AGRICULTURE: House Republicans embrace conservation cuts in 'different dynamic' of budget crunch (04/06/2011)

Allison Winter, E&E reporter

House lawmakers will likely cut billions of dollars from farmland conservation spending in next year's spending measure, leaders of the agriculture spending panel said yesterday.

Republicans on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee said they would eliminate some discretionary conservation programs at the Agriculture Department and trim conservation funding that was set in the 2008 farm bill. Their position conforms with the hard line many GOP lawmakers are taking on federal spending but would break from the practice of past agriculture spending committees under both Democratic and Republican leadership, which regularly funded the programs.

The Obama administration's fiscal 2012 budget proposed eliminating discretionary spending for several popular conservation programs: watershed protection and flood prevention operations programs and the Resource Conservation and Development Councils.

The programs have been on the chopping block in past budgets from both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations but are routinely restored by lawmakers who wanted to keep the popular programs on the ground in their districts.

Not so this year.

"I think anywhere President Obama wants to reduce the budget, Republicans are almost automatically going to agree," subcommittee Chairman Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) told reporters yesterday.

The watershed programs buy easements on floodplains and help farmers with financing for construction projects to improve watershed management. The administration's budget request has repeatedly classified the programs as duplicative, even while Agriculture Department officials have praised some of the projects the programs oversee and called for increased funding under the 2009 stimulus bill.

"In the past, you would propose this with a wink and a nod, knowing Congress is probably not going to take this," Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa), a longtime member of the agriculture spending panel, told USDA officials at a hearing yesterday. "In the current situation, we're probably going to take everything you're proposing, so you should be realistic ... unlike in years past, this is a whole different dynamic."

The Resource Conservation and Development Councils are locally based groups that work with farmers, city governments and nonprofit groups to implement conservation or economic development projects. These include efforts to help farmers preserve wildlife habitat or use less energy on their land. The administration says the councils were only intended to be funded temporarily and should stand on their own.

The cuts would eliminate jobs for approximately 420 full-time federal employees, according to USDA. It would affect another 600 workers who spend some of their time on the conservation programs.

The agency hopes to relocate or reassign most of those positions, so no one would be out of a job, according to Natural Resources Conservation Service Chief Dave White. It will also offer early retirement packages or buyouts to some workers, White said.

The administration's 2012 budget proposal would also cut all previous earmarks for conservation operations and trim some $2.5 billion from mandatory conservation programs over the life of the current farm bill. Those cuts would tighten funding for conservation easements for wetlands, grasslands and wildlife habitat and squeeze funding for programs that pay farmers to make environmental improvements to their land.

The farm bill conservation programs are the source of the biggest federal investment in conservation on private lands. When asked about the effect of the cuts, USDA Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman said they would reduce environmental benefits across the country.

"This is the nation's green infrastructure, it is as important as roads, bridges and hospitals," Sherman said. "What this means in terms of environmental benefits that come from these programs, they will be delayed in terms of clean water, clean air. ... [I]t's a negative impact. My hope is that in better times, we will be able to restore these programs."

Democrats question cuts

Democrats on the subcommittee said the cuts would be too deep.

"This would create a big hole in our conservation efforts. ... [T]his is really very serious," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). "The size of the cuts and the long-term impact, in my view, may be extreme. It is a little unfair to single out the conservation title alone."

She had at least one ally on the other side of the aisle.

"I am a tight-fisted, tough cookie and rarely would I say I would like to sit next to Ms. DeLauro, but I would like to on this. ... [T]his is a rare expression of kudos," Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said.

Rep. Sam Farr (R-Calif.) was particularly concerned about eliminating a program -- funded as an earmark -- that brought together different government agencies and local producers to work on voluntary clean water standards for Monterrey Bay.

"I have been one of your biggest supporters, but after reading about how you're cutting this thing, I am not sure I support you anymore," Farr told the USDA officials.

Farr said the administration should assess all of USDA's programs to look for other places to make funding cuts -- starting with its extensive vehicle fleet. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has 11,300 trucks and cars -- more than one vehicle for each of its 11,000 employees. Sherman said the administration is looking into the issue, although many of vehicles are shared with other USDA agencies.

"You are cutting out incredible programs, and say you are 'looking into' that you have more damn cars than you have people," Farr said. "I think your priorities are upside down."

The debate over 2012 spending comes as lawmakers continue to fight over how to fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year. The House spending proposal that is the basis of current negotiations would eliminate the conservation and watershed programs.

Even though the administration supports cutting them in the 2012 budget, USDA officials said it would be easier to wait to make the cuts next year rather than make quick cuts in the continuing resolution.

"We would prefer to have time," Sherman said. "To do it immediately would cause some real hardships."

USDA officials said it would be better if they had more lead-time to phase out the programs. There are ongoing contracts, equipment and personnel issues that they need to deal with, such as vacating some 180 offices. The early termination fees for those leases would cost $1 million, according to staff aides for USDA.

House budget proposal

Other GOP lawmakers are eyeing additional agriculture spending cuts. The fiscal 2012 budget proposal that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) rolled out yesterday would slash spending on farm programs by $30 billion over the next decade.

The budget proposal focuses on reducing crop insurance and direct payments -- crop subsidies that go to landowners regardless of the price of their crops. The cuts would further change mandatory funding levels that were set for five years in the 2008 farm bill.

Kingston said carving away at those agriculture programs could create problems for the spending bill or the next farm bill. The farm bill brings together agriculture, conservation and hunger advocacy groups in a "marriage" that works because they all get their own funding support, Kingston said. More than half of the farm bill budget goes to food and nutrition programs.

"The harder you cut ag programs, politically the harder it is to pass those other programs," Kingston said.

When pressed by reporters, Kingston agreed that cuts to conservation programs could also erode the coalition.

"That's the thing with farm politics, it puts together different political views in one bill, all to come up with 218 votes," Kingston said.

Ryan's proposal got mixed reviews from farm advocacy groups. National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said his group would support reallocating direct payments for other programs, but that Congress should not "ask farmers to bear more than their fair share of the burden of deficit reduction."

National Corn Growers Association President Bart Schott said his group would work with lawmakers to find agreement on cuts for the next farm bill.

"These cuts are significant, but so is our nation's out-of-control budget deficit," Schott said in a statement. "What is important is that farmers are not singled out -- the cuts proposed for agriculture are proportional to those proposed for other areas of the federal budget."