You are viewing the Center for Rural Affairs newsletter archive for 2002-2006.
Visit the current newsletter and recent archive pages.
Visit the Center for Rural Affairs Home Page.

Latest County Income Level Data
Great Plains economy has rebounded, but low incomes still persistent in rural America

In an annual ritual, we bring you the latest data from the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis on county income levels.

Based on 2004 data (the latest data available), the new figures again show how pervasive low incomes are in the rural United States. Of the 250 lowest income counties in the nation, 225 are non-metropolitan counties.

However, some good news continues for the Great Plains region. The lowest income region in the nation from 1997 to 2002, the rural economy in much of the Great Plains appears to have significantly rebounded, though still lagging behind urban areas.

For example, in our 2003 publication Swept Away we found that rural counties in Nebraska had 66 to 70 percent of the per capita income of the state’s metropolitan counties for the 1990 to 2000 period. In 2004, it was up to 80 percent. Nebraska, which had several of the lowest 10 or 20 income counties in past years, has only three of the lowest income 250 counties based on 2004 data – Loup (2), Grant (14) and McPherson (123).

Ironically, the nation’s highest per capita income county is also the smallest. Loving County, Texas, population 62 (and declining, according to the Census Bureau), is home to vast oil and gas deposits and a per capita income of $89,471, nearly 800 percent greater than its Texas companion, Starr County.

Over 100 of the lowest 250 counties are located in four states – Kentucky (35), Texas (30), Mississippi (20), and Georgia (19). Only 12 are metropolitan counties – five in Georgia, three in Texas, and two each in Kentucky and Mississippi. In all, 33 states have at least one county included in the 250 lowest income counties.

Lowest Income Counties in the United States

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. The complete list of the 250 lowest income counties may be found at http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/pcpilow.cfm 

New Asset Building “Virtual Library”

The Center for Rural Affairs has a new resource available on our website – a virtual library of our work in regards to asset and wealth building. Enhancing opportunity through the building of assets and wealth is the most promising strategy for creating a future for rural communities and their residents. This “virtual library” contains resources we have developed to champion such strategies.

Please visit the Rural Asset and Wealth Building Virtual Library on this website. Our research into rural development and rural asset-building strategies is made possible through the support of the Ford Foundation and the Otto Bremer Foundation.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org for more information on the Center's Rural Development and Rural Asset-Building Virtual Library. You may also request to be added to our email distribution list, which lets you know when new resources have been added.

Corporate Farming Notes
Mega corporate hog and chicken operations are on the move, migrating to areas with the fewest protections for local citizens

>> Residents in three eastern Indiana counties are pressuring county officials to control odors and pollution from rapidly growing numbers of industrial livestock operations moving into the area. Grant, Jay, and Randolph county residents worry that mega hog and dairy operations will decimate their quality of life.

Over the last two months confinements for 23,000 finishing hogs have been proposed in Randolph County. North Carolina-based Maxwell Foods plans to build two large swine nurseries between the Indiana towns of Lynn and Modoc housing 38,400 nursery pigs. Maxwell also plans to build two other confinements near Modoc that would contain 15,484 pregnant sows, young females, nursery pigs, and finishing hogs.

Local residents have expressed concern that Indiana is encouraging corporate hog operations to move from North Carolina, where state policies have curtailed the dramatic expansion of corporate hog production that had occurred there during the 1990’s.

Randolph County’s planning commission has voted against several CAFO ordinances. But local concerned citizens believe the tide may be turning in favor of endorsing regulations for hog farms due to the recent dramatic influx of hog operations.

“Before, the only thing the plan commission could see was the [first] dairy…what came to light…is a much bigger scheme,” said Randolph County resident Robbie Davis.

>> Chicken lobbyists score big victory in South Carolina – As of this writing, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford had not decided whether to veto a bill that loosens regulation of large, industrial poultry farms.

The House voted 94-11 to ban county laws that require substantial distances between poultry farms and people’s homes. The Senate had previously voted 29-7 for restricting county regulation.
Corporate farming proponents have sought this legislation for 10 years. The legislation nullifies county poultry ordinances that are stricter than the state’s law.

The South Carolina Poultry Federation says county laws are so strict they prevent chicken and turkey operations in some counties. However, Kershaw, one of the state’s top turkey-producing counties, is among the fewer than 10 counties with strict local ordinances.

Contact: John Crabtree at 402.687.2103 x 1010 or johnc@cfra.org.

