Congress should empower farmers, not undercut them | Washington Examiner
Congress should empower farmers, not undercut them
By Andrew Mills and Morgan Brummund
Even with a substantial increase in much-needed and overdue funding, popular conservation programs at the United States Department of Agriculture that help farmers protect their yields and support the local environment on their terms continue to be oversubscribed and under-resourced. Now is not the time for Congress to divert that funding to other uses never envisioned by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
At risk is roughly $20 billion in new funding for broadly supported USDA programs, including the Conservation Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Historically, these programs have never been able to keep up with the demand from America’s farmers, and USDA reports that exceptionally high demand continues to outpace available funding.
USDA received the influx of funding through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, with instructions to deliver it to producers who want to expand participation in voluntary programs and practices that improve soil health and sequester carbon emissions. These programs are overwhelmingly popular with crop producers, and recent polling from our organizations shows that they are overwhelmingly popular with voters in agriculture-heavy districts as well.
In the 10 districts and states surveyed, Republican voters strongly rejected proposals to shift the funding to other uses, be they financial support for specific crops or general spending cuts. Voters are about three times as likely to say Congress should keep funding at last year’s $19.5 billion than cut or repurpose it. Rural voters support protecting the new funding by margins of at least two-to-one.
Why are these programs so popular? For one, they recognize the leadership role American farmers play as stewards of our land and environment. In addition, they provide significant benefits to producers outside of their contributions to the environment — including higher crop yields, cost savings, and improvements to the long-term resilience of their land.
The arguments made by some in Congress that the USDA is unable to spend the money fast enough or get resources to a wide range of farmers are misguided. According to the department, it has obligated 99.8% of the new conservation dollars authorized for fiscal year 2023, and because demand is so strong, it is on track to do so again this year. The bottom line is that the climate goals associated with some of the conservation funds have not created a barrier for farmers to access this funding, nor have they deterred them from applying.
The popularity of these programs can be clearly seen through their oversubscription. Last year, EQIP, which helps farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners integrate conservation into working lands, received nearly 9,000 applications, and USDA was able to fund only 26% of them; this is with the additional funding that was made available through the Inflation Reduction Act.
In-demand funding that directly supports the farming community should not be a line item that Republicans in Congress are working to cut or repurpose. Instead, Congress should strongly support voluntary programs that help farmers and all stewards of working lands improve their soils and protect air and water quality while providing improved benefits to wildlife habitat. This is a rare opportunity for conservatives in Congress to stand behind voluntary stewardship programs and continue empowering farmers to be conservation champions.
Read the original here.