Is it time to re-think farm supports and conservation?

If you follow the national ag press, you already know that the general consensus among farm policy experts seems to be that there is little hope for a new Farm Bill any time before spring, with many making the case that we won’t see any real farm bill action until after the November 2024 elections.

This should come as no surprise and not just because of the leadership challenges in the House of Representatives. There is also debate about the level of reference prices for crop support programs, proposed cuts for nutrition assistance and the conservation priorities set by the Inflation Reduction Act. All this adds up to a likely long, slow slog before we see any solid proposals on farm policy develop in D.C.

One bonus, I suppose, of this political malaise is that it gives you the chance to step back and consider how U.S. farm policy is currently shaped and how it might be changed. I’ve often wondered if we could structure a farm program in a way that not just supports the bottom-line of ag producers, but also make sure that our natural resource base has the ability to keep feeding and clothing our nation as we move into a future of 10 billion people all living in a world with an ever-changing climate (complete with the more extreme weather climate change is bringing)?

For several years now I have kicked around the idea that it might be time for Congress to explore the idea of a conservation based direct support program. What would happen if the United States decided to pay producers for HOW they manage their farm and ranch land instead of paying producers when the price for WHAT they produce falls below a certain level?

Now I’m not talking about a new cost-share program. What I am talking about is a program that would provide a per-acre payment to a participating farmer or rancher (livestock operations should qualify too) if they agree to undertake a certain level of stewardship on the land they manage.

The seeds for this idea already exist in the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) at USDA-NRCS. I remember clearly that when this program first became law, then Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said that his vision for CSP was that it would “reward the best and incentivize the rest” of agriculture producers when it came to conservation. His idea was that we should provide a per-acre payment to good stewards of the land and give a nudge to other producers to follow their lead in the form of additional financial assistance if they would step-up their conservation game. The program has never really worked as I believe Harkin intended, but this basic idea for a “stewardship payment” program is clearly there.

I’m not talking about organic farming or hobby farming (although those folks could have a seat at the table). I’m also not talking about taking large swaths of land out of production. What I’m talking about is paying producers for doing things like controlling soil erosion, fighting invasive species, controlling run-off into streams and rivers, building more organic matter in the soil (and with it, sequestering carbon), employing more efficient irrigation systems, improving pasture management and burning less fuel—things producers should want to do already and things that society needs done, especially if we want to feed and clothe a growing world on a declining resource base.

Taxpayers would get cleaner water; society would get improved wildlife habitat; we could reduce wildfire danger; we could lower green-house gas levels and we would provide farmers and ranchers with the economic support they need to ride through the bad times while still giving us the food security we need to keep our country safe and fed. It could even help protect the current Federal Crop Insurance System since it wouldn’t replace existing price fluctuation protection and it could help “harden” farms and ranches to extreme weather, hopefully reducing some of the losses we are now seeing due to events like droughts and floods.

The devil would clearly be in the details and I have no idea what it would cost. That being said, I wish somebody somewhere would consider this option. We have to protect our food production base and we need to protect our natural resource base. The idea of a stewardship-based payment system seems like a good way to do both…and help ag producers stay in business.

Clay Pope is a natural resource consultant. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of his current or former employers. You can read more from Clay and listen to his podcast at https://southernplainsperspective.wordpress.com/.