Immediate
Action Needed to Remove the 2002 Farm Bill! Please
Contact Your US Senators and US Representatives and Ask Them to Instruct the House/Senate
Farm Bill 2002 Conference Committee to oppose Sec. 215, "Water Conservation" section
of the U.S. Senate version of the 2002 Farm Bill. Section
215, Water Conservation, was included as a pilot program covering the states of
California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Maine in
the Senate version of the 2002 Farm Bill through an amendment offered by Sen.
Reid (NV). The Reid amendment would transform the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) into an unprecedented new water and habitat management program under the
Endangered Species Act. The
Water Conservation/CRP program would enroll, on a voluntary basis, up to 500,000
acres of land in the seven pilot states in a new program designed to coordinate
the use of that land and any water resources associated with that land with state
government administered habitat preservation programs under the Endangered Species
Act. Farmers and ranchers would receive payments under the CRP program that reflect
both the value of the land and water resources they are contributing to the program.
Even
though the Water Conservation/CRP program is supposed to be voluntary for each
individual farmer or rancher, in practical terms, many farmers could be forced
into participation in this program against their wishes. In many western states,
an individual's use of their water rights can substantially affect their neighbor's
farming or ranching operation. All water rights are not equal. Many landowners
in these states hold water or irrigation rights that are subordinate or inferior
to the rights held by other landowners. Owners of senior water rights get first
access to available water with junior rights holders eligible to receive water
that the senior holders don't use. This system efficiently allocates water among
private irrigation users during times of drought, which frequently occur in the
arid West. However, if a significant number of senior private water rights holders
are convinced to participate in the Water Conservation CRP program, diverting
water to protect endangered species, then the ability of junior water rights holders
to receive water for irrigation could be jeopardized. In
addition, much of the groundwater water in many western states is partially recharged
through the use of irrigation water on the surface. Farmers and ranchers who rely
on groundwater resources in their operations could find the available groundwater
resources will be significantly diminished in only a few years if significant
amounts of surface water are diverted from irrigation uses for enhanced stream
flows to improve fish habitats. Farmers
who decide not to participate in the Water Conservation/CRP could also see their
irrigation costs increase substantially. Many of the costs of providing irrigation
water are "fixed", i.e. they don't change substantially over time. Irrigation
programs become economical when these fixed costs are spread out among a large
numbers of farmers and a large area of land. As more and more water is diverted
from irrigation uses by farmers who chose to participate in the Water Conservation/CRP
program, the costs of providing the remaining active farmers with irrigation water
will remain but will be spread among a decreasing group of active farmers. This
will increase costs per farmer and drive the remaining farmers to participate
in the Water Conservation/CRP program. Finally,
the CRP has traditionally been a contract/lease program where the farmer eventually
regains full control of his land/resources. However, the Endangered Species Act
is designed to require the federal government to find permanent solutions to endangered
species conflicts. Therefore, there is a question as to what will happen to the
farmer's land and water resources at the end of the Water Conservation/CRP contract
period. If the land and water resources contracted under the Water Conservation/CRP
become critical to the preservation of several endangered species, will the government
willingly return control of those resources to private landowners for resumption
of agricultural activities or will there be pressure to permanently acquire those
resources for government use, by eminent domain if necessary, to maintain the
goal of the Endangered Species Act? The
Water Conservation/CRP program was added as a floor amendment during the debate
on the Farm Bill. The Senate Agriculture Committee did not have a chance to debate
or discuss this proposal. There were no hearings on this proposal in the House
or the Senate. The National Grange believes that before such a sweeping change
in policy is enacted, there should be ample opportunity for grassroots participation
and consideration of all of the potential consequences. As such, the National
Grange strongly supports removing Sec. 215 of the Senate version of the Farm bill
from the final legislation. Action
Plan---The 2002 House/Senate Farm Bill conference committee is now writing
the final version of the 2002 Farm Bill. Please Ask your US Senators and US Representatives
to immediately instruct the 2002 Farm Bill conference committee to oppose the
"Water Conservation/CRP" provision of the 2002 Farm Bill! 1.
Oppose the inclusion of the Reid Amendment/water conservation/CRP/Endangered Species
management provisions of Sec. 215 from the U.S. Senate Farm Bill as part of the
final 2002 Farm Bill. Thank
you for your grassroots participation in the National Grange Legislative Program. | 
