A better way to conserve our resources

There must be a better way to protect and preserve our nation’s vital natural resources. We’ve been struggling for years here in Iowa to deal with higher-than-normal nitrate levels in our water, and as recent experience in Flint, Michigan and the Animas River in Colorado demonstrate, we’re not alone.

So what’s the solution? To address our water crisis, Gov. Branstad and state leaders are currently working through proposals to alter tax sources in an attempt to grow Iowa’s water conservation spending, while a state task force recently recommended additional low-interest loans and grants for farm improvement efforts. Yet these policies overlook the fact that some government programs and the incentives they provide are actually the root of environmental problems.

{mosads}Decades of subsidies have changed the way farmers treat the Earth on which they work. For instance, extensive pipe networks under Iowa farms, necessary for draining excess water, are largely responsible for the current runoff problem causing our water’s high nitrate levels. These pipe systems are costly to build, which might have discouraged many farmers from cultivating more land. Yet with government subsidies sweetening the deal, such costs become less of an obstacle.

Subsidized crop insurance is another example. These subsidies minimize the risk of putting new ground into production, even if that soil is less suitable for crops. A recent study from Iowa State University shows that as much as 27 percent of Iowa’s row crop acres are losing money each year, though crop insurance means taxpayers bear the brunt of those losses.

Policies like this encourage farms to expand, even if it means encroaching on wetlands and buffer zones that protect streams.

Other government incentives cause similar disturbances, leading to increased demand for crops that contribute to the runoff problem. The Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires gasoline to be blended partly with the corn-byproduct Ethanol, has significantly driven up demand for corn. In response, farmers naturally decided to plant more corn, such that 40 percent of corn production in the US was for ethanol by 2014.

The result? In some areas, the ensuing glut of corn crops has overwhelmed the natural capacity of waterways to handle runoff from fertilizer and other types of chemicals. In other words, an agricultural incentive has caused an environmental disaster.

Some will say more conservation spending can rectify this problem, but the numbers don’t bear that out. State and federal governments already spend billions on conservation programs. Iowa’s conservation spending hit an all-time high of $221 million in 2015, and state leaders are currently working through proposals to alter tax sources in an attempt to grow that figure significantly. Meanwhile, the 2014 federal farm bill allocated $57.6 billion nationwide over 10 years.

 If those levels of spending haven’t improved our water quality, why should additional millions or billions make a difference? They will only have more unintended consequences on our environment. Proposals like Gov. Branstad’s spending plan don’t address the underlying cause of such environmental problems: government agricultural policies and their incentives.
 
In fact, all the evidence shows it could actually cause more harm than good. The agricultural sector should hinge on careful, long-term decisions—not on whether farms will qualify for federal or state funds. Protecting our environment would be far easier if farmers weren’t rewarded with taxpayer money for producing too many of a certain crop or cultivating risky plots of land.
 
With the next federal Farm Bill reauthorization still three years away, policymakers must reconsider the faulty incentives agricultural subsidies cause. State lawmakers, including Gov. Branstad, should similarly look to market signals—not government spending—to improve our water quality. We don’t need to make a false choice between supporting agriculture and preserving the environment.

Klein is Iowa State Director of Americans for Prosperity