Pintail ducks in flight (Photo: USFWS Pacific)

“Few conservation programs can boast the success rate of conservation compliance,” said Moseley, who served as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 2001 to 2005. “This program has helped farmers save 295 million tons of soil per year and kept an estimated 1.5 million to 3.3 million acres of vulnerable wetlands from being drained. The results of this compact between farmers and taxpayers have been astounding.”

Unfortunately, we are now at risk of losing the conservation gains we have made through this important program. Currently, farmers who receive crop insurance subsidies from the government do not have to participate in conservation compliance. However, over the last 15 years, Congress has increased the subsidy amounts on crop insurance, making it the largest subsidy to farmers.  And, as Congress updates federal farm policy in the next Farm Bill, it is increasingly likely that some commodity programs – which do require conservation compliance – will be phased out in favor of a strengthened crop insurance program. Therefore, it is essential that conservation compliance also be updated to apply to the crop insurance premium assistance.

As Moseley explains:

As Congress reauthorizes the farm bill, it is important that the conservation gains made over the last 25 years be retained. Unless included in the ongoing farm bill discussions, there is a possibility that, for the first time in a quarter century, conservation compliance provisions will no longer be attached to the largest federal payment program supporting producers.

Take Action: Call your member of Congress and tell them that you support linking conservation compliance to crop insurance in the next farm bill.

The endangered Least Bell’s Vireo is one of many native species negatively affected by giant reed. Photo credit: Flickr, Steve Maslowski/USFWS

The EPA is currently in the final stages of approving a very problematic rule that would actually provide incentives for companies to plant certain invasive species. The rule would allow a plant called Arundo donax (also known as Giant Reed, Colorado River Reed, and Giant Cane), a known invasive species, to qualify as an “advanced biofuel feedstock” under the Renewable Fuel Standard. This means that producers would get money from the federal government for growing giant reed as a source to create biofuel.

Growing plants for energy can potentially be a cleaner and less harmful alternative to fossil fuels, but only if it is done responsibly. Planting a species that has been listed as one of the world’s 100 worst invasive species is not responsible.

What would the impacts of this rule be?

This USDA map shows the predicted distribution of Arundo donax. As you can see, much of the U.S. is suitable for the species. Credit: USDA APHIS.

“If a species with such a well-documented track record of escape and negative impacts can be considered, then apparently no plant, no matter how invasive, will be off the table for future consideration. It certainly would set a terrible precedent.”

State and local groups across the country are particularly worried that if giant reed is planted on a large scale for biofuels, the results could be devastating:

“Should Arundo donax reach the Columbia River, an environmental disaster of unimaginable proportions would follow.” - The Native Plant Society of Oregon

“The large planting of invasive giant reed presents an incalculable risk to the people and ecosystems of Alabama. The potential for irreparable damage to the state’s natural ecosystems, which provide vital ecological services to the present and future citizens of Alabama, is great.” – The Alabama Invasive Plant Council

Read a letter signed by 100 local, state, regional, and national groups from across the country opposing the proposed rule.

What is Giant Reed?

Giant reed (Arundo donax), also known as giant cane, is a large, fast-growing grass that is native to India and can grow up to 30 feet tall. Because it grows very quickly and can get quite large, there has been a lot of interest in using giant reed to create biofuels, and companies in Oregon, Florida, and North Carolina have already planting it for this purpose. Unfortunately, the very same characteristics that make giant reed attractive as a biofuel crop make it a very highly invasive species.

Giant reed has been placed on noxious weed lists in Texas, California, Colorado, and Nevada and has been noted as either invasive or a serious risk in New Mexico, Alabama, and South Carolina. USDA, in their June 2012 weed risk assessment, concluded with very high certainty that giant reed is a high risk species, noting that it is a “highly invasive grass” and a “serious environmental weed.”

Giant reed has invaded vast areas along rivers in Texas, as seen in this aerial view near Big Bend National Park. Credit: John Goolsby, USDA

Once giant reed has taken hold, control is difficult and costly. In California, costs range between $5,000 and $17,000 per acre to eradicate the weed. Other estimates put that cost as high as $25,000 per acre.

Given the clear risks associated with growing giant reed for energy, the last thing we need is to be spending taxpayer-funded money encouraging producers to plant this stuff. There is still time for EPA to hit pause and fix the rule before finalizing it. If they do not, that $120 billion figure will only rise further.

