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

41–481 PDF 2009

REVIEW OF USDA FARM BILL 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, 

ENERGY, AND RESEARCH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

April 19, 2007

Serial No. 110–12

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Ranking Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, ENERGY, AND RESEARCH

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania,Chairman 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, 

Ranking Minority Member 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING , Iowa 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

TIMOTHY WALBERG, Michigan 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

NONA S. DARRELL, Subcommittee Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota, opening statement ............................................................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Walz, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota, prepared statement .......................................................................... 45

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, prepared statement .......................................................................... 49

WITNESSES

LaFleur, Mr. Jeff, Executive Director, Cape Cod Cranberry Growers’ Association, on behalf of New England Farmers Union and National Farmers 

Union, Wareham, Massachusetts ....................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 151

Jamison, Mr. Charles ‘‘Jamie’’, National Corn Growers Association, Dickerson, 

Maryland ............................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 158

Elworth, Mr. Lawrence, Executive Director, Center for Agricultural Partnerships, Asheville, North Carolina ......................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 163

Nelsen, Mr. Joel, President, California Citrus Mutual, Exeter, California ........ 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166

Foglesong, Mr. Steve, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Astoria, Illinois 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 169

Wolf, Mr. Douglas, Wolf L&G Farms, LLC., on behalf of the National Pork 

Producers Council, Lancaster, Wisconsin .......................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 177

Lail, Dr. Slade, American Tree Farm System, Plumbdent Farms, Duluth, 

Georgia .................................................................................................................. 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 197

Nomsen, Mr. David E., Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever, on behalf of Agriculture and Wildlife Working 

Group and the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, Garfield, Minnesota .................................................................................................................... 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 201

Grossi, Mr. Ralph, President, American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C. .... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 207

Sims, Mr. Olin, President, National Association of Conservation Districts, 

McFadden, Wyoming ........................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 210

Beauduy, Mr. Thomas W., Deputy Director & Counsel, Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania .................................................. 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 217

Cook, Mr. Ken, President, Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C. . 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 221

Kemp, Ms. Loni, Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project, Canton, Minnesota .................................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 260

Page

IV

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Adams, Laurie Davies, Executive Director, Coevolution Institute, San Francisco, California .................................................................................................... 51

Dreher, Robert G., Vice President of Land Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. .......................................................................................... 58

Gieseke, Tim, The Minnesota Project, Canton, Minnesota .................................. 68

Witteman, Aimee, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Washington, D.C. ........... 106

Robertson, Gordon C., Vice President, American Sportfishing Association, and 

Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government Affairs and Volunteer Operations, Trout Unlimited ....................................................................................... 108

United Egg Producers, Alpharetta, Georgia .......................................................... 110

Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa ............................................ 117

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW USDA FARM BILL 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, ENERGY, AND

RESEARCH

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:08 p.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim Holden 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Holden, Costa, Space, Walz, 

Scott, Salazar, Gillibrand, Kagen, Donnelly, Peterson, Lucas, 

Fortenberry, Schmidt and Moran. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. HOLDEN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conversation, 

Credit, Energy and Research to review USDA farm bill conservation programs will come to order. 

The first business of the day, I will say to the ranking member, 

is to recognize our newest member of the subcommittee, Mr. Joseph 

Donnelly from Indiana. We welcome you to the subcommittee, Mr. 

Donnelly. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an 

honor to be here and I am very grateful for the opportunity. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Well, we look forward to working with you as you 

are filling in for Mr. Boswell, who has numerous responsibilities 

not only on this committee but in other committees in the Congress, so we certainly do welcome you, and even though I am from 

Pennsylvania, the part of Pennsylvania I am from would always 

say ‘‘Go Irish’’ so we certainly welcome someone from South Bend, 

Indiana to the———

Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Chairman, we are on the same planet. 

Mr. HOLDEN. I would like to welcome our witnesses and guests 

to today’s hearing. I hope this hearing will provide a useful review 

of conservation programs in the farm bill. The 2002 Farm Bill was 

the biggest investment in conservation in the history of farm bills. 

The conservation title dedicated over $17 billion in additional investment for conservation programs, an increase of 80 percent. 

While the budget may be tight, I believe we need to see if we can 

match that in the upcoming farm bill reauthorization. Conservation 

funds have allowed many farms to meet environmental regulations 

in this changing industry. Conservation programs assist our farmVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
2

ers and ranchers in strengthening their environmental stewardship. That is important for looking after the land and water that 

we will pass on to future generations. 

In the current farm bill, we funded the most significant programs 

in order to preserve farmland and to improve water quality and 

soil conservation on working land. We addressed environmental 

concerns and sought to make conservation a cornerstone of agriculture for producers in all the regions of the country. Our Nation’s 

farms and ranches produce far more than traditional food and 

fiber. Well-managed agricultural land also produces healthy soil, 

clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat and pleasant landscapes, all 

of which are valued by rural and urban citizens alike. 

During this hearing, I hope we can answer many questions. Are 

current conservation programs working for all regions? How can we 

account for the rising cost of energy? How can we support the diversity of crops across the Nation and how do we stabilize and keep 

agricultural operations in business so that they can continue to 

protect our environment? I look forward to hearing suggestions 

that the witnesses may have as to what Congress can do to ensure 

agriculture’s continued role in conservation. 

I would ask all members of the subcommittee to submit their 

opening statements for the record with a few exceptions, the first 

being my friend and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon and 

welcome to today’s hearing to review USDA’s farm bill conservation 

programs. 

Today’s hearing is the final conservation hearing this subcommittee will hold before beginning to write the conservation title 

of the next farm bill. The 2002 Farm Bill provided the greatest 

funding increase ever for conservation programs. The farm bill’s 

conservation programs have undoubtedly been a huge success, providing for benefits to soil, water and air quality. We are proud of 

what we accomplished in the 2002 Farm Bill and want to build on 

that in the next farm bill. Our farm bill hearings over the last 15 

months have given us a great deal of insight into how the current 

conservation programs are working. 

This subcommittee has been charged with trying to reach consensus on what kind of conservation title should be included in the 

next farm bill. This hearing will allow us to discuss many of our 

conservation programs in depth and I am interested to hear how 

you all think that the current programs are operating, what 

changes need to be made in the programs and their funding levels 

and whether current programs or new programs are needed to 

meet producers’ compliance with regulatory standards. Specifically, 

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the CRP program, how 

that program has been utilized or could be utilized in renewable 

energy crop production, is there support for releasing the less environmentally sensitive areas for production and replacing those 

acres with more sensitive land. Additionally, I hope to hear your 

thoughts on EQIP, which is vitally important in my home State of 

3

Oklahoma. We are spending substantially on that program today 

with an increased funding level from $200 annually in 2002 to 

$1,300,000,000 in 2007. We should examine whether there are improvements or adjustments that need to be made in the program 

to make it more effective for producers. 

As I reviewed the testimony for today’s hearing, I found overwhelming support for conservation technical assistance. Producers 

benefit greatly from the assistance they receive from knowledgeable staff and committed local partners. There seems to be a consensus among program users that technical assistance funding is 

inadequate and the delivery system is the lifeline to ensuring the 

success of conservation programs. So I look forward to hearing 

more about this issue from our witnesses. What we need to remember today is that we have a limited number of resources in which 

to write the conservation title. We will no doubt have lots of requests and advice and input on the best way to spend that money 

allocated to us. However, it is difficult to balance out all of the requests since all of the ideas have so much merit. That is why we 

must focus on what is working and what is not working and what 

is being done efficiently and effectively and what is not. I look forward to today’s hearing and I am very pleased that you called it, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOLDEN. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the chairman, and I want to thank he 

and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue, and you 

guys have attracted quite a crowd, so I think that shows the interest there is in this area of the farm bill. 

The conservation programs that we have been able to put in 

place help our farmers and ranchers preserve their land and also 

provide us with clean air, clean water and areas to recreate, hunt, 

and fish. The 2002 Farm Bill demonstrated our commitment to conservation by doubling the conservation funding, and I think that is 

a very good thing. 

This year is a little different. We are facing some restrictions as 

we write this upcoming farm bill, both budgetary and practical. 

The budget constraints have left us without new money for the 

Wetland Reserve and the Grassland Reserve Programs. Also, there 

simply isn’t enough money to run programs like CSP in the way 

that some people have been suggesting. The workload constraints 

at USDA are another restriction. We need to take a look at bringing in non-federal partners to help provide technical assistance for 

existing conservation programs. 

But even with those obstacles, we will continue to have a strong 

conservation title in the upcoming farm bill. I share the concern of 

many of the witnesses about the backlog of unmet demand for conservation programs. Looking past the opticals, renewable energy 

production provides an unparalleled opportunity for American agriculture. I believe we can blend these two missions to preserve 

farmland and create wildlife habitats while growing feedstocks for 

biofuels and using manure to create electricity and synthetic gas. 

4

I just want to say, there have been a lot of conservation groups 

that have been working very hard for the last year, year and a half 

and I commend them for the work that they have done pulling together I think the biggest coalition we have ever had coming behind some proposals that they have brought to us and it is very 

helpful and I have to say I agree with most of what they put together, but we are trying to resolve this budget issue in the next 

couple weeks so that we know exactly where we are. In the commodity title of the farm bill, we have given up $60 billion of spending that was there in 2002 that is not there projected 

to be there in 2007. We get no credit for that. Just like a lot of 

other things and the way we operate these programs, when we 

take out our loans, we get charged. When we pay them back, we 

don’t get credit. So we feel like we have a good case to make that 

by asking for $20 billion back out of the $60 billion that we gave 

up, that is a reasonable thing. And frankly, if we don’t figure out 

some way to find the offsets, we are not going to be able to do the 

things that you guys are going to be talking to us about today. I 

told a lot of people around the country that in my part of the world, 

we can write a farm bill with the money we have and I can go 

home and I won’t get lynched. People in the commodity area are 

basically telling us that even though they are going to spend $60 

billion less, they can live with it if we keep what is in place, it has 

worked well in the past, and we have heard that around the country. 

But there are all these other opportunities and needs in conservation, rural development, fruits and vegetables, food stamps, 

renewable fuels. So all of you that are interested in these areas of 

the farm bill, you need to help us, talk to all your members of Congress, Senators and the leadership to help us get the offsets so that 

we can have this additional money to do a farm bill to take advantage of these opportunities that are in front of us and to move this 

in the right direction. So we are hopeful that process will come out 

positively. 

So I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for all of their hard work and I look forward to hearing 

the witnesses. 

Mr. HOLDEN. The Chair would like to thank the chairman of the 

full committee and we welcome our first panel to the table: Mr. Jeff 

LaFleur, Executive Director, Cape Cod Cranberry Growers’ Association on behalf of New England Farmers Union and National 

Farmers Union from Wareham, Massachusetts; Mr. Charles 

‘‘Jamie’’ Jamison, National Corn Growers Association from 

Dickerson, Maryland; Mr. Lawrence Elworth, Executive Director, 

Center for Agriculture Partnerships, Asheville, North Carolina; Mr. 

Joel Nelsen, President, California Citrus Mutual from Exeter, California; Mr. Steve Foglesong, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

from Astoria, Illinois; Mr. Douglas Wolf from Wolf L&G Farms, on 

behalf of the National Pork Producers of Lancaster, Wisconsin; Mr. 

Slade Lail, American Tree Farm System, Plumbdent Farms from 

Duluth, Georgia. 

Mr. LaFleur, you may begin. I ask all witnesses to try to keep 

their remarks to five minutes and submit the balance of their testimony for the record. 

5

Mr. LaFleur. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF LAFLEUR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAPE 

COD CRANBERRY GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF 

NEW ENGLAND FARMERS UNION AND NATIONAL FARMERS 

UNION, WAREHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. LAFLEUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lucas 

and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. My name is Jeff LaFleur. As president of the New 

England Farmers Union, the newest NFU chapter, I am here today 

on behalf of the National Farmers Union, a Nationwide organization representing more than 250,000 farmers, ranchers, fishermen 

and rural residents. I also serve as executive director of the Cape 

Cod Cranberry Growers’ Association. 

We believe the 2007 Farm Bill should build upon existing programs while encouraging further investment in new efforts. By coupling the environmental needs of our fragile farmlands with the socioeconomic goals of our farming communities, the new farm bill 

can do even more to create the opportunity to reward stewardship, 

discourage speculative development of fragile land resources and 

strengthen family farming in rural communities. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to specifically mention NFU’s strong support for several existing programs. The Conservation Security Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program should be 

fully funded. CSP is one of the most innovative attempts to reward 

producers for conservation practices on working lands and EQIP 

certainly has been a great success. To make even better use of 

these limited funds though, states should be permitted to set EQIP 

priorities based upon local environmental challenges. Additionally, 

the successes of these programs is based upon delivery of technical 

assistance to the producers. NRCS staff, who normally provide 

technical assistance, are now responsible for completing producer 

payments. All payment paperwork should return to the Farm Service Agency, namely the agency that excels in delivering payments 

to producers. 

In addition, NFU supports the development of a one step conservation planning step for agriculture through NRCS. We recommend a single conservation plan, a plan that should be developed by the farm operator in conjunction with NRCS and the local 

conservation district in order to secure compliance with the myriad 

of land and water regulations established by various Government 

agencies. NFU also supports Conservation Reserve Program and it 

urges you to do all you can to ensure that CRP is not reduced by 

the 39.2-million-acre cap. 

