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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–272 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–691 

STRENGTHENING CONSERVATION 

THROUGH THE 2012 FARM BILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, Majority Staff Director 

JONATHAN W. COPPESS, Majority Chief Counsel 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

MICHAEL J. SEYFERT, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Strengthening Conservation through the 2012 Farm Bill ................................... 1 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry ............................ 1 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas .................................. 3 

Panel I 

Nelson, Bruce, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 5 

White, David, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ................................................................ 6 

Panel II 

Garber, Earl, President Elect, National Association of Conservation Districts, 

Basile, LA ............................................................................................................. 40 

Humphries, Becky, Director of Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office, Ducks 

Unlimited, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI .......................................................................... 33 

Mattson, Carl, Farmer, Mattson Farms, Chester, MT ......................................... 37 

Mosel, Darrel, Farmer, Darrel Mosel Farm, Gaylord, MN .................................. 38 

Stoskopf, Dean, Wheat Farmer, Stoskopf Farms, Hoisington, KS ...................... 35 

Trandahl, Jeff, Executive Director and CEO, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC ...................................................................................... 31 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Casey, Hon. Robert, Jr. .................................................................................... 52 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten .................................................................................. 53 

Lugar, Hon. Richard G. .................................................................................... 54 

[Legislative language for Title II available from the Chief Clerk] 

Thune, Hon. John ............................................................................................. 57 

Garber, Earl ...................................................................................................... 59 

Humphries, Becky ............................................................................................ 62 

Mattson, Carl .................................................................................................... 68 

Mosel, Darrel .................................................................................................... 73 

Nelson, Bruce .................................................................................................... 80 

Stoskopf, Dean .................................................................................................. 87 

Trandahl, Jeff ................................................................................................... 91 

White, David ..................................................................................................... 98 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

National Cotton Council, prepared statement ............................................... 118 

State of Kansas, Office of the Governor, prepared statement ...................... 121 

Partnership of Rangeland Trusts (PORT), prepared statement ................... 125 

Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy, prepared statement ............. 129 

Page

IV 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie—Continued 

Various oranizations, prepared statement ..................................................... 137 

Various oranizations, prepared statement ..................................................... 148 

Bennet, Hon. Michael F.: 

Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts, prepared statement ............................... 149 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

Written questions to Earl Garber ................................................................... 158 

Written questions to Becky Humphries .......................................................... 165 

Written questions to Carl Mattson ................................................................. 171 

Written questions to Darrel Mosel .................................................................. 185 

Written questions to Bruce Nelson ................................................................. 192 

Written questions to Jeff Trandahl ................................................................. 212 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 217 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 

Written questions to Bruce Nelson ................................................................. 193 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 219 

Bennet, Hon. Michael: 

Written questions to Bruce Nelson ................................................................. 197 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 237 

Casey, Hon. Robert, Jr.: 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 233 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby: 

Written questions to Bruce Nelson ................................................................. 200 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 241 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten: 

Written questions to Bruce Nelson ................................................................. 199 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 238 

Harkin, Hon. Tom: 

Written questions to Earl Garber ................................................................... 161 

Written questions to Becky Humphries .......................................................... 167 

Written questions to Carl Mattson ................................................................. 178 

Written questions to Darrel Mosel .................................................................. 187 

Written questions to Bruce Nelson ................................................................. 196 

Written questions to Dean Stoskopf ............................................................... 208 

Written questions to Jeff Trandahl ................................................................. 214 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 232 

Hoeven, Hon. John: 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 244 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J.: 

Written questions to Earl Garber ................................................................... 158 

Written questions to Becky Humphries .......................................................... 165 

Written questions to Carl Mattson ................................................................. 173 

Written questions to Darrel Mosel .................................................................. 185 

Written questions to Dean Stoskopf ............................................................... 206 

Written questions to Jeff Trandahl ................................................................. 212 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 229 

Thune, Hon. John: 

Written questions to Earl Garber ................................................................... 164 

Written questions to Becky Humphries .......................................................... 169 

Written questions to Carl Mattson ................................................................. 182 

Written questions to Darrel Mosel .................................................................. 190 

Written questions to Bruce Nelson ................................................................. 202 

Written questions to Dean Stoskopf ............................................................... 210 

Written questions to Jeff Trandahl ................................................................. 216 

Written questions to David White .................................................................. 242 

Garber, Earl: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 158 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 161 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 158 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 164 

Humphries, Becky: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 165 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 167 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 165 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 169 

Page

V 

Mattson, Carl: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 171 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 178 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 173 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 183 

Mosel, Darrel: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 185 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 187 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 185 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 190 

Nelson, Bruce: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 192 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 194 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 196 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 197 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 199 

Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss ......................... 200 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 202 

Stoskopf, Dean: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 208 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 206 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 210 

Trandahl, Jeff: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 212 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 214 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 212 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 216 

White, David: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 217 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 219 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 230 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 233 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 234 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 237 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 239 

Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss ......................... 241 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 242 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Hoeven ................................ 245 

(1) 

STRENGTHENING CONSERVATION 

THROUGH THE 2012 FARM BILL 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, 

Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Stabenow, Harkin, Baucus, Klobuchar, Bennet, 

Gillibrand, Roberts, Chambliss, Boozman, Grassley, and Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Chairwoman STABENOW. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition and Forestry will come to order. I want to apologize in 

advance. As you can tell, I am struggling with my voice today. I 

hope it is going to hold out to get all the way through the hearing. 

If not, I am sure my partner and Ranking Member’s voice will be 

able to hold up throughout the hearing. But we are so pleased to 

have all of you here today, and we are continuing, as you know, 

our 2012 farm bill hearings. 

For us in Michigan, protecting the Great Lakes is part of our 

DNA, and that is why conservation is so important, and we are 

very pleased to have everyone in town during Great Lakes Week. 

And so we wanted to hold this hearing during Great Lake Week 

to emphasize the importance to us in the conservation title of the 

wonderful partnerships that are occurring around the Great Lakes 

as well as so many other parts of the country to protect our soil 

and our water and our air. 

Conservation, as we all know, helps farmers and ranchers to 

grow healthy and affordable crops while taking care of the land 

and water. And we all benefit from the commitment our farmers 

have to the land. I have seen this firsthand as I have visited farms 

all across Michigan. Thanks to easements made possible by the 

Farm and Ranchland Protection Program and local partnerships, 

Shoreland Fruit Company knew they could keep investing in their 

cherry-processing plant because area fruit farmers had made a 

commitment to keep their land in agriculture, ensuring a stable 

supply. Shoreland was able to expand production and create jobs 

even in a difficult economy. 

Similarly, Burnette Foods, an apple-processing company that employs 500 people on the west side of Michigan, benefits from the 

2 

success of easements that keep land in farming and out of residential development. They were able to purchase the last surviving 

cherry-processing plant left on Old Mission Peninsula, which is an 

absolutely beautiful place in Michigan. 

I had the opportunity to speak at a Michigan Pheasants Forever 

banquet just a few weeks ago where they are doing incredible work 

with the Pheasant Restoration Initiative through the Voluntary 

Public Access Program we included in the last farm bill. Working 

with volunteers, with farmers, they are helping to make sure that 

hunting remains one of the great, great traditions in Michigan. 

But it is more than just our way of life. There are more than 1 

million hunters and anglers in Michigan who directly and indirectly support more than 46,000 jobs in Michigan alone. 

I have said over and over again that the farm bill is a jobs bill, 

and that is as true of the conservation title as it is for anything 

else in the farm bill. 

Of course, the most direct beneficiary of conservation is our agricultural lands, which must remain healthy to handle future demands on our working agricultural landscapes. While agricultural 

exports are strong today, global food needs are expected to double, 

as we know, as the population grows to 9 billion people by 2050. 

The pressure to produce more on the same or fewer acres while 

still facing weather, price, and input risks beyond their control will 

stress agricultural producers for decades to come. Working lands 

conservation sits at the very core of our ability to meet these production challenges without sacrificing our vital natural resources. 

As we know, farming is measured in generations. The most successful farmers are those that can pass along a viable farming operation to their children and to their grandchildren. And no farming operation can be prosperous without good-quality soil and clean 

water in sufficient quantities. That is why conservation is such an 

important part of the farm bill. 

As we continue our work, this farm bill must focus on making 

our program simpler, locally driven, science-based, and flexible 

enough to ensure that taxpayers’ investments in conservation are 

enabling agriculture to remain healthy and productive across the 

diverse landscapes of our great Nation so that we can be certain 

those 1.3 billion acres produce clean water, abundant and safe food, 

wildlife habitat, and a quality of life for future generations. That 

is our goal in the conservation title of the farm bill. 

Now, before I turn it over to my friend and Ranking Member, 

Senator Roberts, for his opening remarks, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter a few items into the official record: first, 

written testimony from the Michigan land conservation organizations on behalf of the Land Trust Alliance and the American Farmland Trust; second, a letter from the Partnership of Rangeland 

Trusts and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; a letter from 

ten commodity groups in support of the framework that we put together on the conservation title last fall; and, last, a letter from 643 

conservation groups representing all 50 States in support of a 

strong conservation title. If there are no objections, these items will 

be entered into the record. We thank these organizations for their 

very strong support. 

3 

[The following information can be found on pages 125 through 

137 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Now I will turn to Senator Roberts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Today’s 

hearing is an important step in our farm bill process, and I welcome Administrator Nelson and Chief White. I look forward to 

their insight. 

Madam Chairman, given your problems with laryngitis, I would 

be happy to always pinch-hit to read the Chairwoman’s remarks 

anytime. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. I would not change any adjective or adverb. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I might add a few recommendations. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Right, right. 

Senator ROBERTS. During our work last fall on the conservative 

title of the farm bill, I appreciated that both the NRCS and FSA 

leaders made themselves available to our staff to answer technical 

questions. I appreciate the longstanding commitment of the agencies to detail staff to work through legislative provisions in the 

complex working of the farm bill. Thank you. 

Let me stress again that good progress was made on the conservation title last fall, and I look forward to again working with 

the Chairwoman and all of the Committee members to continue to 

refine that work. We have a good, solid starting point. 

Our current conservation title provides a variety of program options for producers. Programs should be flexible to meet producer 

needs and guided by State and local priorities. 

A single program will not meet the needs of all producers, but 

we have gone too far, in my view, in the other direction. We now 

have duplicative programs that have become more and more complicated. It is really an alphabet soup when I look at all of these 

programs. 

My goal during this farm bill process is to help maintain options 

for producers while simplifying the programs for the producers and 

those tasked with the implementation. One of the most important 

programs in this title, Madam Chairwoman, is EQIP I know you 

know that—the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This 

program helps producers address environmental regulations. The 

assistance that the USDA provides is very important to help producers navigate a complex web of Government mandates. 

The number one concern I hear from producers is overregulation. 

‘‘Our producers are repeatedly faced with layers of regulations that 

simply do not make sense.’’ That is a quote from the President 

about a year ago. Pesticide permits, child labor, waters of the U.S., 

dioxins, spilt milk, CAFOs, and the list goes on. I see Dean and 

Mary Anne Stoskopf sitting in the hearing right over there from 

Hoisington, Kansas, America. Welcome to your Nation’s capital. 

Thank you for providing us with your perspective. Thank you as 

well, Dean, for your longstanding service as a leader in both State 

and national producer organizations. 

4 

Now, I do not want to give away too much of what Dean will say, 

but he is going to talk about the Conservation Reserve Program 

and the importance of the program in Kansas, especially with the 

recent drought. CRP is a vital program option for producers, but 

we need to allow our producers to have choices. Out in the high 

plains, we want to make sure that the soil stays on the farm. CRP 

can help, and I wanted to ensure that producers have that option 

in the coming years. 

High commodity prices and new technology might change the 

participation in the program, but it is still an important option to 

help protect highly erodible soils. I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses today, using their insight to help guide our work. 

The conservation title has changed drastically over the last 15 

years both in number and complexity of programs and the size of 

the budget. We are now spending more than twice what we did 

back in 2001 for conservation programs, and conservation spending 

is predicted to top the commodity title spending in the next few 

years. 

Now, you cannot have this kind of growth without learning some 

lessons about what is working and what is not and how producers 

are reacting to the programs and then the capability of the Department to implement the programs quickly and efficiently. We are in 

a very difficult budget situation—everybody knows that—in 

crafting this farm bill, and we must look at reducing the program 

overlap and focus in on what works. The input from today’s panels 

will help guide us. 

Madam Chairwoman, I know we have a lot of ground to cover 

today. I ask that a statement from Kansas Governor and our 

former colleague in the Senate, Sam Brownback, be added to the 

record, and I thank you very kindly. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statement of Hon. Sam Brownback can be found on page 

121 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, we have excellent panelists this 

morning, and we welcome everyone. We are going to start with two 

real leaders in this area, and we thank you both, Mr. Nelson and 

Chief White. Let me introduce both of you, and then Chief White 

does have a slide presentation, so we have given you a special 

privilege this morning. Instead of the traditional 5 minutes, we 

have given you 10 minutes, and we are happy to do it because we 

appreciate the information you are going to provide. 

Of course, members are welcome to submit a opening statement 

for the record as well this morning. 

Our first witness on the panel is Mr. Bruce Nelson, Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, a position he has held since 

July of 2011. He hails from Fort Benton, Montana, and has held 

various positions with FSA within the State, including most recently as State Executive Director. He is a graduate of the University of Montana, spent many summers working on a family farm. 

We very much appreciate your efforts and welcome you today. 

Let me also introduce Chief Dave White of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service at USDA. Chief White began his career with 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service over 3two years ago 

and was named Chief in March of 2009. No stranger to our ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:05 Mar 27, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\78272.TXT MICHA
5 

mittee, he has been very active in the farm bill process, having 

worked on the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, first detailed to Senator 

Lugar and then to Senator Harkin. 

And so we welcome both of you today, and, Mr. Nelson, you can 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM 

SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. NELSON. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member Roberts, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the Farm Service Agency’s conservation 

programs in light of the 2012 farm bill. 

Let me begin by talking about FSA’s largest conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP. CRP provides 

annual rental payments to farmers and ranchers to establish longterm conservation cover. CRP has a legacy of successfully protecting the Nation’s natural resources while providing significant 

economic and environmental benefits to rural communities across 

the United States. CRP protects our most environmentally sensitive lands from erosion and sedimentation and helps sustain 

groundwater, lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams. 

Cropland regularly enters and leaves CRP as new land is enrolled and as CRP contracts expire. There are now 29.7 million 

acres in CRP, down nearly 20 percent from fiscal year 2007. With 

contracts on 6.5 million acres scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 2012, USDA recently announced a new CRP general signup that will begin on March 12th and end on April 6th. 

In addition to CRP general sign-up, FSA offers year-round continuous sign-up, which now constitutes about 18 percent of the 

total acres enrolled. I would add that continuous sign-up has become a larger portion of overall enrollment in recent years, and we 

are working hard to promote these continuous programs. 

Most recently, on February 18th, Secretary Vilsack announced a 

new Highly Erodible Land Initiative, which will allow up to 

750,000 acres of the most highly erodible land to enroll in CRP via 

continuous sign-up. 

Given budgetary pressures, the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget proposes capping CRP at 30 million acres. We believe that is a 

fair way to achieve an estimated $977 million in budget savings 

over 10 years while maintaining the CRP program at a level where 

it can continue to deliver substantial environmental benefits to producers. 

FSA and NRCS administer several programs that provide emergency conservation assistance to producers. For example, the Emergency Conservation Program, or ECP, provides emergency costshare funding to rehabilitate damaged farmland. I am pleased to 

report that we have allocated more than $102 million nationwide 

to address damage from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, 

and other natural disasters under ECP in fiscal year 2012. This is 

in addition to the $91 million allocated to States to address damage 

from significant disasters last fiscal year. 

