Farm Bill includes conservation provisions important to hunters and the economy

Many Americans probably don't realize that the Farm Bill contains provisions for wildlife conservation programs, and that this has caused more than just farmers to press Congress for a vote on the bill. Hunters, anglers and conservationists have also been petitioning for passage of the stalled legislation. In a Politico opinion piece this week, Dale Hall, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and current CEO of Ducks Unlimited, writes about why conservation programs are so important.

"The Farm Bill's Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program not only have a positive impact on wildlife populations but also help conserve soil and keep our streams, rivers and lakes clean," Hall writes. The incentive-based programs allow conservation groups to work with farmers  to create benefits for all stakeholders: wildlife, farmers, ranchers, the environment and hunters and fishers, "which generates significant financial support for out nation's economy," Hall says. Hunters, fishers and wildlife watchers spent $145 billion on wildlife-related recreation last year, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Three aspects of the Farm Bill are of particular concern to conservation groups, Hall writes: maintaining and strengthening effective wetland protections, a national "sodsaver" provision to protect native prairies, and preserving conservation programs. (Read more)

House Farm Bill has more cuts in conservation, no mandatory funding for energy-related work

The House version of the Farm Bill "proposes a significant restructuring of farmland conservation programs and a downsizing of rural energy initiatives," Amanda Peterka reports for Environment & Energy News. "Unlike the Senate version, the House bill provides no mandatory funding for energy programs that help farmers and ranchers make energy efficiency improvements and plant biofuel crops." But it would expand the definition of "biobased" to include forest products.

The draft bill was released yesterday by the House Agriculture Committee and is scheduled for committee markup Wednesday. E&E reports that its conservation title differs from the Senate version by more tightly limiting enrollment in the Conservation Stewardship Program, "which rewards farmers and ranchers on a tiered basis for conservation activities" and does not include the Senate's "5 percent earmark for wildlife habitat projects." Like the Senate bill, it would cut to 25 million acres from 32 million the size of the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays property owners not to use marginal lands. "The reduction in CRP acres comes amid high crop prices that have spurred farmers to plant lands rather than set them aside for habitat and water quality reasons," E&E reports.(Subscription may be required)

Both bills would end direct payments to farmers and expand the crop-insurance system and limit insurance help for farmers who put native prairie land into production, but the House would apply that only to the Prairie Potholes region of the Upper Midwest. The so-called "sodbuster" rule is favored by environmental groups, sportsmen and the National Rifle Association.

Farmers flock to federal wetlands-reserve program, mainly along the Mississippi River

Interest among farmers and landowners in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program has significantly grown over the last three years since the program's enactment, according to the USDA. Natural Resources Deputy Undersecretary Ann Mills said the program was ready to fund $25 million in projects before a new request for proposals was sent out earlier this year.

The focus of the program is in the Mississippi River basin, which has constantly flooded in the past several years. Mills told Julie Harker of Brownfield that many farmers in the watershed are dealing with flooded land and the program allows them to make money while gaining better flood protection, improving water quality and increasing habitat for migratory birds.

More than 7,000 acres between the Mississippi River and its levees are enrolled in the program this year, with the potential for 30,000 acres to eventually be protected. Wetlands projects are funded in Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. (Read more)

Oil makes North Dakota boom, but at some cost to the environment

ProPublica, an independent investigative news operation, reports that oil companies in North Dakota have documented "more than 1,000 accidental releases of oil, drilling wastewater or other fluids in 2011, about as many as in the previous two years combined." (Photo by Karen Bleier)

Nicholas Kusnetz writes, "Many more illicit releases went unreported, state regulators acknowledge, when companies dumped truckloads of toxic fluid along the road or drained waste pits illegally. State officials say most of the releases are small. But in several cases, spills turned out to be far larger than initially thought, totaling millions of gallons. Releases of brine, which is often laced with carcinogenic chemicals and heavy metals, have wiped out aquatic life in streams and wetlands and sterilized farmland. The effects on land can last for years, or even decades. Compounding such problems, state regulators have often been unable — or unwilling — to compel energy companies to clean up their mess."

Under North Dakota regulations, Kusnetz notes, the agencies that oversee drilling and water safety "can sanction companies that dump or spill waste, but they seldom do: They have issued fewer than 50 disciplinary actions for all types of drilling violations, including spills, over the past three years." Mark Bohrer, who oversees spill reports for the state Department of Mineral Resources, which regulates drilling, told Kusnetz that the number of spills is "acceptable given the pace of drilling and that he sees little risk of long-term damage." Oil companies are drilling upwards of 200 wells each month in northwestern North Dakota, an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey, and the state now ranks second in production. The work has reinvigorated North Dakota's economy; unemployment sits at 3 percent, reversing a population decline that began in the mid-1980s, when the last oil boom went bust.

But there's always a downside. Micah Reuber, former environmental-contaminant specialist in North Dakota for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said he quit after growing increasingly frustrated with inadequate resources; responding to oil field spills was supposed to be a small part of his job, but it came to consume all of his time. He said no agency, federal or state, has the money or staff to study the effects of drilling-waste releases in North Dakota. Kris Roberts, who responds to spills for the Health Department, said that the state does not have the manpower to prevent or respond to illegal dumping. North Dakota's legislature has passed a few regulations this year, including a rule that bars storing wastewater in open pits. Still, writes Kusnetz, "advocates for landowners say they have seen little will, at either the state or federal level, to impose limits that could slow the pace of drilling." (Read more)