Drought Dollars

The crop loss from the drought is not as serious as some had feared, according to the first complete appraisal by the Department of Agriculture. But, while a harvest adequate to meet domestic and export markets is ensured, the situation clearly justifies emergency relief measures being rushed through Congress.

If normal weather prevails for the balance of the growing season, the nation will be faced with a 24% loss in grains. That in turn will be translated into increased food prices of as much as 5%. If the drought itself continues in the critical weeks ahead, the losses will be even greater, particularly in corn and soybeans, but surplus stocks from earlier years will make up any shortages.

In responding to the emergency, Congress has acted on a bipartisan basis in concert with the Reagan Administration, developing measures that appear to be tightly controlled and carefully targeted to deal with the actual losses. That is important, because so many past efforts to help farmers have become bonanzas for a few very large operators while failing to help those most in need.

A limit of $100,000 per farmer has been proposed to cover up to 65% of each farmer’s loss that exceeds 35% of the crop. In addition to the crops that are under federal subsidy programs--wheat, corn, cotton and rice--the program will cover for the first time direct losses in other crops, including fruit and vegetables. And for the first time the program will compensate livestock farmers who do not grow their own feed for increases in the cost of feed up to a limit of $50,000 per operator --a move that may deter the premature slaughtering of herds. The program may cost as much as$5 billion, but it will be budget-neutral because of savings in deficiency payments resulting from higher prices.

Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng has emphasized from the start that the United States will respect its export commitments. That is important. Twice in recent years, under both Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter, the United States has threatened to renege on export agreements when faced with temporary harvest setbacks. That can serve only to weaken the U.S. role in world food markets. The effect of shortages must be shared.

Tough decisions lie ahead for Lyng. He will soon be required to establish acreage set-asides for major crops for the next season. He will have to decide whether to restore restrictions on the use of conservation reserves that have been lifted in the current emergency. And he must decide whether to continue the disruptive export subsidy program. Each decision necessarily must mirror a judgment of global conditions as the interdependence of the world is made the more evident by this emergency. But each decision must also be consistent with the Reagan Administration’s wise and constructive commitment to win world agreement to end farm subsidies, and the surpluses that they breed, by the end of the century.