I want to bring to your attention to two new initiatives for the 

subcommittee’s consideration. First is our desire to seek a Nationwide buffer strip initiative. Buffer strips play a key role in maintaining healthy productive farms as well as protecting fragile and 

vital waterways throughout the country. When designated appropriately, buffer strips help producers maintain their best land and 

crop production and make good use of marginal land. We urge you 

to consider a new Nationwide buffer strip initiative that builds 

upon the proven success of past buffer strip initiatives. Some would 

say this would be an expensive endeavor. However, billions of dolVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
6

lars are spent by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal, state, and local agencies to address water quality problems 

that could have been alleviated proactively through the results of 

a buffer strip initiative. NFU urges the subcommittee and the full 

committee to work with the appropriate committees in Congress to 

see if there are ways to institute such a program. 

And finally, I want to mention NFU’s innovative carbon credit 

trading program. As we all know, there is a growing public concern 

about global climate change. Our newly established carbon credit 

program is a voluntary private-sector approach to conservation that 

allows producers to earn income on carbon credit market by storing 

carbon in their soil through practices such as no-till farming. I am 

pleased to report that our program, which began in October of 

2006, has already enrolled over one million acres. NFU aggregates 

the credits for our members and then trades then on the Chicago 

Climate Exchange. We believe that the carbon credit program and 

buffer strip initiative could be established to work within existing 

tier system of CSP or adopted as new tiers of participation. 

Mr. Chairman, interactions with our Nation’s natural resources 

do not need to set agricultural producers in opposition to the environment. As NFU members have demonstrated for many generations, farmers, ranchers and fisherman are the best environmental 

stewards and their astute understanding of the natural world deserves to be recognized and rewarded. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify and I would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. LaFleur. 

Mr. Jamison. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES ‘‘JAMIE’’ JAMISON, NATIONAL CORN 

GROWERS ASSOCIATION, DICKERSON, MARYLAND 

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

thank you for the opportunity to testify today for the conservation 

title of the next farm bill. I am Jamie Jamison from Dickerson, 

Maryland, a member of the Corn Board for the National Corn 

Growers Association. I grow corn, wheat, and soybeans on my farm, 

which is located 35 miles outside of Washington, D.C., in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

In 1969, my good friend, Bob Raver, planted the first no-till corn 

in Montgomery County, Maryland. In 1970, I planted my first notill corn. A few years later, we planted no-till soybeans and several 

years after that we planted no-till wheat. I was not alone in this 

endeavor. As growers who wanted to keep our farms alive, we all 

shared our mistakes and successes. Thirty-seven years later, my 

son’s turf operation is the only tillage being done on our farm. We 

are 100 percent no till for all of our crops. Our farm is always looking at problems and how we can adapt to make our soils better and 

improve production and profitability. We are farming sustainably. 

To quote Dick Waybright of Mason-Dixon Farms, ‘‘Change is inevitable. Success is optional.’’

All across the country, corn growers are making important environmental gains through the use of farm bill conservation programs to reduce soil erosion, improve water quality and increase 

7

wildlife habitats. To continue this trend, we need even greater emphasis on working land’s conservation programs. We believe the 

conservation title should be adequately funded, environmentally 

sound based on sound science, implemented nationally at the watershed level, performance driven, simplified and streamlined to 

encourage more participation, and targeted so that programs 

achieve greatest environmental savings. 

As you prepare farm bill legislation, we hope you are mindful of 

the NRCS delivery system and its limitations. Every farm bill since 

1985 has fundamentally changed or added new programs. This has 

pushed the NRCS system beyond its limits. We commend Congress 

for providing a strong emphasis on conservation in the recent farm 

bills, especially on working lands. However, the 2002 Farm Bill 

was the most significant in this regard in terms of complexity. 

After several years of working through the kinks, we now have a 

good set of programs that work on the ground. Instead of extensive 

additions or complications, we encourage the committee to simplify 

and streamline existing programs. 

With respect to specific programs, Environmental Quality Incentives Program is very popular and delivers effective conservation 

program dollars to assist landowners who face natural resource 

challenges on their land. Above all, EQIP should preserve the full 

flexibility needed to adjust the program over time to focus on evolving issues and to be based on national, state and local needs. 

The Conservation Security Program continues to be a work in 

progress. Since its enactment, numerous legislative actions of the 

CSP statute have resulted in funding cuts, creating a range of implementation challenges. As a result, a number of corn growers 

have expressed frustration with the program, describing it as a 

moving target. Significant improvement is needed to the application selection implementation process and fairly applied to all eligible growers. 

The Conservation Reserve Program is an important and wellused conservation program for corn growers. NCGA supports the 

full utilization of CRP at its authorized level. However, if market 

forces indicate diversion from CRP, we encourage fragile acres remain in the program and best management practices be implemented on land returning to production. 

In closing, each of the conservation programs utilized by corn 

growers could benefit from more funding to increase efficiency, enrollment opportunities, and environmental gains. Any increase in 

funding should not come at the expense of the farm safety net. We 

recommend that the farm safety net be enhanced with conservation 

programs but not replaced by conservation programs. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Jamison. 

Mr. Elworth. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE ELWORTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIPS, ASHEVILLE, 

NORTH CAROLINA 

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

committee for the opportunity to talk with you this afternoon about 

8

some of the challenges specialty crop producers face in making use 

of conservation programs. My name is Larry Elworth. I am executive director of the Center for Agricultural Partnerships. We are a 

nonprofit organization based in western North Carolina. Since 

2002, my organization has worked in 11 states with more than a 

dozen commodities to create more meaningful access for specialty 

crop producers and other farmers who by and large have not previously participated in conservation programs and that includes 

small farmers, limited resource and minority farmers as well. 

There are a number of challenges that limit the ability of those 

growers to participate in programs like EQIP. There is a profound 

lack of knowledge among growers about the programs and how to 

use them. There is a lack of appropriate program opportunities 

suited to specialty crop production and there is an overall lack of 

capacity to deliver these programs to specialty crop producers. In 

the course of our work, we have identified several measures that 

would significantly improve their ability to participate in conservation programs and I would like to at least take a moment to outline 

those ideas for you now. 

First of all, USDA needs to take leadership in creating a higher 

profile for specialty crop issues so that innovative ways of increasing access for specialty crop producers will be encouraged. One important step in that process would be to conduct an assessment of 

the problems that currently limit specialty crop participation and 

to engage NRCS staff with specialty crop organizations to develop 

a plan for addressing them. 

In addition, USDA needs to create and support more-effective 

means for providing outreach and education for specialty crop 

growers. This would help growers become better informed customers for the programs and ensure that they can also effectively 

use the program opportunities. The outreach and education programs could be established through a specific mandate in the Conservation Innovation Grants Program, through cooperative agreements and partnership provisions, or through a conservation education program that could be established in the research title. 

Of particular importance is providing direction in the farm bill 

for USDA to develop and support more-effective technical assistance options for specialty crop producers. Such provisions would 

provide guidance for USDA to use mechanisms such as cooperative 

agreements and partnerships with public and private organizations 

to provide the necessary technical assistance. This is especially important for specialty crop producers since the technical service provider provisions have proven to be wholly inadequate for their purposes. In addition, the percentage of EQIP funds allocated to technical assistance could conceivably be increased in states that are 

working extensively with specialty crop producers. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, USDA needs to work with Congress 

to ensure that there are adequate resources for conservation planning with specialty crop producers. In addition to providing sufficient funds for conservation technical assistance, provisions could 

be included in the farm bill that would allow the existing cost 

share and incentive payments under EQIP to provide for the development of plans for specific practices such as best management. 

9

At the heart of these ideas is the recognition that even in the age 

of computers and websites, conservation programs are still delivered one-on-one by people on the ground. Working with farmers 

who are new to these conservation programs makes that effort even 

more labor-intensive. These measures would: help increase our capacity to deliver conservation programs, benefit an important and 

progressive segment of agriculture, create significant resource benefits, ensure more equitable access to federal conservation programs. Furthermore, these measures would have relevance to other 

groups of farmers who have been underserved by conservation programs as well. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify 

this afternoon and for your leadership on conservation issues. I 

look forward to working with you and members of the subcommittee in addressing these issues, and I will be glad to answer 

any questions you have. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Elworth. 

Mr. Nelsen. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL NELSEN, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA 

CITRUS MUTUAL, EXETER, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NELSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Again, my name is Joel Nelsen and I am president of 

California Citrus Mutual, a citrus producers’ trade association located in California. Our membership is 2,000 growers farming in 

excess of 120,000 acres of fresh citrus. Our industry produces approximately $1.3 billion of commodities and we are the number one 

ranked fresh citrus-producing State in the Nation. 

Today my testimony is on the conservation title of the upcoming 

farm bill. There is not too much history to speak of inasmuch as 

citrus growers and members of the specialty crop industry in general have little to say about this title. We just don’t access it. Like 

so much of previous farm bills, we simply have not been able to 

work within this program and those aspects of this program that 

allegedly exist for commodities such as ours. 

I would like to note that the specialty crop growers produce approximately 50 percent of the farm gate value of total agricultural 

production in the United States. Our share of farm bill activities, 

one more time, is very small. We will make an effort to change that 

in the 2007 Farm Bill. I believe strongly that the allocation of resources aimed at addressing issues of concern to specialty crop producers must reflect the value of their production to our economy as 

well as the dietary needs of our Nation. We look forward to working with the members of this committee, Congress, and the entire 

agricultural community in writing such a vehicle. 

You may be aware that our collective industry has formed the 

Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance in an effort to be more active 

and therefore make the farm bill more productive for our industry. 

We have no choice but to be engaged and try to make our farm policy via the farm bill more balanced. In the past it has been too narrow in its outreach to agriculture across the Nation. That must 

change. Today competition from around the globe and from Governments around the world mirror our farm policy. That mirror, howVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
10

ever, is for commodities produced in their respective countries, all 

commodities, unlike our farm bill policy, which favors a few. 

To some extent, that has been our fault. We have avoided entanglement with the Government as we move fresh fruit and vegetables around the globe but now industries such as mine are faced 

with global competition that is unfair, and a changing societal perspective on how best to make our nutritious commodities viable for 

the consumers. Again, our industry presently accesses very little 

from the previous farm bill but our competition in Spain, for example, realizes $1 billion in direct subsidies. 

The formula for access, the smaller pool accessible and the number of subscribers all preclude the ability of an industry such as 

ours to participate adequately in this program. This program is a 

good program, ladies and gentlemen, and requires more support 

from Congress. We wholly support EQIP in the conservation title. 

We believe in the expansion of the EQIP program. The existing 

program is oversubscribed and a majority of the funds are mandated for one segment of agriculture. If there are to be mandates, 

then they should be based on USDA’s nutrition pyramid or the percentage of revenue contributed to the entire value of agriculture. 

With a better-funded EQIP program, we can reward higher levels 

of environmental performance, address local, state and national environmental priorities, and utilize the most efficient and cost-effective methods for producing fresh fruits and vegetables in a more 

environmentally sensitive manner. 

We believe resources of concern such as water quality and air 

quality should be prioritized for consideration. To that end, a specific air quality program must be established within EQIP. Much 

like the Administration’s farm bill proposal places a priority on 

water quality, at EQIP, priority should be applied to air. 

If we do this, then we must do one more thing, and it, like EQIP, 

is priority number one. Congress and USDA must recognize that 

the economics of specialty crop farming are entirely different than 

other aspects of agriculture. The adjusted gross income calculations 

and limitations either eliminate our industry from participation or 

reduce the value so as to make the effort less than worthwhile. 

Next, the whole area of technical assistance needs great support 

in this title. Research leads to new and better ideas. The cost of 

implementation and /or acquiring the knowledge to implement is 

often left unsaid. Technical assistance can contain incentives to 

spread the knowledge and educate the end user, thus achieving the 

objective in a more timely manner. 

The Emergency Conservation Program can be extremely valuable 

for a producer as they recover from a disaster. However, it too is 

limited in its application. 

We will be suggesting new initiatives such as expansion of this 

whole title for the integrated pest management activities. Our industry has always been at the forefront of this type of pest management program but other commodities haven’t had the luxury to 

be engaged in this more environmentally sensitive matter. More 

support and more flexibility to benefit all producers is necessary. 

Therefore, the expansion of the Conservation Innovation Grant 

Program is something we will support. 

11

Now, as a native Californian and proud member of the specialty 

crop industry, I must remind you that 4,000 of our State’s landowners are rejected when they apply to take part in USDA’s incentive programs. This represents 68 percent of our farm families. Our 

State ranks 28th in conservation title funding. Obviously it is not 

from a lack of applications. I guess I can’t say it any better than 

Secretary Johanns did on November 2, 2005. ‘‘Currently, program 

crops represent a quarter of production value yet they receive virtually all the funding. Ninety-two percent of the program spending 

was paid on crops. The farmers who raised the other crops, 2/3 of 

all farmers, receive little support from current farm programs.’’

That says it all. We desire a more balanced farm bill and farm 

policy. In conjunction with Congressman Dennis Cardoza, and 

members of this committee such as Congressmen Salazar, Costa 

and McCarthy, we have introduced H.R. 1600 to spotlight the 

issues that we think need to be implemented within the conservation title and the entire farm bill. 

I thank you for your time and attention and look forward to any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Nelsen. 

Mr. Foglesong. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE FOGLESONG, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S 

BEEF ASSOCIATION, ASTORIA, ILLINOIS 

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

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come here. Trust me, it 

is the highlight of my mother’s week, so she thanks you as well. 

