraints. 

I should also note that I have a thick binder here of all of your 

written testimony, so I understand the effort that you went to to 

put together your written as well as your oral testimony. We thank 

you for it. 

Without anything further, this hearing will be adjourned. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X

MAY 11, 2004

42


93561.001
43


93561.002
44


93561.003
45


93561.004
46


93561.005
47


93561.006
48


93561.007
49


93561.008
50


93561.009
51


93561.010
52


93561.011
53


93561.012
54


93561.013
55


93561.014
56


93561.015
57


93561.016
58


93561.017
59


93561.018
60


93561.019
61


93561.020
62


93561.021
63


93561.022
64


93561.023
65


93561.024
66


93561.025
67


93561.026
68


93561.027
69


93561.028
70


93561.029
71


93561.030
72


93561.031
73


93561.032
74


93561.033
75


93561.034
76


93561.035
77


93561.036
78


93561.037
79


93561.038
80


93561.039
81


93561.040
82


93561.041
83


93561.042
84


93561.043
85


93561.044
86


93561.045
87


93561.046
88


93561.047
89


93561.048
90


93561.049
91


93561.050
92


93561.051
93


93561.052
94


93561.053
95


93561.054
96


93561.055
97


93561.056
98


93561.057
99


93561.058
100


93561.059
101


93561.060
102


93561.061
103


93561.062
104


93561.063
105


93561.064
106


93561.065
107


93561.066
108


93561.067
109


93561.068
110


93561.069
111


93561.070
112


93561.071
113


93561.072
114


93561.073
115


93561.074
116


93561.075
117


93561.076
118


93561.077
119


93561.078
120


93561.079
121


93561.080
122


93561.081
123


93561.082
124


93561.083
125


93561.084
126


93561.085
127


93561.086
128


93561.087
129


93561.088
130


93561.089
131


93561.090
132


93561.091
133


93561.092
134


93561.093
135


93561.094
136


93561.095
137


93561.096
138


93561.097
139


93561.098
140


93561.099
141


93561.100
142


93561.101
143


93561.102
144


93561.103
145


93561.104
146


93561.105
147


93561.106
148


93561.107
149


93561.108
150


93561.109
151


93561.110
152


93561.111
153


93561.112
154


93561.113
155

Æ


93561.114