Remarks by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger Soil and Water Conservation Society "The State of North America's Private Lands" Chicago, Ill January 20, 1999 Remarks As Prepared for Delivery by Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger Soil and Water Conservation Society "The State of North America's Private Lands" Chicago, Ill January 20, 1999 "It's a pleasure to be with you today, especially with so many wonderful friends who also happen to be national leaders in private land stewardship. Mark Twain once said that you can live for two months on a good compliment. I could say enough about many of the folks in this room to keep them going for at least a year ... but for now I want to recognize the Chief of NRCS, Pearlie Reed, who's here today and who's doing a terrific job at the helm of this demanding, important agency ... and I want to single out several distinguished USDA alumni --Executive Director Craig Cox, and the Co-Chairs of this conference, Norm Berg and Paul Johnson. "Craig, Norm, Paul and I go back through several incarnations. That's not a reflection on our collective years, but on the different paths that keep bringing us back to the same place: our determination to recognize and address the needs of America's private lands and private landowners ... to achieve, as Pearlie Reed and Paul Johnson would say, "a geography of hope." "By the time I took this job in '93, Chief Norm Berg was already a legend in his own time. He had dedicated a career to the Soil Conservation Service and gone on to found the Berg Fellowship Forum, a brilliant and timely concept. "In the late '80's and early '90s, I worked with Paul Johnson and Craig Cox on the National Research Council's Committee on Long-Range Soil and Water Conservation. By the time we were crafting the FAIR Act, USDA not only had the benefit of the Committee's ideas, but we had Craig and Paul as well. I've worked closely with Craig in the last few years, especially on the Clean Water Action Plan. I know his skills and share his vision, and wish him continued success here at the Society. "As for Paul ... what can I say? We go back some 11 years, first working together as farmers from Iowa and California, and we still miss him at USDA. Paul led the transition of SCS into a new agency. He re-focused NRCS on its conservation mission. He strongly influenced the conservation title of the Farm Bill, the most progressive conservation title ever enacted. We expanded the definition of 'environmental benefits' to include not just comprehensive soil conservation, but protection of wildlife habitat and the health of our rivers and streams. Our focus shifted from "soil erosion" to measuring land value according to its capacity to produce food, fiber, clean water and wildlife habitat. Probably most important, Paul (along with Pearlie and Craig) set the stage for private land stewardship as a priority in the national conscience. And now he's back home in Iowa as Director of Natural Resources. We're looking for great things to come out of Iowa. CONSIDERING THE FUTURE OF CONSERVATION "As many of you know, more than 90 percent of our natural resource investments are on public lands, which constitute one-third of the American landscape. The remaining two-thirds are in private ownership in crop, range, and forest lands. And less than five percent of this land base is developed, in urban and suburban lands. Seventy-five percent of America resides on this five percent of our privately-owned land base. "In the 1930's and 40's, when our nation fought to turn the tide on the soil erosion crisis, USDA, state, and local conservation programs spent about $5.6 billion (in 1996 constant dollars) on agricultural conservation, most of it on financial assistance for private lands stewardship. Compare that to a 1996 level of about $2 billion, half of which went to land reserve programs and half to technical and financial assistance programs. "As we enter the next millennium, we must rededicate our efforts to conserving the health of our nation's landscapes. We must continue to invest in the protection, restoration, and stewardship of the entire landscape public, private, and urban lands -- and re-emphasize the clear links between landscape health and our nation's economic health ... between clean air, clean water, productive soils, and biodiversity, and the quality of life our nation offers its people. "We can't talk about sustainability in the 21st century without talking about agriculture's relationship with its urban neighbors. Farmland loss jeopardizes the next century in ways our urban population and some rural folks haven't quite come to grips with yet. It results in less food and fiber, and affects "livability" and "quality of life" issues including energy costs, traffic congestion, air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat, and the nation's rural character. "Last week, President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced two bold new budget initiatives directly related to many of USDA's natural resource conservation goals: a new Livability Agenda for the 21st Century, and a Lands Legacy Initiative. These initiatives will help give communities tools to preserve green spaces, curb urban sprawl, and conserve and restore wetlands on private lands. They will build on the Vice President's plans for 'smart growth' in America that include protecting America's prime farmland from development. The President's FY 2000 initiative adds $50 million to USDA's $27.5 million Farmland Protection Program. I want to recognize here the excellent work and support of Ralph Grossi and the American Farmland Trust in keeping farmland protection at the forefront of our national conservation agenda. ASSESSING THE STATE OF OUR PRIVATE LANDS "In line with your conference goals to assess the state of our private lands, I'd like to ask you to consider three questions. First, where are we in terms of our knowledge about the health of the