My name is Steve Foglesong. I am a cattle producer from Astoria, 

Illinois. I am the policy division chair for the National Cattlemen’s 

Beef Association. 

Cattlemen are true environmentalists. Generation after generation, we have been stewards of our Nation’s land and resources. 

Our livelihood is made on the land and so being good stewards of 

the land not only makes good environmental sense, it is fundamental for our industry to remain strong. Some of the cattle industry’s biggest challenges and threats come from the loss of natural 

resources. Our industry is threatened every day by urban encroachment, natural disasters, misinterpretation and misapplication of 

environmental laws. The conservation of our Nation’s natural resources is imperative and cattle producers have a vested interest 

in keeping the land healthy and productive, keeping water and air 

clean, keeping wildlife abundant and keeping ecosystems diverse. 

We strive to operate in an environmentally friendly manner, and 

it is through the conservation programs in the farm bill that we 

achieve a partnership with the Government to reach these goals. 

NCBA is a strong supporter of working lands programs within 

the conservation title of the farm bill. This includes EQIP, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program—I hate acronyms so I have 

to read them out for you—the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, 

or the WHIP program, Conservation Security Program, CSP, and 

the Grasslands Reserve Program, GRP. The goal of conservation 

programs should be to maintain a balance between keeping wellmanaged working lands in production and providing for the conservation and enhancement of both plant and animal species and 

12

our natural resources. Given the limited resources that are available, NCBA would like to see overlap and redundancy in programs 

eliminated and the efficient use of scarce program dollars improved. Consolidation and streamlining as suggested in the Administration’s farm bill proposal is one way to achieve that. We are 

happy to work with the subcommittee to make sure that any 

streamlining or consolidation continues to serve cattle producers. 

The most popular program among the cattlemen is the EQIP program. In the 2002 Farm Bill, EQIP saw a large increase in funding. Even with that increase, there still remains a substantial 

backlog of applications for the program. NCBA supports increased 

funding for EQIP within the conservation title so that the program 

is able to provide more producers with financial assistance as they 

work to implement good conservation practices and projects. Livestock production happens largely without the benefit of a safety net 

like many commodity programs have. Environmental concern is 

one of the biggest threats to our industry. That said, NCBA supports the continuation of the provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill that 

devote 60 percent of EQIP funds to livestock. Although popular, 

EQIP has a few problems we would like to see addressed in the upcoming farm bill. I have detailed these problems more thoroughly 

in my written testimony. 

Cattle producers across the country participate in EQIP but the 

practice of arbitrarily setting numerical caps that render some producers eligible and others ineligible limits its success. Addressing 

environmental solutions is not a large-versus-small issue. All producers have the responsibility to take care of the environment and 

their land and should have the ability to participate in programs 

that assist them in establishing and reaching achievable environmental goals. Accordingly, all producers should be afforded equal 

access to cost share dollars under programs like EQIP or other conservation programs intended for working lands. 

Another category of livestock producers excluded from USDA by 

the EQIP program are custom feeders. USDA has decided that 

these producers do not share the risk of ultimate sale price of the 

animals that they feed and this exclusion for us is hard to comprehend. These producers feed livestock on behalf of others and are 

obviously agricultural operations. Their environmental profile is 

identical to every other feeding operation. They certainly share the 

risk of financial success on their operations even if not for the ultimate price of the individual animals that they sell. We urge the 

subcommittee to support changes in law to eliminate USDA’s exclusion of custom feeders from EQIP. 

Yet another sector of our industry that is excluded from USDA 

from qualifying for EQIP is livestock markets. The vast majority of 

livestock move through these markets where they are held until 

they are bought or sold. Livestock markets are regulated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency as CAFOSs, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, and thus are held to the same high environmental standards as other cattle feeding operations. Livestock 

markets share similar resource concerns with other livestock feeding operations and should be eligible for Government assistance to 

address these concerns in the form of EQIP. 

13

The Grassland Reserve Program new in the 2002 Farm Bill 

proved to be hugely popular but very unworkable for many producers. NCBA supports continued funding for the GRP program to 

help conserve our Nation’s working grasslands but there must be 

changes to the program. Unfortunately, many ranchers are skeptical of participating in GRP because they simply don’t trust the 

Government. To solve this problem, the 2007 Farm Bill should give 

USDA more flexibility to allow private land trusts to hold and negotiate the terms of GRP easements. 

When it comes to the implementation of USDA’s conservation 

programs, it is imperative that we ensure adequate support and 

technical assistance to make these programs successful. Resources 

must be allocated to maintain adequate NRCS personnel at the 

local level to provide the technical assistance necessary to implement successful rangeland conservation programs. Ranchers need a 

dependable and qualified recognized source of technical assistance 

in order to meet rangeland conservation needs. USDA’s conservation programs are a great asset to cattle producers. We want to see 

them continued and refined to make them more producer-friendly 

in delivering the programs and resources to the local NRCS personnel and the cattlemen they work with to get to these practices 

on the ground to enhance the environment and the species of 

plants and animals that live there. NCBA looks forward to working 

with the subcommittee to ensure any revisions to the conservation 

program to continue to serve the needs of the cattle producers 

across the country. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I would love to have the opportunity to discuss and answer questions with you later. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Foglesong. 

Mr. Wolf. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS WOLF, WOLF L&G FARMS, LLC, ON 

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, 

LANCASTER, WISCONSIN 

Mr. WOLF. Good afternoon, Chairman Holden, Ranking Member 

Lucas and members of the subcommittee. My name is Doug Wolf 

and I am a pork producer from Lancaster, Wisconsin, and I am testifying today on behalf of the National Pork Producers Council. 

Like most everyone in agriculture, I have always taken responsibility to conserve and protect natural environment seriously, participating in many USDA and Wisconsin conservation programs. 

The challenges pork faces in 2002 remain with us today. We are 

still waiting for EPA’s CAFO rule, due out this summer. A new 

issue which we just commenced a major study on is the management of air emissions from livestock operations. Together, pork expects to continue its needs for conservation assistance under the 

2007 Farm Bill. 

Because there is a limit to the number of changes NRCS can 

manage, NPPC encourages Congress to continue USDA current 

conservation programs in the 2007 Farm Bill. However, this doesn’t 

mean we are satisfied with EQIP’s performance. Nothing could be 

further from the truth. Pork has received a paltry three percent of 

the total financial assistance funds made available by EQIP over 

the last few years. This is less than the share received by goats, 

14

emus and ostriches, and we are deeply disappointed. We believe 

that modest refinement with little or no cost can provide improvements needed. First, EQIP’s funding and emphasis on helping producers address regulatory requirements must be maintained. One 

improvement to consider is support for producers wanting to purchase individual tools on an a la carte basis for an existing environmental management system. These include things like GPS units, 

flow meters and injectors to help better manage manure and its energy value. It should also include installation of bio filters to improve air quality and lagoon covers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Right now instead of appreciating the cost-effective benefits 

these practices bring, producers are subject to a full EQIP evaluation and penalized for previous conservation investments. 

Congress should also help NRCS develop at the state level separate funding pools so that producers are evaluated fairly. For example, AFOs should be in one category, row crops in another, and 

specialty crops in another. Frankly, it makes no sense for a hog 

farmer to be evaluated against a peanut farmer. This is comparing 

apples to oranges. The program also needs to be streamlined. One 

way is by recognizing the CAFO’s state, federal water quality permits is equivalent to an EQIP plan. Finally, NRCS should continue 

to allow producers to use EQIP funds for the development of 

CNMPs, comprehensive nutrient management plans. 

Regarding the Conservation Security Plan, I cannot emphasize 

enough the need to develop a program that is legitimately national 

in scope. Second, the program needs to be simplified so that both 

the agency and the farmer understands what it requires. It also 

needs to be more transparent for all involved. One way to make the 

program more practical is to tie payments to what it actually costs 

producers to adopt and maintain practices. At the same time, you 

need to reduce the number of tiers from 3 to 2. Finally, producers 

need more certainty and predictability in order to participate. We 

simply can’t spend 80 hours on an application, wait an unknown 

time period and learn that there is no funding available for the 

program. 

NPPC continues to support the Conservation Reserve Program 

when it is focused on retiring lands of the highest environmental 

and conservation benefits. We have significant concerns with current CRP contracts that could be productively involved in food, 

fiber, and feed production while still conserving the associated soil, 

water and wildlife habitat. Not surprising, this concern is only exacerbated by the dramatic increase in demand for corn for grain 

ethanol. In order to meet the country’s future energy independence 

objectives, we must be able to generate ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks. CRP contract holders should be allowed to harvest biomass 

crops such as switchgrass for energy production without the loss of 

rental payments, taking environmental considerations into account. 

Finally, considering the Nation’s focus on energy independence, 

the 2007 Farm Bill needs to consider encouraging greater use of 

biofertilizers such as manure. 

Thank you, and we look forward to working with the committee, 

and I will answer any questions. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. Lail. 

15

STATEMENT OF SLADE LAIL, AMERICAN TREE FARM SYSTEM, 

PLUMBDENT FARMS, DULUTH, GEORGIA 

Mr. LAIL. Hello, my name is Slade Lail. I am a dentist from Duluth, Georgia, and the owner of Plumbdent Farms. It is a midsized 

tree farm in middle Georgia. I am here today as a representative 

of the American Forest Foundation and the American Tree Farm 

System. This organization represents nearly 90,000 family forest 

owners across the Nation. Overall, there are about 10 million family forest owners, over 600,000 alone in Georgia. Of these 600,000, 

at least in Georgia, we grow Georgia’s highest valued crop and add 

about $23 billion to the State’s economy yearly. 

Just as important as these financial figures are the environmental effects that our forests provide for us. The EPA estimates 

that 70 percent of the U.S. watersheds flow through private forest 

lands and most of the threatened watersheds all depend upon good 

forest stewardship to help protect drinking water. Forests obviously 

also provide wildlife habitat for endangered species and some of the 

most prized game species. About 75 percent of all hunters and anglers pursue their sport on private land and that is just part of the 

story. 

Markets for wood are shrinking and the value of our land is 

making it almost impossible to justify further investment in forestry. As many of you may know, a major change is occurring in 

forest ownership. Large timber companies are selling off property 

at a rather alarming rate. They are taking thousands of acres, 

breaking them up into 200-, 300-, 400-acre tracts and selling them 

to people like myself from urban areas. It is a great getaway, great 

hunting. The problem is, most people from the urban areas do not 

have the knowledge regarding how to properly manage these forests. 

For some owners of property such as this, the opportunity to 

earn a return on investment through development makes a lot of 

sense and that is a great thing for some people to do but many 

family forest owners want the opportunity to consider other choices 

to continue good forest stewardship and forest conservation and 

that is why I am here in front of you today. 

First of all, in many cases, we are already doing the right things. 

Forestry spending through EQIP totals about $20 to $25 million 

annually. Congress and NRCS from the leadership to the state conservationists have done a lot to include forest owners in EQIP and 

other programs like WHIP. Specifically, on my property, I have 

used EQIP funding for controlled burning, obviously reducing undesirable tree species, helping the timber growth, also reducing fuel 

on the ground for spread of wildfires throughout the year, especially from now until the end of the summer, also water bar control 

for water erosion, helping to improve water quality. These are just 

a couple of things I have been able to utilize through EQIP. 

But many forest owners in most states have been unable to access this EQIP funding and other NRCS programs. It is mostly cultural, I understand. Obviously the NRCS was brought up from its 

infancy for a different reason for farmers and it is organized to do 

that and it does it very well. But there needs to be help for family 

forest owners as well to get in the door in every state so their conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
16

servation needs can be considered along with other rural landowners. 

The other part of the problem is of course money. I know there 

is not a lot to do what we need to do now and especially for what 

is coming down the pike. 

By assuring that all players, federal and state level, can come to 

the table and agree on a long-term strategy, we can identify the 

highest priority forest conservation needs and determine how and 

through which programs we can address them, set benchmarks for 

progress so we will know what works and what does not work, and 

whether we have accomplished the goals we have set for ourselves. 

Whether this is enacted through conservation title or a forestry 

title, comprehensive planning and transparent priority setting will 

benefit farmers as well as forest owners, whatever crop they grow. 

There is much more I could say about this, the need to generate 

renewable energy from the forests or the need to develop ecosystem 

markets from environmental products that we can’t from chip and 

saw but I guess to summarize, I would like to say that the funding 

through EQIP needs to be open to all landowners and equitable 

disbursement of the funds as well. I don’t believe this is something 

that should be seen as an us versus them, not about farm states 

versus urban, red, blue, commodity versus timber. I think it is 

something that we are all in this together. I think we all share the 

ultimate goal here to keep rural America vibrant, a vital and growing part of our economy, our environment and our natural life. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Lail. 

The Chair will remind members that we anticipate having two 

votes in the near future and also that we will recognize members 

in order of seniority as long as they were here at the beginning of 

the hearing and after that according to their time of arrival. I know 

Mr. Costa, who has to chair another subcommittee, and Ms. 

Herseth Sandlin, who also just left to chair another subcommittee, 

do have questions that they are going to submit for the record. Particularly since Mr. Nelsen is from Mr. Costa’s district. So we will 

make every accommodation that we can. 