National Rural Action Network Adds Advisors

The Advisory Committee of the National Rural Action Network has added four additional members:

Anthony Flaccavento, Executive Director of Appalachian Sustainable Development. He was a founding member of the organization and has been the Executive Director since its origination in October 1995. Under his leadership the organization has helped to create an infrastructure of sustainability in both agriculture and forestry in southwest Virginia and northeast Tennessee.

Larry Frimerman, Executive Director of the Three Valley Conservation Trust in Oxford, Ohio. The Three Valley Conservation Trust works to conserve the natural environment and cultural heritage in Butler, Preble, and parts of Darke and Montgomery counties in Ohio.

Shirley Sherrod, State Director for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund in Albany, Georgia, will act as Ralph Paige’s alternate (Ralph is Executive Director). The Federation’s mission is the development of self-supporting communities with programs that increase income and enhance other opportunities. The nonprofit also strives to assist in land retention and development, especially for African Americans but essentially for all family farmers.

Adrian Talbott, with Generation Engage, has been invited to participate as well. Generation Engage is a nonpartisan effort aimed at raising the political profile of young adults throughout the country.

Please take action for Rural America! Revitalizing rural communities will take hard work, and we need all the help we can get. Please sign up; become part of the action – and connect your friends into being part of the solution!

Working “with” Rural Youth Key to Fighting Child Poverty
Progressive small communities involve young people in decision making and community governance to shape their home’s future

During the past three months, we have been examining child poverty in rural America. Traditionally, youth development strategies were oriented towards what agencies and communities could do to children to help the community.

As times changed, realization has grown that young people do not want projects done to them. Instead agencies and developers have adopted a philosophy of helping youths by doing service work for them. Examples are benefit suppers or walk-a-thons on the local track to raise money for youth groups and their activities. While this may seem normal and beneficial for all, it does not include young people in a meaningful and productive way.

The approach that many small, rural communities have adopted is to include youth in the decision making process as well as the implementation of the project. Out migration of youth from communities is at an all time high. One of the key reasons for this mass exodus is that youth are not a part of their community.

Surveys and assessments show time and again that, while young people may love the community, they have not truly taken any ownership for the future of their home. Local high school alumni are often invited back for celebrations, but their opinions on the future of the community are not solicited. Alumni spend two or three days celebrating and then return to the urban lifestyle they chose upon leaving rural areas.

Many of these people would opt to return to their community but are simply not asked. They may feel like they did when they were young – given no opportunity to participate in community decision making. The vital point: It is never too late to start asking.

While young people are in the community, let them make a mark for the future of their home. Progressive communities have incorporated youth in city leadership, positions on the local chamber of commerce, civic groups, economic development, historic preservation, education boards, business associations, and others.

The key in working to bring children out of poverty and isolation is to include youth in shaping their own future. Everyone benefits in this type of relationship.

Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103x1015.

Hope in Rural America
New report shows that local initiative combined with supportive public policies can help small rural communities to attract new population

A significant number of Nebraska’s small rural communities are growing, according to an analysis by Dr. Randy Cantrell, with the University of Nebraska Rural Initiative. The findings demonstrate there can be a future for rural communities across America. The key is local initiative and supportive public policies.

The report analyzed population change in Nebraska from 1990 to 2000. Its findings include:

• Population grew in exactly half the communities with fewer than 1,000 people and a little over half of communities with fewer than 2,500 people. Seventy-seven of Nebraska’s 93 counties had a community that gained population.
• On average, towns with fewer than 2,500 people achieved a 25 percent increase in people aged 30 to 39.
• Sixty-three of Nebraska’s 93 counties saw an increase in wage and salary jobs.
• The population with college degrees grew in 178 non-metropolitan communities.

These findings do not demonstrate that all is well in rural America. But they do demonstrate that very rural communities can draw families and grow. They show that small entrepreneurs are creating jobs and lives in very rural places.

Most important, they demonstrate hope. Strong local initiative and leadership together with policies that invest in the future can succeed in revitalizing rural communities.

Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018 for more information.

Steps to Make Small Wind System Profitable
Small energy systems are expensive, so weigh energy market pricing, turbine size and cost comparisons, and siting to help defray the costs of wind energy systems

Wind turbines are in high demand. Some folks like the way they look. Others just feel good about having one. Most are looking for ways to cut electricity costs and hedge against future energy hikes. This article will focus on the practical and profitable applications of small wind energy systems.