The Transition Incentives Program, or TIP, which was created in 

the 2008 farm bill, has been a big success. Over $20 million of the 

6 

$25 million statutory limit has already been obligated to help transition CRP land from retired farmers to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers who use sustainable farming techniques. In 

addition, FSA is currently reviewing $1 million in pending requests. 

Because of a concern about high demand resulting from the 

amount of CRP acreage expiring and high commodity prices, TIP 

sign-up was suspended last Friday until steps can be taken to ensure that the $25 million statutory limit is not exceeded. 

The Emergency Forest Restoration Program, or EFRP, which 

was also created in the 2008 farm bill, helps owners of non-industrial private forestland carry out emergency measures to restore 

land damaged by natural disasters. Since the program began, more 

than $24 million has been allocated to the States to carry out the 

program. 

Members of the Committee, in closing, FSA has an important set 

of conservation programs that are uniquely suited to our farmers 

and ranchers. We look forward to working closely with Congress to 

continue to achieve highly targeted, highly impactful programs to 

American producers. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions you or members of the Committee might have. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Bruce Nelson. can be found on page 

80 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. We appreciate 

your leadership. 

Chief White, welcome again. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WHITE, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES 

CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WHITE. Madam Chair, thank you, Senator Roberts, distinguished members of the Committee. It is really great to be here. 

I think your topic, strengthening conservation through the farm 

bill, is certainly apropos. And just as a personal word, I am so 

grateful that you, this Committee and you as individuals, are the 

ones undertaking this effort because I have a lot of confidence you 

are going to do what is right for the environment, what is right for 

the producers, what is right for the taxpayers, and what is right 

for those little Americans that we are going to hand this thing over 

to in a few years. 

You have my written testimony. I am just going to sum up the 

recommendations I made in my written testimony briefly. There 

are three of them. I am just going to echo what you two have stated in your opening statements. 

One, we need to streamline these conservation programs, including consolidation, if necessary. I realize every program has a purpose, every program has a constituency, every program has a goal, 

and they are all worthwhile. And I think it is possible to hold true 

to those and yet still achieve the streamlining and the consolidation that would make it much easier to implement. 

7 

Two, I would plead for increased flexibility that you mentioned, 

Senator Stabenow, so we can better address our conservation needs 

at the local, State, regional, and national levels. 

And, three, Senator Roberts, you mentioned budgets. It would be 

so wonderful if we could have some increased emphasis on partnerships in working with local and State government and non-governmental organizations so we can get a greater return on the conservation investment. I know you are going to do the best that you 

can, but increasing partnerships would be wonderful. 

You can be proud of the work we are doing around the country. 

You mentioned I have a presentation, so I am going to devolve to 

that, because one picture is worth a thousand words. I am going 

to take you around the country and I am going to show you what 

your money is buying and what we are doing on the landscape. 

[Slides begins] 

One of the big problems we have is nutrients. What you are seeing here is an infrared reader. It reads the chlorophyll level in the 

plant. It can adjust the nutrients being applied once per second. On 

the fly. Now we can put exactly what is needed right when we need 

it, on the fly in the field. This is going to have huge impacts on 

our water and better efficiency for our producers in the future. 

This is Maryland. This is a basket filled with steel slag. It is a 

waste product from slag. This pond catches the runoff from four 

poultry houses. We are finding out the steel slag absorbs phosphorous like crazy. This has got huge potential for us in the future. 

We are also looking at gypsum filters. This is actually a ditch. 

The tile is there. Dirt is put over it. It looks like that afterwards. 

It is going to have amazing impacts on getting phosphorous and nitrogen out of water leaving the field. 

Turning to Montana, this is a fairly typical Western water diversion. This is a major headache for producers. It catches every piece 

of debris that comes down the creek. Fish get entrained. It is being 

replaced with things like this. There is a perforated pipe under 

there. No maintenance, easy fish passage. Cows like it. The rancher gets his water rights. 

Senator Roberts, you mentioned regulation. This bird is called a 

sage grouse. This bird is on a candidate list. If this bird is listed 

as threatened or endangered, ranching as we know it in the Western United States comes to a halt because of the checkerboard ownership pattern. 

We are embarked on an effort to keep this bird from being listed. 

We are working with a lot of partners, like Pheasants Forever, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Western Association of 

Conservation Agencies and conservation districts. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service is a key partner. And we think we can do it. This 

is the range of this bird. And if you look at the hot colors here, 75 

percent of the birds live in 25 percent of the area. If we can protect 

these core areas, we can have energy development—oil, gas, wind, 

solar. We can have residential development. Our cities can grow. 

It is just doable. And it is not high-tech stuff. 

One of our big problems is bird strikes on these barbed wire 

fences, and this is an issue with the lesser prairie chicken as well. 

It is not rocket science. This is vinyl trim siding cut in 3-inch 

pieces, snapped over the wire. We know that if you mark a mile 

8 

of fence, you are going to prevent four to five strikes. In the last 

two years, we have marked or moved 350 miles of fences. Our 

science says this is equal to saving the entire male sage grouse 

population in North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Alberta, 

and Saskatchewan combined two times. Low cost, too. 

We know that if we increase our grass height two inches on a 

rangeland, it will equate to a 10-percent increase in population 

growth. In the last two years, we have installed that on 1.3 million 

acres. It is good for the rancher, it is good for the cows, it is good 

for the birds. You are talking about an area nearly the size of the 

State of Delaware, and that is only in two years, and we are just 

getting started. 

Let us turn to the Central Valley of California it is arguably the 

most productive ag region in the United States. There is not one 

of us that has not had produce from this region, whether it is 

grapes, lettuce, olives, onions, broccoli, whatever it would be. These 

farmers are under the worst regulation I have ever seen as far as 

air quality. This is the farm of a guy named Don Cameron. When 

I went to his place, he had 30 irrigation pumps lined up. They all 

had a hole cut in the block because they were too polluting for the 

California Air Quality Resources Board. Using Conservation Innovation Grants quality funds we have been able to help producers 

like Don Cameron. We have reduce nitrogen oxides emissions the 

equivalent of removing over 500,000 cars from the roads of California a year. If we keep this up for 2 more years, we are going 

to obviate the need for any further regulation of agriculture. 

This is Colorado, a rangeland fire; one year later. 

This is Carroll County, Maryland, runoff from a dairy producer, 

a Chesapeake Bay issue. That is what it looks like today. 

This is Georgia, a critical area in front of a poultry house, the 

first year. 

This is Indiana, runoff from a cropland field. This is what it 

looks like today. 

Senator Harkin, this is Iowa, a feed lot, major league manure 

problems from this beef operation. This is what it looks like today. 

This producer will not be regulated. He can produce beef, and he 

can do it in an environmentally sound manner. 

Here is timber stand improvement. I had to stand back taking 

this photo. When you get in there, you cannot even see anything. 

A fire goes through, mow, it gets up in the crowns. We have seen 

soil baked into virtual rock. Go in, clean it up. These trees are naturally resilient to fire. A fire goes through, it stays low, trees are 

a lot healthier. 

This is Kansas, highly acidic range soil in Kansas. Working with 

the producer, it looks like this today. 

Michigan, Senator Stabenow, look at the cows up in the righthand corner. We had to put a heavy use area in there. We rehabilitated the pasture. It looks like that today. 

Riparian area in Minnesota, farming right up next to the creek. 

We put a little buffer in there, and that is what it looks like today. 

Here is a big problem in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas. This 

is from Nebraska. It is the eastern red cedar encroachment on the 

grasslands. 

9 

Here is a Playa Lake in Nebraska. This individual wanted to restore the Playa Lake. He enrolled it in the Wetlands Reserve Program. Here it is today. 

Oh, my gosh. Senator Gillibrand, this is New York. I do not know 

where to start. These are some major league issues: manure runoff, 

no forage. Working with the producer, this is what it looked like 

last year in 2011. This is the first year. This guy is going to be 

okay. It is going to look even better this year. 

Stream bank stabilization in North Dakota, this is using riprap, 

a harder science. 

This is streambank stabilization in Colorado using bio-engineering, a much softer approach. 

Ohio, this is the gully forming next to a cropland field. This is 

what it looks like today. 

South Dakota, this producer needed irrigation water for his 

crops. He also wanted some wildlife habitat. 

This is an interesting one. This is Pennsylvania. An orchard 

grower wanted to increase pollinators next to his orchard. This is 

what it looks like today. 

This is interesting, Senator Boozman. This is Arkansas. This is 

a World War II vet, he was a rice grower, been farming this land 

for more than 60 years. A couple years ago, he could not get a dependable source of water. He had to give up farming rice. Using 

the AWEP program, we were able to construct a reservoir. He is 

back to growing rice. He is going to make it. He is ready to hand 

the farm over to his kids. 

Back to Minnesota, a critical area here. This is right after construction. This is all covered in grass now. 

I am going to end up with this Deepwater Horizon stuff. Remember those horrible pictures, the pit of your stomach when you saw 

that stuff flowing out. We had a call from Ducks Unlimited and the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I see Jeff Trandahl is up 

here next. They are telling me we have got 50 million birds coming 

down the Mississippi flyway, every single one of them is headed for 

the gulf, and at the same time we have this horrible drought where 

natural wetlands are drying up. So we decided that in these green 

areas we would ask producers, ‘‘Will you help us create instant 

wetlands to provide some habitat for these birds that are flying 

south?’’ 

The response was overwhelming. We thought we would try for 

100,000 acres. We actually had over 1 million acres offered, primarily by rice growers and soybean/cotton producers. We were able 

to cobble together enough money to do 471,000 acres. We disk the 

field, flood it with water. A couple months later, this is what it 

looked like. The Mississippi State University told us that more 

than one-third of all the duck energy days that entire year came 

from these 500,000 acres, and there are millions of acres of wetland. But most of the productivity came from these fields. 

The key thing about this is these are working lands. They are 

growing rice, they are growing cotton, they are growing soybeans, 

they are growing catfish, they are growing crawfish in the summertime. And in the wintertime they were providing habitat for wildlife. 

10 

Do not let anybody tell you that you cannot have environmental 

progress in harmony with agricultural production, because we can 

do it. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes my remarks, with 5 

seconds to go. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of David White can be found on page 

98 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Needless to say, 

it is very impressive and exciting to see this. 

I am going to start with a very simple question because there is 

a lot of debate about this. But in terms of conservation, are our 

farmers and ranchers better off today than they were 20 years ago? 

Mr. WHITE. Unquestionably. I think all the research from our 

Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) results show, yes, 

they are. They are making a heck of a lot of environmental 

progress. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. So what can we do in this important 

farm bill, the largest investment our country makes in conservation 

on working lands, what can we do to build on the improvements 

that we have seen in these pictures? 

Mr. WHITE. Actually, if you would kind of go forward with everything I heard and know about the farm bill conservation title that 

you did in the previous thing last fall, I think you guys knocked 

it out of the park. That would be my suggestion, if you could move 

forward with that. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Mr. Nelson, let me ask you about the future of CRP. With recordhigh land prices paired with high commodity prices, we are seeing, 

of course, significant pressure to keep land out of the CRP program, and this has been a great success story as well over the last 

25 years. In Michigan, we have seen particular success with the 

continuous type practices under the program. 

As our farmers face growing pressure to plant more, what adjustments to the current program should this Committee consider to 

ensure that the program continues to protect our critical areas effectively? Whether it is in the heart of the Dust Bowl country or 

prime farmland in the thumb of Michigan, what should we be 

doing? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, thank you for that question because that is 

kind of the heart of the issue here, because as you pointed out and 

as Ranking Member Roberts pointed out, we are working in a time 

of record-high commodity prices. And while that is a good thing 

and we are proud of the fact we have record-high commodity prices, 

there are implications to that in terms of producers’ willingness to 

participate voluntarily in these programs. 

So I think, first of all, you have already talked about, both you 

and Senator Roberts, the need to streamline the programs, and we 

look forward to working with you and Chief White and NRCS and 

the other organizations in order to do that during the farm bill 

process. 

I am a third-generation Montana farmer, and so what is important to me is not how many toolboxes we have; it is how many tools 

that we have. And we need tools in Montana that are different 

11 

than you have got in Kansas or Iowa or Michigan. And so the important thing in this is not, again, the number of toolboxes. It is 

how many tools we have so that we can tailor the conservation programs for our individual farming and ranching operations. 

And so in that, I think we need to continue diversification and 

use of targeted approaches so that we make sure we are getting the 

biggest bang for the buck. For example, the Secretary just announced the Highly Erodible Land Initiative. We believe that is a 

very good tool for farmers who are dealing with highly erodible 

land. We are talking about land here with an erodibility index over 

20. That means it is eroding at 4 to 5 times the tolerance rate. In 

addition to that, it is land that is less productive. On the average, 

it is 20 to 30 percent less productive than the rest of the land on 

their places. 

And so this gives them the opportunity, as they need to, to fit 

the needs of their operation and enroll at any time, not just when 

we have a general sign-up. And, again, this is land that we really 

need to pay special attention to, particularly out in my part of the 

country, where land blows a lot, frankly. 

The second thing is I think we need to continue to expand our 

partnerships with other levels of government and with private organizations, nongovernmental organizations. Under the CREP program, for example, the 20-percent financial contribution of local 

governments or other entities leverages and stretches Federal dollars. And right now, with the budget situation that we have, every 

way that we can stretch our Federal dollars is important. 

In addition to that, the memorandums of understanding which 

we have developed with private organizations such as Pheasants 

Forever that make technical assistance, their technical expertise 

and assistance, available to our agencies and producers is extremely beneficial. 

So, in a word, we need to increase our targeting to those most 

environmentally sensitive lands. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that a statement from Senator Lugar be included in 

the record at this point. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Richard Lugar can be found on 

page 54 in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Administrator Nelson, last year, Kansans 

faced an extreme drought, and I hope we do not go through that 

this year, but the prospects do not look very good. Producers were 

granted access to CRP acres for emergency grazing. Of course, the 

effects of the drought were not uniform across the State. They were 

much worse in the southwest corner, sort of a bell-shaped kind of 

situation—Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. 

The impacts to the livestock industry were devastating. Some operations lost decades of their genetics and investment. Producers 

that hayed their CRP acres then were required to destroy the hay 

rather than provide it to livestock producers in the State that were 

in very critical need for forage. Then we had hay coming down from 

Canada. It made no sense. 

12 

What is your policy on destroying hay harvested from CRP? And 

how can we make sure that during these types of emergency situations we can be more responsive to ag producers? 

Mr. NELSON. Thanks, Senator. I know about droughts. We have 

those in Montana. My wife happens to be here today. It is the first 

time she has had the opportunity to come and see me at one of 

these, so I have actually got the toughest critic of all out in the audience here today. But she can attest to how I reacted to the 

drought in Montana back in the 1980s. 

With respect to emergency haying and grazing, producers can donate the hay under emergency haying and grazing, and I know in 

Montana we have worked out a policy within national procedure so 

that producers in exactly the kind of situations that you are talking 

about can conduct the emergency haying and grazing on their CRP 

and can donate the hay. So it is not required to be destroyed under 

all circumstances. 

So we would look forward to working with you on that issue in 

your State, as I know that we did last fall, and any other member 

who, unfortunately, might face those kind of drought situations in 

the future. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. There are 6.5 million acres 

in contracts will expire from CRP. How is the Department preparing for the large number of acres exiting the program? How are 

the various agencies trying to coordinate to assist producers with 

their next steps? Are there ways we can really facilitate the transition of these acres? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, as I indicated before, one of the new things 

that we have that I think is very beneficial to the producer is with 

the memorandums of understanding that we have been able to develop with outside organizations, the technical assistance of their 

biologists is available out there to producers to help along with 

NRCS and other technical service providers so that producers can 

make good choices about whether to re-enroll land in CRP or move 

it into production using, hopefully, other conservation techniques. 

