This is the first address at the Iowa Watersheds 2001 Conference held at
Lakeside Casino & Resort in Osceola, Jan 17-18, 2002

Craig Cox, Executive Vice President of the Soil & Water Conservation
Society spoke about what he thinks the watershed opportunities in the farm
bill might be.

There is the potential for a major set of watershed based management
initiatives but there are no guarantees that this potential will be realized.

Legislation, funding and implementation can limit this.  The Soil and Water
Conservation Society is taking an active part and has made the farm bill
their single priority, however he chose to present his own view of the farm
bill rather than the official position of his agency.

The House has already passed HR2646 and itdoes include conservation
title.  The Senate bill has passed the committee and was placed on the
floor before Christmas but has not passed.  The measures being debated on
the floor now are different from the bill that passed the committee and in
order to keep from confusing us, he chose to talk only about the bill that
passed the committee.

There are common elements in both the House and Senate versions.  There is
a major shift towards conservation title in both.  Formerly conservation
was seen as ancillary, a resource development that would facilitate and
encourage agricultural production.  Now water protection and wildlife
habitat are the main reasons people are voting for these measures and the
agricultural benefits are seen as ancillary.
Now ag benefits are seen as ancillary.

Up to 1985 conservation assistance to drain wetlands was seen as a useful
public purpose.  Then the shift was towards penalties.  Now they are
funding the restoration of wetlands.

The Senate bill accelerates this trend more than house bill does.

The second commonality is that there is more money for conservation than
formerly.  There are funds allocated for CRP, WRP and grasslands
preserve.  The senate bill is more generous, providing for two million
acres of grasslands preserve.

Commodity programs are faring best, but conservation is second.  The
emphasis on where the money is going has shifted since 1985.  In 2000 85%
was allocated for taking land out of production and 15% for environmentally
sound land management practices.  It was argued that it was not good for
farmers to stop farming.  Now both bills have shifted funding from land
retirement to management. The Senate bill allocates more for this than the
House bill.
May be more money for technical services as well as financial assistance.

It is becoming apparent that you can't improve water quality and wildlife
protection without working at a watershed level and enthusiasm about
watershed level projects is trickling up to congress.

By the time this farm bill is done there may be 20 different programs with
individual rules and regulations.  There is a downside to this because it
creates the potential for fragmentation.

Will this farm bill move away from a watershed approach because of the
number of programs? New funding is needed for technical services for
planning analysis assessment and community organizing.  It is not clear
whether there will be a commitment for the technical services that need to
come hand in hand with money for financial assistance.

Traditional watershed programs are faring poorly compared to the new
programs.  In the House bill there is $155 million for small
watershed  programs. There is none in the Senate bill..
By 2006 the programs we've traditionally used will be totally swamped by
funds going to other programs.

Unless a watershed approach is built into these other programs there is no
guarantee that an expanded watershed approach will happen.

There is a lot of conflict reflected in the bill.  There are two diverse
approaches.  One says all financial assistance should be allocated to
counties and through them to individual producers according to priorities
set by the counties, the other would give money only to producers in
impaired watersheds and it would go only to needs that have been identified
by a watershed plan for the area.

These are the extremes and there is no consensus.  There are good things
about both models and we could take the best part of both models and
balance them.

There are a lot of people who don't want a watershed approach.  It's not
just ignorance or a lack of information.


There are huge differences between the House and Senate bills.  The House
favors the county priority option.  The Senate bill is not at the other
extreme but more provisions would be needed to make a watershed approach
possible.

The potential for a major watershed based program is amazing.  The big
questions concern the funding for technical services and the possibilities
of strengthening the provisions in the senate bill to allow for a watershed
approach.

Implementing a watershed approach depends on the provisions for other
programs.  For example, EQUIP needs to encourage watershed approach. Where
EQUIP goes will determine what happens with the watershed program.

When the legislation has been passed, then it will be up to the
administration will whether there is a watershed based approach.

D.C. can provide the tools but only the people can make it work.

Q. Who is against the watershed approach and why?
A. There is a conflict over values and purposes.  In his view there is a
significant constituency that does not want USDA programs to move away from
protecting production.  These people don't think the priority should be for
the environment.

Q.
A. It is unlikely that money will go for PL5 66.  There is a large backlog
of projects on the books. Until the backlog gets off the books, they won't
allocate more money for it. In terms of moving money from one program to
another the counter argument is that money in that program will fund the
backlog rather than new work.

Q. Is there going to be a change in other programs?
A. EQUIP does not fund building of large structures. a lot of people want
it to stay that way. Money goes to EQUIP because it doesn't fund large
structures.

Part of a shift is away from flood protection. They are more interested in
reducing nitrate to the Des Moines waterworks than in traditional
conservation programs.  This is part of the whole debate.

Q. Is there anything to prevent the organization of local groups and
focusing on watershed
A. No. There are things that would make it more difficult in the House
bill.  Senate bill has some provisions that would encourage that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]