Permanent ag disaster needs to be part of 2007 Farm Bill

Friday, November 9, 2007 9:34 AM MST

Our Views

Congress is on the verge of passing the first farm legislation ever that contains a permanent ag disaster provision and it's action that has been long overdue.

There are those opposing the plan, citing the possibility of abusing disaster funds and that spending will get out of control. But, are these critics remembering ad hoc programs passed in recent years for ag disaster that started out with just the cost of the ag disasters and then had different pork spending tacked on as the legislation made it's way through Congress?

Or in other cases, the ag disaster provisions were tacked on a completely unrelated, must-pass bill, such as an emergency appropriations bill.

It seems it would be much easier to control misuse of funds if the disaster program specifics were outlined in a five-year program, rather than opening a legislative can of worms on an almost annual basis.

And it has been on an almost annual basis. N.D. Farmers Union President Robert Carlson has repeatedly mentioned that in the 11 years he has been heading the farm organization Congress has been approached for ag disaster relief in 10 of those years.

In those 10 years farmers and ranchers have gone out of business because they didn't receive disaster relief quickly enough, according to Carlson. He said a disaster bill is needed and the NDFU supports reducing the direct payments in order to fund it.

Opponents of a permanent disaster aid provision, like the Environmental Working Group, the Eastern press, and yes, unfortunately, some members of Congress, always have lots to say, but their opinions are often off the mark or misguided.

They point to the fact that the majority of previous disaster dollars have gone to just a few states like Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota and Oklahoma.

Well, here's some breaking news for those folks - disaster funds flow to those areas where disasters have occurred.

There are a couple of points that need to be pondered. First, for those states mentioned, agriculture is big business and a large segment of the state's population is engaged solely in farming and ranching as a livelihood.

And secondly, these are all states in the Great Plains where weather conditions tend to be the most volatile. Air masses spilling over the Rocky Mountains and colliding with Canadian weather fronts provide for some of the most dramatic weather fluctuations in the entire world and provide a perfect breeding ground for weather-related ag disasters.

Again, there's a need to emphasize - disaster funds follow disasters. A far cry from the definition of a slush fund, that some would like us to believe disaster funds are.

U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad and the Senate Appropriations have found funding for this provision, which he estimates could cost $1 billion a year, since recent history has shown that to be the case. If, however, there is an excessive demand for disaster funds in one year, the program will have the authority borrow funds to meet the needs of the program and those lended funds will be replaced in years when disaster claims aren't so high.

Much thought and planning have gone into this provision. It was included in the House version of the 2007 Farm Bill and has now been passed out of the Senate Agriculture, Foresty and Nutrition Committee for full Senate approval. At this time it has wide bipartisan support and Congress should make permanent disaster funding a part of the 2007 Farm Bill and the president should sign that farm bill into law.

Comments »

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)