Living by the Land, and Protecting It

Cattle breeder Lawrason Sayre, who drives around his 325-acre farm in a well-worn pickup with the bumper sticker “Farmers--the first environmentalists,” has built a number of conservation projects on his land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

So when the House begins consideration today of the $170-billion farm bill, folks like Sayre will be paying close attention to how the federal government plans to spend money on agriculture over the next decade.

Already, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers plans to challenge the status quo by proposing a significant shift in federal funding--$1.9 billion annually--from traditional subsidies to grants that would help more small farmers like Sayre reduce polluted runoff from fields, provide habitat for wildlife and resist urban sprawl.

The debate will decide whether federal funds will be more evenly distributed to farmers across the country, including California, or remain concentrated among large grain, cotton and soybean producers in the Plains states and Texas.

The Bush administration and the Senate have signaled their strong support for funneling money away from traditional crop subsidies to the largest farms and putting it instead into programs that help farmers preserve wetlands and keep waterways clean.

But the House Agriculture Committee chairman, Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas), is so opposed to the effort that he has threatened to vote against the bill, or pull it from the legislative calendar, if the conservation amendment passes.

The debate comes as many parts of the country are seriously grappling for the first time with the effect of agricultural pollution on waterways.

Farmers from the San Joaquin Valley to Maryland’s Piedmont Plateau have found themselves the targets of aggressive new environmental requirements.

Federal and state programs to help farmers clean up their operations have become so competitive that many more applicants receive rejections than assistance.

In 13 of the nation’s 17 most polluted bays, including the Chesapeake, agricultural runoff is the leading source of pollutants that cause low-oxygen “dead zones.” This is the most ecologically significant challenge facing many bays, according to an analysis of U.S. Geological Survey models by Environmental Defense, a mainstream environmental group.

Runoff from animal waste and fertilizers contributes at least one-third of the pollutants that cause low oxygen levels and toxic algae blooms in the bays. It also contributes to the loss of underwater grasses that provide critical habitat for fish and shellfish.

The problem is evident in a small pond on Sayre’s farm. Even though it is just a few hundred feet downstream from the spring that feeds it, the pond’s surface is covered with thick lime-green algae, a telltale sign of runoff from manure-strewn fields.

This spring, Sayre planted 1,800 saplings as a forest buffer to try to catch the nutrient-rich runoff before it gets to the stream and, eventually, to the Chesapeake.

The $13,000 cost of the project, which included a bonus for Sayre’s loss of 3 1/2 acres of usable land, was covered by federal, state and private conservation funds.

Sayre, 74, has received tens of thousands of dollars from federal and state conservation programs over the years. The funds have helped him build five concrete water tanks, earthen stream crossings and a winter feeding pad. These projects keep his herd--which ranges from 250 to 300 cattle--and its manure out of the streams.

“As farmers, we live by the land. We know if we abuse it, we’re out of business. We become more aware of it all the time,” Sayre said.

Throughout the years, Sayre has not shied away from asking federal and state governments for their help. It’s a partnership that Sayre believes makes a lot more sense than traditional farm programs.

But as much as he believes in protecting the environment, Sayre said he would not have done all these projects had there not been financial help.

“In a lot of cases, if you don’t have cost-share, you don’t get them done,” he said.

Most farmers have not been as fortunate. Last year, more than half the California farmers and ranchers who applied for federal money to assist them in reducing runoff were turned away because of a shortage of funds.

Darrell Hayes, who runs a cattle feedlot near the San Joaquin River, applied for federal funds to pay half the $35,000 he needs for a new pump to reduce runoff from his fields. He didn’t get it, but regulators say that he still must install the pump because too much nitrate-tainted water drains into the river from his 800-acre operation.

“With all [the] EPA rules and regulations, it makes it very tough for an average farmer to continue,” said Hayes, whose farm is in Crows Landing, south of Modesto. “We owe money already. This adds to our burden.”

Hayes, 50, fears that environmental regulations will force him to join the exodus from farming.

“We have to do it or sell out,” Hayes said. “If people keep selling farms, pretty soon there will be just two big farms.”