The Transition Incentive Program is another program I mentioned in my oral testimony, and we are a little bit, frankly, concerned right now because, as I indicated, there is a $25 million cap 

on that. We spent a little over $20 million right now. We have another about $1 million in requests in. In that 6.5 million acres, 

there is over 68,000 contract holders. My point is there are a lot 

of folks out there with 68,000 CRP contracts expiring who we think 

would have an interest in the Transition Incentive Program over 

the coming months. We have got to make sure that we do not overspend, but, you know, it is a great opportunity for some producers 

right now. But their ability to take advantage of it right now will 

be limited by the funds available. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. I am running out of time. 

Chief White—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Chief White had—— 

Mr. WHITE. Can I respond to that, too? 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, no, I am going to ask you another question, and then you can do that, too, or show me another show, 

whichever way you want to do it. 

[Laughter.] 

13 

Senator ROBERTS. CRP acres expiring this year, are there options 

for producers to use NRCS programs to help transition out of CRP 

but perhaps keep the acres and grass? That is terribly important. 

In Kansas we had producers interested in perimeter fencing on 

CRP, so my question is: Can producers take this action under 

EQIP? In other words can a producer get ready while under contract and transition in the last year of the contract with the fencing 

and the water wells? If you do not do that at the end of the fiscal 

year, you are going to end up in a situation where you are in winter, and then you are stuck. What is your answer? 

Mr. WHITE. That is what I was going to talk about. Yes. We listened to you. We changed EQIP policy. We will do perimeter fences 

around highly erodible land. We will put in pipelines. We will put 

in stock watering tanks. We will help put in cross fences, and how 

you could help is right now you cannot get a payment for the same 

land. So if land is enrolled in CRP, you cannot put an EQIP contract on it. But if you could give us some flexibility, like if a producer tells Bruce, ‘‘I am going to leave the CRP,’’ at that point in 

time, if we can get him in an EQIP contract, let us work to get it 

installed, get him paid, contract expires September 30th; October 

1, turn the cows in. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. You just hit a home run, and my 

time has expired. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I would just ask that the rest of my questions 

be made part of the record. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Without objection. 

[The questions of Hon. Pat Roberts can be found on page 219 of 

the appendix.:] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I would just comment, Chief White, that 

it is the flexibility you are talking about that we have been working so hard on as we put together proposals. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, Senator. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I want to turn now to Senator Harkin, 

and let me just thank Senator Harkin publicly for really being such 

a leader in this area. I do not think we would be where we are 

today in many of these areas without your leadership, so I thank 

you. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, thank you very much for those kinds 

words, Madam Chair. And thank you both, Mr. Nelson and Chief 

White, for your service and for your great leadership in this vital 

area. 

We have made great progress in conservation in this country, 

looking back, going back to post-World War II and on. We have had 

our ups and downs, of course, a lot of it having to do with prices 

and income. But we have made some mistakes, and we did some 

different things, and I think we have learned a lot as we have gone 

along. 

But we are at a point in time, I think, where we are looking at 

a rather long period, at least in the future, at least I hope so, of 

continued high prices for our grains and oilseeds in a broad context. So I think all the future looks very good for income on farms. 

How that is going to impact our conservation service is really a real 

question. 

14 

Again, while we have made a lot of progress, there are some real 

serious questions out there about how we are doing in terms of 

water quality, runoff, and soil erosion. The National Resources Inventory from the NRCS reported that in 2007 just over 100 million 

acres of U.S. cropland was still eroding at greater than a sustainable rate. That is one-fourth. So one-fourth of our Nation’s cropland, according to Chief White’s organization, is still eroding at 

greater than a sustainable rate. So we have got to pay attention 

to that, and where is that land and how do we focus on it. 

The U.S. Geologic Survey reported last year that nitrate transport to the Gulf of Mexico—and I thought that is what you were 

going to talk about when you put that thing up there of the gulf 

region—was 10 percent higher in 2008 than in 1980. In other 

words, it is going up rather than going down. The U.S. Geologic 

Survey reported there has been no consistent declines in nitrate 

levels in the Mississippi River Basin in nearly a 30-year period. 

So, again, while, yes, we have made a lot of great progress, I 

hope that there is evolving and I hope you can reassure me that 

there is a strategy at the Department for looking ahead, at least 

in the two areas of the erosion on the quarter of that—over the sustainable rate and how we are focusing on that; and, secondly, in 

terms of water quality in the Mississippi River Basin. Is there a 

good strategy looking at those kind of two elements that sort of 

stick out as areas where we have not really—we have not reached 

the pinnacle of success? 

Mr. WHITE. Sir, you are right and—you are right, Senator, and 

we do have more remaining. 

I would point out to you that in that same National Resources 

Inventory (NRI) study you quoted, we also show a 40-percent reduction in soil erosion over that 25-year period—— 

Senator HARKIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. WHITE. —which is absolutely astounding. 

Senator HARKIN. Absolutely true. 

Mr. WHITE. Our Conservation Effects Assessment Project is 

showing that farmers have done a lot. Sediment would be double 

the problem it is now if it were not for voluntary conservation. But 

that said, it is showing where we need areas to work, and it is primarily in nitrogen and phosphorus in the nutrient reduction, 

whether it is in the Great Lakes, whether it is in the gulf, or wherever it would be, the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound. And I am 

much more bullish on this than a lot of people. I think we can solve 

these things and do it in a voluntary, incentive-based manner 

using these programs. 

In 2008 farm bill, Congress reauthorized the Resource Conservation Act. That assessment has been completed. The Department is 

in the final stages of working on the National Conservation Program which will outline the strategy USDA will use. That should 

be ready in a couple months, sir. 

So if we can keep the voluntary, incentive-based, I am confident 

we can work on these things. 

Senator HARKIN. Let me just ask you, can you tell me more, 

Chief White, about the aggregate numbers for the first three CSP 

enrollments in 2009, 2010, and 2011? Are you pleased with the demand for the program? And how about the division of participation 

15 

relative to the different types of use—cropland, pasture, range, forest, and the different types of farming? So, again, what about the 

aggregate numbers? Are you pleased with the demand for—— 

Mr. WHITE. I am stunned with the demand. The law allows us 

to enroll 12.7 million acres each year. We now have over 37 million 

acres in the Conservation Stewardship Program, making it the 

largest program by land area in the arsenal. This last sign-up, Senator, because of budget reductions, we can only enroll a little over 

10 million acres. We have an estimated 19 million acres offered. So 

we are going to leave 9 million acres that will not be able to be 

enrolled. 

That program is revamped, it is revised. I think we are—I would 

quote my drill sergeant, but I could not, but we are taking names 

and doing okay with that. 

Senator HARKIN. Senator Roberts is an ex-marine. He understands that. 

Mr. WHITE. I apologize. That was inappropriate. 

Senator HARKIN. No. that is okay. 

Mr. WHITE. I think it is a great future. 

Senator ROBERTS. Semper Fi. 

Mr. WHITE. If you look at EQIP, you are talking the bricks-andmortar program. If you are looking at CSP, you are talking about 

moving people to the higher-level management. You are not just 

talking conservation tillage. You are talking about continuous 

never-till. 

I think that the CSP is going to equip our producers. It is where 

the cutting edge is going to become the mainstream. As we look at 

9 billion people coming, as we look at increasing our production by 

70 percent, they will need those management tools that are being 

pioneered in the CSP. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

for holding this hearing. Thank you all for being with us today. 

Let me just begin by saying that in order for agriculture to maintain its current role as one of the few shining stars in our economy, 

our Committee has a tremendous responsibility to create agricultural policy that not only provides an adequate safety net but that 

also keeps agricultural production sustainable and not damaging to 

the environment. I know that is what you all are tasked with. And 

what we have seen with the current higher-than-normal commodity 

prices is land prices going to new record levels. Higher land prices 

drive farmers to utilize every possible acre to its maximum production capability, so we have got farmers who over the years have 

proven themselves to be excellent stewards of their land, and conservation title programs that we have included in the previous 

farm bills have provided an excellent assortment of conservation 

tools that are enabling farmers and ranchers economically viable 

alternatives to producing crops on some of these marginal and fragile lands. 

However, in today’s production agriculture environment, we are 

experiencing thousands of acres of non-cropland and grasslands 

16 

converted to cropland, wetlands drained, and crops being raised on 

this land. The outcome of these practices, or at least one outcome 

for the first time in history, is that crop insurance indemnities 

have exceeded $10 billion for 1 year, and that was the 2011 crop 

year. 

So as we develop and modify programs for the 2012 farm bill, we 

need to strive for balance and not diminish the effectiveness of the 

conservation title. It is imperative that we keep conservation title 

programs effective and economically viable for producers so that 

they can continue maintaining their long history of excellent land 

stewardship. 

Our farmers and ranchers have the responsibility over the next 

few decades of feeding not only this country’s citizens but much of 

the world’s as well, and we simply cannot overlook the important 

role the farm bill conservation title programs play in enabling production agriculture to remain sustainable into the future. 

So, Mr. Nelson, what I wanted to ask you, in your written testimony you had provided that pheasant hunting annually brings 

about $250 million in economic activity to South Dakota, and there 

is no doubt but that CRP has played a significant role in this economic activity by providing much needed habitat for not only 

pheasants but also several other game and non-game species of 

wildlife in South Dakota. 

South Dakota currently has about 1.1 million acres enrolled in 

CRP, which is down from our high of 1.5 million acres. South Dakota is going to have an additional 224,000 acres expire this year 

and more than 106,000 acres next year. South Dakota’s Game, 

Fish, and Parks Department tells me that the State needs 1.5 million acres to maintain game bird populations at current levels. 

In order to keep South Dakota’s CRP acres at adequate levels, 

the State needs more than general CRP sign-ups. It also needs additional acres in the SAFE program, which is the State Acres for 

Wildlife Enhancement, and in the duck nesting habitat, or CP37 

program. 

Along with conducting a general CRP sign-up, will FSA be increasing South Dakota’s allotment of SAFE and CP37 acres in the 

near future? 

Mr. NELSON. Senator, we do review those allotments of SAFE 

acres on an annual basis, and we have been adjusting them among 

the States. And so we will be happy to look at the request from 

South Dakota for additional acres and will work with you and your 

staff on that. 

Senator THUNE. How about CP37? 

Mr. NELSON. And CP37. 

Senator THUNE. Okay. Good. Well, we will look forward to working with you on that. 

Let me ask you this: Do you have any suggested changes for us 

to improve CRP and other FSA-administered conservation programs as we draft the next farm bill? I am sure that is a question 

you perhaps have already been asked, but would you elaborate on 

that? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, and I appreciate the chance to talk a little bit 

more about it. Again, we look forward to the streamlining initiative, to working with your Committee, to working with Chief White 

17 

and the conservation organizations to try to make sure that the 

programs work better for producers. You know, as a farmer from 

Montana, it never really mattered to me when I went into the 

USDA office whether I was going to NRCS or FSA; I just wanted 

help. And I think that is the way most farmers are, and that is the 

way we ought to approach our work in these agencies. 

Again, I believe that to the extent in this time of fewer dollars 

that we can target these programs to the most environmentally 

sensitive land so that we get more bang for the buck while maintaining the variety of tools that producers need, again, as we talked 

about before, our conservation needs in Montana are different than 

yours in South Dakota or Michigan or Kansas, and we have got to 

make sure producers, regardless of where they are in the country, 

have the tools they need. So target the programs and give the producers the tools. 

Senator THUNE. Madam Chairwoman, my time has expired, but 

I do have a question for Chief White, if I might submit that for the 

record. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Absolutely, yes. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

[The question of Hon. John Thune can be found on page 242 in 

the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

thank you for your work in this area, and thank you to our two 

great witnesses. Chief White has been to Minnesota I think three 

times in the past year or so. I have seen him at the Farm Bureau, 

the Farmers Union, and then also I know you were at the Pheasants Forever event, too, so thank you. And Dave Nomsen is out 

there somewhere from Minnesota, from our Pheasants Forever. 

I wanted to start with some questions relating to Open Fields. 

During the 2008 farm bill, I worked for funding for the voluntary 

access program, as you all know, called Open Fields. This program 

offers a voluntary incentive to farmers and ranchers to open up 

their land for hunting and fishing. As you know, funding was eliminated in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill, but I wanted to 

hear from you about how the program has been working in the first 

few rounds. Either of you. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, Senator, if you will bear with me a minute, I 

am not as well organized as I should be here this morning. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Mr. NELSON. As you indicated, there was $50 million for this new 

program under the 2008 farm bill, and to date, we have 26 State 

fish and wildlife agencies and one tribe, the Yakama Tribe from 

Washington State, who have participated in the program, and we 

have obligated almost $30 million. 

So we think that this has been a successful program. The President has included $5 million for the program in his 2013 budget. 

But right now we are not able to do any modifications or additions 

to the areas out there or to go out to the States and give them and 

the tribes an opportunity to participate. 

18 

One of the things that we are planning on is a transfer of the 

responsibility for the administration of this to NRCS, which I believe makes some sense. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Do you want to add anything then, 

Chief White? 

Mr. WHITE. We will try to do a good job of following in Bruce’s 

footsteps. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Good. 

I want to ask a few CRP questions. Senator Harkin did a good 

job, and I will maybe do one in writing to follow up on the use of 

the acres. Minnesota is one of the top States, as you know, for 

using those programs in the country. 

One of the things that I have heard from farmers—and I know 

you touched on it, Chief White, in your testimony—is efforts to remove the obstacles producers face in accessing conservation programs. This is the application process, things like that. 

Mr. WHITE. I am glad you asked. We have an effort underway 

as part of our streamlining initiative to help us get ready for the 

budgets that I know we are going to see. We are testing right now, 

Senator, a client gateway software which will allow producers to sit 

at home, apply for a program over the Internet, look at their conservation plan, check where the EQIP schedule is, to do all their 

conservation work at home. It is being tested right now. We would 

like to roll it out this fall, and we estimate that if we can get this 

up and running, we can save our producers 750,000 hours a year 

at a minimum in time that they are driving to the office or waiting 

in line or in a car. So that is just one example of what we are going 

to try to do to make it easier for our producers to participate in 

these programs. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That sounds good. 

Also, some conservation agriculture stakeholders have been looking for the possibility of allowing more haying and grazing within 

certain parameters that will encourage producers to keep more 

acres in the program. How do you think the program could be improved to ensure that the producer and the taxpayer and the environment can all benefit from more haying and grazing on CRP 

land? 

Mr. NELSON. Senator, there is currently two ways that we have 

haying and grazing, as you know, under CRP: There are the emergency provisions that I talked about earlier with Senator Roberts, 

and those come about under unfortunate circumstances, normally 

drought in our part of the country. But then there is also the managed haying and grazing provisions that allow producers three 

times during the 10-year contract to do grazing on the practice and 

one time to do haying. But you can never do more than 50 percent 

at one time or during the primary nesting season to try to make 

sure that we do not affect wildlife. 

We would look forward to working with you and the Committee 

during your discussion of the farm bill on the managed haying and 

grazing as well as the emergency provisions to see what we could 

come up with. 

