| ||||
|
|
NAWG testifies on CSP
National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) Vice President Sherman Reese testified June 15 on the implementation of the Conservation Security Program (CSP) before a House Agriculture Subcommittee. While commending USDA for grappling with implementing a new program under severe funding constraints, Reese also observed that the scaled-down program will limit participation to an extremely small number of farmers.
Reese testified on behalf of NAWG, the American Soybean Association, the National Barley Growers Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Grain Sorghum Producers, the US Rice Producers Association and the USA Rice Federation.
"When the draft regulations were published," he said, "the program outlined appeared to be far different than the program suggested in statute." He noted that little had changed in the interim final rules recently published.
The complex regulations specify priority watersheds, enrollment categories, ranking within those categories, and unwarranted reductions in base payments and cost share allowances. The end result is a program that is difficult for producers to navigate, limited to small select watersheds around the country, which is designed to limit rather than encourage participation.
"Some have suggested that a person is more likely to win the Lotto than to become eligible to participate in the CSP program," he said.
Reese pointed out that the funding caps assumed by the Administration in drafting the rules will not apply in fiscal 2005, when the program returns to the form envisioned by Congress when it passed the legislation in 2002.
Reese's farm in eastern Oregon happens to be in one of the priority watersheds identified for participation in CSP. However, participation is still a big question mark.
"If I, or one of my neighbors, fails to qualify [this year] for the program because of any number of the additional, arbitrary eligibility restrictions, we would be unable to participate again for at least five to seven years," he said. "I believe this sets the program up for failure."
Reese also expressed hope that the funding and accounting for conservation technical assistance would be corrected. The organizations represented believe that each conservation program should pay for its own technical assistance, rather than the current practice of taking costs for technical assistance associated with the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) from other conservation programs.
Reese summarized the coalition testimony with three observations:
1. Each conservation program should pay for its own technical assistance.
2. The Conservation Security Program should be implemented and funded as originally intended by Congress in the 2002 farm bill.
3. The organizations represented will continue to oppose any attempt to amend, alter, or divert funding away from farm bill programs as authorized by Congress and signed by President Bush nearly two years ago.
Date: 6/22/04
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com
 
| |||||||||||||||||||||