Since small wind systems are expensive (8-10 cents per kilowatt), payback often takes longer than the expected life of the machine. Turbine prices are expected to decline as more units are manufactured and new technologies make small units more productive. But if saving money is your only consideration, energy conservation may be a better option.

If you are satisfied with your energy efficiency plan and owning a small generator is still in your plans, try to satisfy the market that pays the most. There are three energy markets. The wholesale market has two levels, the cheapest, “off-demand” charges apply when demand is low and excess power is available. “Demand” charges apply when electricity is in high demand. The retail price is the wholesale price plus profit margins and maintenance and administrative expenses. Designing the system to offset your power needs is the same as selling at the retail price.

Since the wind is not perfectly matched to energy needs, being able to “bank” or store the power in the grid is one option. Referred to as “net-metering,” excess power is deposited in the grid during high wind periods and withdrawn when the turbine does not meet the need. This effectively results in retail price since the meter reverses during input and goes forward with usage. Since pure net-metering does not allow the utility to recover margin and service expenses, they often disallow or limit the size of the turbine.

Net-billing is another type of grid connection. It measures (meters) electricity going to the grid and allows the utility to price that power according to their cost at that time. Seen as being fair to the utility, the buy-back total is significantly offset by the cost of the meters. Consumers argue that net-metering should be considered in the same category as conservation, a practice encouraged by most utilities.

Once your power needs are established, visit the Iowa energy site, www.energy.iastate.edu, for wind turbine comparison and cost. The site lets you compare different turbines at different heights. Although it is based on known wind data in Iowa, results should be applicable to other states if the Iowa wind data is similar to your site.

Before purchasing a turbine, make sure you have the right site. Stay away from trees and buildings to avoid wind turbulence. Make sure there is adequate setback (distance between the tower and property line). If the local zoning board has jurisdiction, check for height allowances, noise levels, and other local regulatory issues.

To learn more about wind development and small wind turbines, download a copy of “Small Wind Electric Systems” at www.eere.energy.gov/regions , US Department of Energy Office, Golden CO, 303.275.4826 or contact Windustry, Minneapolis MN, 612.870.3461, www.windustry.org.

You’ll find more resources at the Nebraska Energy Office Wind Resource site, http://www.neo.ne.gov/renew/wind-renewables.htm and the Wind Powering America site, http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ .

Contact: Martin Kleinschmit, 402.254.6893 or martink@cfra.org for more information

Weather Patterns Are Changing over Pacific

Global warming is changing the wind circulation over the Pacific Ocean and thereby affecting El Niño climate events, according to an article in Nature magazine.

Climate modelers project that wind circulation will weaken 10 percent by the end of the century. The article reported that “Variations in … circulation is one of the factors that lead to El Niño climate events. These periodic events, which feature a weakening of the easterly winds that blow from the Americas to Southeast Asia, have a range of effects, from droughts in Indonesia to poor fish harvests in Chile.”

They also affect weather patterns in the US. Climate modeling is an inexact science. But these findings demonstrate the risk in climate change – especially to farmers, ranchers, and others who’ve made investments based on existing climate patterns.

We don’t know precisely what impact climate change will have. But scientists are increasingly certain it will change weather patterns. That represents increased risk to anyone whose living is affected by the weather.

That is one more reason we should be taking steps now to reduce the build up of greenhouse gases contributing to climate change.

Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2103 x 1018 or chuckh@cfra.org.

Strengthen Rural America – Endorse the Rural Action Network Petition
Share your hopes and dreams for rural America; join the Center’s petition drive now

The Center for Rural Affairs has launched a drive to gather 10,000 signatures in support of historic reforms in farm and rural economic and development policies through the next farm bill. We hope the petition will grow even bigger as the farm debate advances.

We want to start the debate with a loud and united voice calling for an unprecedented commitment to and investment in entrepreneurial development, community development, and farm policies that focus on creating and sustaining the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

Our effort began quietly, primarily because we want you, our supporters, to help us build it. We asked a few of our close friends and supporters to sign the petition and send an e-mail to their friends asking them to sign it as well and send it on. The effort is growing, albeit slowly at first, because this kind of word-of-mouth takes a little time.

But the petition is catching on. We still have fewer than 500 signatures, but most encouraging is that more than a third came from people we did not know before this effort began. And that is at the heart of our undertaking.

If each of us shared our hope and our dreams for the future of rural America with 10 or 20 or 50 friends and families, we could build a network of rural Americans and urban allies that could break the stranglehold that powerful economic and political special interests hold over farm and rural policy. Then we could use the 2007 Farm Bill to begin creating rural policy that raises up family farms and ranches as well as rural communities, instead of undermining them as do so many current policies.

