|
[ Home ] [ Leadership ] [ About Bill ] [ News ] [ Positions ] [ Support Bill ]
Agricultural Land Conversion
Today we recognize the importance of
environmental stewardship as never before. Our common goal: To protect our
natural resources. It is of critical importance that we proceed with rules
designed to address our environmental needs but perhaps of greater
importance, to put things in a context which effectively meet the needs of
everyone involved.
We have been fortunate in this country thus
far to rely on agriculture in satisfying our nutritional requirements on
demand, at competitive prices and with great variety. Presently though,
farmers in the Northeast are finding some agricultural practices difficult
to implement as they operate under the regulations of the Clean Water Act of
1978. The regulations have increased farmers' cost of production and have
diminished opportunities for full utilization of their resources. While we
all recognize the importance of protecting our natural resources let us not
overlook agriculture as a resource worth protecting.
Converting land from an unproductive use into
valuable agricultural land is a matter of following established rules. I
have been working with a farmer who manages a couple of thousand acres of
land in Northwestern Vermont and a similar amount of acreage in Northeastern
New York. The objective of the law is to protect our natural resources,
while well intentioned; the rules look different on paper than in practice.
This farmer, by converting three acres of land to improve efficiency, has
jeopardized his participation in federal Programs. These programs benefit
agriculture but also provide a measure of control over natural resources. If
the farmer is able to mitigate the three acres identified as wetland, he
will be off-the-hook. If not, he will be out of the Program resulting in
less regulatory control over some 4,000 acres.
A number of farmers have faced similar
consequences during the past few years as a result of economic pressures to
increase crop production in order to remain viable. The definition of
wetland by the federal government is substantially different than the
definition that most people would imagine. Hydric soils grow certain types
of vegetation indicating that a closer inspection of subsoils and hydrology
may reveal it fits the criteria of a wetland. It is quite possible to walk
through an area and return with clean dry shoes only to find that on closer
inspection it does in fact meet the federal criteria of a wetland.
It has become increasingly apparent that
rules designed for the protection of natural resources are difficult to
administer and too often create a significant hardship for farmers. The
farmer's asset, which he purchased to increase crop production, has been
reidentified and appropriated as the government's resource without
financially recognizing the farmer's interest, thereby setting the stage for
a tenuous relationship.
During the past several months, I have met
with officials from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Army Corps
of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency of Natural resources,
Agency of Agriculture, the Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and other
organizations here in Vermont. During September, Vermont Secretary of
Agriculture Roger Albee and I traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with Gary
Mast, Deputy Under Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Job
Serebrov, Senior Counselor to the General Counsel and Senior Advisor to the
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment and finally our Congressman,
Peter Welch. I have spent a great deal of time and personal resources
listening to everyone in order to develop a plan that will address our
mutual needs, one that includes agriculture, Natural Resources, Lake
Champlain and the people of our region.
Since farmers control large tracts of land and
environmental control is difficult to achieve, perhaps we could adopt a
proactive approach to the problem, one which includes the farmer and allows
everyone to participate in protecting our natural resources; rather than a
system which levies a fine or penalty against the people whose livelihood is
producing our food. In the Franklin/Grand Isle region of Vermont, this could
be accomplished through a pilot project to develop a master plan on each
farm choosing to participate in the program.
It seems to me that virtually every farm in
Vermont has wetland. Some areas of wetland are quite large; others are small
and scattered sporadically across the land base. If a field or potential
field has identifiable wetland which makes it difficult for agricultural
production, I suggest that a master plan take the total of those wet acres
and expand a designated wetland or swamp by that amount. This solution would
effectively create a larger more productive wildlife habitat in a designated
area, a larger more productive agricultural resource, with no net loss of
wetland and no net loss of hydrology. In other words, mitigate the wetlands
by replacing them with other lands on the farm in an area contiguous to the
designated area or swamp.
Farmers recognize the importance of buffer
strips along waterways and drainage ditches. However, farmers also find it
difficult to give up productive land to create those buffers. If his
productive fields can be expanded or are more efficiently harvested, the
farmer can then effectively cooperate with the intent of the Clean Water
Act.
If we look at the median age of the farmer in
Vermont and compare the value of agricultural land to that of other real
estate, we then begin to recognize another definition of highly erodible
land. The Clean Water Act sets forth requirements to protect our natural
resources but in this instance causes unintended harm, which encourages an
exodus from agriculture to other forms of land development.
As the farmer begins to transition his land
out of Agriculture for other uses, either more profitable or less regulated,
we will begin to recognize a loss to our economy our infrastructure and our
natural resources. Dairy is Vermont's chief economic engine and a diminished
agricultural base places a greatly increased burden on everything left
behind, including all of us.
The USDA website displays a 10-page list of
studies on nutrition, one study shows that by spending 10 - 12 Billion
dollars more on nutrition the Federal government could eliminate hunger in
the United States. Too often, we go to great expense in order to avoid a
pitfall, yet manage to fall short on something as real as hunger in our own
country. In a context which addresses all of our needs we must first
define wetland and then put things in perspective with a more
comprehensive plan which protects our natural resources and encourages
agricultural production.
|