Des Moines Register
08-28-06
Remake farm bill with energy in mind
Tie income safety net to conservation and fuel production.
REGISTER EDITORIAL BOARD
U.S. farm programs basically lock farmers in to growing corn, soybeans, wheat, rice or cotton.
That needs to change if American farms in the future are going to be a major source of energy as well as food.
There's no room for switchgrass or other potential energy crops in current farm programs.
An agricultural revolution tied to energy production is coming, and farm programs need to be rewritten to coax it along. (An accompanying article discusses some of the possible changes in agriculture.)
The current farm programs expire in 2007, and there is some sentiment in Congress for avoiding a fight by simply renewing them with little change. That shouldn't even be an option.
The coming energy revolution is just one of the reasons the current programs need to be overhauled.
• The subsidies overcompensate big farms and accelerate the trend of squeezing out small and mid-sized family farms.
• Some aspects of the programs violate free-trade principles and get in the way of negotiating lower barriers to exports.
• The enormous cost of the programs cannot be sustained by a deficit-ridden federal government.
• There is evidence the subsidies foster a culture of dependence, discourage risk-taking and hinder rural economic development.
They could also hinder the introduction of crops grown as energy sources. If a farmer decides to grow a program crop such as corn, the government takes much of the risk out of the decision by essentially guaranteeing a minimum price through the commodity loan program. There would be no such guarantee if a farmer decided to take the risk of introducing switchgrass or some other energy crop, or of buying expensive equipment to harvest crop residue as ethanol feedstock.
The answer isn't to expand the list of crops eligible for subsidy. Rather, it is to devise an income safety net that is independent of farmers' cropping choices.
Farmers should be free to produce any crops, including energy crops, based on their judgment of the potential profit, rather than on the government's list of subsidized commodities.
Farmers could still have an income safety net, but it shouldn't be based on what commodity they grow. It should be based on how well they take care of the land.
The next farm bill should subsidize farmers according to their stewardship of the environment, expanding on the concept of the existing but underfunded Conservation Security Program.
This fundamental change in farm programs - subsidizing environmental stewardship instead of commodity production - would eliminate the trade-negotiation problems, encourage more risk-taking and entrepreneurship in rural America and help clean up the rivers, lakes and streams.
Taxpayers surely will object less to the cost of farm programs if they get a cleaner environment in the bargain.
The next farm bill also should provide additional funds for research and engineering aimed at speeding the arrival of the agricultural revolution and the bioeconomy.
Indeed, the next farm bill shouldn't be a farm bill at all. It should be a farm/energy/conservation bill that will be remembered as landmark legislation.