I also do want to mention one thing in terms of modernization 

that I think is important, and that is that FSA, as you all know, 

is undergoing development of a new software program called 

19 

MIDAS that is going to be critical for getting our employees the 

21st century tools that they need to deliver the farm programs, including the conservation programs that are assigned to FSA. Not 

only will that program get our employees away from 1985 computers that they are still using to administer the programs, but 

like what Chief White is doing at NRCS, it will give producers a 

lot better direct access on the Internet to our programs. So it has 

the double benefit of making our employees more productive and 

giving producers better access to our programs directly as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Thank you to both of you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First of all, Senator Klobuchar asked the first question I was 

going to ask, her last question, but I would simply add to it that 

I have a lot of interest in my State in expanding haying and grazing opportunities. And I hope that people do not think that the request comes from those that want to double-dip in the sense of harvesting some of the benefits of their CRP both from the Federal 

Treasury as well as from their own sale or own use of it. So just 

put me down as one supporting the same interest as what Senator 

Klobuchar just asked, and I do not have to have any comment on 

that because I heard what you told her. 

I do have a question on the issue of conservation. Before I ask 

that, I want to say that this is a common topic among farmers. 

There are seminars, policy meetings, and forums dedicated to this 

issue of conservation. It gets a lot of attention in my State because, 

until recently, we had one of the most highly erodible States, and 

I think now with the conservation programs we have, we have got 

that down to a point where it is renewable, at least. 

I am not taking away from those efforts that we already are 

doing, but I do think that we need to recognize a very important 

fact. Many farmers are excellent stewards of the land that they 

farms. Farmers and their families obviously have to be concerned 

about the same water, the purity of the water, the cleanness of the 

air, and right where they live and work. 

In addition, it is in a farmer’s financial interest to take measures 

that limit erosion and runoff, so there are plenty of incentives to 

be good stewards. The Federal conservation programs are an important tool for farmers in their conservation efforts. In particular, 

I have heard from numerous farmers that the working land programs such as EQIP are especially useful. In fact, as of last fall, 

there was a backlog of 2,700 unfunded Iowa EQIP applications 

worth $62 million. So it is clear that there is a lot of support from 

farmers for that program. 

Another thing that the Agriculture Committee needs to keep in 

mind is telling the story that they do. I have an example from Carroll County, Iowa, where farmers leveraged EQIP and CRP money 

to help improve the water quality of Brushy Creek. Recent water 

quality testing showed that farmers’ efforts have, in fact, resulted 

in tangible improvements, so that is very quantifiable. And as we 

debate reauthorization of these programs, I support reducing the 

overlap of programs as long as we maintain the effectiveness of 

success stories like this. 

20 

So my question, Mr. White, and it is probably pretty nebulous, 

but I think that we have to take advantage not only of quantifying 

the benefits of dollars we appropriate and the benefits that come 

from those dollars—because you have to do that to be accountable 

to the taxpayers—but has there been any thought about the Government taking a lead on trying to quantify what farmers do on 

their own initiative without the benefit of taxpayer dollars? An example would be like we tend to read figures about minimum tillage 

or conservation tillage being 41 percent now compared to 26 percent several years ago as an example, so that we can put some effort into finding out what farmers do on their own in addition to 

what we do with just taxpayer dollars. 

Mr. WHITE. Senator, that is a great question, not nebulous at all, 

and the answer is yes. We have done that in the Chesapeake Bay. 

We actually contracted with the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD). You have heard of the EPA Bay Model. 

There were concerns that it was undercounting what farmers were 

doing voluntarily. And the NACD went out and did some research 

on it, and, frankly, they think—permission to revise and extend, 

but I think it was about a 25-percent undercount, if I recall correctly. 

The problem we are going to have with this is they also said to 

get a really good grip of it, it would cost us $13 million to go out 

there and really figure it out. 

So there are ways that I think, through sampling, there modeling, we can start to get a better handle on it. We are using the 

Conservation Effects Assessment Project. It is giving us a good 

handle on what is going on out there, and I will go back and talk 

to our scientists and stuff and see what are the methodologies we 

might use to better capture that work that is done without Federal 

or State or local cost share, where it is just a producer wanting to 

do what is right. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If you could report back to me or my staff, I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. WHITE. We would be delighted to do so, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Senator Bennet? 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much 

for holding this hearing. The conservation title, particularly the 

easement programs like the Grasslands Reserve Program, the 

Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, are absolutely vital to 

farmers and ranchers in Colorado, and a letter I brought with me 

today illustrates many of their successes. I should say it also includes, Chief White, some very beautiful photographs that maybe 

you could add to your list. It is signed by the Colorado Cattlemen’s 

Agricultural Land Trust, the San Isabel Land Protection Trust, and 

the Nature Conservancy, among others. With your permission, 

Madam Chair, I would ask that it be entered into the record. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Without objection. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you very much. 

[The letter can be found on page 149 in the appendix.] 

21 

Senator BENNET. Chief White, I continue to hear that NRCS has 

backlogs for the current easement programs and that landowner 

demand outpaces current funding levels. Would the Service be able 

to submit information on the number of unfunded applications you 

have gotten for FRPP, GRP, and the Wetlands Reserve Program, 

WRP? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

[The following information can be found on page 246 in the appendix.] 

And, Chief, the Bureau of Reclamation, as you know, is working 

on a study of the Colorado River Basin which is due out in July. 

The study is likely to highlight the gap between the demands on 

the river, both the agricultural and municipal, and supply into the 

future. I wonder whether you could share with the Committee how 

NRCS is working with farmers, ranchers, and conservation partners out West to secure the productivity of agriculture in the basin 

while also addressing this gap. 

Mr. WHITE. We do a lot of work with the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Senator Bennet. I can give you a California example where they 

are putting money in and we are putting money in, and this is in 

the Central Valley. They are trying to shore up the conveyance systems for irrigation and water development, and we are taking it 

from the point it comes out of the canal and doing the on-farm conservation. And we are having some really phenomenal results. 

In your particular part of the world, when EQIP was created 

back in 1996, they created that out of four programs. One of them 

was the Colorado River Salinity Program. From that day to this 

day, millions of dollars are being spent in the Colorado River Basin 

to work on the salinity issues because of our treaty obligations with 

Mexico on the Colorado River on the salt content. We are also 

doing a huge amount of work on the efficiency, water conservation 

on those irrigated lands. So I think with the programs we are addressing that. 

Senator BENNET. I appreciate that. I met last week, Madam 

Chair, with some representatives of our conservation districts, our 

water districts, and one of the things they wanted to urge me to 

say to the Committee is that what in the rest of the country can 

be seen as a water quality issue, in the West it really is a water 

quantity issue that our people are struggling with. And I appreciate very much your work on this. 

The group of people I met with actually represented the entire 

State, including San Luis Valley where Ken Salazar is from, a 

former member of this Committee. We talked a lot about the importance of AWEP and EQIP, and, Chief, I wonder if, with the last 

couple minutes I have here, you could give us your thoughts on 

how we maintain the functions of those programs as we move to 

a simpler farm bill. You had said earlier in your testimony that the 

work that the Chair and the Ranking Member had done for the 

super committee sort of hit the mark, and I agree with that as a 

general matter. We need to make sure that in the writing of the 

law and the implementation that, as we think about consolidation 

here, we are protecting the important functions here. And I wonder 

if you have got a perspective on that. 

22 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, I do. In full disclosure, I have never seen the 

final copy. I do not know anything about it. We were called up to 

provide counsel and advice. But my understanding is that it is awesome, just awesome. You have got—the A–Team working on this 

darn thing. 

I think as far as AWEP goes, there are some opportunities there 

for—essentially, that is a partnership issue where you work with 

other entities and things like that, and I said earlier if we could 

increase our partnership activities, that would be good, especially 

in view of the budgets that are declining. But I would put a lot of 

faith in the Chair and Ranking Member as well as all of you when 

you see that, whenever that Chairman’s mark comes out. 

Senator BENNET. Okay. Madam Chair, I have got a number of 

other questions for Chief White and for Mr. Nelson. I wonder if I 

could submit those for the record for their written responses. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you very much. 

[The questions of Hon. Michael F. Bennet can be found on page 

237 in the appendix.:] 

Senator BENNET. Thank you both for your testimony. 

Mr. WHITE. May I have one follow-up, Senator? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes. 

Mr. WHITE. Senator Harkin mentioned about the strategy, and 

part of the 2008 was the reauthorization of the Resource Conservation Act. We had something like 2, 200 surveys come back asking 

people what they thought the biggest issue is. The number one 

issue, Senator, was water, water quality and water quantity. And 

that is going to be a big part of the strategy that comes out of 

USDA. 

Senator BENNET. Well, I am very glad to hear you say that because that is our number one issue in Colorado. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Chambliss? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks, Madam Chair, and, gentlemen, 

thanks for the good work you are doing down at USDA. And I want 

to follow up on this particular issue of water quality, but there are 

some other related issues there, too. 

Chief White, on February 17th, you announced a partnership 

with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to improve water 

quality, wildlife habitat, and soil productivity. The partnership 

brings together $10 million of NRCS funding with an additional 

$10 million or more in private funds through NFWF to increase 

technical assistance in priority areas. Now, I want to ask you several related questions with regard to that partnership. 

First, can you provide the Committee with details on how this 

partnership will be administered and how will the $10 million in 

funding be used? 

Secondly, are there appropriated funds from the conservation operations account? And does the funding go directly to NFWF? 

And how will USDA work with NFWF to ensure the funds are 

used appropriately? And how are the priority areas determined to 

be a priority and by whom? 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Senator. I am glad you asked about that 

because I think that is one of the key things that relates to our fuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:05 Mar 27, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\78272.TXT MICHA
23 

ture when we talk about reducing budgets and the need for Federal 

agencies to be creative in how we can leverage the work that gets 

done in the field. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is quasi-governmental. They have a charter by Congress to do these kinds of 

things, to raise money. Jeff Trandahl, who is the Chief Executive 

Officer of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, is on the next 

panel, and he can probably answer some of this better as far as 

their authorities. But they are quasi-governmental. They do have 

a charter for this. 

I would be happy to provide you with the details, the agreement 

we have, send it to you, the Committee or your staff or whatever 

you all prefer. That is your first question. Yes, we will provide the 

details. 

The second one, are conservation operations funds used? No, they 

are not. We are using farm bill technical assistance. If I recall correctly, it was some EQIP, some Wildlife Habitat Incentive, and 

some CRP funding. 

[Mr. White made a correction in the statement, the funds 

were from CO and CRP, not EQIP and WHIP.] 

One of the things in this agreement is to help us with the CRP 

as well as FSA, and Bruce has talked some about the agreements 

that are being done. 

And the third question was how will USDA do something. Help 

me? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. How will USDA work with NFWF to ensure 

the funds are used appropriately? And who is going to determine 

these priority areas? 

Mr. WHITE. Okay, the priority areas. The priority areas—well, to 

work with them to ensure that funds are used properly, this is 

going to be dollars that would be given as grants to an entity that 

is successful in competing with this. I am from Missouri, and you 

have to show me stuff. And last year we tried a $1 million effort 

with National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. They took that $1 million, and they turned it into $5 million with leveraged donations. 

I know we need more boots on the ground to do conservation. I 

really do not care whose foot is in that boot, if it is NRCS or local 

or State or nongovernmental organizations. I know we need to 

work out there to get it done. 

So after that experience last year, we obligated some more funds, 

and hopefully this $10 million will turn into $20 or $30 million or 

something of that nature. 

The grants would go to things like Pheasants Forever, so Pheasants Forever would come up with their own money, they would get 

some match money from us that would be set aside for them to pay 

staff over a period of time. Those people would work in our offices. 

They would be Pheasants Forever or State forestry or whatever 

people, but they would work under our day-to-day guidance. They 

would use our technical standards. They would have the e-authorization, the IT currently that you would need in an NRCS office. 

If needed, we would do the background survey, have the fingerprinting done, and they would sign the confidentiality, the 1619 

form that all of us have to honor and respect the confidentiality. 

And then it becomes more of the procurement process on, as bills 

24 

come—I think they come on a form called an 1172 quarterly, and 

they are verified that the charges were accrued, and then they are 

paid out. 

As far as the priority areas, NRCS has about 15 initiatives, and 

we use those. There may be a couple of—I cannot remember all of 

them, Senator, but it is like the Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi 

River, the sage grouse effort. But I can get you more specific information on all of those, sir. New England forestry was in there. Actually, New England forestry became a priority area because I got 

a letter from seven New England Governors asking us to do it. 

So there are a variety of things that I can provide a lot of information for you, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Okay. Well, if you do not mind following up 

with written responses to that. I would appreciate it. Thank you. 

[The following information can be found on page 248 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Baucus? 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am just 

very honored to have Bruce Nelson testify, and also, Chief White, 

thank you very much. 

Just for the information of my colleagues, I have known Bruce 

for a lot of years, and he is Mr. Agriculture in the State of Montana. His farm is near Fort Benton. He has served in many capacities. Just a real public servant. Not only a great farmer but a 

great public servant. He just cares about the program, and I want 

to thank him very much. 

And you, Chief White, too. I do not know you as well as I know 

Bruce, but I am sure you are just the same. It is really exciting 

to have you here, although you have great ties in Montana, though, 

Bruce, and I appreciate that as well. 

I just want to thank you all very much. As you know, we export 

so much of our wheat from Montana to other countries around the 

world. In fact, at one point up to 80 percent of Montana wheat gets 

exported. We have got a perfect combination of hard, smart workers. Agriculture is our number one industry, Madam Chairwoman. 

I do not know if it is in Michigan or not. I suppose with the auto 

industry agriculture may not be number one, but it is close. And 

in Montana it has been number one ever since I can remember, 

and that is a good number of years. 

I do not have questions at this time for Bruce or for Chief White, 

but I just want to again thank you very much, both of you, for 

what you are doing. 

There is a panel that is coming up later, Madam Chairwoman, 

with someone from Montana on it, Carl Mattson. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. I will have some questions I will ask of him. 

But I do have one question, though, for both of you here, and that 

is, the Grassland Reserve Program. And maybe it is tied in here, 

maybe it is not, I do not know. But in an effort to keep the sage 

grouse from being listed under the Endangered Species Act, I know 

that USDA under its various conservation programs is trying to 

help producers develop their rangeland not only for grain and for 

livestock and so forth, but also to help sage grouse habitat. And I 

25 

wonder if the two of you could address that and the efforts that you 

are undertaking, because it is very, very important to a lot of 

States in the West that the sage grouse not be listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Mr. NELSON. Well, thanks, Senator, for the question and for the 

kind words. I am glad Carl Mattson is here, too, because he is a 

real Montana farmer. My farming is sort of confined to a desk 

these days. 

Senator BAUCUS. Oh, you are a real farmer, too. Believe me, I 

know. I have been to your place. 

Mr. NELSON. But a couple of things, and then I will turn this 

over to Chief White in a minute to talk about the sage grouse in 

particular. 

FSA in Montana has a SAFE area, State Acres for Wildlife habitat, a thousand-acre SAFE area specifically devoted to re-establishing sagebrush, which provides critical habitat for the sage 

grouse. 

Now, I have to confess that as a farmer it is kind of interesting 

because I remember when my dad and grandpa participated in programs through the same agency back in the 1960s to get rid of 

sagebrush. So we are turning around now, understanding the environmental consequences of that and the benefits of its re-establishment. 

In addition to that, as you pointed out, Senator, the Grassland 

Reserve Program, which we jointly administer with NRCS, is a 

very good program for maintaining and establishing a sage grouse 

habitat out there and trying to keep it from being listed. In Montana, we have got almost 70,000 acres under GRP contracts and 

have devoted almost $7.8 million to those contracts. So FSA is trying to play its part in this. The President has included $5 million in his 2013 budget proposal to maintain existing GRP contracts, but right now with tight 

budgets, we are a little short on dollars for expansion of the program. 

Chief? 

Mr. WHITE. One thing: Montana. We are doing so much cool stuff 

with sage grouse. We have got a core area outside a roundup, 14 

ranchers, 11 of them signed up. These guys are wild about it. And, 

sir, you know, I know a lot of these ranchers. These guys are a little bit to the right of Tsar Nicholas, and they love this program. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BAUCUS. I know a few of them. 

