Fall 2012
PROTECTING CONSERVATION
COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS:
A public health priority
Our position
The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
supports the continuation and enforcement of
conservation compliance requirements by linking
them to all farm support programs, especially
crop insurance premium subsidies.
How can conservation
compliance measures
protect health?
Human health is made vulnerable by threats
to food security and water quality, and by
severe weather events such as flooding. But
conservation compliance measures help to
preserve the capacity of soils and wetlands to
protect against these threats and promote the
public’s health.
What is conservation compliance?
Several USDA farm support programs offer benefits
to farmers on the condition that they meet minimal
standards of environmental protection on highly
erodible land and wetlands. These requirements
are commonly known as “conservation compliance.”
Farmers who fail to follow through with conservation
compliance provisions could lose program benefits.
Among the farm support programs offering benefits
on the condition of conservation compliance, Direct
Payments, a form of “farm subsidies,” make up
nearly half of the funds.
Legislators are preparing to phase out Direct Payments in the next farm bill, putting conservation
compliance measures at risk. But they aim to continue providing a safety net for farmers by expanding other programs, such as crop insurance subsidies. (Crop insurance subsidies are government
payments to cover a percentage of farmers’ crop
insurance premiums.) Linking conservation compliance measures, like Swampbuster and Sodbuster,
to programs like crop insurance subsidies would
preserve a major incentive for U.S. farmers to promote soil quality, reduce soil erosion and conserve
wetlands.
Water quality
Both soil and wetlands play critical roles in maintaining good water quality, acting as filters that keep
harmful chemicals out of waterways and groundwater. Soil does this with organic matter, which is the
heart of topsoil; it slows down erosion and minimizes runoff that contains chemicals. In addition,
healthy topsoil absorbs potential contaminants and
binds pesticides, keeping them out of waterways
and groundwater.
The loss of soil (through erosion) and the loss of
wetlands have serious impacts on water quality.
As our water filters disappear, more pollutants and
contaminants make their way into our groundwater
and waterways.
Farm Bill: Protecting Conservation Compliance Programs
Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers used in agriculture have
negative impacts on water quality. When more fertilizer is applied than can be absorbed by cropland, the
excess fertilizer nutrients, such as nitrates, can enter
nearby waterways or leach into groundwater, contributing to human health and ecological harms. Ingesting nitrate-contaminated drinking water has been
associated with various cancers, adverse reproductive outcomes, diabetes, thyroid conditions and the
potentially fatal “blue baby syndrome.” Nutrient pollution in waterways also contributes to “dead zones.”
But conservation compliance measures to protect soil
and wetland ecosystems—such as Sodbuster, which
protects highly erodible lands, and Swampbuster,
which protects wetlands—may help to mitigate agricultural impacts on water quality.
Flooding
Floods can have significant negative health, social,
ecological and economic impacts. Wetlands, however, can abate the destructive potential of floods. An
acre of typical wetland can store roughly one million
gallons of water—an amount equivalent to over two
football fields submerged one-foot deep in water. The
destruction and degradation of wetlands as a result
of agricultural practices can significantly impair the
services they offer against flooding.
Food security
Healthy soil is the foundation of the food supply. As
soil is depleted, its ability to support food production
diminishes. With lowered crop yields come higher
food prices and decreased food security.
Conservation compliance measures help protect,
and sometimes improve, soil quality. The organic
matter in healthy soil serves as a sponge-like reservoir of water and nutrients, providing plants with a
steady supply of resources for growth. The capacity
of healthy soil to retain water is particularly valuable
during droughts. Organic matter also improves soil
structure by helping to aerate roots, by improving
drainage and absorbing rainfall and irrigation, and
by reducing runoff and erosion, which is especially
important during flooding.
Climate change
Climate change poses serious challenges to food
and water security, and contributes both directly and
indirectly to infectious disease, heat stress, respiratory conditions and other health problems. Fortunately,
soil organic matter stores carbon, a greenhouse gas
(GHG) that would otherwise contribute to climate
change. But high prices for crops give farmers an
Farm Bill: Protecting Conservation Compliance Programs
incentive to convert native sod and wetlands into
cropland. Unfortunately, the conversion of sod and
wetlands to cropland emits carbon and further contributes to climate change. In fact, although wetlands
do emit some methane, another GHG, overall they
seem to sequester more GHGs than they emit, by
acting as a carbon sink.
Conservation compliance programs such as Sodbuster and Swampbuster incentivize famers to keep
native grounds intact, which limits the emission of
GHGs—and perhaps reduces vulnerability to severe
weather events associated with climate change.
We Need a Safety Net
for the Environment
Investment in crop insurance subsidies is often presented as a way to maintain a farm safety net. But
crop insurance subsidies are currently the only large
farm bill program not subject to conservation compliance. By allowing farmers to benefit from crop insurance, but letting them off the hook for conservation
compliance, the taxpayer makes four pay-outs—while
allowing farmers to contribute to environmental degradation. The first pay-out is for the crop insurance
subsidy itself. The second pay-out is for the rise in insurance costs as the lack of conservation compliance
creates more agricultural loss. The third pay-out is for
the cost of environmental damage resulting from farm
practices that have been allowed, such as converting
wetlands into cropland. And the fourth pay-out is for
the health costs associated with environmental damage.
As crop insurance becomes the dominant farm safety
net, and Direct Payments are phased out, the only
responsible action is to tie conservation compliance
to all farm support programs. Soil erosion and loss
of wetlands contribute to poor water and soil quality,
which, in turn, contribute to negative health impacts
such as cancer, allergic reactions, and neurological
and reproductive health problems. For the next farm
bill to promote human health, it should link conservation compliance provisions to federal crop insurance
subsidy programs and strengthen enforcement of the
provisions across all USDA farm support programs.
Conservation compliance benefits farmers,too.
Conservation levels the playing field and incentivizes
farmers to safeguard their land for the future.
For more details: See CLF’s full brief on this issue
here: www.jhsph.edu/clf/conserv-compliance.pdf.