Agenda - 03-19-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- • • - I . • • ' - _ . . ' . . . - . . . . . _ v . ,. . . . - • . - - There are several factors that influence farmer participation. First there is federal agricultural policy. We presently have commodity programs that can . • acutally penalize the conservation farmer by reducing his base acres, disrupting • proper rotations, or encouraging farming of land more succeptable to erosion. Secondly there is economics. Operators who are facing immediate financial ruin have a hard time rationalizing an expenditure that has a return over a long period of time, perhaps not even in their lifetime. • , .. - ' - • .. . . . . . . . Tbirdly*there are guidelines placed on cost-share programs that are designed to limit participation. . . . . . . , . . • • • . . . - • . . ' Fourth there is the fact that the number of technical advisors within SCS. . . . • has been steadily decreasing. As with most farm operations, timing to implement. ... • . • conservation practices is critical. There are times of the year when field work cannot be done because of weather or crops. In many instances. SCS technicians •. • can only service 1/2 to 1/3 of the requests they receive. If a farmer cannot • - • • • ' receive timely assistance, he is not going to be able to participate. • . ' • • . . . . Lands use decisions are appropriately the province of private landowners . ! and units of local government. . • . . • While this statement is generally true, it ignores the fact that conserva- tion of soil and agricultural. production have national impacts. The majority of . agricultural products are not consumed in the location that produces- them. Metropolitan areas depend on food from all sections of the country. Grain exports have a major positive influence on the balance of trade with foreign : • countries. , . Keeping the soil in place, in addition to being necessary for continued productivity, lessens the cost to non-farm sectors. It has been estimated that the public spends more than $3 billion a year to mitigate problems of stream borne sediment. A $1 billion outlay for soil conservation can actually save taxpayers money. , • : The Federal government has spent over $25 billiOn for conservation since . - 1938 and is spending over $800 million annually with little noticeable affect in • • recent years A 1984 report published by the EPA on the impacts of conservation tillage on Lake Erie indicates that such conservation measures can significantly reduce the amount of phosphorus and sediment introduced into the lake ecosystem. That • reduction would slow eutrophication of Lake Erie and meet 'the requirements of an international treaty with Canada on lake nuality. Again, we must stress that conservation is an ongoing process'. You have to make inputs of time, money, and ,planning every year to make conservation work. Conservation research and the transfer of that knowledge have not received adequate funding to keep pace with developments in farming technology. We need • a commitment to conservation of our soil and water that is lacking in the proposed budget. • . , • . • B-2 - • • • • ' •