Mr. WHITE. If you look at the Canadian grasslands up there in 

Saskatchewan, there is a remnant population of sage grouse that 

we found out through this effort is actually migratory. These birds 

come down from Canada down to the Charles Russell Wildlife Refuge to overwinter, and on the BLM land surrounding that. We really take GRP money and some Farm and Ranchland Protection, and 

we are trying to lock down that grass highway so these birds will 

have, you know, the grass to get to Charles Russell, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Refuge, so they can overwinter. 

So next when you talk to your Canadian friends, you can tell 

them we saved the Canadian sage grouse, no charge, just doing it 

to be good neighbors. 

26 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. Also, I am glad you are making good use, if I understood you correctly, Bruce, of sagebrush. 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, actually it is a sagebrush SAFE area, but the 

sagebrush are critical for the sage grouse. 

Senator BAUCUS. I thought you said that, and I think that is—— 

Mr. NELSON. I do not want to have to try to say that again and 

stumble. 

Senator BAUCUS. It is good to hear that someone is making good 

use of sagebrush. We had a sheepherder years ago in our place. His 

name was Hans Koske. Hans Koske was convinced that he could 

develop a patent to turn sagebrush into perfume. He has been out 

there herding a lot of sheep for a long time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BAUCUS. He got thinking about a few things, and he was 

quite convinced that he is going to get a patent for sagebrush to 

convert into perfume, and he would break open the sagebrush and 

he would try to get the perfume out of it. I do not think it ever 

worked, but now we are making good use of sagebrush, and I really 

appreciate that very much because he was—this is sort of in memory of Hans Koske because this guy tried. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, what was the name of that perfume? Was that ‘‘Sagebrush’’? 

Senator BAUCUS. It was just ‘‘Sage.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. All right. Well, maybe we can include 

that in a bio-manufacturing provisions that we put into the bill. 

Senator BAUCUS. I also want to make the point, I am glad you 

are urging cooperation. Time and time again I see at home you get 

producers fighting something, fighting, fighting, fighting. I keep 

saying, ‘‘You cannot beat something with nothing. Come up with a 

plan.’’ For example, a lot of operators at home work with Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, you know, managing game. Some of the game 

graze on some of the private property, but also some public land, 

and they work out an agreement. So I really appreciate the efforts 

you are undertaking under the Grassland Reserve Program. That 

grass highway you talked about, Chief White, that is good, too. 

My strong view is the more you encourage that, the more people 

sign up and participate, and that word spreads. There are going to 

be a few crusty old characters that are not going to participate, 

but, by and large, on the margin it is going to make a difference. 

I thank you very much very much. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, I would ask unanimous consent that the National 

Cotton Council’s statement be placed in the record. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Without objection. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement can be found on page 118 in the appendix.] 

Senator BOOZMAN. I appreciate you guys being here. We appreciate your hard work and all that you are doing for the programs. 

The slides were encouraging. 

I would like to ask just a question, kind of a practical thing that 

we are hearing at home. For conservation programs administered 

27 

by NRCS, some of the supporting forms must be completed at the 

local FSA office, and FSA has announced plans to close some of the 

offices. As a result, producers may be required to go to the NRCS 

in one town and FSA in another town. 

Is USDA considering modification of sign-up procedures to enable 

the producers to complete all forms at one location. 

Mr. WHITE. I will turn this over to Bruce, but the answer is yes. 

Bruce and I have talked about this on where the records would be. 

We do not want to have producers going to County A and then to 

County B for something else. So I have got a little group at NRCS, 

some State conservationists that are supposed to give me some recommendations, working with FSA, on how we can resolve that. 

Bruce? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, and I appreciate—just a little background on 

this. Senator Baucus alluded to Dave’s Montana background. He 

was State conservationist out in Montana, and so he and I have 

had a good working relationship for years, and so it was pretty 

easy when I got back here just to continue that. And we are working together to try to make sure that producers, Senator, in those 

situations, should those offices close, that we can accommodate 

them as much as possible, including, you know, that we would consider during heavy sign-up periods having FSA staff go over to a 

neighboring NRCS office to make sure that producers could sign up 

as easily as possible. 

I mentioned earlier that our MIDAS software development program hopefully will make it easier for producers to directly access 

our programs. I know Chief White is working on the same thing 

at NRCS, and hopefully eventually that will actually cut down on 

the number of times that producers have to come to our offices to 

sign up for the programs. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I think that is great, and again, that really 

is a very practical consideration that is going to come up. Many of 

the counties that I deal with, the average age of the farmer is in 

the 60s. Many of them are not that Web-based literate, so, you 

know, these are good things, and it is good for all of us. But there 

are some drawbacks, and so I think, you know, if we can just use 

some common-sense approaches like you are talking about doing, 

that would be very beneficial. 

Do we anticipate closing NRCS county-level offices in the future? 

Mr. WHITE. Senator, I would not rule it out, to be 100 percent 

honest with you. We are about to embark upon a pretty long, hard 

look at the structure, what should be the NRCS field office of the 

future. And NACD, the National Association of Conservation Districts, we have been partnering with conservation district since the 

mid-1930s. We would like to do a process with them. Gene 

Schmidt, the president of NACD, is here. We will probably send out 

a joint letter to all the States, the State conservation districts and 

the State Conservationists, and ask them to sit down, talk it 

through. Where do we need to be? Where do we not need to be? 

What should these offices be doing? 

One of the things I do not want to see happen, is to have staff 

driving 3 hours to get to a farm, spending 2 hours, and then driving 3 hours back. So we may have sub-offices. I just do not know. 

28 

But we are going to have a much better idea at the end of September. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. We appreciate working with your staff, 

Mr. Nelson. They have been very helpful, and give yourself a pat 

on the back in that regard. Like I say, it is helpful to be listened 

to and to understand some of the problems with closing some of the 

offices. Again, your staff has been very helpful. 

Mr. NELSON. Well, I really appreciate that. They are the ones 

that deserve the pat on the back. And, by the way, I am one of 

those over-60 producers who is not very Web literate, and so I need 

all the help I can get at the local office, too. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, especially in an area like Montana, 

where it is not that easy. And we have many areas in Arkansas 

like that where, you know, a 20-mile trip or a whatever trip is 

much more like a 45-minute to an hour trip. 

Mr. NELSON. You bet. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, and thank you 

to both of you. 

Chief White, I am going to be submitting a question for the 

record for you today regarding the work that we did last fall on the 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which is consolidating 

four existing programs to give greater flexibility for farmers and 

groups. This is a very important piece for us in the Great Lakes, 

and I would appreciate your thoughts as we go forward on how we 

can make that effective. 

[The following information can be found on page 217 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much for presentations 

and answering the questions. We look forward to continuing to 

work with you on this very, very important part of the farm bill. 

At this point we would ask our second panel to come forward. 

[Pause.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Welcome. We are so pleased to have all 

of you here, and my voice is still holding out a little bit. We will 

proceed now. Of course, we ask for 5 minutes’ verbal testimony, 

and you are welcome to submit whatever you would like in writing. 

We are certainly very interested in whatever you would like the 

Committee to take a look at. 

I am going to first, for our first witness, turn to Senator Roberts 

to make the introduction. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I would 

like to welcome Jeff Trandahl, the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The foundation was created by 

Congress back in 1984. They match public and private conservation 

funds to address environmental issues. They have a number of innovative partnerships at work all across the country. 

Jeff was elected clerk of the House of Representatives and served 

from 1998 to 2005. That is 7 years in that body. And prior to serving as clerk, Jeff worked in the congressional offices of Senator Jim 

Abdnor and Congresswoman Virginia Smith where he learned everything he wanted to know in regard to appropriations, and then 

29 

in my own office when I was a member of that body. I do not know 

quite how to describe his role in that he was a special projects director. That means when there was an IED about to go off and nobody in the office wanted to touch it, we would assign Jeff to do 

it, and he would do that job. I am talking about the challenges we 

faced at that particular time in the post office and the bank and 

the restaurant in the House of Representatives. Those were indeed 

challenging times. 

He is a personal friend. I am pleased that I can officially welcome Jeff to testify before the Committee. 

And then I would also like to, if I can at this point, welcome Mr. 

Dean Stoskopf from Hoisington, Kansas, America. Dean is joined 

today by his wife, Mary Anne, and his son, Wayne, and his daughter, Julie, who currently work in the Washington area. Dean operates a diversified farm producing wheat, grain, sorghum, alfalfa, 

and forages. And he also manages a Red Angus cow-calf operation. 

He is a member of the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, the 

Kansas Farm Bureau, and has been active in the National Association of Wheat Growers. And he is not only a member of these organizations; he has been one of the most active producers in the State 

of Kansas when it comes to giving of his time, serving as an officer 

of these organizations both at the State and the national level. 

Dean, thank you for your service and leadership. On behalf of 

both Kansas and America’s producers, we are so pleased you and 

Mary Anne could come to Washington and share some conservation 

thoughts with us and enjoy your family. So thank you for coming, 

sir. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Terrific. 

And sitting between Senator Roberts’ witnesses, we have Becky 

Humphries, who is the director of Ducks Unlimited, Great Lakes/ 

Atlantic Regional Office, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ms. Humphries 

joined Ducks Unlimited in January 2011. Prior to that she was the 

director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for 7 

years, did a terrific job. She worked for natural resource and wildlife agencies in Michigan for nearly 30 years, and I think important 

to me, Becky is a graduate of Michigan State University, who, by 

the way, is on their way to a Big Ten basketball championship, just 

for the record. We are very excited about that. So I am very, very 

pleased to have you with us today. 

And now I will turn to Senator Baucus to introduce our next witness. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am very 

honored to introduce Carl Mattson. Carl, thank you very much for 

being here. 

Madam Chairwoman, Carl Mattson is quite a guy. He farms up 

near Chester, Montana. Chester is up on what we call ‘‘the High 

Line.’’ The High Line is basically Highway 2 across northern Montana, the Great Northern Railroad, when we came west, you know, 

North Dakota and across Montana and kept going, and they had 

the first railroad camps that Great Northern built. We had numbers like Camp 16, Camp 17, and so forth. And somebody got the 

bright idea, well, we could give names to these railroad camps. And 

so if you look across the High Line, you see all these European 

names. There is Kremlin, there is Malta, there is Glasgow. I am 

30 

trying to think where Chester is in Europe. Maybe Carl could tell 

us where Chester is. But then all across—the Great Northern Railroad just took this map of Europe and just plucked all these 

names, and that is what those towns are across the High Line in 

northern Montana. Anyway, Chester is one of those town straightforward. 

Carl has been operating for many years, about 37 years, and his 

family. He runs primarily a no-till wheat operation, started, I 

think, back in the 1990s, very involved in the State, public schools 

in Chester, Montana Grain Growers, Montana Stock Growers, 

NRCS local working group, and he is also a member of the Precision Ag Research Association. That really impresses me. I would 

like to talk to Carl and figure out how many inches taller it is 

when they set up the computer in their combines. Next year they 

got things just totally covered and the seed that comes out just 

right and other data they might be getting from the soil when they 

are running the combine. It is just amazing, the computer operations. It just creates efficiencies so much. 

But, anyway, Carl, just thanks so much for all that you do. I look 

forward to hearing your thoughts about what we do in the next 

farm bill. So thanks very much for coming. Also, we very much 

want to thank Janice—did Janice make the trip with you? 

Mr. MATTSON. No, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, thank Janice, please. Say hello to Janice. 

Thanks. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. Thanks very much. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my honor 

to introduce Darrel Mosel and represent him. He is a farmer in 

Sibley County in Minnesota. And there is no surprise that we 

would have a witness on this panel. We are actually second in the 

country for people signing up for the Wetlands Reserve Program. 

We are fourth in the Nation for the CRP and tenth in the EQIP 

program. And so our State really believes in these programs. We 

think it has been good for our recreation and hunting and fishing, 

but it has also been good for farming. Our agricultural lands are 

more productive than ever. 

Darrel Mosel operates a 600-acre diversified crop and dairy operation with his wife, Diane, and his two sons, Christopher and Michael, in south-central Minnesota. Currently half of the farm operation is organize and half is conventional. He raises a variety of 

crops, including corn, soybeans, small grains, and alfalfa. 

The Mosel family also milk Holstein cows and operate a small 

feedlot with about 150 cattle on the farm. So he is diversified. That 

is what I would say. 

He has extensive firsthand experience with farm programs related to conservation, dairy, and commodities. We welcome him to 

the panel to give really a firsthand look at what is working and 

what is not, and we really appreciate you being here, Mr. Mosel. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

And last, but certainly not least, Earl Garber, president-elect of 

the National Association of Conservation Districts. He recently 

served as president of the Louisiana Association of Conservation 

31 

Districts. From Basile, Louisiana, Mr. Garber is a rice, soybean, 

and hay producer by trade. His operation is 550 acres and also includes commercial timber and sorghum. He began his career in 

conservation working for the USDA as a soil scientist. Today he is 

also a licensed crop consultant. 

We very much welcome and appreciate all of you today, and we 

will start with Mr. Trandahl. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF TRANDAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 

Mr. Roberts. I want to introduce myself as Jeff Trandahl. I am the 

CEO and executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

As Senator Roberts mentioned, it is a foundation that was actually created by Congress back in 1984, and my job is to go out and 

partner with Federal agencies and then raise private resources in 

order to align those resources alongside those Federal dollars. It is 

a way then to grow that conservation pot and also stimulate the 

economy by doing that in order to prevent environmental and endangered species issues across the country. 

At NFWF we have several different goals: one is to raise those 

private dollars; two, to create efficiencies in terms of putting those 

dollars on the ground; create as many partnerships as possible 

across the country; have impact, and measurable impacts; and also 

bring innovation whenever possible; and also bring interest in the 

private sector around what we are all trying to accomplish. 

Conservation has the possibility of being an enormous positive 

economic impact. Last year, we did a study in the midst of the Federal budget reduction discussions to just show how significant that 

economic driver is across the country. Not only in agriculture but 

across this sector, it is more than a $1 trillion annual impact in the 

U.S. And it is incredibly important when you look at its job creation opportunity because it is more than 9 million jobs that we 

talk about here in the U.S. 

NFWF strives to support conservation through hundreds of 

grants annually to agriculture and ranching communities. We focus 

mostly on working landscapes, and one of our largest Federal partners among our 14 Federal partners is NRCS. And I have to say 

we greatly appreciate and want to applaud the last few years in 

working with NRCS in the innovation and adaptive management 

that they have been bringing to several conservation programs. 

And as you look forward, we want to see you work with NRCS to 

continue to enhance those programs. 

We are very fortunate. We create that leverage by working with 

more than 50 corporations, multiple foundations around the country, and 600 major donors. One program in particular, which Senator Chambliss brought up, is CPP. CPP is a recently created program with NRCS where they have been able to put forward $10 

million, of which we have committed to raise at least $10 million 

in addition, to work with landowners to understand conservation 

programs better. 

32 

It is really the result of the fact that the last few years we have 

heard a lot that capacity and understanding the producers is what 

is preventing a lot of the enrollment out there. And, really, to address it you have two choices: it is to create more Federal positions 

to start working with producers or to rely on third parties to get 

out there and to really do that work. And in most cases, third parties are much more trusted, no offense to any of my Federal colleagues here, than Federal bureaucrats themselves. 

So in doing this program, we just had a real life experience a few 

years ago with an oil spill down in the gulf. And during that spill, 

we had the opportunity to do some proactive conservation in order 

to prevent additional wildlife losses. And the real focus became rice 

farmers, and that 5 months that they were idling their land down 

there in order to convert that land into temporary wetlands to deal 

with 1.5 billion birds that were migrating down. 

