Agenda - 03-19-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• . • It makes little sense from & national perspective for the Federal • government to continue to subsidize soil and water conservation practices on prtvate land when their average life expectancy because of landowner's decisions is only 8 years. This is a problem with conservation policy, not with the programs. NACD has supported more long term contracts to guard against abuse of the cost-share programs. We also favor establishment of a conservation reserve, which is . opposed by the administration, to retire highly erodible land from crop .production for a period of 10 to 15 years. The statement also fails to • • recognize that soil conservation requires constant effort and practices are designed to change and adapt to the changing needs of the resource. Again, what we need is readjustment of the national program, not an attempt to destroy its • effectiveness.. • • . ..• • _ .• .• • • . • • • • • •• .• . • .• . •• State and local governments have demonstrated increased awareness of and \ • • interest in soil and water conservation as evidenced by their increasing • investments for these programs . : The increase in state and local funding for soil and water conservation is a direct response to the federal/state/local partnership. They realize that-the state and local taxpayers have a stake in maintaining that partnership. But all • sides of the triangle must remain intact for the program to be -effective. • Undermining the federal role gives our national conservation program all of the stability of the proverbial "three-legged stool with only two legs". . • • • • • • • B-3.