Farmers sound off to government officials

By FRITZ BUSCH

Journal Staff Writer

MANKATO -- Farmers and government officials discussed a variety of subjects Friday at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Agriculture hearing at the Mankato City Hall.

Good and bad points of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) were a major topic of discussion.

New Ulm area farmer Ralph Stadick, a member of the Brown County Soil and Water Conservation District, said he would like to see a program that would cover a four and one-half acre area on his farm that has never been farmed. Stadick planted trees in the spot, since he can't put it into CRP or CREP.

"It isn't that I couldn't farm it, it's only 50 feet from the county ditch. I could tile it out and farm it," said Stadick. "I figured it would make a good area for wildlife, so I left it alone, except for keeping the weeds down, so somebody can hunt pheasants down there. I would accept even 60 or 70 percent of what other program payments would be."

Stadick said he thinks farmers would be willing get into a such a program that would also make hunters happy and help the Minnesota River.

Officials mentioned that only 850,000 acres has been earmarked for sign-up acres while the CRP is designed for five million acres.

Hector farmer Al Roepke said he would like to see federal program regulations that would allow farmers to square up fields for continuous sign-up acres.

"You could get five million sign-up acres if we could do that," said Roepke.

A Claremont farmer said he chose not to enroll in continuous CRP because he was told his cover lacked diversity and would not qualify unless he reseeded both sides of a ditch.

"The reseeding would have been costly, time-consuming, and made the land susceptible to erosion during reseeding," said soybean and corn producer Gary Joachim.

Farmers also said they would like to see more non-regulatory, incentive-based programs and they thought some federal agencies did not work together very well.

Tom Calahar of the Renville County Soil and Water Conservation District, said programs do not accommodate about 10 to 15 percent of the county's marginal farm land that does not cash flow, and should be retired to water and soil conservation programs.

Officials explained that Minnesota farmland rents, often double or more than those in the Dakotas, sometimes work against us when rental bids are sent to Washington, D.C.

Lower-value bids are often taken first when they are put into a pool, leaving Minnesota with the "short end of the stick," according to Ron Harnack of the Division of Water and Soil Resources.

The self-employment tax on CRP payments was another issue.

A recent court case held that the IRS is unfairly penalizing farmers if it dips into their social security to collect back taxes on CRP payments.

Pine Island farmer Owen Knutson, who is also president of the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, said CRP needs to be a conservation program, not a price-support program.

"Adjusting the cost share rate for larger trees in order to assure a better survival rate in some of these buffer situations, particularly riparian settings, would be better bang for the buck," said Knutson.

Faribault county farmer Tom Ward said regular sign-up CRP program places too much emphasis on wildlife and location, and rental rates are too low. Ward said continuous sign-up CRP maximum width restrictions are too tight.

Scott Sparlin of New Ulm and the Coalition for a Clean Minnesota River (CCMR), attended the meeting, was earlier asked to give testimony, but was not called forward.

Sparlin's group along with the New Ulm Area Sportfishermen, Minnesota Audubon, and Clean Up Our River Environment (CURE) left a four-page paper at the hearing. It hailed the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) but said strong efforts must be made to protect and maintain existing wetlands.

"How much sense does it make to invest heavily in restoring wetlands on one farm, while the next farm downstream drains every last wetland and sends its water, soil, and nutrients right into the river?," read their testimony.

Farm Bill conservation programs, and Swampbuster in particular, do not provide a basic standard for wetland protection. The goals of these programs discourage wetland conversion and surplus commodity production by withholding program payments to agricultural producers who convert wetlands for ag production, according to the paper.

Officials said the CREP is set to expire Sept. 20, 2002. If state money is not appropriated for it nine months before the expiration date, no more acres will be signed up.

Harnack said the Farm Service Agency is considering adding a bonus to continuous signup CRP.

Testimony at the hearing and further information received in the next 10 days will be used in the formulation of the 2000 federal farm bill.