So the challenge to the foundation from NRCS and the Federal 

agencies is: Can you get people on the ground quickly to talk to 

these producers? And could we get them actually enrolled in programs incredibly quickly, in a matter of a few weeks, in order to 

create this temporary opportunity to prevent loss? 

Through Ducks Unlimited, through Mississippi Fish and Game, 

through Florida and Texas, we were able to convert more than 

500,000 acres in a matter of a few months. And producer demand 

was actually 3 times higher than what we could possibly fund. 

Based on that experience, I went back to the chief and said, listen, we need to do this nationally, and we need to do this in priority areas across the country in order to deal with sage grouse, the 

Great Lakes, the Northeast forests, longleaf forests down in the 

Southeast, and on and on. 

I believe it is going to have an enormous impact, and, again, 

what it will do is it will allow us to grow that through private dollars more than Federal dollars, which I believe is also incredibly 

important at a time where we are very fiscally restrained. 

That being said, I want to urge the Committee to look at the conservation title and continue to allow NRCS greater innovation opportunities as programs evolve. We think we can predict what the 

problems are, but we constantly find ourselves responding 90 percent of the time to the issues that we cannot predict. And that is 

where the programs have to be able to adapt in order to prevent 

us from suffering losses that we do not intend. 

At the same time, I want to urge you to look at the CRP program. I believe that there are lots of issues and lots of opportunities that we can avoid by making that program more robust, more 

flexible, and more producer sensitive. And at the same time, I hope 

that we continue to move the agency towards measurable outcomes 

in order to guarantee that we can actually show the result of all 

this investment that the taxpayers are being asked to put forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trandahl can be found on page 

91 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Humphries? 

33 

STATEMENT OF BECKY HUMPHRIES, DIRECTOR, GREAT 

LAKES/ATLANTIC REGIONAL OFFICE, DUCKS UNLIMITED, 

INC., ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts, members of the Senate Committee, on behalf of the million 

members and supporters of Ducks Unlimited, I would like to thank 

you for the invitation to address you today. 

As it was mentioned, my name is Becky Humphries, and I am 

the director of Ducks Unlimited’s Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional 

Office. Between my staff and I, we cover 21 State in the Midwest 

along to the east coast of the United States. Before that I was director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and in 

that role I served on national and international committees related 

to fish and wildlife with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

My written testimony today is endorsed by the Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership, and Pheasants Forever. And like the Senator, I, too, 

am suffering from a bug, so hopefully we will get through this with 

my voice intact. 

Ducks Unlimited got its start back in 1937. In fact, we are celebrating our 75th anniversary this year. In that year, a small group 

of conservationists got together to address the concerns with declining waterfowl numbers due to Dust Bowl conditions in the United 

States. Our mission then and our mission today is simple: it is 

habitat conservation. Ducks Unlimited is now the world’s largest 

and most effective private wetlands and waterfowl conservation organization in the world. 

Waterfowl are not the only beneficiaries of our habitat work. 

Wetlands improve the overall health of our environment by recharging and purifying our groundwater, moderating floods, and reducing soil erosion. DU delivers its on-the-ground work by forging 

partnerships. In DU, we actually work with farmers and ranchers 

to restore and improve the working landscape for waterfowl and 

other wildlife. Underpinning these projects are the programs that 

comprise the conservation title of the farm bill. 

Being that this is Great Lakes week in Washington, I thought I 

would focus my time on the impacts of conservation programs on 

the Great Lakes watershed today. The Great Lakes are a national 

treasure, but they are in peril from a diversity of threats, including 

wetland loss and degradation and excess nutrients and pollutants. 

Conservation programs in the farm bill are a major factor in reducing and eliminating these threats, and there are a couple of examples that have contributed to the health of the Great Lakes, and 

I would like to bring those to your attention today. 

The Wetlands Reserve Program, or WRP, has been instrumental 

in helping farmers find better ways for those extremely difficult 

places to farm and to restore vital wetlands. In Muskegon County, 

Michigan, WRP is being used in conjunction with the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative and State-funded wildlife conservation programs in a partnership of local, State, private, and Federal partners to remove historic phosphorus levels, to filter agricultural waterways, to provide wildlife habitat, and to restore fishing and 

34 

swimming in Mona Lake. We need more of these types of innovative and collaborative partnerships as we move forward. 

WRP needs to continue in this next farm bill so that projects like 

this can continue to thrive. WRP is a great incentive to restore wetlands on agricultural lands, which is needed in other parts of our 

country that are seeing the impacts of excess nutrients, such as 

Lake Erie, the Mississippi River, and the Chesapeake Bay, to name 

just a few. DU supports the consolidation of easement programs as 

developed by both congressional agricultural committees late last 

year. However, in order for WRP and other conservation programs 

to be effective, technical assistance funds need to be commensurate 

with Federal assistance funds. 

Another key program is the Conservation Reserve Program and 

its companion the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, or 

CREP. Today we are fortunate to have in the room Dave and Pat 

Jenkins. They grow corn, soybeans, fruits, and other vegetables on 

their family farm along the Illinois River near Peoria, Illinois. The 

Jenkins are active conservationists who were one of the first families in Woodford County to enroll in the Illinois River Conservation 

Reserve Enhancement Program. Over several years they have enrolled 89 acres in filter strips and wetland wildlife habitat. Most 

recently, Dave and his brother Dan enrolled another 83 acres of 

frequently flooded cropland in the Wetlands Reserve Enhancement 

Program. Ducks Unlimited is proud to be a conservation partner 

working with the Jenkins to assist them with wetland restoration 

on their land. 

CREP is a model program involving a Federal/State partnership 

that is often enhanced and leveraged through private partnerships 

with organizations like Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever. 

The next farm bill should build upon the successful partnerships 

like these. The regional partnership program developed in the 

super committee report is a great idea that needs to find its way 

in this next farm bill. Regional partnerships fueled by local groups 

and supported by Federal, State, and private funders are a key to 

accomplish watershed approaches, and these partnerships are solutions that will yield a good farm economy and a healthy, sustainable environment. 

The Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, is our Nation’s most 

successful wildlife conservation program, and it was reduced in the 

2008 farm bill. In 2012, over a million acres of CRP will be expiring 

in the Dakotas with over 900,000 of those acres in the prairie pothole region. The loss of pothole habitat will be severe on the millions of ducks produced in the CRP acres, as well as pheasants and 

other wildlife. 

What does all that mean? Quite simply, it means jobs. Hunters 

and anglers spend roughly $86 billion pursuing their passions each 

and every year, and wildlife watchers spend another $51 billion 

each year. These expenditures include everything from hunting and 

fishing equipment to transportation, hotel stays, and meals in 

small rural towns across this great country. And these jobs are important and cannot be export to other countries. 

So when you are weighing how much and which programs to cut 

in this upcoming bill debate—and we all understand that that 

needs to happen—we ask you to think about, if you save money by 

35 

reducing conservation programs, there is a direct cost to the outdoor recreation industry through loss of revenue and jobs. 

So, Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, a strong 

conservation title yields great benefits to all sectors of our society 

and our economy. Farmers and ranchers gain in conserving soil, 

water, and air, the essential ingredients for their economic success. 

Sportsmen and -women gain with healthy populations of fish and 

wildlife and recreational lands, and our working landscapes benefit 

through programs that protect the quality of our precious water resources, keep the soil on the land, and ensure nutrients and pesticides perform as they should 

Thank you, and know that Ducks Unlimited stands ready to assist you in developing a strong conservation title in this next farm 

bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Humphries can be found on page 

62 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stoskopf? 

STATEMENT OF DEAN STOSKOPF, WHEAT FARMER, STOSKOPF 

FARMERS, HOISINGTON, KANSAS 

Mr. STOSKOPF. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts, and members of this Committee, thank you for allowing me 

to present you a central Kansas view of the conservation title of 

this next farm bill. 

After talking with many of my fellow producers, I would like to 

share the following guidelines that I believe will allow our conservation programs to continue the legacy of success they have 

been: number one, keep programs simple; number two, keep programs local; number three, keep the staff of NRCS as friends and 

advisers to the farmers, not enforcement agencies for the Federal 

Government. 

Keeping conservation simple: A major component of simplifying 

programs is the consolidation of programs, which we have talked 

about today. There are a number of proposals before you to do that, 

and to put them into three basic categories: working lands, land retirement, and land easement programs. Reducing complexity 

should reduce the overhead associated with administering dozens 

of different programs and allow program dollars to reach their intended purpose. 

In working lands, I believe EQIP has become the workhorse of 

the conservation program. It offers producers a wide range of options and practices and results in many successful partnerships. 

One program I am concerned does not offer that same level of benefit for our investment is the Conservation Stewardship Program. 

Although it is intended to be a comprehensive approach to conservation with payments made for implementing specific practices, 

I see compliance issues that lead to mistrust and dollars being 

spent without the same level of benefit of other programs. 

The Conservation Reserve Program remains our premier land retirement program. In Kansas, we have a little over 2.5 million 

acres enrolled in CRP. Last year, 60,000 acres were hayed and 

more than 200,000 acres were grazed under the emergency provisions of the CRP. I do see several potential areas for improvement 

36 

with regard to CRP’s ability to mitigate the effects of a major 

drought. 

Number one, allow hay harvested from CRP land under an emergency declaration to be sold. This regulation often prevents one 

producer who may not have cattle from being able to provide hay 

to another one who does. There is just not the incentive there to 

do that. 

Number two, expand emergency haying and grazing operations 

beyond the disaster-declared counties. When a county has been released to start emergency haying and grazing under extreme 

drought, the area usually is already under that extreme drought, 

and those grasses are not very good to hay or graze. It has been 

too late. Allowing neighboring counties that are not as droughtstricken to perform emergency haying and grazing operations could 

greatly increase the amount of forage available. 

Number three, examine procedures for releasing counties for 

emergency haying and grazing. The current provisions for releasing 

a county work well when the severe weather is limited to a small 

area, but it is too cumbersome a process for a drought as large as 

the one in 2011. 

Number four, allow the State FSA committee to determine which 

CRP practices are eligible for managed haying and grazing and 

emergency haying and grazing. Local and State entities are in the 

best position to make decisions regarding practices on CRP acres. 

The Conservation Reserve Program continuous sign-up has also 

yielded tremendous environmental benefits and is an example of 

prudent use of available dollars. It simply makes sense to expand 

the enrollment of highly sensitive areas of land, typically in smaller 

tracts such as buffers, filters or strips, and other areas that improve the soil, water, and wildlife habitat quality. 

Keeping conservation local: Every region of the country has different conservation needs and requires locally tailored solutions. 

Farmers working with the local NRCS staff are best able to develop 

those solutions that will work well for their areas. 

Working land programs should be administered as locally as possible, and no higher than the State level. Local landowners, tenants, and advisers have a much better understanding of the needs 

in their area as well as the solutions that will work. 

Advice and support versus enforcement: NRCS staff and the staff 

of the local conservation district have always worked cooperatively 

with local farmers to advance conservation. As farmers, we trust 

those advisers. If NRCS becomes an enforcement agency, that trust 

will be lost, along with the cooperation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address your Committee today 

for taking my views and opinions into consideration as you deliberate on the conservation title. 

Cooperation between ag producers and the Government has created a legacy of positive conservation efforts in this vast country. 

Together we can continue this legacy for future generations. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stoskopf can be found on page 

87 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mattson? 

37 

STATEMENT OF CARL R. MATTSON, PRESIDENT, MATTSON 

FARMS, INC., CHESTER, MONTANA 

Mr. MATTSON. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts, Montana Senator Baucus, and 

members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you 

today about something very important to me. 

My name is Carl Mattson, and I have farmed with my family 

near Chester, Montana, my entire life. We operate a successful, notill, dry land wheat farm near the Canadian border. 

The wind blows in Montana; always has. During the 1960s, while 

in grade school, I recall my school bus being sent home early due 

to blowing dust. As we bounced along the dirt road, the driver 

would occasionally stop and wait for the dust to clear so he could 

safely continue. Our son is 33, lives where I grew up, and has 

never experienced dust like that. 

The implementation of conservation practices works. 

Many CRP acres in Montana, suitable for farming, will not be reenrolled in CRP. We must protect our conservation investment. So 

it is critical that farmers have the incentives and assistance needed 

to farm these acres in a sustainable way. 

Today we find ourselves standing at an important crossroads for 

U.S. ag policy, especially for conservation programs. What we do 

here matters to U.S. farmers. 

By 2050, our world will face the daunting prospect of having to 

increase food production by as much as 70 to 80 percent. The reality is that much of the need will and must be met here, by U.S. 

farmers and ranchers. Worldwide food security is important, and it 

is not just about feeding people. It is about creating political stability, averting famine, and preventing despair and disease. 

For those of us meeting that need on American farms and 

ranches, we must balance the competing demands of high productivity with the need to maintain overall sustainability within our 

agricultural system. We must find ways to generate more without 

degrading soil and water quality or creating further losses to limited wildlife habitat. Just maintaining our current levels of conservation practices, frankly, may not be enough to meet the unprecedented requirements of feeding 9 billion people. 

Investing now to enhance and protect our natural resource base 

is crop insurance for a nation, a prudent risk mitigation strategy 

initiated by this generation to feed the next. 

EQIP and CSP provide the incentive platform needed to assist 

farmers with the implementation of conservation practices so important to the sustainability of our working lands. 

On the Mattson farm, we aggressively pursued and helped pioneer the adoption of no-till farming and precision ag techniques in 

Montana. 

To strengthen conservation in the next farm bill, we must recognize and avoid perverse incentives. ‘‘Early Adopters’’ are visionaries 

that conquered the learning curve for each new conservation practice. They provide the local knowledge necessary for large-scale 

adoption of new conservation practices by others. Our capacity to 

meet the future demands will require significant breakthroughs in 

conservation practices. The next farm bill must create an atmosphere where innovators are encouraged to innovate. 

38 

As a Nation, we must find innovative ways to replace top-down 

regulation with proactive voluntary approaches, such as USDA’s 

Sage Grouse Initiative. The key to the initiative’s success is shared 

vision of wildlife conservation through sustainable ranching. What 

is good for ranching is good for wildlife. 

In closing, I stress that American agricultural producers like me 

care about conservation and are committed to enhancing the working lands and rural communities that provide food and fiber for our 

Nation. Innovative, flexible, and voluntary approaches are the 

foundation on which we reaffirm our ongoing commitment to food 

production and natural resource conservation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mattson can be found on page 

68 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mosel? 

STATEMENT OF DARREL MOSEL, FARMER, DARREL MOSEL 

FARM, GAYLORD, MINNESOTA 

Mr. MOSEL. Good morning, Chairwoman Stabenow and members 

of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. 

Currently, I am using some of the working lands conservation 

programs like the CSP. These are some of the most important investments that our farm bill can make in ensuring food security, 

protecting our natural resource base, and keeping farmers farming. 

My family and I operate a diversified crop and dairy farm in Sibley 

County near Gaylord, Minnesota. I am active in several farm organizations, and I am here today with the Land Stewardship Project. 

I have been farming for 3two years, and at the present time, our 

farm is both organic and conventional. Presently, about 40 percent 

of our acreage is corn, 30 percent is soybeans, and the remainder 

is split between small grains and alfalfa. We milk Holsteins and 

operate a small feedlot. 

About 25 percent of our crops are fed to our livestock, and the 

remainder is marketed through various means. Some goes to the 

local ethanol plant, which I have shares in. The rest is sold either 

as organic feed to organic farmers or sold to local co-ops in our 

area. 

Sibley County has been blessed with productive soils, and it has 

been our family’s good fortune to have the opportunity to farm in 

this community. Both of my sons, Christopher and Michael, are 

hoping to join my farm operation someday. I hope they can do that. 

