Auburn, March 1 --- The 2002 Farm Bill could be the most significant conservation legislation passed since the Clean Water Act of 1972 – that is, if most of the U.S. Senate’s provisions are incorporated into the final version of the bill.

The Senate version of the bill was passed Feb. 13 by a vote of 58 to 40, with 9 Republicans joining the Democratic majority. In a major departure from the House version of the bill, it proposes $22 billion to support conservation programs. That compares to $16 billion proposed in the U.S. House version of the bill.

At Auburn University, Dr. Jim Novak, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System agricultural economist, says the bill represents a growing sentiment among some policy-makers who believe farm payments should be based on criteria other than simply promoting production.

"The so-called green payments reflected in the Senate version are not unexpected," Novak says. "Over the last few years, we’ve heard lots of talk about making the U.S. farm legislation ‘greener’ by providing payments to farmers who incorporate more environmental practices on their farms."

While previous farm bills have incorporated conservation provisions, the Senate version, by expanding the scope of these provisions, represents the most ambitious undertaking yet attempted.

For example, the bill proposes a Conservation Security Program that would provide incentive payments to all farmers for maintaining and adopting conservation practices on private working lands. The first contract payments would be made in fiscal year 2003 and would cover all agricultural lands, including specified areas of forestland associated with farming and ranching operations.

Individual CSP payments would be limited to $50,000. To receive the highest level payments, producers would have to develop an array of conservation practices aimed at ensuring environmental enhancement, long-term sustainability and improved profitability and quality of life.

Another provision of the bill, dealing with the Conservation Reserve Program, would allow producers with land planted in hardwood trees to extend their contracts up to 15 years, with a 50 percent reduction in rental payments.

The Senate bill also provides a new pilot initiative, known as the Water Benefits Program, that would receive $375 million during the next five years to help farmers save water by improving their irrigation system efficiency, converting to less water-intensive crops or selling or leasing water rights to the state.

Like the House version, the Senate version also would establish a two-million acre Grassland Reserve (Enhancement) Program. However, 500,000 acres of this amount would be reserved for tracts of native grasslands of 40 acres or less.

Although the Senate bill is more ambitious than the House bill from the standpoint of conservation practices, Novak says it’s anyone’s guess at this point about how many of these programs will eventually end up in the new bill.

"The House version of the farm bill also contains green payments, but the Senate has expanded the concept," Novak says.

"The House version is more production-oriented, and, I believe, reflects a growing concern about maintaining the security of our food supply in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks," he adds. "The other incorporates more payments for those concerned about environmental stewardship and ensuring that the long run quality of farmland is maintained."

In one significant departure from earlier farm legislation that underscores these differences, the Senate bill would even limit payments to farmers based on production levels. Under a provision drafted by Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley, the Senate version would cut in half the money the largest farmers would receive under the proposed House version of the bill.