Given the very serious federal budget situation, it is clear that a significant amount of funding must be cut from current programs. The battle over which programs to cut seems to be coming to an end with some decisions likely finalized in the coming weeks.
One budget item that needs to continue, and maybe even expand, is conservation funding in the federal Farm Bill.
The Farm Bill provides significant support to Pennsylvania farmers, not only for their daily on-farm operations, but also in enabling them to meet state and federal clean water standards.
The Farm Bill is the biggest water-quality improvement program in the nation. Oddly enough, this water-quality component is also among the smallest of the Farm Bill funding programs.
While there are dozens of conservation- related programs within the Farm Bill, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program are focused on water quality and agricultural improvements.
They are also in jeopardy of being cut — at the very time we need them most — beyond what is equitable and sensible.
These programs provide financial assistance to farmers who contribute their own time and money to improve their farms and reduce runoff. Most Pennsylvania farmers want to do their part to meet clean-water goals and are doing so by implementing some very visible improvements, such as stream-bank fencing, soil erosion controls, barnyard improvements and planting trees along streams.
Today, farmers in Pennsylvania and across the region are more under the gun for water-quality improvements than ever. The battle over how fast and how far farmers need to go to meet Clean Water Act standards is being debated in our courts and behind closed political doors. One thing is clear: Federal cost-share dollars focused on making water-quality improvements are essential if farmers are to reach the goal line.
Every year, Pennsylvania farmers apply for more funding than is available through all of the conservation programs, proving their value and the need. As of last month, Pennsylvania farmers had applied for more than $100 million in conservation funding, but only $35 million was available. Ending or significantly cutting these funding levels now would further discourage Pennsylvania farmers who are trying to make ends meet in these tough economic times. It would also be a step in the wrong direction toward Pennsylvania’s ability to comply with tougher environmental standards.
This year, there’s a new player in the congressional ag discussion. A few months ago, the House Agriculture Committee named Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Howard Township, to be the chairman of the subcommittee that divides up conservation cost-share funds.
Pennsylvania is therefore in a tremendous position to maintain, or even increase, the CBWI and other conservation programs. But it will take Thompson, Rep. Tim Holden, D-Schuylkill, and Sen. Bob Casey all working together. Sen. Pat Toomey, because of his role on the federal budget supercommittee, is also in a strong position to stand up for conservation funding and healthy farms in Pennsylvania, and should join in.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation commends Casey and Holden for their past support of conservation funding in the Farm Bill and encourages them to stand firm with Thompson when it comes to Pennsylvania farmers and preserving these vital programs.
Matthew Ehrhart is Pennsylvania executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
