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]