Sandhill cranes are one of the species that will be affected by cuts to conservation

Today, people across the country are participating in a National Conservation Day of Action to protest the huge cuts to farm bill conservation programs that the House of Representative passed in their agriculture spending bill. Your Senator needs to hear from you about the importance on funding for conservation programs. The federal budget should not be balanced on the back of conservation and renewable energy.

Conservation programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program – which pays farmers to set aside and restore wetlands through long term and permanent easements – help to improve water quality, reduce downstream flooding risk, and provide valuable habitat for migratory birds such as the sandhill crane. Other conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which the House voted to dramatically cut, help farmers and ranchers to improve soil health, water quality, and habitat for wildlife

Farm Bill conservation programs not lead to improved soil quality, reduced downstream flooding, cleaner water, and enhanced wildlife habitat, they also directly benefit rural economies through the creation of hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreational opportunities. Take action now and call your Senator by dialing (202) 224-3121.  Tell them the Senate needs to protect farm bill conservation program spending and that the House agriculture spending bill is extreme and unfair. Or, click here if you’d prefer to send an email.

Photo courtesy of USDA

With the potential government shutdown looming closer and closer, many people far outside of DC are wondering what the government shutdown will mean for their daily lives.  While farmers may be miles from DC, many rely on the government for technical and financial assistance, particularly those who are trying to implement wildlife-friendly farming practices. So, what does a shutdown mean for your local farm?

With Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff sent home while the government is closed for business, a number of programs vital to the protection of natural resources on farms and ranches across the country will be delayed this year, and quite possibly severely reduced.  Farmers turn to USDA for programs that help them pay for and implement practices that conserve natural resources, such as soil and water, and protect these resources from pollution that can occur from conventional farming practices.

In the event of a government shutdown, farmers and landowners will face the following impacts:

• Sign-up for the Conservation Reserve Program, a vital program that protects highly erodible land and lands still in native ecosystems, would not occur during a shutdown. With the April 15th sign-up deadline only a week away, the timing could not be worse.
• Contract processing through the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Organic Initiative of the Environmental Quality Improvement Program will be delayed until government reopens.  Both programs help farmers with cost-share assistance and technical guidance to implement conservation practices on operating farms and farmland.

For either sign-up or contract processing, a delay caused by government shutdown would render many farmers unable to participate in these programs, even though these programs are funded through the Farm Bill.  The longer shutdown lasts, the less likely farmers will be to sign up for these programs when the opportunity occurs, since many will have to make planting and land management decisions in time for spring.

For farmers who care about conservation, this is the worst possible time for a government shutdown.

What does this mean for wildlife?

If Congress cannot agree on a budget:

• Fragile native ecosystems such as grasslands may be converted to cropland
• Many farmers will not be able to implement practices to protect water quality or wildlife habitat
• Organic farmers relying on government programs to help them transition to organic production will be left in the lurch.

While a government shutdown may last only a few days or weeks, the vital services NOT provided by federal agencies to farmers and landowners during that time will result in significant and lasting consequences for farm profitability, wildlife habitat, and water quality.

Tell Congress to stop the stealth attack on America’s air, water and wildlife.

Yet, only a few months ago, Congress voted to extend the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), a tax credit for corn ethanol that will cost U.S. taxpayers almost $6 billion per year and contributes more carbon pollution than it saves. The Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and leading economists across the country agree that these subsidies are unnecessary and barely have any impact on ethanol production, prices or jobs.

Corn ethanol is contributing to destruction of critical habitat for wildlife.  In fact, a University of Michigan study found that in areas where corn production has greatly increased, there have been decreases of as much as 30 percent in populations of grassland birds like the Western Meadowlark.  If this trend is not reversed soon, expanding corn ethanol production will have an irreversible impact on wildlife species across the Great Plains.

Some members of Congress are willing to take a stand against these wasteful subsidies. Earlier this month, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Repeal Act. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also introduced legislation that would cut subsidies and lower the tariff on ethanol imports. On the House side, Representatives Blumenauer (D-OR), Lance (R-NJ), Womack (R-AR), and Boren (D-OK) all introduced similar pieces of bipartisan legislation as well, along with a host of other cosponsors willing to stand up against corn ethanol.

With a vote coming as early as this afternoon, we need your help. Tell your Senator to say no to wasteful and environmentally damaging corn ethanol subsidies. Take Action Now!