American landscape? Are we doing all we can to assess the state of private lands? "Second, how should we link future environmental progress in agriculture to producers? What additional incentives can we create to pay farmers to produce soil, water, wildlife, biodiversity and other environmental benefits? "And third, how much are we willing to invest to achieve our environmental stewardship goals? "I submit to you today that if we are to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of our nation's lands and set the stage for the next century, we must have a solid understanding of current conditions ... the quality of our soil, the state of our wildlife habitat and biodiversity, our water quality, and the interrelationship between these resources and our farmers, ranchers and the community as a whole. "As you know, the health of our land encompasses both soil erosion and soil quality. So far, we've focused most of our efforts on soil erosion. I believe - and I think many here would agree - that it's time to undertake a comprehensive study on soil quality issues. We should use the 1993 National Research Council study as a springboard for our efforts. The NRC study looked at soil and water quality and concluded that our focus on erosion and productivity is too narrow. It emphasized that soil degradation stems from threats that go beyond erosion from salinization and compaction, biological activity, and reduced capacity to store water and nutrients, to name just few. Clearly, this issue demands greater attention and more scientifically- supported data. "The situation is similar for wildlife habitat. That's not to say we aren't making significant progress. Last year, above and beyond $200 million that USDA paid farmers to promote sustainable farming, we gave $30 million more to help them protect wildlife under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. "We've moved the Conservation Reserve Program to new heights by creating Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs in six states -- Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington -- with more to come. CREP gives local areas the chance to hone in on their own specific problems, ranging from protecting New York's drinking water to all kinds of habitat issues... tackling Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake ... protecting habitats for endangered salmon and trout in the Pacific Northwest ... boosting populations of native fish and threatened species of mallards and eagles along the Illinois River by cutting down the flow of sediment, phosphorous and nitrogen. "To set the stage for teeming wildlife populations in the future, we need to get a more comprehensive understanding of the extent of degradation now. "Similarly, we need to push forward on the study of the nature and the extent of agriculture's contribution to the nation's water quality problems. The President's Clean Water Action Plan is one of our first comprehensive efforts to assess our water quality problems. Last year, USDA and EPA held regional briefings around the country to bring our partners and constituents into a comprehensive dialogue on the President's Clean Water Action Plan. And we're moving forward on two of its key components: first, a national strategy on animal feeding operations, hands down the biggest conservation issue facing agriculture ... and second, a nationwide watershed assessment, which NRCS is leading with support from state water quality agencies. "Some of the biggest environmental challenges we face have been at least 20 years in the making. The livestock industry -- like all of agriculture -- has changed dramatically in the past two decades. Fewer and larger livestock operations, in some cases relocated to states with weaker environmental and health protections, have resulted in serious threats to water and air quality. "The problems are big, and so is the nation's stake in solutions that preserve our health and environment while fostering a sustainable, economically viable livestock industry -- an industry that accounts for half of all sales in U.S. agriculture today. Solutions won't be easy. We know that from the passion folks bring to this issue. "We all recognize that agriculture impacts water quality. Rather than scapegoating agriculture, the Clean Water Action Plan sees our farmers and ranchers as a significant part of the solution. It envisions them -- voluntarily and with the help of incentives -- producing clean water just like they produce food and fiber. It looks to and depends on local people stepping up to the plate, assuming leadership roles, and coming up with solutions that work for their watershed. "As you know, we asked for increased funding this year for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and for partnership grants and other efforts to protect watersheds. Like you, we were disappointed that Congress denied our requests. I want you to know that we'll continue to make every effort to meet the demands that AFO implementation puts on operators. I want to assure you that as we move forward with national standards, we'll also move forward with an equally strong commitment to helping producers meet the standards we set. We won't ask them to go it alone. Through NRCS, we'll be available to them for technical assistance and hopefully we can look to funding increases next year. "Another issue demanding attention is the future of the nation's wetlands. Our progress to date is good: right now some 660,000 acres are enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program. Wetlands conversion is lower than ever, but with over 90 percent of our nation's historic wetlands (in the lower 48 states) already lost, we must do more to reach our national goal of "no net loss" by conserving and restoring at least as much as we lose. "Wetlands yield the full range of environmental benefits they preserve water quality, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, prevent erosion, reduce flood