Mr. COSTA. He is, and we do appreciate his hard work and the 

effort of the citrus industry. I have some questions we will submit 

for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Without objection. And I thank our witnesses for 

their testimony today and I just want to follow up on Chairman Peterson’s and Ranking Member Lucas’s opening comments where 

they pretty articulately identified the problem that we are facing 

with this budget. My father used to say everybody wants to go to 

heaven but nobody wants to die, and that is sort of what we are 

looking at here as we try to build on what we did in the last farm 

bill which I think everyone was pretty proud of. I know I was, and 

Frank was chairman of the subcommittee at the time and he also 

was, so we want to do that but we are not sure what our final resources are going to be and all of you identified some programs 

that you very much like and have enjoyed over the last five years 

and have asked us to build on those. 

I would like to ask you, are there any areas that you can identify 

of conservation programs that have not worked as we face this payVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
17

go situation where we might have to move money around within 

agriculture? I would open up for anyone on the panel to suggest 

some areas where maybe there should be a disinvestment as opposed to reinvestment. These are the questions we are going to 

have to face. Okay. That is what I thought the answer was going 

to be. 

Moving along, the EQIP program many of you if not all of you 

cited how important that is and how successful it has been, and we 

have been approach as we begin to write this farm bill to make 

some changes, a lot of what you suggested now, and I guess probably, because we can’t ask every question of everyone. Maybe Mr. 

Elworth , Mr. Foglesong, and Mr. Nelsen, could address how you 

think the 60-40 split is going and how you think we should proceed 

in the future. I would be particularly interested, Mr. Nelsen, to 

hear what you have to say about specialty crops. 

Mr. NELSEN. Here we will have our first disagreement, no question about it. I don’t believe the 60-40 split works. It is as simple 

as that. The California specialty crop industry has many challenges 

and pressures on it. Our contemporaries in Texas and Florida, who 

we have networked with on a continuous basis, they too express 

frustration about the inability to access that program in a sufficient dollar amount, let alone have a number of their applications 

approved for any dollar amount. The formulas for accessing it, the 

dollar values associated with it. It just doesn’t work for the economics of the specialty crop industry. There is a mandated split on 

that program that does not benefit an industry of our scope and 

size across the country. 

The challenges that we are facing, particularly in California in 

our San Joaquin Valley, which is the number one agricultural area 

in the world, has to do with air and water quality. There are fewer 

acres in production but there are more challenges as more people 

inhabit it. Society wants us to change the method in which we do 

farming. In my particular case, if we are taking out a grove of citrus, which we have done, summer oranges as an example, there is 

no way to destroy it. We can’t burn it. We can’t have controlled 

burns. You can’t chip it because our wood is not sufficient to do it. 

So we need the innovations through research, the technical assistance through this conservation title, and then finally, we need the 

ability through EQIP to start transitioning our farms and our 

equipment to access the equipment so we can chip a grove. Thirtyfive thousand acres have been removed from the citrus industry in 

the last five years to satisfy consumer demand for certain commodities. That is piled-up wood, ladies and gentlemen, because we can’t 

access the EQIP program to destroy that wood in a manner more 

efficient for what society wants us to do. I could go on and on but 

I think that answers your question to the degree we—EQIP has to 

be modified from our perspective. It has to be funded better from 

our perspective so that we across the country in the specialty crop 

industry can access it. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Foglesong? 

Mr. FOGLESONG. Mr. Nelsen and I, even though we are sitting 

next to each other, probably are not going to agree. Being the cattle 

trader that I am, I was going for 75 percent. 

18

Mr. HOLDEN. I was going to say, that was a meeting I had earlier 

this morning. 

Mr. FOGLESONG. You have got to go somewhere, but that is our 

perspective and I guess the reality, the way I look at it anyway, 

I view the EQIP program as the first thing that livestock producers 

really from a Government program perspective ever really got. My 

neighbors are all corn growers and I don’t mean to be negative to 

anybody but they have beat a path back and forth to the mailbox 

for a long time to get that check and we are kind of in a different 

situation there. This was the first program where we really had the 

opportunity to participate in a Government program directly and 

we really like that and I am sure from the pork producers’ perspective as well, and I am a pork producer as well as beef producer. 

So we really had an opportunity to do some stuff that we needed 

to do from an environmental perspective and we think 60-40 is as 

low as we want to go, but we will negotiate. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Elworth, would you like to add something? 

Mr. ELWORTH. Yes, just quickly, Mr. Chairman. We are nowhere 

near the point with specialty crop producers that we would even 

have to worry about the 40 percent. The participation has been 

very limited. NRCS is just now at a position where they can actually track specialty crop participation. So really, before we would 

want to address the 60-40 split or any targeting of the money, we 

would really want to address the issues of access. Our growers 

don’t know about these programs. We need to make sure our growers know about the programs and how to use them, how to access 

the technical assistance and actually have access to the ability to 

plan, know the programs well enough to apply correctly, to rank 

high enough and I only aspire to having a problem with the current 

allocation. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Jamison, the Susquehanna River runs through 

the largest city in my district, the state capital of Pennsylvania, 

Harrisburg, so I obviously hear an awful lot about the problems in 

the Chesapeake Bay. As a producer in the region, I was just curious, do you believe that farmers are engaged in the policy of the 

cleanup? Do you believe you have been given the opportunity to 

have input into the proposals being put forth? 

Mr. JAMISON. In Maryland, we are heavily engaged. As you are 

probably aware as in your State, we have a mandatory nutrient 

management plan and we have to participate and we have to be 

in compliance as do your producers and we have certain programs 

in this state that we implement. We have cover crop programs that 

we are using that have been funded by, as they call it in Maryland, 

the flush tax, imposed on sewage systems. So that is part of our 

cleanup as we sit here and take a look at it. As in your State, animal agriculture is extremely important to both our States. How do 

you take care of some of the manure situations that arise from that 

without getting into those various watersheds that go through your 

State and my State? 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and since we have come 

out swinging, let us just keep going, guys. 

19

I will start with Mr. LaFleur and Mr. Jamison. Let us talk about 

CRP and the cap at 39 million acres, the approximately 37 million 

acres in the program, and I most assuredly will come over to Mr. 

Foglesong and Mr. Wolf here in a moment. Your observations—and 

I realize you may not be in areas where CRP is a major player but 

nonetheless, on behalf of your groups, what do you think of the 39 

million acres? Up, down, sideways? 

Mr. JAMISON. It is our policy that we support the enrollment at 

its full capacity and we want it on the most sensitive, environmentally sensitive grounds, and not on the more productive 

grounds. 

Mr. LAFLEUR. Certainly you are right. I am not a CRP expert by 

any means, but NFU wants to see CRP lands stay certainly at that 

39 million acres cap and also see the focus remain on the environmentally sensitive grounds. But also we want to see the fact that 

CRP acreage not certainly be utilized for feedstock production but 

develop markets for feedstock production so this way we don’t develop a chicken-and-egg situation where we do have no market 

for—there is no market for—if there is a market, there is going to 

be feedstock production. If there is no market, then there won’t be 

feedstock production. But we do want to see producers be able to 

produce switchgrass and such for feedstock. 

Mr. LUCAS. Back for a moment to Mr. Jamison’s point about sensitive acres. Do you both support the concept of allowing land perhaps that arrived in the ’80s that might not be defined by the modern definition as environmentally sensitive as other lands, do you 

support the concept of those kind of productive acres coming out 

and making room then for land with a higher environmental sensitivity going in? 

Mr. JAMISON. Personally, I think it has to be number one what 

this agency thinks, but also what the landowner wants to do to a 

point. They could come out if you have got better and you set the 

criterion for that, for more environmentally sensitive lands, and 

what are those, and obviously that is a debate on itself. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Foglesong, Mr. Wolf, if you would care to touch 

on this subject, I think you might have an interest in it. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, we have worked on this for quite a while now, 

probably for over a year. Our opinion, if I can speak for the NPCC, 

is that we think the CRP ground is important but it has to be in 

a sensitive area as you had just asked. The ground that doesn’t 

meet the sensitivity level needs to be taken back out. We need production of grains. Our biggest fear is the day that we can’t feed our 

livestock, and the animal welfarists that we are, we want to make 

sure that we have enough feed to make sure our animals are well 

taken care of. So we have no problem with the 39 million acres but 

it needs to be the sensitive ground and not the good ground. 

Mr. FOGLESONG. From our perspective, looking at it strictly from 

an environmental standpoint, if those lands are sensitive, they 

need to stay in. From the cattle feeder perspective, I want to plant 

corn fencerow to fencerow, you know, whatever it takes, but the reality of it is, there is a balance in there that we need to meet, and 

if some of those lands that you mentioned before that were put in 

later that aren’t as environmentally sensitive can come out and go 

20

back into production and make room for other land that didn’t get 

the opportunity to get in there, we would be all about that. 

Mr. LUCAS. Exactly, and I think that is a critical point. The 39 

million acres is a number that I believe most of our colleagues in 

Congress will support. Certainly there are lands though that came 

in the ’80s when it was more of an economic issue than an environmental issue that just perhaps 1, 2, maybe 3 million acres that a 

good trade-out would be the appropriate thing to do. With you, Mr. 

Foglesong, discuss for a moment, expand if you would about the 

custom feeder and livestock market issue in EQIP. 

Mr. FOGLESONG. Okay. I wasn’t involved with the original case 

on this but the problem is custom feeders don’t necessarily take 

part in the risk of owning those cattle. You know, they feed them, 

they run a hotel and they get paid, you know, yardage and they 

take care of their feed bill but they actually don’t own them. Very 

seldom though are there custom feed yards that don’t own some of 

the cattle in that yard but because they are custom feeders, generally speaking—and part of the deal is, through the tax code, how 

they file their taxes. They don’t necessarily file it as a Schedule F 

and that is probably from a corporate—I am not sure what all that 

is about. But because of the way they manage their business, they 

are excluded from the EQIP part of it. Somebody who is not a custom feeder right across the road that is feeding all their own cattle, 

owns a feed yard, he does qualify for it. You know, we have got the 

same environmental concerns regardless of how you get paid. It 

doesn’t make any difference from that perspective. So our perspective is that we need to make sure we include those custom feeders 

because some of those are really, really large yards that have the 

opportunity and can certainly use that EQIP funding to take care 

of some of these environmental problems. 

Mr. LUCAS. One last thought, Mr. Chairman, and my time is expired, but we have all talked about the merits of CSP and how we 

would all like to participate and make it available to everyone. Listening very carefully to Chairman Peterson’s comments about the 

budget situation, he is trying, I think, to prepare all of us for a 

challenge that lies ahead of us in the next few weeks but in hearings last year in this very Subcommittee, we had very credible witnesses who pointed out in order to make CSP available to everybody, CSP to everybody, it would take $10 billion more a year. 

That is a lot of money and I am not sure where you could come 

up with that, even in the best of times let alone the challenges we 

face now. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOLDEN. The chair thanks the Ranking Member and recognizes Mr. Kagen from Wisconsin. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wolf, you have testified as others have about the difficulties 

in navigating the conservation programs and getting financial assistance, so what changes specifically should we create? How do we 

make it easier for you to access the money you are all seeking? 

Mr. WOLF. To me, I think it would be a streamlining, just a simpler application would work much better. Things get too complicated. They try and create—maybe is a sorting mechanism but 

21

I think they could just do things simpler, simplify the questionnaires. 

Mr. KAGEN. One form will fit all? 

Mr. WOLF. I would think you could do that. I really do. 

Mr. KAGEN. Speaking as an allergist, I have to encourage all of 

you to be more successful because I have seen patients allergic to 

cranberry, corn, citrus, beef, pork, and the trees produce enough 

pollen this time of year to stimulate fundraising for many a candidate. 

So Mr. Lail, about trees, should the Government consider redefining tree as an agricultural product? 

Mr. LAIL. I don’t know as far as an agricultural product but it 

is definitely a crop. It is a long-term crop. It is not a year-to-year 

crop. We are talking initially 15 years on up to 35 years of age but 

yet it is one that has to be taken care of on a year-to-year basis. 

That is why we have our interest with EQIP in maintaining that 

forest as the tree timber grows. 

Mr. KAGEN. We have a lot of forests in northern Wisconsin and 

most of the loggers and the mills are having a major economic 

problem right now, so how do you think this bill could help them? 

Mr. LAIL. I don’t know. I am not an expert on the subject. I 

wouldn’t feel comfortable answering that. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Nelsen, you mentioned fair trade. What can we do to help 

you get fair trade, balanced trade? 

Mr. NELSEN. Well, in our H.R. 1600, sir, we have addressed that 

rather extensively on how we can improve the farm bill to assist 

specialty crop producers as it relates to trade. But so many of the 

programs that we are speaking of today are being mirrored over 

and we know extensively about what is going on in Spain and in 

other countries, and in those countries, Spanish citrus farmers are 

getting greater assistance for their irrigation programs. The cost of 

underwriting low-volume irrigation is being underwritten by their 

Government. The fees associated with land transfers as generations change, that is being underwritten by the Government. The 

replacement of trees to more suitable varieties of citrus, take for 

example, our summer Valencia orange versus the Mandarin tangerine that you call it. That is being paid for by the Spanish Government in Spain. We are losing market share as a result of those 

costs being absorbed by their farm bill and those are direct out-ofpocket expenses for us presently. So that is the type of activities 

that if we initiate through our farm bill the ability for us to remain 

competitive or become more competitive, then we can fight the battles in the marketplace, but our costs are so much greater than our 

competitors overseas through their farm bill programs, through 

their conservation title, that we are losing ground, sir. 