So, have you signed the petition? Have you asked your friends and family and colleagues and everyone you can think of to sign the petition? You can sign the Strengthen Rural America Petition with this link. Then, take another step and ask everyone you can to sign the petition!

The Center for Rural Affairs National Rural Action Network will deliver the petition signatures to your senators and representatives. We will also alert all who sign on when contacting their elected officials or taking other action will make a crucial difference on a rural issue before Congress.

With your help, the National Rural Action Network will grow to tens of thousands of people speaking out for Rural America, perhaps even more. Together we will build the power necessary for rural Americans to take control of our destiny.

If you prefer to ask your friends to sign the petition in person, you can download a paper copy (pdf file). Or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org, 402.687.2103 x 1010 to have paper petitions mailed to you.

Tell everyone you know … Sign the Petition!

Practical Farmers of Iowa Plans Field Days

Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) plans 21 field days for the 2006 season, beginning June 24. Topics range from agroforestry to agritourism, switchgrass to grass-finished beef.

Field days will focus on several new topics this year, including field days on:

• Agritourism
• Alternative energy and whole farm energy auditing
• Conservation Security Program
• Gardening therapy for autism
• Oat rust research
• Vedic City greenhouse project and Abundance Eco-Village

Fresh reports on some old standbys are also planned, including:

• Cucumber beetle trials
• Corn breeding
• Flax
• Grass-finished beef

Started 20 years ago, field days showcase PFI’s pioneering on-farm research – where farmers conduct research on their own farms to answer their own questions. From better weed control to new methods of controlling pests, solutions are shared through these events, publications, and the PFI website. Field days also feature PFI farms for tours and discussions of sustainable practices and marketing techniques.

For a complete list of PFI field days, go to www.practicalfarmers.org, or call the PFI office at 515.232.5661. Field day guides are also available while they last.

Notables this Month

Farmers Markets Survey
USDA has been conducting a nationwide survey of farmers markets managers to see how markets have changed since the last USDA survey in 2001. The resulting study will highlight emerging trends in farmers markets. Survey findings will be available on the Internet at www.farmersmarketsurvey.com .

New Farmers Market Resource Guide
The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) recently announced publication of the Farmers Market Resource Guide. The guide lists grants, programs, and other financial and information resources available from public and private organizations and gives details about more than 100 projects and grants available to help start or improve farmers markets. The guide, which will be periodically updated, is available online at http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/Consortium/ResourceGuide.htm or a printed copy can be obtained by contacting the Agricultural Marketing Service in Washington DC at 202.720.8317.

Local-Organic Food Industry Examined
Farmers, chefs, and grocers are building new types of personal connections within the hot trend of local and organic foods. The new DVD “Good Food, Good Business” profiles people in all facets of the industry. They cite relationships and communities as the keys to success. The 26-minute program retails for $30 and is available through Amazon.com. The DVD was produced by Arnold Creek Productions, Inc., an Oregon-based production company, www.arnoldcreekproductions.com.

Diet for a Dead Planet Comes Out in Paperback
Christopher D. Cook, an investigative journalist based in San Francisco, has announced his book Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis, has just been released in paperback. Center for Rural Affairs’ Development and Outreach Director John Crabtree was interviewed for the book and is quoted in it.

Cook had this to say about the release. “My book … comes amid rising concerns over food-related health epidemics, agribusiness’ fossil fuel dependency, and the billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing industrial agriculture. I hope Diet for a Dead Planet – which investigates these and other problems, and provides ideas and resources for change – will help efforts to fix this food disaster.” For more information, go to www.dietforadeadplanet.com.

Say No to Extending 2002 Farm Bill, Say Yes to a Better Approach
Strictly cap payments to large farms and reinvest the savings in programs that support proven local entrepreneurial initiatives

Extending the 2002 farm bill beyond its 2007 expiration would be a mistake. It is destroying family farming and sapping the life blood out of rural America.

Nonetheless, there is a growing drum beat to extend the farm bill. The argument in its favor is based on protecting every dollar of farm payment. Every dollar lost to farm programs is a loss to farmers, so the argument goes, and rewriting the farm bill at a time of mounting deficits will likely lead to lost dollars.

That argument is seriously flawed. Family farming is not strengthened by more dollars distributed by the rule of “the bigger you farm, the more money you get from the government.” To the contrary, that approach is steadily and deliberately dismantling family farming.

