Need to ensure credit and acknowledgement is received in program applications for installed practices and expenditures already made and that these practices/expenditures can be transferred from one program to another. This applies not only to EQIP, but to other USDA conservation programs as well.

If an owner/operator participates in one conservation program (at any level of government) and applies for another program, the owner/operator should be given credit for work that already has been done that would qualify under the program.  

Expenditures made under one program that were not fully reimbursed and are reimbursed at a higher rate under the program for which the owner/operator is applying should be considered.  An owner/operator should get credit for existing work. 

While new contracts, may, for the most part, focus on installing new practices, improvements to existing practices should also receive consideration, along with payments for differences in reimbursement for expenditures made in bringing existing practices to the level that exist at the onset of the contract.  

We are not proposing that owners/operators be allowed to “double dip” for the same activity on the same site.  We are proposing only that the DIFFERENCES in payments and/or reimbursement rates between two programs (or between the old version of a program and its new version under the 2002 Farm Bill) could be reconciled so producers could apply for a “conservation parity payment.”

A specific example of where this affects Florida is in the Suwannee River Basin where several dairies have completed plans with PL566 funding. 

The issue here is one of fairness and bridging the old farm bill conservation programs with those included in the 2002 Farm Bill.  Florida’s agricultural producers -- particularly dairy farmers -- have been proactive in the effort to better control and manage the waste on their farms.  It was in that spirit that many dairy farms in the Suwannee Basin enrolled into the PL 566 Federal cost share program to help fund their waste management systems.  These waste management systems are costly and program participants have paid up to $400,000 of their own money to implemen the BMPs on their farms.  

Those promoting this partnership from the Federal level said that this would be the best possible cost-share program considering that EQIP's payment limit at that time was $50,000 and the program was under funded, while the PL 566 payment limit was 50 percent or $100,000.

With the new farm bill, EQIP funding has increased more than four fold and the payment limit has increased to $450,000.  This change in EQIP has caught the Suwannee Project in mid-stream.  About 34 of the 44 eligible dairy farms have completed or partially completed programs.  Those with partial completion as well as those who have not begun can opt out of the PL 566 program and apply for EQIP, thereby being eligible for up to four times the amount of financial assistance within the same project.  They are not "double dipping" but are taking advantage of expanded funding.  

However, the producers who took the initiative to move ahead quickly and to made up cost differences out of their own pockets already have completed their plans.  To have other producers now obtain higher reimbursements because they did not move as quickly has the effect of causing disillusionment among the very group of producers who should be rewarded for taking the initiative to participate in these programs.  The result could be to create a negative reaction toward Federal conservation programs, the advice given by Federal officials, and to act as a disincentive for those producers to participate in future conservation programs.

What is needed is a “conservation parity payment” to bring those who in good faith completed their projects, to be brought up to the same level of support as other dairy farms that will utilize the new funding. 

We hope this can be handled in the rule making process for EQIP.  If not, it may take an amendment to the budget to include proviso language where overlapping programs will create unequal funding for respective participants, which members of the Florida delegation are prepared to pursue.

This situation is not unique to Florida, or the Suwannee River Basin.

The Government Accounting Office report released in April 2002 by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, GAO Report #02-295, "Agricultural Conservation - State Advisory Committees’ Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns," cites "several elements of the current [USDA conservation] programs that hinder achievement of environmental objectives."

The GAO report notes several instances around the country where differences between program qualifications and payments has served as a disincentive to producers to undertake conservation programs.  These "unintended consequences" should be addressed as much as possible in the rule making process, and avoided to the degree possible.

For more information on the GAO report, click on Need to address points raised in  GAO Report