Mr. KAGEN. You mentioned your expenses in your business and 

overhead, and being a small-businessperson, I understand what 

overhead really means. Would it be a fair statement that your 

health care expense and your energy expense are two of your largest expenses in all of your businesses? 

Mr. NELSEN. Oh, don’t get me started there. Most definitely. Our 

health insurance rates and our employees, all 14,000 of them, are 

covered by health insurance to some extent or another. We have a 

22

workers’ comp program in California that we just got modified. Our 

energy costs are a major component both from nutrients and soil 

amendments to both moving the equipment in and out of the field 

and transporting, candidly, approximately 60 million cartons of 

product around the country. We do that every winter. Then there 

is another 40 million cartons of citrus during the summer, spring 

and fall that we move in addition to that. Energy costs are a major 

component of our problems. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, I am going to work real hard for all of you to 

try and reduce your health care costs. It is an unfair advantage for 

Europe and Central and South America where they don’t even have 

it, so I will be working real hard, and I yield back my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Kagen. 

We still have about 12 minutes left in the vote, so Mr. Space. 

Mr. SPACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief, given 

the time constraints. 

I would like to thank you gentlemen for being here today. I come 

from southeastern Ohio, Ohio’s 18th district, which is very diverse 

agriculturally. We have got beef cattle, dairy, hog, poultry, grain, 

fruit, just about all that the Midwest has to offer. Recently we did 

a tour, spoke with hundreds of farmers, so dozens of farms, and the 

overwhelming reaction to the conservation program has been positive but one of the things we tried to do was identify potential 

weaknesses and I think perhaps Mr. Foglesong, you might be the 

best person to answer this although feel free to jump in. One of the 

complaints that we received in our farm tours about the EQIP program was that the technical standards applicable to certain 

projects were such that it was more expensive even after consideration of cost sharing to apply for and receive and the funds than 

just to do it on their own. I had a couple of farmers, for example, 

that put in manure pads that were able to do so less expensively 

and not take advantage of the EQIP monies, and given our budgetary constraints that we have discussed and we are all aware of, 

I am just curious as to whether you feel that perhaps some of the 

plan of operations or the technical standards applicable to EQIP 

funds are especially onerous or could be modified to make those 

programs more affordable and attractive. 

Mr. FOGLESONG. Somebody fed you this question because it falls 

right into my—my personal experience with the EQIP program has 

been less than stellar. In a number of cases, it is a whole lot easier 

for you just to build your own deal and not take any of the costshare dollars at the end of the day, and in Illinois we have got a 

deal called the Illinois Livestock Management Facilities Act that 

supersedes everything as far as the construction of buildings, uses 

engineering standards that have been scrutinized and the standards that we get from NRCS are higher than that and just continues to drive those costs up to the point where you are just better 

off not to do it, and that is probably the biggest issue that I personally have run into, that and faulty engineering and science on what 

this could cost. You know, there is nobody that is any better at delivering these programs and figuring out what he needs on his own 

place than the guy that is probably running it, and when we get 

into situations that we have gotten into as we are getting fed inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
23

mation, and I don’t know where they have come up with, you know, 

what their standards are but they spend so darn much money, you 

can’t afford to do the project. I will give you a quick example. We 

were supposed to put water tanks on a 1,200-acre parcel that we 

have at my place. We are supposed to put them every 800 feet. 

Now, I got cows that walk miles. If you go west of the river very 

far, it is nothing for them to walk 2 and 3 miles to get a drink of 

water, but in my State they wanted us to build them and, you 

know, we were going to spend $3,000 per site on all these. Terrible. 

It is a total waste and we walked away from it because it didn’t 

make any sense to spend your money and mine, you know, on 

doing something that is totally ridiculous. Those are the kinds of 

things that really get us in a jam. 

I guess the other probably biggest problem with the EQIP program, cattle producers as a group deal on a very sound principle, 

you know, a deal is a deal, and if you shook hands on a deal, that 

is the way it is going to be, and the problem that we have, and 

what I would expect would be that same standard should be applied when I am dealing with my own government, and in a number of situations here, that has not been the standard. Those standards have changed or they changed the deal after the fact and that 

keeps an awful lot of cattle producers from wanting to do business 

with their own government. 

Mr. SPACE. Thank you, Mr. Foglesong. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Space. 

Ms. Gillibrand, we have 10 minutes left in a vote so we have 

time to proceed if you would like to. 

Ms. GILLIBRAND. Sure. We had the opportunity to talk to the 

head of the agriculture for the President and talked about his proposal about what the President wanted to do and one of the things 

he talked about was the consolidation of a lot of these programs, 

of these conservation programs. What is your opinion of that consolidation suggestion made by the Department of Agriculture and 

what is your thoughts on whether that will be efficient or not? Because one of my big concerns is that we have such a tremendous 

backlog right now and I just think that may continue to affect that 

negative, so I would like your impressions and thoughts and guidance on that. 

Mr. NELSEN. Let me try that if I may. Presently, the Department 

of Agriculture is reorganizing its foreign agricultural service. This 

is a double-edged sword. The issue of reorganization and simplification sounds good and I think all of us as businesspeople would be 

supportive of that. It is the implementation of that effort that creates the problems. Right now the jury is still out whether or not 

shifting the boxes in the foreign agricultural services from 8 to 12 

is more efficient. They argue it does. We are sitting here from our 

side of the spectrum suggesting let us wait and see. I want to believe what the Administration says and what the Secretary of Agriculture believes will truly come out and become a more efficient 

program, easier applications, quicker turnaround time in terms of 

the applications and the rewards but the implementation of it is a 

very critical component of that. 

24

Ms. GILLIBRAND. And when you talk about implementation, what 

are you exactly referring to? What would you like to see different 

in the current administration of these programs? 

Mr. NELSEN. I believe some of these programs, I won’t say several because I am not familiar with them all but I believe some of 

these programs can be combined so that you can have one senior 

management and enough of an implementation team to actually 

work on more than one program at a time. We get so insulated in 

our efforts and job justification comes into play that we can reduce 

our overhead. These are smart people. They are well meaning people, they are well-intended people and they work hard but sometimes you do have to shake some things up. So from my perspective, we are supporting this effort. The specialty crop industry will 

support the efforts, Citrus Mutual will support the effort, but we 

are going to have to maintain our engagement as a stakeholder to 

see that no slippage occurs. 

Mr. LAFLEUR. Certainly from a producer’s perspective, one of the 

complaints that I hear quite frequently is the fact that there are 

so many alphabet soups, different programs out there and some of 

them do overlap. I think that there is a need to try to consolidate 

some of them, and in particular, especially when we do have producers that are going forward on multiple programs, and in my testimony I mentioned the fact, the requirement of one conservation 

plan but we have had situations where a producer may be going 

in for, let us say EQIP and then also going in for CRP or such and 

they have to develop multiple plans for the same agency, so there 

is definitely opportunities in the management perspective to try to 

consolidate some of this and make it easier for the producers to understand and thus access and also reduce the workload for the staff 

in the field. 

Mr. ELWORTH. I would just add that producers are often not necessarily aware of what the acronym of the program is that they are 

using. They are much more concerned about the practice and the 

relationship on the ground but I think Jeff is right. It would certainly help staff at the field level to administer these programs. 

Sometimes they are juggling 2 or 3 different programs in the space 

of trying to meet the needs of a producer and they also really, because of the additional work for them, as do many things in this 

farm bill, makes it less likely they will get out in the field to actually see a farmer and his operation. 

Mr. JAMISON. There will probably be some producers upset with 

it but the reality of life is, as the Chairman mentioned, Mr. Peterson mentioned, where is some of the money coming from and if it 

can be done where you can have multiple programs run by one set 

of individuals, I expect in the end, whether we like it or not, it is 

probably going be a reality of life being driven from a budget standpoint. 

Mr. FOGLESONG. One thought that I had, the local guys really do 

a really good job of being able to deliver those programs but sometimes they have so many programs that they are having a hard 

time grasping them, and they need a toolbox, and the bottom line 

on all these conservation programs is to get those practices delivered to the ground, you know, and if they jut have that toolbox and 

have the flexibility to work you in and out of different programs 

25

with different structures so you didn’t have to spend so much time 

in the office doing a mountain of paperwork and actually deliver 

those programs, their 4-day workweek would be a lot more productive. 

Ms. GILLIBRAND. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HOLDEN. The Chair thanks Ms. Gillibrand and thanks all of 

our witnesses for their testimony and their answers today. We are 

in the midst of four minutes left in a vote so we will dismiss the 

first panel and convene the second one as soon as we return from 

votes. 

[Recess] 

Mr. HOLDEN. I would like to welcome our second panel: Mr. 

David E. Nomsen, Vice President of Government Affairs, Pheasants 

Forever and Quail Forever, on behalf of Agriculture and Wildlife 

Working Group and the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, 

Garfield; Minnesota; Mr. Ralph Grossi, President, American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Olin Sims, President, National 

Association of Conservation Districts from McFadden, Wyoming; 

Mr. Thomas W. Beauduy, Deputy Director and Counsel for the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and my landlord in Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania; and Mr. Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C.; and Ms. Loni Kemp, Senior Policy 

Analyst, Minnesota Project, Canton. The chair would ask all witnesses if they could try to keep their comments to five minutes and 

reserve their entire statement for the record. 

Mr. Nomsen, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. NOMSEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, PHEASANTS FOREVER AND QUAIL 

FOREVER, ON BEHALF OF AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE 

WORKING GROUP AND THE AMERICAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PARTNERS, GARFIELD, MINNESOTA 

Mr. NOMSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, my name is Dave Nomsen. I am from Garfield, Minnesota. 

In my role at Pheasants Forever, I serve as co-chair for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s Agriculture and Wildlife 

Working Group. As if we don’t have enough acronyms for all of our 

great programs, I am going to add a couple of new ones for you 

here in the next moment or two, the AWWG partnership. I also 

serve as the vice chair of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, basically a coalition of basically all of our Nation’s hunting 

and fishing and sporting organizations, and I am excited to talk to 

you today about some common priorities that all of the members 

of these two coalitions have concurred upon. 

It has been a long process. It has been a couple of years in the 

works but through the Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group, 

there is about 16 organizations in that particular coalition, hunting 

and fishing groups and conservation organizations, national land 

protection organizations and others, and we went through a process 

of taking input from farmers and landowners, from foresters, from 

Department of Agriculture personnel, Congressional staff, resource 

professionals at state and federal agencies, and the results of that 

effort are published in a document entitled ‘‘Growing Conservation 

in the Farm Bill.’’ The American Wildlife Conservation Partners, as 

26

I mentioned, is a large coalition of conservation and hunting organizations. There is about 41 total members of that particular coalition and I am excited to tell you today that 36 AWCP member organizations have signed on to these same priorities that I am going 

to briefly review in just a moment. 

Please let me add that having done several farm bills, and I am 

really pleased to be here before you today representing not only the 

most comprehensive array of conservation priorities offered by this 

group but it is supported by the largest coalition of groups that I 

have ever had a chance to testify for here on farm bill conservation 

programs. 

I am not going to review each of the priorities. Certainly you can 

look through those in my testimony. But our priorities are built 

upon a number of proven successful programs. I am talking about 

things like CRP and WRP, the Grasslands Reserve Program that 

has had tremendous interest and has a huge backlog, the Wildlife 

Incentives Program. We talk about a new program for access. Many 

members of our particular organizations are concerned about access to lands for recreational opportunities, hunting and fishing 

and that type of thing, and we see that as an opportunity to not 

only provide access but also to do management for fish and wildlife 

resources on those same acres at the same time. We have recommendations regarding the Conservation Security Program, the 

Farm and Ranchland Protection Programs. We talk about biofuels 

and how it may or may not fit with conservation and offer some 

guidance on how to do conservation-friendly biofuels, especially cellulosic renewable biofuels programs. We talk about a new provision 

to help save threatened remnant prairies, especially mid-grass and 

short-grass prairies that are being converted at an alarming rate, 

and we also address that in our testimony. 

So let me conclude by just saying on behalf of these literally tens 

of millions of members of our organizations and others that we 

thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. We certainly 

look forward to building upon the successes of the 2002 Farm Bill, 

a very comprehensive array of programs, some new programs, and 

we certainly think that is our challenge to do that once again and 

we look forward to working with you in that process. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Grossi. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

FARMLAND TRUST, WASHINGTON, DC. 

Mr. GROSSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Ralph Grossi. I am a third-generation dairy 

and beef producer from north California but I am here today in my 

capacity as President of American Farmland Trust, a position I 

have held for 22 years. 

The farm bill’s incentive-based conservation programs are critical 

to cleaner water, improved air quality, expanded wildlife habitat 

and the protection of land for future generations. We have some 

proposals and improvement that I would like to review for you. 

The first is to increase an investment in environmental quality. 

You have heard here about the thousands of farmers who are 

27

turned away each year for a lack of funding in the conservation 

programs but increasingly many farmers are simply not bothering 

to apply for conservation programs due to the lack of funds and the 

confusing and often redundant application process. The Nation 

must do better in matching financial commitment with this high 

level of interest among farmers. This is especially critical as we 

enter an era of intensifying pressure on productive farmland due 

to the growing renewable fuels industry. As more producers forego 

their traditional corn-soy rotations and as marginal lands are 

brought into rural crop production, increased soil erosion along 

with additional fertilizers and other nutrients can be expected. 

