Published January 7, 2004

Three years ago, when Congress began drafting the last major farm bill, Sen. Tom Harkin came up with a novel idea: Taxpayers should get something in return for the billions of dollars in farm subsidies they send to rural America each year. The Iowa Democrat joined Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon and agreed that a portion of federal crop payments should be set aside for farmers who reduce soil erosion, stop chemical runoff into local rivers and produce other environmental benefits.

The Harkin-Smith plan, known as the Conservation Security Program, became part of the larger 2002 farm bill, but it has faced tough sledding ever since. First a rival group of farm-state lawmakers tried to reduce the amount of money that would be diverted from traditional crop subsidies. Then, when it came time for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue enrollment rules, the Bush administration stalled the process for more than 10 months, meaning that farmers missed the entire 2003 growing season.

Last week, finally, the administration published the proposed rules for public review. This should be cause for celebration among small farmers and rural conservationists, who can start planning for the 2004 planting season. But it should also be cause for scrutiny and comment because at first glance the rules seem unnecessarily to limit the scope of the program and the number of farmers who might qualify.

To be sure, writing these rules was a tricky job. The program was supposed to be an "entitlement" like other farm subsidies, meaning that Washington would provide the money necessary to enroll every qualifying farmer. But in a weird maneuver during budget talks, Congress said that it will be a "capped entitlement" during its first year, which means that the USDA has to husband the appropriated money carefully between now and next fall.

Even so, the proposed rules suggest that someone at the USDA or the White House budget office is trying to limit permanently the number of farmers who can enroll and restrict the amount of money devoted to conservation.

For example, the proposed rules limit eligibility to certain watersheds in every state. Protecting fragile watersheds is a fine goal, but Congress never intended to exclude the farmers who live outside of designated watersheds. The rules also seem to favor farmers adopting conservation practices for the first time over those who have practiced conservation techniques for years. USDA officials say they are trying to get the most bang for the taxpayer's buck, another admirable goal.

But Harkin and Smith designed this program specifically to reward veteran conservationists, who often sacrifice market income to practice green farming, as well as to motivate new ones. It's not the USDA's job to revise what Congress has created.

The Conservation Security Program holds the potential to transform federal farm policy from a system that promotes pure bin-busting production to a strategy that rewards environmental stewardship. The USDA and Congress should make sure it delivers on that potential.

© Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.