But like most agricultural areas, we have natural resource demands. In particular, wind and soil erosion is a significant problem, and water quality are serious concerns in my area. I fundamentally believe that we farmers need to be stewards of the 

land. We must be constantly mindful of what we are doing from 

year to year on the land and be sure that it will not impact the 

land’s ability to provide for the future. 

One of the programs I have had the opportunity to take advantage of, the CSP, allows farmers to farm and at the same time enhance their conservation performance in their operations. In 2009, 

I started a 5-year contract with the CSP program, and I receive 

39 

about $15,500 a year. I received recognition for a lot of the conservation efforts that I employed over the years, like the waterways, the no-till, and split nitrogen applications. And with the Conservation Stewardship Program, I am able to add a number of new 

conservation enhancement ideas that enable me to do more conservation on my farm. 

One of the conservation enhancements I elected to use that fits 

my farm was the resource-conserving crop rotation. A few years 

back at my wife’s farm where she grew up, we noticed a lot of erosion problems. A simple 2-inch rain would cause irreparable damage on the 40-, 50-acre slopes. With the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, we laid out contour strips on that piece of ground. 

And now with Conservation Stewardship Program, I am able to 

manage and maintain those contour strips. In my experience, the 

two programs, EQIP and Conservation Stewardship, work together 

while both being distinctly different in what they offer. 

Another enhancement that I took advantage of was a more comprehensive integrated pest management. This year I will be investing $5,000 to create GPS maps and equip my equipment with global positioning systems. It helps me to better target pesticides. I will 

reduce the overlap in spraying, which is good for the environment 

and good for my pocketbook. 

The pressures in agriculture are immense, and I am concerned 

that we are losing a diversity of crops and farms that are good for 

rural communities, the environment, and our economy. I believe 

the Conservation Stewardship Program is part of the answer to 

helping maintain diversity on the land. Without the Conservation 

Stewardship Program, it would have been more profitable the last 

couple of years for me to plant my entire farm in continuous corn. 

But with the Conservation Stewardship Program, I was able to 

maintain a four-crop rotation which helps reduce erosion and increases water retention, something we needed during the drought 

last summer. I think the $15,000 is a good investment because it 

is going to farmers to do good things. 

As deliberations continue on the next farm bill, I urge members 

of this Committee to maintain a strong funding base for the CSP 

program. That would be my main recommendation. I wish more of 

the farm bill was like that. 

Additionally, I encourage incorporating greater transparency into 

the Conservation Stewardship Program as well as all farm programs in ensuring that the Conservation Stewardship Program has 

strong integrity and benchmarks. 

I appreciate this opportunity to share my experiences and speak 

to today on what I believe is an effective program in supporting 

farmers and the outcomes we want from agricultural policy. I look 

forward to any questions members of the Committee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mosel can be found on page 73 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Garber? 

40 

STATEMENT OF EARL GARBER, PRESIDENT–ELECT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, BASILE, LOUISIANA 

Mr. GARBER. Good morning, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking 

Member Roberts, and members of the Committee. On behalf of the 

National Association of Conservation Districts and our 3,000 member districts across the country, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

As you know, I currently serve as President Elect of the National 

Association of Conservation District. I own a rice, soybean, and hay 

farming operation in Basile, Louisiana, and I might add it is right 

in the middle of the migratory bird habitat initiative. I saw firsthand how well it worked. I have served as a board member of the 

Acadia Soil and Water Conservation District in southwest Louisiana since 1981. I know firsthand the value and the necessity of 

strong conservation on the land. 

Conservation districts are a critical link to the success of implementing conservation in America. We were the delivery system set 

up in the 1930s to set the work priorities, to help producers implement practices with accountability, to provide resource support for 

delivery, and to bring partnerships and coalitions together. 

It is extremely important that we protect conservation funding. 

Simply put, conservation works. Conservation is a tool that is 

available to every producer, and it helps producers avoid regulations. Producers are already faced with the challenge of doing more 

with less. With a further decrease in funding, the implementation 

of farm bill programs would be an additional challenge to the producer. While we understand the current economic climate, we must 

also acknowledge the investment of putting conservation on the 

ground. 

Technical assistance is critical in ensuring farm bill programs 

are implemented with accountability. Technical assistance dollars 

will be more important than ever to ensure that we have adequate 

capabilities to get conservation delivered. 

We are in a situation where additional cuts to conservation pro- grams above the $23 billion submitted to the super committee by 

your Committee will put the very viability of these programs at 

risk. Congress needs to determine whether conservation and protection of natural resources today is more important than the escalated costs of repair in the future. 

In light of the budget situation, thank you for recognizing the 

value of drafting a common-sense framework to submit to the super 

committee. You demonstrated strong bipartisan, bicameral support 

for locally led conservation programs that streamlined and increased efficiency wherever possible. For this reason, NACD supports consolidation of programs as an important part of the conservation title and Chief White’s Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative that he referred to earlier this morning in the 

field. Individual private landowners will benefit from streamlining 

when programs are easier to access and manage. 

As we look at consolidation, we must be careful not to lose any 

of the critical program functions that help complete the cycle of resource needs on the land, for example, forestry practices in the 

EQIP program. As a small private landowner owner myself, I know 

41 

that if I did not have this assistance, a portion of my farm would 

lack the management it needs, such as technical assistance for 

stand improvement and other forest practices. 

Another example of consolidation includes farm bill easement 

programs. Easements retain working lands which over time include 

the operation and maintenance components that fee simple acquisitions do not. We must assure that the easement programs are 

maintained to provide for protection of our farmlands, our wetlands, and highly erodible soils. The easement programs provide a 

buffer effect to land use change which occur on many fronts of our 

society as the population grows and more demand is put on our 

natural resources. Thus, easements effectively secure the natural 

resources being protected by conservation practices to achieve economic and environmental benefits for future generations. 

Conservation programs provide a strong risk management tool. 

Mitigating risk for producers, landowners, homeowners, and anyone who buys insurance is possible. This past year, we have seen 

severe weather events from intense drought to extreme rainfall. Locally led, incentive-based conservation practices are the key to protecting our natural resources across the diversity of the landscape. 

Every acre counts. 

Agriculture is as diverse as the potatoes and specialty crops in 

the Northeast, as the Midwest grains, as the Mississippi Delta 

small grains and cotton and produce, and the rangeland of the 

West. All conservation programs work together to reach across the 

entire spectrum of resource needs. Depending on location, the management of resources varies. Different regions have different needs. 

NACD understands and promotes the importance of locally led resource management to address the diversity of these needs across 

the Nation. 

In conclusion, these farm bill programs show a track record of 

success, and every dollar spent has seen a return. Because of the 

2008 farm bill, we are better prepared to meet future resource 

needs, and we must continue to fund these programs. As a producer, I have used many of these programs in my own operation 

and know firsthand the tremendous value and return on investment they bring to the producer. I have had the opportunity to participate in EQIP, CSP, and land treatment watershed programs to 

implement conservation practices addressing local resource conservation concerns on my farm. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I would be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garber can be found on page 59 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, and thank 

you to each of you. 

I understand Senator Baucus is going to have to leave, so I will 

turn first to you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much and I thank Senator Roberts for letting me go first. 

Mr. Mattson, I wanted just to compliment you on the basic core 

of your testimony, namely, that with increased food demand in the 

world in the next 10, 15, 20, 30 years, we have got to spend much 

42 

more effort in our conversation practices so we can produce more 

without degrading our soil. 

Last week, I was in Russia, primarily to advocate and push the 

repeal of Jackson-Vanik legislation so the United States will grant 

PNTR to Russia. I think it makes eminent sense that we Americans do so. I will not go into all the reasons now why. But I was 

impressed with the competition in Russia, too, in producing food. 

I was at a John Deere assembly plant just outside of Moscow, 

and I there learned about the tractors they are assembling. John 

Deere builds tractors in the United States and takes them apart 

and ships the parts over to Russia and then they are reassembled 

over in Russia. And it is not just John Deere, but it is Caterpillar 

and lots of other American companies that are doing this because 

of the great potential of agricultural production in Russia. 

This fellow, the plant manager, said to me that in Russia, the 

manager of far will say, okay, to an operator, you just get on that 

combine and you just go that direction straight all day long—until 

about midday, and then at midday you turn around and come back. 

They have not even gotten to the end of the place. There is just 

so, so much arable and productive soil in Russia. 

They think that there is going to be a huge additional production 

in Russia, and they are building the infrastructure so they can get 

the grain to market. So they are working, too, to provide—in fact, 

I heard the same figure from them that you just gave me today. 

They said between 70 and 80 percent by the year 2050—we are 

going to have to increase 70 percent world production by the year 

2050. So, A, you are doing the right thing. But, B, we have got 

competition, too, if we are going to produce food for people all 

around the world. 

I would like your thoughts about which of these conservation programs you think really work the best. I assume EQIP works pretty 

well. You were the first in Montana to get a CSP contract. That 

says a lot for you. And one of the witnesses said CSP does not work 

terribly well. If you could just tell me what you think about CSP 

and EQIP and how we can improve upon them, and maybe talk a 

bit about CRP as we get—I think about 6 million acres are going 

to come out of CRP this year because the commodity prices are up 

and farmers want to produce rather than just keep some acres in 

CRP. But how do we make our conservation programs work even 

better so that we can still produce more? 

Mr. MATTSON. Senator Baucus, thank you. You are correct on the 

CSP. I was the first in Montana to receive a contract, and I received that contract under the 2005 Conservation Security Program. And the mantra there was, ‘‘Reward the best and motivate 

the rest.’’ And following 7 years of drought, I was motivated by the 

significant dollars involved in the program, and for the first time 

in a long time, I was in the right place at the right time with the 

right qualifications to be ready for this program. 

We took this program, and although we were involved in a lot 

of processes, we used it to expand each and every thing that we 

did. We further refined our no-till; we increased wildlife habitat; we 

intensified our soil testing; and we expanded our recordkeeping; 

but most importantly, we continued to add GPS facilities to every 

field operation that we have. 

43 

But one of the greatest benefits in that program was my neighbors’ transitioning to CSP. At that point in time, the whole idea of 

motivation worked. CSP rewarded me for what I was doing, but it 

motivated 30 or 50 other neighbors of mine to make the switches 

to these sorts of things. 

Senator BAUCUS. So they saw what you were doing and said, 

‘‘Hey, Carl is doing this. It looks like a good thing’’? 

Mr. MATTSON. Well, ‘‘Carl is doing this, and Carl got paid to do 

this, and it looks like a really good thing.’’ So there was a—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BAUCUS. They wanted to get paid, too. 

Mr. MATTSON. Yes, they wanted theirs, too. 

Now, the program changes, but CSP right now is the program 

that is bringing these conservation practices onto the use on the 

working farms. The only problem I see right now, there is a little— 

in the old program, we were looking at a high standard to enter 

the program so people were adding their own no-till, they were 

adding their own GPS, and so on and so forth. Now there is a little 

bit of hesitation—although the programs are widely used, there is 

a little bit of hesitation on the part of farmers to step out and put 

these things in place until they have the opportunity to participate 

in the CSP program. So there may be some room for consideration 

there on how we do it. 

The EQIP program 

Senator BAUCUS. Would you just comment—I know my time is 

up—on the Sage Grouse Initiative? Is that working? Does that 

make sense? My sense is that it is working and does make sense, 

but you are on the ground, you are the guy. What do you think? 

Mr. MATTSON. I think it is outstanding. Montana, as you know, 

is the birthplace of the Sage Grouse Initiative, and since that time 

there are 11 States involved, 400 ranchers, and the interest has 

been overwhelming in the program as a whole. In 2 short years, 

we have improved conservation, we have reduced bird deaths, we 

have improved beef production, we have improved grouse numbers, 

in addition to adding 208,000 of easement acres and another 1.3 

million acres of grouse-friendly grazing management plans. 

The agreement between NRCS and FWS is a landmark event, 

and it promises a certain degree of certainty that farmers need and 

ranchers need to proceed. And what this does, what SGI does, is 

turn a problem into an opportunity and encourages cooperation. 

Senator BAUCUS. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MATTSON. You are welcome. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. You are welcome. 

Let me go back and ask Mr. Trandahl and Ms. Humphries about 

partnerships, because there are so many different pieces to this, 

but we know that we leverage dollars and create real opportunities 

by partnerships. Both of you have talked about that. And I am 

wondering if you might speak a little bit more about the challenges 

in realizing landscape level conservation successes and what kinds 

of additional technical or financial resources would help you as 

partners to get the real conservation results that we are looking 

for. 

44 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Okay, I guess I will start and then Becky will follow. I would say that the most important thing in a partnership 

is making certain that we have clarity of what we want the outcome to be. And getting clarity from the Federal agencies in terms 

of what their goals are and seed resources out of the Federal agencies, we are then able to build a comprehensive strategy in terms 

of how to build programs to get to those specific outcomes. 

Then for the foundation, we go through normally a competitive 

process. We literally put an RFP out into a region to say this is 

the strategy that we are attempting to accomplish and here are the 

components of implementation to that strategy. 

One of those generally is an outreach and education component 

to the private landowner, of which we have relied on Pheasants 

Forever, Ducks Unlimited, you name it, multiple organizations to 

literally get out in the field and knock on doors to explain what 

this strategy is all about and what programs are available and 

what resources are available out there. 

On the private fundraising side, again, knowing that there is a 

clear outcome and strategy attracts private investment. And, you 

know, my job is to get out there and to then find those private dollars to invest alongside. 

By law, we are required in many cases to raise 1:1 private dollars to those public dollars that come through the foundation. We 

have a track record of raising more than 3.5:1. So the private dollar 

stimulation has been incredibly successful, and if we look at the 

foundation just through the last 3 or 4 years, you know, our growth 

continues to be 20 percent annually. So those private dollars are 

available if we decide to deploy the right approach to them. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. Ms. Humphries? 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. All right. I would add that except coming from 

a State director perspective, I would strongly encourage we look at 

some of the planning efforts that are already in place. I will give 

you a for instance. 

In Michigan, we already have a pretty good plan in place with 

the State agency in taking a look at restoration for waterfowl management. And so encouraging NRCS to work with those existing 

plans to accomplish the goals that we want to achieve gets at your 

vision that you mentioned. 

Second of all, we need those technical assistance dollars that I 

mentioned in my testimony. They are really paramount. And we 

need to make sure that we are leveraged additional dollars. At 

Ducks Unlimited, when we build these comprehensive partnerships, we like to bring in local partners as well as other NGOs, as 

well as Government partners. But many times we leverage dollars 

so that we are, you know, at least 4:1, sometimes as much as 10:1. 

And then by having the large NGOs involved, you can make sure 

you have good accountability for that funding also. We have the 

practices in place. We can track it well and make sure that we are 

pulling this whole leverage, this agreement together. Those regional partnership programs that I mentioned earlier that are 

talked about are just excellent because they involve it at the local 

level as well as the regional and the State level. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. Thank you. 

45 

In just the brief amount of time I have, I would ask our other 

four witnesses, when we talk about conservation, you have all 

talked about the importance for your operations. But I wonder if 

any of you would want to just expand a little bit on the changes 

in production, any experiences in terms of fewer losses, or any 

other noticeable results that you have had as it relates to conservation programs. Yes, Mr. Mattson? 

Mr. MATTSON. Chairwoman Stabenow, I can honestly say that 

each and every conservation practice that we have added on our 

farm has resulted in a financial return for every effort we have 

had. We add no-till, we started saving water, which turned into 

more wheat, which turns into more dollars. We add GPS technology, which cuts back on overlap. On our farm, we figure over 4 

percent in overlap without GPS equipment, and that 4 percent is 

completely eliminated. And not only is the cost of that 4 percent 

eliminated, but it is the economic and the environmental issue that 

is eliminated, too. We are now farming right on the line. 

