Iowa Farm Bureau President Craig Hill’s argument against linking conservation compliance to crop insurance subsidies is based on a fallacy (“Farmers’ Concerns Are Not Imaginary,” Feb. 5).
The centerpiece of Hill’s argument against conservation compliance is that it would make fixing a gulley on a no-till field disruptive of field operations because it “requires prior Natural Resources Conservation Service approval, which is often a two- or three-day process.” That sounded incorrect to me, so I checked with an NRCS official, and he concurred that it is simply not true that prior approval is needed to fix a gulley on a no-till field.
The Farm Bureau should simply acknowledge that they would like to receive federal subsidies without obligation for conservation, rather than try to hoodwink the public with a disingenuous argument.
— Francis Thicke, Fairfield