Large tracts of soybean and corn fields that dominate the flat farmlands of Northwest Ohio...Amish farms that still utilize centuries-old practices to work the land...Large, industrial livestock operations...Small farms catering to farmers markets and the increasing

demand for fresh, local foods...And farmland on the fringe, at risk of becoming a suburban subdivision...Agriculture is a keystone of Ohio’s economy and land use.

Every five years Congress presents its comprehensive plan on how it will fund the programs that feed us; keep our food safe; preserve our farmland in the climate of urban sprawl; and protect our wildlife habitat and water quality. The 2007 version of the Farm Bill is currently before Congress, and is sure to face a barrage of amendments and criticism before it is passed.

Under past Farm Bills, Ohio and the Great Lakes States have been short changed when it comes to the funds allocated in the Bill’s Conservation Title – those programs that set aside environmentally sensitive land for water quality protection and wildlife habitat growth. Farmers are the stewards of the land. Yet, because of rising production costs and the influx of large scale agriculture, the market makes it harder to put land, habitat, and water quality first. The Conservation Title of the 2007 Farm Bill contains a host of programs and incentive for farmers of all sizes to conserve the land and waters of the United States, and especially those of the Great Lakes. More farmers apply for the conservation programs than funding allows, and as energy concerns dominate the landscape there is fear that even fewer funds will be available. Nevertheless, the need for increased conservation of water and habitat quality, and the desire of farmers to be involved in conservation, mandates full funding. If the waters of the Great Lakes are truly to be restored, the federal government must make Farm Bill Conservation Programs a top priority.

OEC and fellow conservation and environmental organizations throughout the Great Lakes have pushed Congress on one guiding principle to be followed in this year’s Farm Bill Conservation Title: Develop conservation programs and practices that promote agricultural land conservation, cooperative conservation partnerships, whole farm conservation management, and discourage farmland conversion to keep farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in the Great Lakes watershed.

Below are our Top Four Farm Bill Conservation Programs for Ohio, and how they can best be developed to help protect the waters of Ohio and the Great Lakes.

1. Conservation Reserve Program

Most of the money allocated in the Great Lakes has gone to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP program reduces soil erosion, reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, filterstrips, or riparian buffers.

The Conservation Reserve Program should be reauthorized and expanded to 45 million acres nationally. This will enable farmers in the Great Lakes region to retire highly erodible lands that contribute heavily to water pollution problems, while providing habitat to wildlife and filtering runoff. CRP projects should also ensure that they do not introduce or spread invasive species. The Continuous CRP should continue to be used to buffer streams, protect farmed wetlands, and address other critical resource concerns. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program should be expanded to leverage state funding to address critical conservation issues affecting the Great Lakes region. The program should be modified to allow perpetual easements for all eligible CREP practices to ensure maximum effectiveness of public investments in this program.

2. Wetlands Reserve Program

The Wetlands Reserve Program should be expanded to enable the restoration of 300,000 acres of wetlands per year nationally. This will help provide Great Lakes farmers with more opportunities to restore wetlands on their properties that can improve groundwater recharge, intercept polluted runoff, and provide wildlife habitat. The current WRP appraisal process should be changed to reflect the method of valuation used by the Secretary of Agriculture as of January 1, 2003. WRP projects should also ensure that they do not introduce or spread invasive species. The Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program should also be continued and expanded to promote state/federal cooperation in restoring and protecting wetlands and associated habitats.

3. Environmental Quality Incentive Program

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program should be reauthorized at least current levels nationally. The program should also be modified to ensure that it can meet the resource issues of the Great Lakes region, including protection of forests, habitat improvements for at-risk species, and water quality issues. EQIP funding should be allowed only for eligible practices that do not adversely impact wetlands, riparian zones, streams, native grasslands, and other environmentally sensitive areas. EQIP cost-share payments also should not be used for the expansion or establishment of concentrated animal feeding operations for animal waste storage and handling facilities, which are required by regulation and should not be funded by conservation programs.

4. Conservation Security Program

The Conservation Security Program should be fully funded to ensure that farmers in all Great Lakes watersheds have a chance to participate. If offered broadly, all farmers in the region could gain assistance in improving their farming practices on intensively managed agricultural lands, with enormous potential gains for water quality and to facilitate implementation of state wildlife action plans. However, the program must incorporate provisions to ensure that all participants achieve consistent and measurable benefits.

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), commonly called factory farms or megafarms, confine thousands—even millions—of animals in football field-sized barns. Pollution from factory farms can pollute groundwater and streams, posing threats to drinking water. Factory farms can also overuse antibiotics, pose public health threats and negatively affect Ohio’s rural environmental and way of life. Local infrastructure bears the brunt of these industrial livestock production facilities. The OEC has been Ohio’s leading voice—whether before the legislature, state agencies or in the media—about factory farm pollution. Our efforts continue to evolve as we work with rural families and political officials. In the meantime, the OEC acknowledges that long-term, systemic and pragmatic changes to food production cannot be achieved by simply saying “no” to factory farms; we must be able to promote and support viable alternatives to factory farm systems of agriculture and the products they produce.

The Ohio Environmental Council created the “Happy Turkeys, Happy Thanksgiving” consumer guide to finding free-range, organic and non-factory farm raised turkeys raised by Ohio farmers. They are good for the environment, good for the local economy...and good to eat! (2003) Request copy

Citing environmental and ethical concerns, Ohio consumers are increasingly concerned about how their food was produced. The Ohio Environmental Council created a guide to finding free-range, organic and non-factory farm produced ham, lamb and eggs in Ohio (2004) Download guide (PDF)