So it is very easy for me to look in the conservation practices because they all seem to turn around and end up in a positive way 

at the end of the year. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Does anyone else briefly want to comment? Yes, Mr. Garber? 

Mr. GARBER. Ms. Stabenow, my farm is in the coastal prairie of 

southwest Louisiana, as I said earlier, and if you can envision, the 

upper part of the farm is fairly flat, and that is where we produce 

rice and soybeans. And then I have a portion of the farm that becomes highly erodible land as it drops to lower elevation, which is 

in pasture and hay. And then the other portion where the highly 

erodible land is, it is in improved pine. And then I have some bottomland hardwood. 

So as I took these practices and implemented them, it did absolutely help my farm. But the beauty part of it is, as I look at that 

land and I look at what I have done with the help of the cost-share 

programs and the programs that are available through CSP, EQIP, 

and what have you, I see a farm that will be there for my children. 

It will be there for the future. It is a productive farm, and the benefit is to the whole society in the fact that it will be a productive 

farm making food, fiber, and fuel for the future. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Yes, Mr. Mosel? 

Mr. MOSEL. Chairwoman Stabenow, I have been involved for the 

past 10 years on our local lake committee. We have had the local 

biology department from Mankato State University studying the 

quality of the water and the watershed coming into that lake. I can 

see that on my farm, with having the diversity of crops that I do 

through the CSP program, there is no question that I have seen a 

reduction in erosion and retention of water on my farm because of 

the diversity of crops. I guess the CSP program has very good quality through it also, and I would not want to have any of that reduced. But the CSP program works really well with that program, 

I do not think one takes away from the other. I would hope to see 

CSP further in my area. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

46 

Yes, Mr. Stoskopf? 

Mr. STOSKOPF. Yes, I will agree with pretty much everything the 

other panelists have said. My parents started conservation work in 

the 1930s during the middle of the Dust Bowl, building 

shelterbelts, and starting waterways, and we just recently used the 

EQIP program to renovate that shelterbelt that was put in in 1938. 

So it is a continuing process on our farm. 

The CRP has had tremendous benefits. The other EQIP programs that we have been able to utilize, every one is very beneficial to our operation. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. Well, thank you to each of you. 

My time is more than up, but, Mr. Garber, I did want to say I 

started as a county commissioner in public service, and the soil 

conservation district was something that I learned about very 

quickly, and the importance of the conservation districts has been 

something I have paid attention to throughout my career. 

And I also want to put an editorial comment. You mentioned 

about the budget, and, you know, we have got to work very hard 

to make sure we get the right budget resolution and the right dollars available. The $18 billion that the House passed last year in 

conservation cuts, if that were to happen again this year, if that 

is the number we were dealing with, it would make it very hard 

to continue any of what we are talking about here. So we have 

been working together on our Committee and the leadership in the 

House, and hopefully we will be in a position where we can do the 

things that we think are important here in terms of having the 

level of resources and flexibility that we need. 

Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, and thank you to all the witnesses, 

and thank you for your comments to the questions of the distinguished Senators. 

Dean, I like the guidelines you have in your testimony: Keep programs simple, keep programs local, let the USDA staff provide assistance, not enforcement. I think that we tend to forget some of 

those basics when we draft legislation and new programs. You 

know and I know that the number one issue that we hit whenever 

I am out in Kansas—I just spent 10 days there—is overregulation 

and enforcement. So that poses a real problem. 

You have some specific ideas about CRP and emergency haying 

and grazing. I appreciate that. I know sometimes the Government 

is not as responsive as it should be. Could you just tell me, what 

did you and your neighbors experience last year during the 

drought, more especially since we are still dry? 

Mr. STOSKOPF. Thank you, Senator. Our operation is in the center of the State, so the extreme drought that was in southwest 

Kansas and caught Texas and Oklahoma was the lead to implementing a lot of the releases of CRP acres for haying and grazing, 

which helped us because we fell right in line with the other areas 

that were in trouble. So this year, we had pretty timely release of 

those acres to utilize. That has not always been the case. Usually 

it is a lag that is several months later than we really needed it. 

So from that perspective, it worked pretty well. 

The haying and grazing, the one comment that was presented 

earlier in your question of burning the hay or not being able to utiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:05 Mar 27, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\78272.TXT MICHA
47 

lize hay off of some of those acres, it was really a disincentive for 

people that did not have their own cattle. You could give the hay 

to somebody else or let them graze, but they had to give up 25 percent of their payments in order to be a good neighbor to somebody 

else. And that really limited some of the acres that could have been 

utilized when we were desperately in need of forages throughout 

the country. 

The other area that would be helpful is we have CRP several 

counties away that was not in the drought-declared areas ineligible 

for haying and grazing. It was an area that, fortunately, had good 

rainfall. The hay was in excellent condition—rather, the grass was. 

It could have been utilized by a lot of people from our area south, 

but since it was not in a designated disaster area, it could not be 

utilized. 

So the idea of double dipping or getting more money when forages were as tight as they were this last year and this winter, 

some of those kind of activities would be very helpful to the cattlemen across the areas in trouble. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that very much. 

Jeff, you have already talked about your 3:1 match when you are 

required to have 1:1, so I congratulate you on that. Kansas has 

over half a million acres in expiring CRP contracts, probably the 

leading State. Is the foundation looking at the potential impact of 

the acreage shift in CRP? And are you working on any of the acres 

coming out of CRP? 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Yes, we do an enormous amount in terms of 

reaching out to producers to understand what conservation practices can be done beyond CRP and how to convert. NRCS is standing up a series of programs in order to try to help producers finding 

themselves in that situation. Hopefully we do not see all the acres 

coming out of CRP, though, and hopefully this Committee can act 

on CRP in a way that we can see maximum enrollment possible. 

Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. That is what we are going to try to do. 

Madam Chairman, we heard Senator Baucus talk about this, you 

have talked about it, I have talked about it, about when we start 

a farm bill, we know we have 17 seconds to talk to somebody before 

there is a high glaze on the farm bill. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Right. 

Senator ROBERTS. So during those 17 seconds, it is pretty important, and I think every witness here has touched upon this in 

terms of the value of these conservation programs. If we are going 

to feed 9 billion people in a couple of decades, in other words, if 

we step up on a humanitarian basis, but also in regards to stability 

around the world, you and I both have talked about this: Show me 

a country that cannot sustain itself in regards to its own food supply, you have got chaos. When you have chaos, you have instability. 

When you have instability, you have terrorism. And you see what 

is happening in the Mideast where the Arab Spring has turned into 

an Arab nightmare. What they want is a stable food supply, number one. 

So on behalf of our own efforts to achieve world stability and national security, everything that you are talking about plays into a 

much larger role, and what I am trying to figure out is when we 

48 

are cutting ag research, cutting conservation programs, and still 

have to feed 9 billion people down the road and double ag production, how are we going to do this? 

I appreciate your help. I appreciate your constructive ideas, and 

I thank you all for coming. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Senator 

Roberts. You and I have spoken and are sharing joint concerns 

about ag research and conservation, and, again, I just have to 

stress that, you know, we need to make sure we do not see a level 

of cut coming out of the House that makes it impossible for us to 

be able to write a farm bill and certainly create a conservation 

title. So we have got a lot of work to do together on this to make 

sure we can address the need and to be responsible in deficit reduction, but also address our other responsibilities. 

Senator Klobuchar has joined us, and, again, thank you very 

much. Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is 

good to be back. I was over on the floor giving a speech on my other 

life, which is judicial confirmations, but I am glad to be back here 

where things are a little more normal. 

Mr. Mosel, have you enjoyed being on the panel so far? Has anyone asked you a question except me? 

Mr. MOSEL. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you want to turn your microphone on so 

we can hear you? Okay, good. 

Now, you know our State has the greatest number of farmers I 

think it is over 2,300—using the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the program consistently is in high demand for every 

sign-up. Why do you think our State has done well with it? And 

what do you see as its strengths and how it could be improved? 

Mr. MOSEL. Well, thank you, Senator Klobuchar. For me personally, when I saw the Land Stewardship Project was advertising, I 

felt it was important for all farmers to think about participating. 

I guess I would look at our state—and maybe it is not that different in other states, but we have the major river system in Minnesota which drains through our primary ag region and then 

drains into the Mississippi. We do not want to have any more soil 

leave our farms. I have plugged my tile intakes with the blinding 

intakes and I have received some assistance through NRCS for 

that. 

As I was telling the Committee earlier, I currently serve on a 

lake committee, and one of our responsibilities is to cleanthe watershed. We are working with area farmers to put in buffer strips and 

are encouraging conservation practices. This Conservation Stewardship Program would be a great leap forward if we could get 

more of the producers into it. 

But so far I have not had any problems with the sign-up process. 

I have to say it is not as transparent as I would like to see it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think in your testimony you talk about 

family farmers and how you think more of a focus should be on 

family farmers in terms of conservation dollars. Do you have any 

ideas on how you can make it easier for family farmers to participate? 

49 

Mr. MOSEL. Yes, if there was a way to make it somewhat more 

transparent—I have had some neighbors, you know, they have kind 

of gone in and gone through the process preliminarily, and they got 

very— somewhat confused by it, I think. So we do need to make 

it a little easier for that. They need to sort of know what the outcome is going to be so it does not affect their bottom line. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could you tell me how you use the EQIP 

and CSP programs together to maintain your conservation practices? 

Mr. MOSEL. We have a farm that my wife grew up on. Her parents passed away a few years ago, and we run that farm. I noticed 

when we took it over, we had a small rain— or not a small rain, 

but a normal rainfall, and the soil erosion was immense. And so 

I worked with the local NRCS officer, and we installed through the 

EQIP program, contour strips. I have a 12-row planter, and he set 

it up perfect for the planter. Everything works great. I think maybe 

in years past that would have been a problem, but now with the 

newer equipment and the GPS equipment that I will be installing, 

these contour strips are no longer a challenge. Now the erosion on 

that field is almost minimal to zero. We have had some pretty good 

rains, and when we have investigated, it has almost stopped completely. CSP helps me to maintain those strips, I think. 

You know, right now with the crop prices the way they are, there 

would be maybe some advantage to me—or at least I would be 

tempted, you know, to plant all corn. But with the CSP program, 

it takes some of the sting out of staying in the four-crop rotation. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, good. I am looking forward to visiting 

your farm. 

Mr. MOSEL. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I might need a GPS to get there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But I plan on coming this year. 

One last question I have for Ms. Humphries. You know, wetlands 

restoration is very important, as we know, an incredibly important 

conservation tool. And last year Senator Thune and I sent a letter 

in support of funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which leverages Federal dollars against State, local, and 

private funding to complete the conservation projects. 

Could you tell me how organizations like yours, like Ducks Unlimited, use this funding in order to maintain conservation programs for wetlands? 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. I would be most pleased to. Thank you. 

Well, NAWCA funding is a critical link in that. What we do is 

we wind up leveraging private dollars and State dollars against the 

Federal dollars to go in and build partnerships on our most critical 

wetland areas that we have identified. We use that with a combination of State employees, Federal employees, and also those volunteers, and we go in and do restoration, and then typically we 

also like to go in and do acts that will help preserve those lands 

in the future, put on conservation easements, produce something 

that is going to make sure that it is sustainable in the long run. 

It is a great program. Quite frankly, NAWCA has provided a tremendous incentive to go in and do wetland restoration around the 

50 

country. And it helps preserve those vital wetland areas and our 

clean water that is so important to all of us. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, all of you, for your 

great work, and I look forward to working with you on this farm 

bill. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you to each of you. This has 

been extremely helpful, and we appreciate your insight. This is a 

very, very important part of the farm bill, and as you can tell from 

all the members’ participating, there is a great commitment and interest. 

I would ask that any additional questions for the record be submitted to the Committee clerk 5 business days from today. That is 

by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 6th. And, again, we look forward 

to working with you as we complete our farm bill process. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(51) 

A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

52 


78272.001
53 


78272.002
54 


78272.003
55 


78272.004
56 


78272.005
57 


78272.006
58 


78272.007
59 


78272.008
60 


78272.009
61 


78272.010
62 


78272.011
63 


78272.012
64 


78272.013
65 


78272.014
66 


78272.015
67 


78272.016
68 


78272.017
69 


78272.018
70 


78272.019
71 


78272.020
72 


78272.021
73 


78272.022
74 


78272.023
75 


78272.024
76 


78272.025
77 


78272.026
78 


78272.027
79 


78272.028
80 


78272.029
81 


78272.030
82 


78272.031
83 


78272.032
84 


78272.033
85 


78272.034
86 


78272.035
87 


78272.036
88 


78272.037
89 


78272.038
90 


78272.039
91 


78272.040
92 


78272.041
93 


78272.042
94 


78272.043
95 


78272.044
96 


78272.045
97 


78272.046
98 


78272.047
99 


78272.048
100 


78272.049
101 


78272.050
102 


78272.051
103 


78272.052
104 


78272.053
105 


78272.054
106 


78272.055
107 


78272.056
108 


78272.057
109 


78272.058
110 


78272.059
111 


78272.060
112 


78272.061
113 


78272.062
114 


78272.063
115 


78272.064
116 


78272.065
(117) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

118 


78272.066
119 


78272.067
120 


78272.068
121 


78272.069
122 


78272.070
123 


78272.071
124 


78272.072
125 


78272.073
126 


78272.074
127 


78272.075
128 


78272.076
129 


78272.077
130 


78272.078
131 


78272.079
132 


78272.080
133 


78272.081
134 


78272.082
135 


78272.083
136 


78272.084
137 


78272.085
138 


78272.086
139 


78272.087
140 


78272.088
141 


78272.089
142 


78272.090
143 


78272.091
144 


78272.092
145 


78272.093
146 


78272.094
147 


78272.095
148 


78272.096
149 


78272.097
150 


78272.098
151 


78272.099
152 


78272.100
153 


78272.101
154 


78272.102
155 


78272.103
156 


78272.104
(157) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

158 


78272.105
159 


78272.106
160 


78272.107
161 


78272.108
162 


78272.109
163 


78272.110
164 


78272.111
165 


78272.112
166 


78272.113
167 


78272.114
168 


78272.115
169 


78272.116
170 


78272.117
171 


78272.118
172 


78272.119
173 


78272.120
174 


78272.121
175 


78272.122
176 


78272.123
177 


78272.124
178 


78272.125
179 


78272.126
180 


78272.127
181 


78272.128
182 


78272.129
183 


78272.130
184 


78272.131
185 


78272.132
186 


78272.133
187 


78272.134
188 


78272.135
189 


78272.136
190 


78272.137
191 


78272.138
192 


78272.139
193 


78272.140
194 


78272.141
195 


78272.142
196 


78272.143
197 


78272.144
198 


78272.145
199 


78272.146
200 


78272.147
201 


78272.148
202 


78272.149
203 


78272.150
204 


78272.151
205 


78272.152
206 


78272.153
207 


78272.154
208 


78272.155
209 


78272.156
210 


78272.157
211 


78272.158
212 


78272.159
213 


78272.160
214 


78272.161
215 


78272.162
216 


78272.163
217 


78272.164
218 


78272.165
219 


78272.166
220 


78272.167
221 


78272.168
222 


78272.169
223 


78272.170
224 


78272.171
225 


78272.172
226 


78272.173
227 


78272.174
228 


78272.175
229 


78272.176
230 


78272.177
231 


78272.178
232 


78272.179
233 


78272.180
234 


78272.181
235 


78272.182
236 


78272.183
237 


78272.184
238 


78272.185
239 


78272.186
240 


78272.187
241 


78272.188
242 


78272.189
243 


78272.190
244 


78272.191
245 


78272.192
246 


78272.193
247 


78272.194
248 


78272.195
249 


78272.196
250 


78272.197