Agenda - 03-19-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . , ' - , • - . . . . . • - . ..--. /15 (VII . 77 . . . . • . • BACKGROUND •. . . . . . • . . . The underlined statements are the arguments made by OMB and USDA to severly.. curtail the federal commitment to soil conservation. Each is o lowed with a . . response from NACO. . - . . . Short term economic forces may far outweigh conservation assistance • incentives in influencing land use decisions. • Profitable "fence row to fence row" planting in the 1970's removed substantial acreage of fragile lands from - - • . . , . . . - permanent cover. . . • . • -. • . , . --. . . ' . . . . . . ,Economic forces do have a strong influence on implementation of conserva- tion .plans.' Department of Agriculture policy of the 1970's did encourage . . • •• ' farming without concern for protecting the .resource base. Current Income Tax :.. • ..,- - , • policy- makes it profitable for investors to exploit the land for a short time •• without having to pay. heed to the damage suffered by the soil and water. ' ' .. . • - -. . . • ' National forces that make agriculture an unprofitable industry force conserva- . tion to become an activity for, tomorrow, .when the farm once again is making • _ t . - • .. money. . • • . . . _ . _ . . • • . . This is not a failure of the conservation program, but a failure to make a ' - national commitment to conservation. Only after such an effort is truly made . • • will there be the atmosphere needed for conservation activities to fully succeed. - • - Changes in technology may make previously installed soil protection ' measures obsolete. Older terraces and contour patterns aren't efficient for the larger farming equipment currently in use. , Using the same line of. logic used for cutting soil conservation programs, it could be argued that since changes in technology have made warfare fought by propeller driven airplanes obsolete, the federal government should no longer fund defense programs, because the older methods are no longer -applicable. Both . arguments are obviously absurd. . . • . • • . . - - As farming equipment and methods change, there has to be corresponding change in the methods used to conserve the soil. Technological changes call for ' an increase in research and direct assistance, not a decrease. New machinery • - . calls for new soil conservation methods and a system to integrate new methodology quickly and over a large area and variety of conditions. : Agriculture research also needs to include conservation as an integral part of the program, not as an after thought. The SCS now performs those functions. Destroying the agency's capacity to serve its constituents spells potential for disaster in our renewable resources. • ,. . . Most farmers apparently do not participate in these programs. The USDA . Consistency Study showed farm operation participation in USDA soil and water , . conservation programs at 36.4 , 3 . ', and 35. , for years 978, 98 , and 983 respectively. ' • . . B-1 • . • . . . . • . .