We see it all around us. Profit margins for small and mid-sized farms are squeezed as mega farms use mega payments to bid land away from their neighbors and drive land prices and cash rents higher. Every year more family farmers walk away from agriculture while they still have their assets intact.

In addition, the 2002 farm bill reneged on its promise to reward conservation-minded farmers with Conservation Security Program payments – except in a scattered fraction of the nation’s watersheds. The 2002 farm bill is not working to protect the land or family farming.

Nor is it working for rural communities. The federal government currently has no concerted strategy to support the local entrepreneurial initiatives that hold promise for small communities. It’s time for change.

As we have frequently stated, there is a better approach: Strictly cap payments to large farms and reinvest the savings in programs that support proven local entrepreneurial initiatives to revitalize rural America – micro enterprise development, leadership development, youth engagement, value added agriculture initiatives, and beginning farmer programs.

Farmers and rural people are the key to gaining those reforms. During formulation of the 2002 farm bill, pressure for reform collapsed in the congressional conference committee. Key leaders on both sides of the aisle concluded that the most rural votes would go to the political party and elected officials who secured the most money, most quickly for farm programs.

The result was a farm bill which provides money but no solutions, short-term survival but little hope for the future.

We can do better, and it’s up to each of us to help make it happen. We must insist that our representatives say no to any farm bill – current or future – that destroys family farming and fails to invest in the future of rural America, that offers money with no principle and no future. It is time for the current farm bill to be replaced.

Agree or disagree? Send your opinions or comments to Chuck Hassebrook, 402.687.2103 x 1018 or chuckh@cfra.org.

FEATURE ARTICLE:

Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill

The Conservation Title of the 2007 Farm Bill should focus on rewarding good stewardship of the land by placing a greater emphasis on working lands, communities, and fostering a new generation of conservation-minded farmers and ranchers. Although each of us has a moral obligation to leave the land at least as well as we receive it, the public also has an obligation to share in the cost of protecting the land and water on which all of us – current and future generations – rely for survival.

The 2002 farm bill recognized this obligation and made great strides in this regard. For example, it increased the funding level devoted to conservation programs, developed a whole new approach to conservation programs through creation of the Conservation Security Program and the Partnerships and Cooperation Initiative, and called for a special initiative through conservation programs for beginning farmers and ranchers. We propose the following for the 2007 Conservation Title.

>> CONSERVATION FOR WORKING LANDS

To effectively protect the environment, the farm bill must address working lands as well as land retirement. The Conservation Security Program (CSP) established by the 2002 farm bill is the basis on which to build. It has several key strengths.

>> It rewards farmers who practice environmental stewardship year in and year out. That is far better than only paying the worst actors to change, which places the nation’s best environmental stewards at a competitive disadvantage in competing for land. Its ultimate outcome is to shift landownership toward those who care little about stewardship and practice it only when paid.

>> CSP takes the far better approach of both rewarding those who have always practiced stewardship as well as those making improvements. That will yield more far reaching and lasting environmental gains.

>> CSP is also good for farmers. If it’s implemented correctly, it will base payments on how intensively the operator manages the land to protect the environment. Payments based on what farm and ranch operators do are far more likely to remain in their pockets than payments based on how much land they operate. The latter are inevitably bid into higher cash rents and land prices and thereby transferred to the landowner. Payments based on the operator’s management are far more likely to remain with the operator.

The CSP has faced enormous implementation and funding challenges, which created an uncertain and shaky program start. Therefore, we propose that the new farm bill must again fully fund the program with nationwide status, making it available to all eligible farmers for 2007 and beyond. It must also address resource conserving crop rotations – define them and indicate that the Secretary shall include this as an enhancement practice. We are completing an analysis of the CSP which will include more recommendations for improvements.

>> COMMUNITY AND CONSERVATION

The next farm bill should strive to make better use of conservation programs to make rural communities more attractive places to live and visit. The rural communities that have grown are largely those with environmental amenities – lakes and mountains. In the future, uncrowded natural space may become a key environmental amenity, one many farm and ranch communities could provide.

What if, for example, our land retirement based conservation programs provided bonus payments for enrollments that allowed public access as part of a community development plan? It could provide the basis for some tourism-based small businesses – such as bed and breakfasts and other agri- and eco-tourism enterprises.

