John Block Reports from Washington

As we contemplate writing the next farm bill, here are some considerations you may want to think about.

The number one fact of life is that farm bills are not written in a vacuum. They are subject to all the pressures and influences of the day. The farm economy condition hangs over the whole process like a huge blanket. Farmers and Members of Congress may try to be totally objective, but that's not reality.

The price of corn, of wheat, of soybeans all have something to say. How healthy. is the national farm economy? Are farm land values holding up? Have we been ravaged with draught and weather problems? What limitations do our trade agreements place on our next farm bill? Are we optimistic about our future? What does the future look like?

When the 1985 farm bill was written, we had a large land set-aside program. We were setting aside some of the best land in the world. How inefficient is that? We created the Conservation Reserve to retire some 35M acres of erosive land, taking out ofproduction erosive land instead of great land.

The next farm bills were designed to change the support system so they would not encourage unneeded production.

The last two farm bills have had to make adjustments to be in compliance with the World Trade Organization rules.

The next farm bill atmosphere is dramatically different from all the rest. Remember, the farm bills in the 80's were designed to limit production to help keep prices up. But this bill will have us looking for more crop acres, not less. Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist, says that we will need 10 million more corn acres to feed the ethanol plants.

Is this a different challenge or what? I love it.

Any thoughts you have, I can be reached at jblock@ofwlaw.com. Have a great week.

John Block Reports from Washington
October 12, 2006

"Wildlife"

Please, sh sh sh, don't say it too loud. Environmentalists don't want to hear it. They have always said that they want our streams, rivers, and lakes to be cleaned up. Get rid of the bacteria. Be sure they are safe to swim in. Blame man for polluting. Blame the farmer. Blame the city. But now, they don't want to hear the truth.

Well, the truth is out.

Wildlife is polluting itself. Animals were always cast as the victims. How can it be that we turn the tables and cast them as the villains?

For years, we have read about environmental complaints, that our waters here in Maryland and Virginia do not meet the EPA bacteria standards. Heavy rules and restrictions have been placed on farmers and city governments. Criticism has been heaped on the regional farmers.

But now, the focus of attention is on the major polluter -- the deer, raccoons, geese -- wildlife. The EPA has used new technology to pinpoint which animal each bacteria comes from. The results are surprising, but should they be. The analysis of three rivers -- Anacostia, Potomac, and Rock Creek identify the percentage of bacteria from 4 different sources -- pets about 15%; livestock 10%; humans 20%; wildlife more than 50%. If you have ever been on a golfcourse where the geese have spent some time, you come to realize how wildlife can pollute. The EPA says that to clean up the Virginia and Maryland lakes and streams to the level specified by the EPA, we would have to kill 80% of the geese. How many deer and raccoons it doesn't say.

You can hear some EPA officials asking the question, "Maybe the clean water standards aren't exactly right."

Let's let the environmentalists solve this one. It looks like it is their problem.

Any thoughts you have, I can be reached at jblock@ofwlaw.com. Have a great week.