Opinion Editor’s Note: editorial reflect the opinions of the Star Tribune editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.
Raise your hand if you knew Congress was debating a bill this summer that could slow climate change, produce cleaner drinking water, restore habitat for endangered wildlife and improve the American diet. No? It’s the Farm Bill, the vast tool of food and agriculture policy that Congress (in theory) updates every five years, and frankly, most people don’t follow it closely. The sprawling legislation is simultaneously so narrow-minded and so complicated that even most lawmakers just leave it to the experts. That’s a shame, because this year Washington has a chance to update the Farm Bill in a way that takes steps toward healthier food and a healthier planet.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid the foundations of modern agricultural policy in the 1930s, rural America was in crisis: thousands of farms had been destroyed by drought and commodity prices had collapsed. Federal interventions did much good for destitute farmers and the nation in general. But today the nation faces other challenges: climate change, polluted water, devastating floods, threatened birds and pollinators. Because farmers control what happens on millions of acres of land in the middle of the continent, they are in a position to address these challenges—and Congress is in a position to give them the right incentives.
Think soil and water conservation. In 1985, Congress created a landmark project called the Conservation Reserve Program, which paid farmers to take at-risk land out of production and plant it with grasses and trees. It was an astonishing success—soil erosion plummeted, wildlife rebounded. But farmers have always chafed at the idea of being paid for land that’s lying fallow—and so have some taxpayers. Then came a brilliant idea: paying farmers for conservation practices on farmed land, such as tillage practices like cover crops and no-till cultivation. These have proven beneficial for reducing soil erosion, keeping agricultural chemicals out of lakes and rivers, and reducing the use of diesel fuel and petroleum fertilizers that contribute to climate change. The core elements, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, are so popular that farmers in states like Minnesota apply for three times the amount of available funding. At the very least, this year’s agriculture bill should provide a financial injection for CSP and EQIP.
Then there’s crop insurance, now by far the largest safety net in federal farm law. Crop insurance is probably still a good idea, since farmers are still exposed to extreme weather and fluctuating commodity prices. But the current system has the effect of locking farmers into a few favored crops, like corn, soybeans, and wheat, and rewarding over-cropping and overproduction. Congress should more strictly enforce compliance with the program’s conservation provisions and adjust the rules to make it easier for farmers to grow a diverse, healthy mix of crops, like oats, barley, and alfalfa, and even fruits and vegetables. It should also build on an innovative program called Whole Farm Revenue Protection, which gives farmers—especially young, innovative farmers—more freedom to grow what they want. And since public subsidies cover about 60% of the cost of crop insurance, why not use those subsidies to generate public benefits? Offer farmers premium rebates when they adopt best practices that reduce erosion, improve wildlife habitat, sequester carbon and reduce polluted runoff from fields.
In 2022, the Biden administration introduced an idea called “climate-smart agriculture” with the Inflation Reduction Act, which directed billions of dollars to underfunded conservation programs. A key point of contention on Capitol Hill this fall is that the House farm bill would divert much of that money to support conventional agriculture, a very bad idea, while the Senate bill would protect the climate-smart approach.
If this all sounds like an environmental wish list that urban liberals want to impose on hard-working farmers, it’s not. Innovative and influential farmer-led groups like Practical Farmers of Iowa and Minnesota’s Land Stewardship Project have been advocating for crop diversity and sustainable agriculture for years. With hundreds of farmers as members, they have shown that sustainable practices help the land and make farms more climate resilient. “Farmers don’t all agree on climate policy, but they do agree that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe,” Gary Wertish, president of the Minnesota Farmers Union, told an editorial writer. “We’re interested in what we can do to change that while improving the liquidity of our farms.”
