Farm bill hot topic at conservation conference in Nevada

Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2002 | 11:28 a.m.

SPARKS, Nev. AP) - The farm bill Congress approves this year will be the best ever for conservation regardless if it's the Senate Democrats' version or the less expensive House plan, a veteran Agriculture Department official said Tuesday.

But leaders of farm conservation groups said at the annual meeting of the National Association of Conservation Districts that the added money in the Senate measure is badly needed. And one leader chided consumers for their reluctance to help pay for clean water, healthy soils, wildlife habitat and productive croplands.

"People seem very concerned about paying for some of these important benefits," said Ray Beck, president of the National Association of State Conservation Agencies and administrator of the Montana Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

"At the same time, they shelled out approximately $600 million the last two or three weeks to watch the fictitious characters of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings," he said.

"Personally, I feel the majority of the populous has their priorities a little mixed up."

The farm conservation organizations are aligned with national environmental groups in pushing for the Democrat-controlled Senate's increased spending on conservation - by some estimates nearly $1 billion a year more over five years than was included in the farm bill the Republican-controlled House approved earlier.

Roy "Mack" Gray, deputy U.S. agriculture undersecretary for natural resources and the environment, said in a keynote address Tuesday that the level of national support for conservation today is "unprecedented" in the past 46 years. Gray has worked in nine administrations since he joined the agriculture department under President Eisenhower.

"There is more conservation interest, more conservation money in the farm bill than I've seen in all my years," Gray told about 1,400 delegates at the association's 56th annual meeting at the Nugget Hotel-Casino in Sparks.

"Both the Senate version being worked on and the House versions are strong, strong, strong conservation titles."

Comparisons are difficult because the Senate measure extends five years and the House plan for 10.

Tim Searchinger, a senior attorney for Environmental Defense, said the Senate bill generally would spend about $4.3 billion annually over five years on conservation, compared with $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion a year under the House version.

Searchinger said one of the biggest differences is the Senate would spend $270 million a year to enhance wildlife on private lands and leased public lands while the House would spend $35 million for that purpose. He said the Senate would spend $350 million a year to protect farmland from urban sprawl while the House would spend $50 million a year.

National Association of Conservation Districts President Read Smith of St. John, Wash., said his group is pushing the Senate for more money for conservation than was included in the House. He said a key ally is Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who the group is honoring this year with its annual distinguished service award.

"We're pretty sure we'll get something out of the Senate," Smith said Tuesday.

"The (joint House (Senate)- conference committee will be more difficult. But Sen. Harkin will chair the conference committee and this is his baby, so we're hopeful," he said.

"I don't think any of us expect the $8 billion a year that is needed. But at least we could get started so next time around it could be fully funded."

Gray, a dairy farmer from Holland, Texas, who served as acting chief of the Soil Conservation Service and retired in 1991 before he was appointed to his new post under President Bush, said the farm bill that passes Congress likely will spend more than the House but less than the Senate wants on conservation.

"You can always say it would be nice if we had more," Gray said. "But I say, thank goodness we're getting what we've got, because it is about a six-fold increase over anything we've ever had."