[env-trinity] Farm Subsidies and Chesbro Water Bond

[Tom Stokely]

FEDERAL POLICY
Editorial: A welcome drought
Riverside Press-Democrat - 2/13/05
California agriculture can weather a drought in federal farm subsidies, and with a federal budget deficit nearing one-half trillion dollars, the nation needs to quit squandering money. 

President Bush wants to trim $587 million in farm subsidies nationally. The cut may sound large, but it's chicken feed given the absurd sum the government spends on farm subsidies: $16.4 billion in 2003, the latest figure available. 

But the cuts worry California rice and cotton farmers, who collect most of the state's federal farm subsidies. Those farmers harvested $562 million of the $758 million in total agriculture subsidies California received in 2003, according to the Environmental Working Group's database of farm payments. 

Yet these farms' operations accounted for just $1.1 billion of the state's $29.3 billion agricultural output that year. Most of the state's other farmers don't get federal crop payments, and thrive economically. 

It's never made much sense to grow rice -- a water-intensive crop -- in arid California, where water is a precious commodity. The president's plan might lead some farmers to switch crops, thus making more efficient use of the state's water supplies. Such a move would help nourish California, as well as U.S. taxpayers. #

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_op_13_ed_subsidies3.58a1a.html



RELATED
Editorial: Subsidy program needs alterations 
Chico Enterprise-Record - 2/13/05
President Bush caused a stir this week, both locally and nationwide, by announcing his intention to cut farm subsidies. 

The political fallout has been fascinating. Red-state farmers are howling at the president and environmental groups are in what may be a first praising Bush. Or as close as they can come. The group Environmental Defense, for example, called Bush's proposal for farm subsidy reform "a small step in the right direction." 

Even the new federal agriculture secretary, Mike Johanns, a former governor of ag-rich Nebraska, says the cuts in farm subsidies are necessary. 

Among the targets are rice farmers, which is why Bush's proposal raised concerns in the north valley. 

After four years of Democrat-like spending, Bush finally realizes his spending habits didn't match his billing as a fiscal conservative. He proposed spending cuts in many programs and departments, including agriculture. We salute the president for trying to cut spending, and for daring to challenge his political base. 

Congress will now massage the proposal, and may eliminate it altogether. The lobbying has already begun. 

There are some aspects we like about Bush's proposal, and at least one major issue that concerns us. 

On the encouraging side, the subsidy program needs reform and Bush's proposal seems more fair. The Bush administration said the cuts would save $5.7 billion over the next decade. Large corporate farms get the most benefit from subsidies. According to the administration, the top 8 percent of subsidy recipients received 78 percent of total subsidies in 2003. We're all for helping small family farms. Any reform should find ways to make that happen. 

The proposal also would reduce the annual limit on payments to farmers from $360,000 to $250,000, and would eliminate loopholes that allow some growers to claim several times the limit. 

A 5 percent across-the-board cut would have wide repercussions in this area. According to the Farm Services Agency, Butte County growers received $31.6 million in subsidies in 2004 and Glenn County farmers received $29.9 million. 

And that's part of the big problem we see. A 5 percent cut would mean $3 million less in income in the two counties. The rice market is already in the tank, and a cut in government subsidies may give more rice farmers the easy out that many are taking selling water to Southern California or selling land to developers. 

The worse the economic climate for farmers, the more likely they are to become ex-farmers. We walk a delicate balance, trying to keep farming healthy without spending too much in government assistance. When farmers' land is worth more as a subdivision than a rice field, and when the water is worth more if it's sold than if it's used to grow crops, then the entire north state is in danger. 

Farming is critical to our area's economy and environment. The challenge is to encourage farming without too much dependence on the government. We wish the president luck.# 

http://www.chicoer.com/Stories/0,1413,135~25090~2709247,00.html



STATE BOND PROPOSALS
Chesbro proposes $3B bond for improving California parks 
Eureka Times-Standard - 2/12/05
SACRAMENTO -- Concerned about the restoration of North Coast rivers and protection of California's coastline, Sen. Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, Friday introduced a $3 billion act aimed at protecting a wide range of state and local park programs. 

Chesbro said the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (SB 153) "will provide California an opportunity to finish the Coastal trail, continue our work restoring salmon and steelhead habitat, and protecting the North Coast." 

He added: "The economic strength of coastal California is tied to environmental protection. The dramatic landscapes and recreational fishing opportunities draw visitors from throughout the world helping to make tourism one of our top industries. We need to continue our investments in California's natural assets." 

Included in the measure is more than $1 billion for forest protection, open space, coastal access and river restorations. 

In addition, the bond also allocates $700 million for new state parks and maintenance at existing parks, over $1 billion for local cities and counties for recreational programs, athletic fields and parks, $200 million for historic preservation, and a final $100 million for California senior center facilities. 

"It is time for the state to become a partner with local governments to assist preserving the state's historic treasures," Chesbro added. "Without our actions, thousands of treasures, public buildings and architectural gems will be lost to neglect." 

The new bond measure is a follow-up to Propositions 40 and 50, which Chesbro also authored. Those measures are beginning to run out of funding. Additional bonds will need to be approved by the voters if programs such as salmon restoration are to continue to be funded. 

Chesbro has organized a bipartisan coalition of state legislators who are supporting the Park Bond Act, including Assemblywoman Patty Berg of Eureka, Assemblywoman Noreen Evans of Santa Rosa and Assemblyman Joe Nation of San Rafael. 

SB 153 has to be in print for 30 days before it is heard by the Senate Natural Resources Committee. #

http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2707876,00.html#




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20050214/0be5f05f/attachment.html>