While we are pleased to see farmers have this new economic opportunity, increases in working lands conservation funds are needed 

to mitigate the negative environment consequences of this expansion. Specifically, we urge you to increase the authorized funding 

for the Environment Quality Incentives Program. 

Secondly, we think there are ways to improve the effectiveness 

of cooperative conservation. To improve on the current a la carte 

approach to conservation, a competitive grants program should be 

established to promote multi-producer collaborative conservation 

efforts. Cooperative conservation partnerships will improve the effectiveness of existing conservation programs by focusing conservation implementation and by attaining critical mass. 

Thirdly, increased conservation by leveraging dollars. The 2007 

Farm Bill should create a conservation loan guarantee program to 

help farmers and ranchers finance conservation measures on their 

lands. This new program would fill a void in the current system for 

farmers unable to qualify for cost-share assistance whether because 

of the lack of cost-sharing dollars, different needs compared to the 

current year’s conservation priorities or because the producer exceeds cost-share caps. A loan guarantee program would also help 

producers amortize their share of conservation system costs if some 

cost-share became available at a later date. This is particularly 

helpful to socially disadvantaged farmers. Government-guaranteed 

private-sector loans with a reduced interest rate for producer borrowers would provide a highly leveraged way for federal dollars to 

boost implementation of conservation practices. Specifically, we 

have proposed that USDA be given the authority to guarantee up 

to $1 billion of loans with additionally authority to buy down the 

effective interest rate to qualified buyers. 

The fourth recommendation is of course the Farm and Ranchland 

Protection Program. This is a critical program to helping preserve 

working farms and ranches across the country in the face of increasing urban pressure. A growing web of bureaucrat rules and 

regulations has beset this program, making it difficult for some 

state and local programs to utilize available funds. The 2007 Farm 

Bill should eliminate duplicative requirements and streamline the 

program to make it more responsive to the many diverse Farm and 

Ranchland Protection Programs at the state and local level. Specifically, reforms to FRPP would allow those state and local programs 

with proven track records of success in protecting farms and 

ranches to receive funding in the form of grants. They should also 

be given the authority to use their own well-established procedures 

and policies in the execution of their projects. 

28

Another important issue is the Farmland Protection Policy Act. 

Passed in 1981 as part of the 1981 Farm Bill, it was landmark legislation. Unfortunately, the application of the law has fallen short 

of what was originally envisioned. federal projects and actions have 

contributed to the direct and indirect conversion of valuable and irreplaceable agricultural lands across the country. We should reform the FPPA to strengthen its original intent and make sure that 

the impacts of federal actions on agricultural lands are adequately 

addressed in the planning and assessment process. 

And finally, we urge you to strengthen stewardship rewards programs for all farmers and ranchers. In 2002, our Nation committed 

to a new vision of farm support, a way to support those farmers 

who are good stewards of the land and who inspire others to reach 

higher levels of environmental performance. I am of course talking 

about the Conservation Security Program. During the course of the 

last five years, this program has unfortunately not fulfilled its 

promise. I believe, however, that the concept of a rewards program 

is valid and has very broad support among farmers and the general 

American public. I urge the Committee to again examine the ideals 

behind CSP, recommit to needed funding and find a more workable 

green payments program as an additional stream of income to reward producers for their stewardship of our Nation’s natural resources. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Grossi. 

Mr. Sims. 

STATEMENT OF OLIN SIMS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, McFADDEN, WYOMING 

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lucas, distinguished members of 

the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Olin Sims. I am president of the National Association of Conservation Districts, known 

as NACD, another acronym for us to work with, and a rancher 

from McFadden, Wyoming. On my family operation, we run a 700 

cow-calf operation on 22,000 acres of deeded private state and federal leases in southern Wyoming. 

Across the United States, nearly 3,000 conservation districts are 

helping local people to conserve land, water, forests, wildlife and 

related natural resources. NACD believes that every acre counts in 

the adoption of conservation practices. We support voluntary incentive-based programs that provide a range of options, providing both 

financial and technical assistance to guide landowners in the adoption of conservation practices. 

The 2002 Farm Bill assisted producers across the country, but in 

my area, the conservation programs are the farm bill. My access 

to farm bill programs and assistance has been limited to conservation programs and I am happy to have had the opportunity to participate in several of the program. 

This past fall our ranch installed two miles of stock water pipeline and tanks that allowed us to alleviate impacts to riparian 

areas, control invasive species and better manage our rangeland resources to alleviate the chance of overgrazing. This was all done 

working with my local conservation district and the NRCS that 

29

provided the technical assistance prior to entering into an EQIP 

contract. 

We are currently working with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to use livestock grazing as a land treatment for elk habitat enhancement on a nearby wildlife habitat unit. The project has 

allowed us to demonstrate the beneficial importance of livestock 

grazing as a management tool to improve wildlife habitat by incorporating the abilities of private landowners in managing public resources. 

The comments on the conservation title of the farm bill that I 

provide to you today are based on recommendations approved by 

our board of directors which includes one member from all 50 

states in the U.S. Conservation districts have a unique role in conservation program delivery. Our members and conservation district 

employees work with landowners, federal and state agencies to deliver programs, technical assistance, and guide local decision-making. We listen to our customers regarding program implementation. 

NACD’s recommendations focus on a priority for working lands 

conservation programs. 

We believe there should be consolidation and/ or streamlining of 

programs to ease program delivery, making them easier for producers to understand and apply for and easier for field staff to administer. All working ag lands should be eligible for these programs including non-industrial private forest land, fruits and vegetables, livestock row crop and small production lands that may border urban areas. 

To this end, we recommend two working lands conservation programs, a modified EQIP program and a streamlined CSP program. 

NACD recommends combining the programmatic functions of the 

cost-share programs of the WHIP program, the Forest Land Enhancement Program and the Ag Management Assistance Program 

and the working lands components of the Grassland Reserve Program into an enhanced EQIP program. 

The existing CSP program should be modified into a top-level 

conservation program for the best of the best in natural resource 

protection on their operation. This upper-level program should 

have clearly defined criteria so producers can plan ahead, know 

what the requirements are to participate and should be available 

nationwide. 

NACD supports maintaining the two land retirement programs, 

the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. The CRP program should continue to focus on special initiatives, continuous sign-ups and CREPs. CREPs have been very successful in leveraging state dollars for additional natural resource 

protection. 

The WRP program has been successful in the restoration of wetlands, improving water quality and wildlife habitat. 

NACD supports retaining the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 

Program and including elements of the Healthy Forests Reserve 

Program. The FRLPP has been very successful in the Northeast 

and we need to continue to ensure that this program works in 

other parts of the countries, includes forest lands and works in coordination with state programs. 

30

We also support reauthorization of the Watershed Rehabilitation 

Program, the Great Lakes Basin Program and continued authorization of the RCND counsels. 

The Conservation Technical Assistance Program outside the authorization of the farm bill allows NRCS offices at the local level 

to work with conservation districts, landowners and state and local 

agencies to address local resource concerns. CTA assists in farm 

bill conservation program delivery by working with landowners and 

operators up until the point which they commit to a farm bill program. Technical assistance is utilized once again in the plans for 

program design, layout and implementation. CTA is also critical to 

working with landowners and operators that may have smaller operations and may not be typical USDA program customers and 

need added assistance to prepare them for participation in conservation financial assistance programs. 

The 2002 Farm Bill was a hallmark for conservation in this 

country and we hope the 2007 Farm Bill will maintain this commitment to conservation. Conservation districts believe that every 

acre counts from a conservation perspective and that the farm bill 

needs to bring its conservation benefits to all producers on all ag 

lands. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Sims. 

Mr. Beauduy. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. BEAUDUY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

AND COUNSEL, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, 

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. BEAUDUY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lucas, Subcommittee members, Chairman Peterson. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today to present testimony on this important 

issue. 

By way of background for the members, the SRBC is a federal 

interstate compact commission. In our basin, we are monitoring 

and assessing water quality, and on the water quantity side, we 

regulate allocations, diversions and consumptive uses. 

The basin itself is a fairly large basin, one of the largest in the 

east. It is home to some of the best productive ag lands in the 

United States and provides over 90 percent of the freshwater flow 

to the upper Chesapeake Bay and 50 percent of the freshwater flow 

to the bay overall. 

As is the case in other regions of the country, agriculture is central to the fabric of our basin. It comprises 21 percent of the land 

resource base of the basin and is significant economically, environmentally and culturally. Coupled with forest lands, which comprise 

69 percent, these open-space lands comprise 90 percent of our land 

resource base and define the basin’s rural identity. 

The conservation programs administered by USDA, particularly 

as they were expanded by the 2002 Farm Bill, have become critical 

both to sustaining agriculture and simultaneously minimizing its 

impact on the water resources of the basin. This holds true for the 

receiving waters of the Chesapeake Bay as well. As you know, we 

have got a nutrient problem both in the basin and baywide, and 

31

the conservation title is critically important to our nutrient reduction strategy. 

Reducing the nonpoint source nutrient loads, particularly from 

agriculture, because it is a major contributory source, is central to 

that reduction strategy. 

I will admit to you, unlike most of the other organizations presenting testimony here today, that the commission has not been actively engaged in the current deliberations over the provisions of 

the 2007 Farm Bill but what we are engaged in is the act of management of water sources in a significant eastern United States 

river basin, and from that vantage point, we understand and support the efforts to enhance both programmatically and financially 

USDA’s conservation programs under the 2007 Farm Bill. 

We can appreciate your challenge in sorting through the emergence of various regional proposals, especially given the desire to 

bring fruition to a truly national farm bill and something that is 

within budget, I might add. We appreciate that very much. 

Coming from this region, it is obvious and easy to embrace a proposal like the Van Hollen proposal or other regional proposals that 

would benefit the region uniquely, but in the interest of time and 

because we are really here to try to offer a bottom-line perspective 

on what we think is important not just for our basin but for the 

country, I would like to just divert from my written comments, Mr. 

Chairman, and just speak to an issue that we think captures it 

fairly well. 

It doesn’t seem appropriate for the region to expect that the obligation to reach its nutrient reduction goal should be carried on the 

back of the farm bill exclusively. Ag didn’t cause the problem exclusively and shouldn’t be looked at to exclusively solve it either. Having said that, we do think it is appropriate to rely on the conservation title to assist the ag community in the region to meet its portion of that obligation. 

We all know the cost of regulation affects business and sometimes substantially. Performers in regions of the country where nutrient impairment has reached a high enough level that they are 

confronting the regulatory implications of a TMDL, targeted assistance is vital to keeping those operations in business. I realize you 

aren’t going to throw money at the Bay Region just because it is 

the Bay Region but I do think it is appropriate for you to consider 

directing funds and facilitating greater program participation to 

any area of the country, including the Bay Region, where farmers 

are facing an acute and heightened need due to a formal nutrient 

impairment designation and the obligations that come along with 

that designation and as a result having a TMDL hanging over the 

heads of that industry. It is vital to the sustainability of agriculture 

in those areas that it receive special assistance in order to be able 

to meet that burden and be competitive. 

All farmers face burdens but this class of farmers faces even 

greater ones. As someone who lives and works in one of those areas 

and someone who appreciates how important it is to maintain our 

regional agricultural base, we honestly believe that going the extra 

mile in the conservation title for any of those farmers anywhere in 

the country is sound public policy. 

32

Finally, in discussing programs designed to address water quality concerns, the commission believes that consideration should be 

given to an issue that traditionally had been on the water quantity 

side of the house. We believe that ensuring programmatic coverage 

to acreage known as critical aquifer recharge areas is important 

not only in a quantitative sense but a qualitative sense as well. 

Geologically, these areas have a very high recharge productivity. 

They are land surface areas that are responsible for a disproportionately large fraction of the groundwater recharge in a given 

area. Delineation and protection of these areas are significant not 

only for regional groundwater availability but for the maintenance 

of base flow of streams. 

During low flow conditions, that base flow is critical for aquatic 

health, water supply and importantly, for the assimilative capacity 

related to water quality. Also, because of their high recharge productivity, they can unfortunately act as aggressive conduits for surface contaminants including nutrients to the groundwater aquifer. 

That degraded groundwater ultimately discharges as base flow and 

adds to the nutrient load that we are trying to address. 

For all these reasons, we believe such areas genuinely constitute 

environmentally sensitive areas and are worthy of consideration, 

whether in CREP or any of the other conservation programs under 

consideration. I think it would be appropriate to include them to 

advance the water quality objectives that the conservation title is 

intended to address. Importantly, it would also advance a truly integrated approach to water resource management. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present these 

comments and look forward to questions from the members. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Beauduy. 

Mr. Cook. 

STATEMENT OF KEN COOK, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL 

WORKING GROUP, WASHINGTON, DC. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to summarize my remarks today. I have had the opportunity 

to appear before this Subcommittee on many occasions in the past. 

It has been a while though. My staff is through carbon-dating techniques trying to determine just how long it has been, but I very 

much appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

I was struck in this panel and in the one that preceded it with 

the number of original ideas, strong ideas, both for refocusing and 

improving our conservation programs and also by the number of 

ideas and proposals to expand them. We aren’t short of ideas. We 

aren’t short of applicants but we have been short of money, and 

one of the things to I think point out as we consider the upcoming 

farm bill debate is the number of times over the past decade and 

a half or more that conservation programs that have been authorized in the farm bill have been cut deeply, billions and billions of 

dollars, and I think that helps explain some of the ambition you 

are hearing from this panel and the one before to try and do something for voluntary incentive-based programs that you see widely 

supported. 