We had hoped that the Conservation Partnerships and Cooperation Program in the 2002 farm bill would serve these purposes, but its statutory language was very general and never implemented by USDA. They instead implemented their own version that did not reflect the original intent of the provision. We propose it be replaced with language as follows:

The Secretary shall make bonus payments of up to 50 percent for enrollments in the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Grassland Reserve Program under the following conditions:

• the enrollment is certified by a state or local unit of government or Resource Conservation and Development District as consistent with its plan to develop natural space and habitat as a community development asset;
• the land is restored to native plant species and habitat for native animal species; and
• the land owner provides public access to the enrolled land.

The Community Conservation Program would not require separate funding. The cost of bonus payments would be built into the cost of the Conservation Reserve, Wetlands Reserve, and Grasslands Reserve Programs.

>> CONSERVATION AND BEGINNING FARMERS

Beginning farmer programs need to be a critical part of the new farm bill, and conservation programs can play an important role. Present trends and current obstacles are working against the very existence of a new generation of farmers and ranchers. Farm entry rates have declined, the farmer “replacement” rate has fallen to below 50 percent, there are twice as many farmers over 65 as under 35 years old, nearly half of all farm operators in the US are over 55 years in age, and nearly three-fifths of all farm assets are owned by those 55 and older.

The 2002 farm bill contained a provision to make federal conservation programs more available and accessible to beginning farmers and ranchers and other targeted groups (Indian tribes and limited-resource agricultural producers). A provision such as this will achieve two important public policy goals simultaneously – help get new farmers and ranchers started while encouraging them to adopt strong conservation systems from the outset. Unfortunately, USDA failed to implement this special provision.

The new farm bill should again include this provision and include the following language:
The Secretary shall create a special initiative for beginning farmers and ranchers, limited-resource producers, and Indian Tribes that will:

• Provide technical service, mentoring programs, and educational training that focus on sustainable agricultural farming practices and systems as well as related marketing issues.
• Provide strong conservation planning and technical assistance through NRCS field staff and resource specialists as well as through the development of cooperative agreements between NRCS and Extension and non-governmental organizations.
• Provide an option for immediate upfront or advanced payments to beginning farmers and ranchers through multi-year contracts entered into for federal conservation programs such as CSP, WRP, WHIP. This would provide the beginning farmer/rancher a more significant cash flow. For example, the contract would provide the beginning farmer a five-year payment stream in return for a legally binding commitment including an easement.
• Offer a financial incentive such as a 25 percent bonus for beginning farmers and ranchers to develop whole farm/ranch conservation plans under EQIP and CSP. Farmers and ranchers can get a good start with conservation practices through EQIP. By encouraging them to work towards a whole farm/ranch conservation plan, conservation will be furthered and it will enhance their participation in the Conservation Security Program by readying them to participate at the highest level, Tier III.
• Create an incentive such as a 25 percent bonus payment for landowners under CSP, WRP, WHIP, and EQIP to encourage them to rent to beginning farmers and ranchers on a longer term, multi-year basis in connection with adoption and installation of conservation structures and management practices.
• Graduate the cost share portion attributable to the beginning farmer or rancher over a period of years under EQIP, with higher cost share in the beginning and lower at the end of the contract as a means to provide a better cash flow. For example, provide 100 percent in year one and two and 50 percent in year three and so on.
• Encourage retirees or non-farming heirs holding Conservation Reserve Program contracts set to expire to make arrangements to transfer the land to beginning farmers and ranchers by offering a rental rate bonus during a transition period, such as a 20 percent bonus for three years.
• Provide a special initiative through the CSP that focuses on keeping land in grass by providing financial incentives such as a 40 percent payment bonus for beginning farmers and ranchers to develop and improve grazing lands.
• Encourage farmland preservation transition initiatives focused on whole-farm planning. Under such a proposal, farmland enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program could provide 25 percent bonus payments to a retiring farmer for transferring land and the easement to a beginning farmer who has established a whole-farm conservation plan.

>> CONSERVATION COST-SHARE PROGRAMS

The 2002 farm bill grandly expanded funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). In combination with the increased funding, we also witnessed a dramatic increase in the payment limitation, going from $50,000 in the 1996 Farm Bill to $450,000 under the 2002 Farm Bill. This allows a substantial portion of the program dollars to flow towards large-scale livestock operations.

The new farm bill needs to address this issue and re-establish the $50,000 payment limitation. It should target program dollars towards conservation measures that promote agricultural diversity and a new generation of agriculturalists rather than those measures that encourage the continued consolidation of agriculture and the environmental degradation of rural communities. The EQIP should be funded at no less than $400 million per year.

Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1016 for more information.

Editor: Marie Powell, mariep@cfra.org