damage, and offer open spaces and recreational areas. Their public benefits extend well beyond their boundaries. We must ensure wetlands protection through a combination of federal and state regulatory programs and economic incentives for private landowners. ENVIRONMENTAL INCENTIVES APPROACHES FOR 21ST CENTURY "If we use the excellent tools at our disposal to move toward a sustainable agriculture ... our vast science and research capacity to identify soil condition, habitat, water quality and agriculture's interconnected components ... our technical assistance to landowners to help them apply science in a practical, sustainable way ... can we do better by the third tool, economic incentives? "Our attempts to address the effects of global climate change are leading us down new paths of thought about economic incentives. Without question, there is a significant part to be played by U.S agriculture. We rank high on the list of those with the most at stake in this debate since we are probably more sensitive than any other industry to changes in the weather. Last week, 1998 was officially declared the hottest year in recorded history ... we suffered ... El Nino, Bonnie and Earl ... back-to-back floods in some parts of the country, droughts, and crop disease. Everyone's got a theory on what it all means, but there's one thing the experts agree on: man is leaving his mark on the earth. "At USDA, we have some of the world's greatest research minds working on this issue. As we see it, agriculture can be part of the solution to climate change. Our $57 million research program is exploring new methods of production that benefit agriculture and reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- from carbon sequestration that protects the soil and the air to animal waste management that protects our waterways and the air. We are also exploring biomass issues -- replacing fossil fuels with agricultural energy sources to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. "But addressing climate change in a responsible and sensible manner is not something that can be accomplished by government alone. It is going to take the commitment of private citizens and industry. The good news is that our conservation programs are not only improving water quality, reducing erosion, and generating wildlife habitat; they are also sequestering carbon. The CRP, for example, is estimated to sequester over 12 million metric tons of carbon equivalent per year ... and conservation tillage about 22 million metric tons. Research shows agriculture could potentially sequester significantly more carbon each year. In the long-term, this carbon could be of cash value to farmers as it can be used to offset greenhouse gas emissions and help the U.S. meet its greenhouse gas goals. "Given the challenges we face, it is time to carefully re-examine the incentives we offer producers to be environmentally sensitive. It's time to reassess our policy options in order to generate greater producer involvement in sustainable ag practices. "USDA has been a strong and supportive partner in conservation efforts. We're proud of and gratified by farmers' response to the range of voluntary, incentive-based programs, from CRP to EQIP and WHIP. Right now, for example, farmers have enrolled almost 250,000 miles of conservation buffers in the buffer strip initiative, which pays them to shield waterways from farm run- off. "Much of this success is the result of how we do business. Our voluntary, cooperative programs recognize the truth that no Americans have more at stake in the health of the land than those who derive their living directly from it. Under the FAIR Act, we established conservation programs that are bona fide conservation programs, without a secondary purpose of sidelining productive farmland and pulling the levers on supply and demand. "As we enter the 21st century, agricultural conservation and environmental policy is at a crossroads. Environmental protection is increasingly important in ag policy decisions, but the future of commodity policy is uncertain. Recognizing that there are no simple solutions, we need -more- -6- to start thinking about whether current agricultural policy can meet our environmental goals while protecting the economic viability of our nation's farms. "How can we build on current programs to reward farmers as good conservationists? If they are excellent stewards of the land, should this volunteerism reap its own reward? Some people support the concept of "green payments," considered a balance between traditional commodity payments and "polluter pays" regulatory principles. "Some support the idea of trading pollution rights. That's the concept, in effect, of "contracting out" the clean-up. In the same vein, some companies are exploring the economics of buying up carbon sequestration credits from farmers. Keep in mind that these are ideas only, with even the potential for practical application a long way off. "We've made great strides with many successes in private lands conservation in the last 60 years, and the recent initiatives announced by the President and the Vice President will move us to another level. But we still need to do more. We need private land conservation higher on more priority lists to generate greater investment that will yield the "goods" society wants. "In short, we have an agenda that demands hard thinking by the best minds in environmental conservation and private lands stewardship many of them right here in this room. Our nation's future and quality of life, our ability to produce food and fiber, our ability to produce rich soils, clean water and wildlife habitat, depend on it. "I'd like to thank the Society for providing forums like this to help build new bridges to that future. I ask you to help us explore ways to assess the state of our private lands and translate that knowledge into sound and practical land stewardship tools for our nation's top environmental stewards, our farmers. "Thank you." #