I have two general points to make in my testimony. The first is 

just how incredibly important conservation is to the members of 

33

this Subcommittee. We have heard from two panels about how important it is to farmers and the environment. Well, the numbers we 

present in our testimony suggest it is also a big deal economically 

to agriculture. That wasn’t the case 20 years ago when this Subcommittee established the Conservation Reserve Program. It wasn’t 

really the case even in 2002 when Mr. Lucas pushed through gigantic increases in the EQIP program but it is getting to be true 

now. It would be even truer if we hadn’t seen so many cuts over 

the years. 

Just a couple of numbers to mention. The members of this Subcommittee alone just in the last three years, their districts have received $1.6 billion through the conservation programs, $1.6 billion, 

162,000 beneficiaries of those programs and we break it down 

member by member. It is just about $10,000 apiece on average over 

those three years between 2003 and 2005. That is money that is 

supported by and large by the entire conservation and environmental community and lots of people in agriculture. 

To look at it in a little more detail by a few districts, we have seven districts on the Committee who received more than $100 million over just the past three years. In terms of the number of recipients, seven districts had over 10,000 beneficiaries, and as I 

mentioned earlier, an average of about $10,000 over those three 

years. In some districts, it is much more. We can only imagine how 

much more it would have been over time again if we hadn’t seen 

some pretty significant cuts year in and year out. 

The second point to make has been made already. When you tab- ulate the unfunded requests for voluntary conservation efforts, $3 

billion in the latest year that we had data for, 2004, $3 billion 

across the United States. There is no need to make the point that 

farmers are interested in conservation. They are going to the 

USDA office, they are making their requests. The money is not 

there. 

I was also asked to address in my testimony the Conservation 

Security Program. I come at this from the perspective of my experience of the 1985 Farm Bill when my uncle, Paul, asked me when 

he heard about the Conservation Reserve Program. He had 1,000 

acres of hay and pastureland, he had a cow-calf operation and he 

wondered just exactly why it was that those fellows a few counties 

north who had plowed out their land, planted it to corn, gotten 

commodity program benefits, were then going to be paid to plant 

it back so that it looked like the fields all around his operation. 

These are tough questions, Mr. Chairman. How do you reward 

stewardship as Ralph so eloquently said and at the same time efficiently use taxpayer dollars? I think the Conservation Security Program was the first effort on a large scale to try and do that. 

I want to commend to you the most recent evaluation that I have 

seen done of the program by two very distinguished experienced organizations, the Soil and Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense. They did point to a number of problems that the 

program has had. Funding has complicated dramatically the way 

the program was implemented. We have spent a lot of money so 

far and under the contracts we now have in place we will spend 

it in the next few years for practices that according to the report 

were already in place. These are very important policy questions to 

34

ask as we seek to figure out a way to both reward people who have 

done the right thing all along and also make important gains in 

conservation by providing support to farmers to make the changes 

they need to protect the environment. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Thank you for your attention. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Cook. 

Ms. Kemp. 

STATEMENT OF LONI KEMP, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, THE 

MINNESOTA PROJECT, CANTON, MINNESOTA 

Ms. KEMP. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the conservation 

title of the farm bill. I represent the Minnesota Project, and we are 

members of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and the National 

Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture. 

I have been asked by the Subcommittee to focus my remarks on 

the Conservation Security Program and I would also like to touch 

on renewable energy implications for the environment, and I draw 

your attention to some other recommendations that I have included 

in my written testimony. 

The significant question for the next farm bill is, what do we 

want for the future of agriculture? Will the policies you enact this 

year enable us and our children to produce healthy food, a safe environment, clean energy and vibrant rural communities. 

I believe that the conservation title of the farm bill is possibly 

our Nation’s most important environmental law. The farm bill determines how half the Nation’s land is cared for and that is the 

land for which farmers and ranchers are the stewards. So this is 

where the fate of water quality lies in the farm bill, so too the fate 

of wildlife habitat, and even the long-term food security of our Nation. Add to that the huge positive contribution agriculture is 

poised to make towards the most pressing issues of our time, national energy security and global climate change, and we see that 

these conservation programs are essential to our Nation’s future. 

I just arrived from Canton, Minnesota, and I can tell you that 

there is optimism in the countryside these days. Farmers believe 

they can help the country move toward homegrown renewable energy while they take care of the environment. I see a fundamental 

shift in the American perception of farmers. Of course, they 

produce our food and fiber but now they are also being called upon 

to produce clean water, renewable energy and a more stable climate. 

But why is the Conservation Security Program so important? It 

is unique in the toolbox of conservation programs that we have for 

our working lands. It is unique because it requires farmers to actually solve their resource problems to a sustainable level. CSP focuses on the whole farm. CSP is the only program that is focused 

on outcomes, allowing farmer innovation to determine the best way 

to meet and exceed explicit conservation goals and CSP is trade 

neutral. It creates a new paradigm for farm programs, a green payments program that rewards all farmers for their stewardship 

rather than production, and it has proven to be effective and popular. So far some 20,000 farmers have enrolled 16 million acres in 

the Conservation Security Program, securing over $2 billion in 

35

long-term commitments to excellence in land care. These are impressive numbers, however, there is a flipside. You are all aware 

that Congress has cut some $4 billion from CSP’s funding and it 

has not been offered to all farmers by a long shot. Even as we sit 

here today, the fate of the 2007 sign-up for CSP hinges on whether 

the conferees will restore the funds for the 2007 sign-up in that 

bill. That is the conferees on the supplemental appropriations bill. 

This on again, off again approach must come to an end and we 

hope this Committee will see that it happens. 

Today we are issuing the first comprehensive assessment of how 

CSP is working in a report called the Conservation Security Program Drives Resource Management. I believe you all have copies 

and there are copies for the press over there. Complementing the 

study that looked at data, we actually went out and decided to look 

at the program, how it was working on the ground. Along with collaborating organizations in the Midwest, 67 in-depth interviews 

with farmers were held and with NRCS staff who actually had to 

implement this program, and what we found is that CSP is indeed 

proving to be a catalyst for new conservation practices. The majority of farmers are adding practices in order to be eligible. They are 

adding practices when they sign up and take on more enhancements and they are adding a lot more when they get a chance to 

modify their contracts. 

We do think there are a number of fixes that are needed for CSP, 

as you have heard from some other people, and foremost among 

those is that Congress must provide adequate and protected funding. This is our top recommendation and you are undoubtedly hearing it from farmers and ranchers all over America. Other fixes that 

are needed are regular sign-up periods, transparency, increased use 

of full-fledged conservation planning, streamlining and better technical assistance. 

So turning to another farm bill priority, I would like to share a 

few thoughts on the implications of renewable energy for the environment and of course this Committee handles both of those topics 

as well as research, so this is the perfect place to talk about it. 

The most important thing is for you to focus on the transition to 

the next generation of biofuels to help accelerate our shift to perennial cellulosic biomass energy. This is an opportunity—you keep 

asking about where is the money going to come from. This is an 

opportunity truly to kill two birds with one stone in a sense because perennial cellulosic biomass by nature is going to contribute 

dramatically to some of the conservation needs that we have because it holds the soil in place, sequesters carbon, provides wildlife 

habitat and requires no tillage in the case of perennials and it is 

an especially effective solution to climate change. First of all, producing biofuels causes no net carbon to be emitted when the fuel 

is burned. Secondly, perennial crops hold carbon in the soil and 

capture it, and then thirdly, if we can convert to using biomass as 

the fuel source for our corn ethanol plants and displace the coal 

and natural gas, that is a triple winner. 

The Conservation Security Program is an ideal framework from 

which to help farmers begin to establish perennial biomass crops 

through enhancement payments. You could create cellulose crop 

sheds so that these farmers are working in areas where plants are 

36

likely to be built and we could ramp up cellulosic ethanol facility 

planning as well. 

So in summary, to make CSP as strong as possible, we ask that 

you fund it fully and extend sign-up opportunities to all who can 

meet the high standards and create clear and more streamlined implementation methods, and further, try CSP as a policy framework 

for perennial biomass energy feedstocks. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Mr. HOLDEN. I thank our witnesses for their testimony and I 

would first like to follow up with the same question that you probably heard me ask the first panel, and that was following up on 

Chairman Peterson’s opening statement and Ranking Member 

Lucas’s about the budget restraints we are going to face, and Mr. 

Cook, you bring up another concern that this Committee has had 

for a long time and that is of the appropriators getting their hands 

on some of the money that we authorize. Well, that is an age-old 

problem. I remember, and so does Ranking Member, Mr. Lucas, 

when we were sitting so far down we couldn’t even see Kiki 

D’Ogartz, we could just hear him, but we could hear them complaining about Jamie Witten for taking the money away from the 

authorization funds, and that is a problem that is a reality. So 

these are the facts that we must face. 

So saying that, following up on the same question that I put to 

the first Committee, all of you have identified programs that you 

believe in, that you think are working well and that we should reinvest in. Living within the pay-go situation as we must, any suggestions where we could move money around and disinvest in any 

conservation program that is currently in effect? We are going to 

have this conversation with or without you so you might as well 

be in it, so———

Mr. NOMSEN. I would be happy to be in this conversation because 

it is an important one, and if you look through the slate of priorities that I offered as my testimony, obviously you will see that 

there is a—it is an aggressive list. There are new items on the list. 

There is expansion of programs. We think it is justifiable when dollars spent on conservation are an incredible value for the American 

taxpayer. There are items on that list, however, that also generate 

savings. For example, the sound saver provision that we were calling for. We are in the process of finding out exactly how much right 

now and we look forward to sharing that in more detail, and as you 

are waiting for your final numbers and kind of how it looks, we are 

also in the process of adding up what our list looks like and at that 

point in time perhaps it would be a good time to sit down and have 

further discussion about the pool of dollars that we have in comparison with the pool of programs and ideas and you will certainly 

see us talk about the success of proven programs that have worked 

well in the past. Mr. Chairman, I am thinking in particular about 

programs—you still have the number 1 CREP in the Nation in 

Pennsylvania. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Yes. 

Mr. NOMSEN. And while I can’t quite pronounce Schuylkill County———

Mr. HOLDEN. You are close. 

37

Mr. NOMSEN. It was close? That is good. And, you know, Mr. 

Lucas, looking at you, I think about the—we have a wonderful example of EQIP doing good things for fish and wildlife in the State 

of Oklahoma where we have a quail habitat restoration initiative 

going. So it is one of those examples of things that we can do to 

get more conservation out of current programs too and I think that 

is also part of the discussion that we have to have. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Anyone else care to add anything to it? Mr. Sims. 

Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I guess I 

would make this comment from our organization, that our members are very much aware of the realties of the day of the federal 

budget, and we had a long discussion at our recent annual meeting 

about that particular issue, and the message that I delivered to you 

today is, we are not asking for any new programs. We do believe 

that there are ways to go through and make adjustments within 

the programs that we do have to find some savings, okay, and so 

I guess I would offer that. Are we willing to disinvest in conservation? Certainly not. Are there ways to improve? I believe that there 

is. 

Mr. HOLDEN. And Mr. Sims, you suggested several different consolidations and we would like to pursue that as a Subcommittee. 

We are also a little bit concerned, at least I am, I don’t mean to 

speak for the Ranking Member. Sometimes when you do that, a 

program loses its identity and ends up being in a situation where 

you can’t participate to the level you would like to. 

Mr. Beauduy, thank you for your comments, and I appreciate 

your comments concerning our friend’s from Maryland introduction 

of a bill that for our region there is no question about it, that it 

would be a very good thing. But within the political reality that we 

have to live, you know, 100 percent of that is just not possible. So 

what would you think would be one or two of the most important 

things that we could do in this farm bill for the Chesapeake Bay 

region, Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s authority? 

Mr. BEAUDUY. Well, as I indicated, we—number one, I appreciate 

the concern that you just expressed, Mr. Chairman, and I understand that you and the members of this Subcommittee and the Full 

Committee need to exercise an amount of leadership and statesmanship that rises above any regional parochialism, and it is appropriate that you do that. Having said that, we still believe, and 

not being a student of conservation programs and actively involved 

in their implementation, I can offer specifics perhaps following this 

Committee hearing, but I will tell you in a general sense that to 

the extent that whatever the funding levels are for the programs, 

there is some priority given, and this is irrespective of region of the 

country, to wherever agriculture is facing a TMDL, because of the 

heightened burden that puts on agriculture in that region, that 

they be given some priority for participation and for funding. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Grossi, you mentioned in your remarks the Farmland Preservation Program, which is very important in Pennsylvania and 

Maryland and New York but not all that important in Mr. Lucas’s 

district or I bet Mr. Ellsworth’s district not all that important. As 

we look to reauthorize that, I remember being in New York at a 

Full Committee field hearing last year, hearing that there needed 

38

to be some changes made to it and I know that people in Pennsylvania have brought some recommendations to me, and you might 

have mentioned this in your remarks but if you could elaborate a 

little more on some tweaking we need to do to the Farmland Preservation Program? 

