Conservation Compliance

Ken Cook of Environmental Working Group has a big report on the workings of "conservation compliance" (i.e., the requirement that farmers with highly erodible land be in compliance with a farm plan to receive some benefits from USDA). (Not clear when it was released--a letter to the ag committees was dated in May, but a press release in Sept.) Sounds as if much of it is based on a GAO report (no--I'm recovering from a cold and am not masochistic enough to plow through the entire report, particularly one as dispiriting as this.)

Why "dispiriting"? It's also fascinating. I remember talking with co-workers (CR, RA, and TMM) in 1984/5 when SCS as NRCS was then was pushing the "green ticket". There was skepticism: did they really know what they were getting into? The answer, of course, was: No. SCS was an educational and scientific agency, very uncomfortable with regulating farmer's behavior. And we in ASCS, as FSA was then, felt lots of Schadenfreude and not much helpful empathy at their predicament when the friendly puppy of an agency caught the car they were chasing and didn't know what the hell to do with it.

A few of us tried to work on data sharing between the agencies so the provisions could be enforced as the law required. But we stumbled, tripping over our own delusions, and mostly the fact that no one of importance in USDA really wanted to be that intrusive in farmer operations. (I remember visiting Sherman County, KS, on the western border of KS, in 1991 where the farmers were still hot over the idea that their land was highly erodible (rainfall < 20"). So we retired in disgust (ed: you're being overly dramatic.) .

I have to wonder where EWG was on Sec. Glickman's proposed merger of the FSA and NRCS support functions in the late 1990's. Had that been done, it might have been easier to get the sort of data they're asking for now. Or it might not. Never underestimate the power of delay.