As Senate Nears Action on Farm Bill, Economic Study Shows Most States Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding
September 27, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org
Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org
(Washington, DC – September 27, 2007) A new analysis of Farm Bill spending by a former USDA economist shows that farmers in 37 out of 50 states would receive between about $1 million and $33 million more in annual federal support by shifting “direct” subsidy payments to provide $6 billion more in funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs than they would receive if the current Farm Bill were extended.* USDA conservation programs help farmers provide cleaner air, cleaner water, and wildlife habitat and protect farmland from development. Increasing funding for conservation programs by $6 billion is the stated goal of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. His committee is expected to consider how to revise the Farm Bill as soon as next week.
Based upon the average conservation payment per recipient of less than $4,200 in 2005, expanded conservation funding in the 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl. The study, “Fairness on the Farm: Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in More States,” predicts reductions in federal farm spending in the remaining states would represent less than one percent of the market value of production in each of those states.
Currently, six out of 10 farmers grow fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops that are ineligible for direct subsidy payments and the largest 10 percent of direct payment recipients collect 64 percent of all payments. Under current farm policies, half of all farm program spending goes to just seven states.
“Our farm subsidies are broken,” said Tim Male, senior scientist for Environmental Defense. “The most expensive subsidies - direct payment s - cost tens of billions of dollars, provide payments at the wrong times, and provide no help to most farmers. Greater funding for conservation programs would help more farmers and produce enormous public benefits.”
USDA data shows that two out of three farmers are rejected when they offer to share the cost of meeting our environmental challenges because of our misplaced spending priorities. Direct subsidies are fixed payments linked to a farm’s past crop production, not to current prices or production, and are made even when farmers are earning record-level net incomes, as they are this year, according to USDA. High farm prices and incomes are expected to continue throughout the five years covered by the 2007 Farm Bill.
“Farmers in too many states and regions don’t get a fair share of federal farm spending; conservation dollars are distributed more equitably,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “For 74 senators representing 37 states, voting against reforms that reduce some subsidies and invest more in conservation programs will mean voting against their own farmers’ interests.”
*Below is a list of the 37 states that would benefit from shifting direct subsidy payments to conservation funding and the annual net gain they would receive compared to an extension of the current Farm Bill:
| Alabama | $27,947,656 |
| Alaska | $1,326,730 |
| Arizona | $9,921,190 |
| California | $10,922,894 |
| Colorado | $20,326,568 |
| Connecticut | $3,057,138 |
| Delaware | $3,645,395 |
| Florida | $26,021,150 |
| Georgia | $13,223,343 |
| Hawaii | $4,101,699 |
| Idaho | $8,624,625 |
| Kentucky | $17,716,677 |
| Maine | $13,534,158 |
| Maryland | $5,113,399 |
| Massachusetts | $4,117,188 |
| Michigan | $925,796 |
| Mississippi | $4,758,553 |
| Missouri | $5,979,201 |
| Montana | $18,509,533 |
| Nevada | $7,785,134 |
| New Hampshire | $3,371,618 |
| New Jersey | $2,470,688 |
| New Mexico | $17,338,705 |
| New York | $18,785,058 |
| North Carolina | $33,392,817 |
| Oklahoma | $1,949,912 |
| Oregon | $17,730,402 |
| Pennsylvania | $12,920,165 |
| Rhode Island | $1,279,274 |
| South Carolina | $10,279,307 |
| Tennessee | $8,675,993 |
| Utah | $24,358,434 |
| Vermont | $8,283,516 |
| Virginia | $18,575,900 |
| Washington | $10,968,581 |
| West Virginia | $18,037,253 |
| Wyoming | $21,295,176 |
For a detailed breakdown of how farmers in 37 states would benefit under this scenario and to see the full report, visit www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.