Texas Environmental Almanac, Chapter 5, Soil, NOTES

NOTES

1. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Fact Sheet" (USDA, April 1993).

2. Nancy Blanpied, editor, Farm Policy: The Politics of Soil, Surpluses, and Subsidies (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc, 1984), 28.

3. National Resource Council, Alternative Agriculture (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989), 115-116.

4. National Resource Council, Alternative Agriculture, 115-116.

5. Information obtained from the Texas Soil and Water Conservation Board. Note: The 32 million acres of cropland in Texas refers to both harvested cropland and cropland that has the potential to be harvested. Note: In 1994, there were 183,000 farms in Texas. The average farm size is 710 acres.

6. Bob Hall and Mary Lee Kerr, 1991-1992 Green Index (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1991), 100.

7. H.R. 4217, the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 called for the reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The reorganization plan was implemented on October 20, 1994.

8. John Barton, Legislative Budget Board, Austin,Texas, interview by Texas Center for Policy Studies on May 16, 1994.

9. Nancy Blanpied, editor, Farm Policy: The Politics of Soil, Surpluses, and Subsidies (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1984.), 28.

10. Doug Sharer, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Temple, Texas, interview by Texas Center for Policy Studies on May 4, 1994.

11. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, A Comprehensive Study of Texas Watersheds and Their Impacts on Water Quality and Water Quantity (Temple: TSSWCB, January 1991), 193.

12. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, A Comprehensive Study of Texas Watersheds and Their Impacts on Water Quality and Water Quantity (Temple: TSSWCB, 1991), 193.

13. National Research Council, Alternative Agriculture, 98.

14. Ibid., 98.

15. Ibid., 99.

16. Ibid., 98.

17. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, A Comprehensive Study of Texas Watersheds and Their Impacts on Water Quality and Water Quantity (Temple: TSSWCB, January 1991), 193.

18. Ibid., 205.

19. Tony Bagwell, Director, Water Resource Planning, Texas Water Development Board, interview by Texas Center for Policy Studies, April 15, 1994.

20. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, A Comprehensive Study of Texas Watersheds and Their Impacts on Water Quality and Water Quantity, 193. For further discussion, see USDA Soil Conservation Service Report 268 titled Erosion and Sedimentation by Water in Texas, February 1982.

21. Some experts believe, however, that rather than to take the entire acreage out of production, it would be better to put grass borders across fields or to put strips of grass in the fields.

22. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Future Use of Conservation Reserve Program Acres, Policy Position (Ankeny, IA: SWCS, November 6, 1993).

23. Norman Kempf, Acting Director, Conservation Planning Division, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, interview by Texas Center for Policy Studies, April 28, 1994.

24. The Soil and Water Conservation Society reports that, since 1985, 36.5 million acres--about 8 percent of all U.S. cropland --has been enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Plan. The original enrollment target was 40 to 45 million acres. The direct costs for setting aside 36.5 million acres is estimated to be $19.2 billion over the life of the contracts. This does not include administrative costs or savings on commodity-price and income-support programs. Environmental benefits are estimated to be between $6 billion and $13.6 billion over the life of the contracts.

25. Jean Pagel, "Farm Program All Played Out?," Houston Chronicle, December 4, 1994.

26. Susan Warren, "As Soil-Conservation Program Expires Farmers Are Bracing for the Consequences," Wall Street Journal, September 21, 1994, T4.

27. Farmers growing wheat, cotton, rice, soybeans, sugar and other crops are eligible to collect deficiency payments. Deficiency payments are based on the difference between the target price and market price, which ever difference is less. The target price is set by Congress and the USDA. The target price is based on the national average cost of producing a crop. Farmers are eligible to receive a deficiency payment if the market price fails to reach the target price.

28. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Future Use of Conservation Reserve Program Policy Position (Ankeny, IA: SWCS, 1993).

29. R.T. Ervin and P. N. Johnson, Economic Evaluation of the Conservation Reserve Program (Lubbock: Texas Tech University. Department of Agricultural Economics, December 1992), ix.

30. For further discussion of the Conservation Reserve Program and its future see: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Future Use of Conservation Reserve Program Acres: Policy Position (Ankeny, IA: SWCS, 1993).

31. Government programs that producers will not be eligible for include: diversion payments, Farmers Home Administration loans, deficiency payments, federal crop insurance and conservation reserve payments. Though producers with highly erodible land must have a conservation plan under the conservation compliance policy by December 31, 1994, the conservation plan requirements do not require producers to take highly erodible land out of production. This issue will most likely be addressed in the 1995 Farm Bill.

32. Critics of conservation tillage claim that it increases the use of weed-killing herbicides. According to Norman Kempf at USDA, herbicides are heavily used during the transition period from conventional tillage to conservation tillage but thereafter phase down.

33. Tammy Taylor, Conservation Technology Information Center, interview by Texas Center for Policy Studies on April 28, 1994. Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Dr. West Lafayette, Indiana. 47906. CTC is a not-for-profit organization that conducts research on watershed and conservation issues.

34. National Research Council, Alternative Agriculture, 162. Also, Dr. Bill Harris, Texas A&M Extension Service. College Station, Texas, interview by Texas Center for Policy Studies on May 6, 1994.

Texas Environmental Almanac, Chapter 5, Soil, NOTES

Please send questions, comments, or problems with this page to ltarver@mail.utexas.edu.