Mr. GROSSI. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. First, I would 

say that while it may not be real important in Mr. Lucas’s district 

now, it will be at some point. There are now 27 states with state 

farmland preservation programs and the State of Texas is the most 

recent to add a statewide program. This issue of fragmentation and 

sprawl into agricultural areas and the breakup of ranches is an 

issue even in rural areas of this country. The Farm and Ranch 

Land Protection Program, as you know, has expanded significantly 

in the 2002 Farm Bill with authorization at almost $100 million a 

year. That program is the most efficient in leveraging non-federal 

resources of any of the conservation programs. There are about 2-

1/2 dollars of non-federal money applied to those projects for every 

dollar of federal money so the nearly $100 million annual appropriation from the Federal Government is effectively getting $350 

million of conservation on the ground. We are very proud of that 

and we think it probably offers a model for some of the other programs as you move forward, and I could come back to that if you 

would like. But there have been significant problems with this program and one of the largest problems is that these farmlands protection programs are very oriented to the unique circumstances of 

different states and different localities. Agriculture is different in 

different areas of the country and so the program that works well 

in Pennsylvania won’t work well in Texas, likewise in Vermont 

versus California. These programs have been designated and customized for those states. You cannot then put an overlay on top of 

it of a one-size-fits-all set of regulations that forces all those states 

to rewrite their programs simply to meet some federal set of rules. 

So we are suggesting some changes that would allow those states 

that qualify, that have a proven track record of protecting land, 

monitoring that land, understanding how to work with farmers, 

give them some flexibility to operate within the rules that they 

have developed over the last 25 or 30 years and allow those programs to receive a grant instead of so that they would be not having to comply with all the rules in the federal rule that has been 

published by USDA. That doesn’t mean all programs would be 

treated that way. Those that don’t have a proven record that still 

need to prove themselves would have to live by the federal rules, 

and we think that is a fairly straightforward way to deal with this 

problem. There are other issues related to the implementation but 

we are prepared to offer some language that has been worked on 

by the commissioners of agriculture in many of these states that 

they now have an agreement on how they think the program 

should be fixed, and we will be glad to work with your staff on 

helping put that language together. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Ranking Member. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I was pleased to hear 

the panel use the phrase ‘‘a gigantic increase in conservation 

spending in the last farm bill.’’ Chairman Holden and I were exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
39

tremely proud of what we were able to successfully make happen 

five years ago, and we have moved forward from there. 

Let me put the question to the panel and in particular perhaps 

Mr. Nomsen and Mr. Grossi, the question I asked the earlier panel 

and that is about the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP. There 

is discussion about whether the acreage should be increased, decreased, what should be done. I personally have taken the perspective that I view the 39 million acres as a minimum number. I view 

the program though as one where we need to have flexibility in 

that many of the acres date back to the hold mid enrollments of 

the 1980s where perhaps land that became a part of the program 

did not meet what we would now define as the necessary environmental sensitivity goals. 

Could you touch on the subject, your perspectives and whoever 

on the panel would care to about the potential to allow some of 

that less environmentally sensitive land potentially to come out 

and then using that space to bring in property of a more sensitive 

nature? Your perspective, anyone? 

Mr. NOMSEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lucas, let 

me offer a couple of thoughts on that. I think that is an important 

topic and I also was pleased today to hear essentially no one talk 

about reductions to the program, and as you know, we are still calling for a long-term goal of a 45-million-acre CRP. We need to remember a couple things. One, first of all, it is a voluntary, incentive-based program. We already have a little over three million 

acres expiring this year right now and I think that is an important 

thought. 

I want to address your specific question about a pool of additional acres that may be able to come out of the program, and I 

would certainly offer all of our group’s assistance to refine and discuss and define what the size of that pool of acres may be, how 

large is it, where are those acres. I would certainly encourage the 

Committee to at that particular point encourage leaving CRP buffers in place on those particular fields. I think the last thing we 

need to do is go back to a fencerow-to-fencerow farming situation 

and leaving buffers in place, we can certainly do some very good 

things for water quality, soil erosion and they will have some limited wildlife benefits, so let us have that discussion, and I want to 

thank you for also calling about the other aspect, and that is the 

benefits from CRP, especially the wildlife benefit, all of the benefits 

from CRP. They come from the fact that we do have a newly fully 

enrolled program and so I appreciate your thoughts talking about 

having a program that works out there, that is successful, and 

farmers and landowners, they receive enough economic compensation to encourage them to continue to apply at strong rates and 

participate in the program. So let us have further discussion on 

that area. Thank you. 

Mr. GROSSI. I would just add, Mr. Lucas, that for those of us who 

were here in 1985 and when CRP was a dream, we can look back 

now and feel quite good about the accomplishments of the program, 

particularly in how it has evolved from a largely supply management /conservation program to a true environmental program, and 

we like that trend and we would encourage you to do things to continue on that path. That is, let us make sure the CRP really is foVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:23 Jan 13, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-12\41481.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
40

cused on the highest quality or the highest environmental benefits 

just as you said earlier, particular attention to continuous sign-up 

and the CREP provisions, and we are willing to talk to you about 

creative ways that we might utilize all of the baseline. Like other 

conservation programs, CRP has unused baseline in the budget and 

so, you know, we like to think about how we can put that money 

to work for a real environment benefit. So we very much are supporters of the program and would like to see it continue to be focused more and more on the highest environmental benefits. 

Mr. LUCAS. And I appreciate that, and coming as a successor to 

the old Soil Bank Program of the 1950s, we have a strong legacy. 

In the early CRP just as in Soil Bank, it was more of, as you use 

the phrase, a supply management program that happened to create, generate some wonderful environmental benefits. I just see as 

a voluntary program if commodity prices continue at their range 

and the feedback I get from the livestock community and, for that 

matter, the grain-producing community, some of those three million acres will come out. I guess I am sending through this hearing 

a message down the street that if those acres come out, we need 

to bring acres back in, not as contracts expire because producers 

will have the right to do that, to take their acres out, and then not 

replace those. That would be unacceptable to the wildlife community, unacceptable to the sportsmen’s community, I think unacceptable to anybody out in the countryside who really thinks about 

this, but there is always a danger in the way that bureaucracies 

work. 

Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me, I would like to ask Mr. 

Cook a question. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Sure. 

Mr. LUCAS. Can your group as famously always been very sensitive to where taxpayer dollars are spent in these farm bills and 

how the monies flow and where they wind up and there are some 

issues, and I don’t even like to use that phrase, payment limitation, 

that will be in the jurisdictions of other Subcommittees. They will 

have to sort through that. But for just a moment let us talk about 

conservation and the dollars that come through the farm bill and 

where they go. As I said, your folks famously do lots of analysis on 

these things. Do you have any opinions on when it comes to conservation, should there be a means testing of a sort? Should there 

be payment limitations on what any individual can take from the 

program, should your outside income be reflective of that? Do you 

have any general observations on those kinds of issues? 

Mr. COOK. Well, Mr. Lucas, we have always said just as when 

we publish our web site, we put the names of everybody who gets 

conservation payments and who gets disaster payments in every 

commodity program. I don’t think it is fair even though I am a proponent of conservation spending to leave those issues off the table 

on any of these other matters of public policy that come up, whether it is payments limits, setting limits on individual programs, considering means testing or anything else. I think conservation just 

at the beginning of that debate ought to be on the table. 

Mr. LUCAS. I mean, some will argue in this Committee, I suspect, 

depending on how the number looks in a few days or a few weeks, 

how dismal it might be, that whether it is a banker or a doctor or 

41

a member of Congress, if you have the ability to do your conservation practices from your own pocket, is it fair to allow them, us, 

they, whoever to participate at the same level as producers or 

small property owners who just really cannot economically afford 

to spend that kind of money without the assistance that comes 

from cost share? 

Mr. COOK. Believe me, we will be sympathetic to that debate and 

considering that just as we are open to the idea that there are people who may be receiving commodity program benefits now who 

can well afford to operate. Maybe they are an absentee investor or 

owner. A new database we will be producing in about three weeks 

from USDA’s data, the so-called section 1614 data, is pretty eye 

opening in terms of the number of beneficiaries in these programs. 

My concerning today was to talk about the importance of these conservation programs and the importance of looking at ways to refine 

them, but I do think this is part of the debate and I also think it 

is part of why we have so many new people coming forward saying 

I have been left out of the programs in the past and I have got to 

find who is lobbying for the goat and emu industry and get with 

them because they have evidently been very successful. 

Mr. LUCAS. In a profession that makes far more money to be a 

media person perhaps or something where you can afford to do 

things that the rest of maybe cannot. I am not taking a position. 

I am just asking for some input, some advice because in spite of 

these rather dramatic increases in resources over the last five 

years, as soon as Chairman Holden and I met what we thought 

was the backlog five years ago and people realized, by golly, you 

just might be able to qualify for that, it might really be there, the 

backlog exploded exponentially. So there will be some of these topics of discussion in the coming days, weeks and months about how 

to stretch those precious resources to maximize our input. Thank 

you. 

Mr. HOLDEN. The Ranking Member yields back. 

They called for a vote now, so before we thank the panel for their 

testimony today, Mr. Beauduy, a question I forgot to ask, I am not 

sure if you can answer it or not, do you have any idea how much 

money the Federal Government spends on conservation in the 

Chesapeake Bay region annually? 

Mr. BEAUDUY. No, I can’t. I have that number available but I 

didn’t bring it with me. I do know that when the last cost analysis 

was done, they looked at an $18 billion need, a shortfall of about 

$12 billion, and that was a projection, an 8-year projection from 

2002 to 2010. Of that $6 billion, I believe $4.5 billion was federal 

dollars. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. 

The Chair wishes to thank the witnesses for their testimony 

today. 

Under the rules of the committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and 

supplementary written responses from witnesses to any question 

posed by a member of the panel. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

42


41481.001
43


41481.002
44


41481.003
45


41481.004
46


41481.005
47


41481.006
48


41481.007
49


41481.008
50


41481.009
51


41481.010
52


41481.011
53


41481.012
54


41481.013
55


41481.014
56


41481.015
57


41481.016
58


41481.017
59


41481.018
60


41481.019
61


41481.020
62


41481.021
63


41481.022
64


41481.023
65


41481.024
66


41481.025
67


41481.026
68


41481.027
69


41481.028
70


41481.029
71


41481.030
72


41481.031
73


41481.032
74


41481.033
75


41481.034
76


41481.035
77


41481.036
78


41481.037
79


41481.038
80


41481.039
81


41481.040
82


41481.041
83


41481.042
84


41481.043
85


41481.044
86


41481.045
87


41481.046
88


41481.047
89


41481.048
90


41481.049
91


41481.050
92


41481.051
93


41481.052
94


41481.053
95


41481.054
96


41481.055
97


41481.056
98


41481.057
99


41481.058
100


41481.059
101


41481.060
102


41481.061
103


41481.062
104


41481.063
105


41481.064
106


41481.065
107


41481.066
108


41481.067
109


41481.068
110


41481.069
111


41481.070
112


41481.071
113


41481.072
114


41481.073
115


41481.074
116


41481.075
117


41481.114
118


41481.115
119


41481.116
120


41481.117
121


41481.118
122


41481.119
123


41481.120
124


41481.121
125


41481.122
126


41481.123
127


41481.124
128


41481.125
129


41481.126
130


41481.127
131


41481.128
132


41481.129
133


41481.130
134


41481.131
135


41481.132
136


41481.133
137


41481.134
138


41481.135
139


41481.136
140


41481.137
141


41481.138
142


41481.139
143


41481.140
144


41481.141
145


41481.142
146


41481.143
147


41481.144
148


41481.145
149


41481.146
150


41481.147
151


41481.148
152


41481.149
153


41481.150
154


41481.151
155


41481.152
156


41481.153
157


41481.154
158


41481.155
159


41481.156
160


41481.157
161


41481.158
162


41481.159
163


41481.160
164


41481.161
165


41481.162
166


41481.163
167


41481.164
168


41481.165
169


41481.166
170


41481.167
171


41481.168
172


41481.169
173


41481.170
174


41481.171
175


41481.172
176


41481.173
177


41481.174
178


41481.175
179


41481.176
180


41481.177
181


41481.178
182


41481.179
183


41481.180
184


41481.181
185


41481.182
186


41481.183
187


41481.184
188


41481.185
189


41481.186
190


41481.187
191


41481.188
192


41481.189
193


41481.190
194


41481.191
195


41481.192
196


41481.193
197


41481.194
198


41481.195
199


41481.196
200


41481.197
201


41481.198
202


41481.199
203


41481.200
204


41481.201
205


41481.202
206


41481.203
207


41481.204
208


41481.205
209


41481.206
210


41481.207
211


41481.208
212


41481.209
213


41481.210
214


41481.211
215


41481.212
216


41481.213
217


41481.214
218


41481.215
219


41481.216
220


41481.217
221


41481.218
222


41481.219
223


41481.220
224


41481.221
225


41481.222
226


41481.223
227


41481.224
228


41481.225
229


41481.226
230


41481.227
231


41481.228
232


41481.229
233


41481.230
234


41481.231
235


41481.232
236


41481.233
237


41481.234
238


41481.235
239


41481.236
240


41481.237
241


41481.238
242


41481.239
243


41481.240
244


41481.241
245


41481.242
246


41481.243
247


41481.244
248


41481.245
249


41481.246
250


41481.247
251


41481.248
252


41481.249
253


41481.250
254


41481.251
255


41481.252
256


41481.253
257


41481.254
258


41481.255
259


41481.256
260


41481.257
261


41481.258
262


41481.259
263


41481.260
264


41481.261
265


41481.262
266


41481.263
267


41481.264
268


41481.265
269

Æ


41481.266