Conservation in 2006 and Beyond

Remarks by Mark E. Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment U.S. Department of Agriculture at the NRCS National Leadership Team Meeting

Reno, NV
March 30, 2005

I am happy to join the NRCS Leadership Team in Reno. Much as happened since we met in January. Mack Gray and Gary Margheim have retired. And the President has released his budget for 2006.

Thank you for your efforts to implement the 2002 farm bill. The roll-out of the final CSP rule was a success. Even our occasional critics were muted.

I think we can now say that we have risen to the challenge and faithfully discharged every obligation imposed by the 2002 legislation.

That is a good thing—not just in its own right, but because we will shortly commence the discussion of the next farm bill. Our 2006 budget proposal kicked it off. Our effort will be ably led by our soon-to-be-confirmed deputy, Chuck Connors. Under the Chief’s leadership, work is already commencing.

Our FY 2006 budget proposal started an extremely important and very necessary discussion. Most of the attention has been devoted to payment limits, but two other areas—funding for the Resource Conservation and Development Areas and the watershed programs—are front and center.

The FY 2006 budget proposal does not propose to eliminate a portion of the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Areas. There is no question of the contribution and value of the movement. A great deal of economic activity has been fostered, and a lot of good has been accomplished.

However, the federal role was to serve as an incubator for this movement. The eggs have been in the incubator, in many cases, for quite a long time. The need is to graduate—not eliminate—the older RC&D’s before the incubator becomes a life-support system. Ultimately, that will free up money to support new starts and other program support beyond merely paying their overhead.

By contrast, the FY 2006 budget does propose to eliminate the P.L. 566 watershed program. The program is more than fully earmarked. The authorizing committees have ignored it for decades. There is a real question about what our role should be in building additional structures, given the state of some of the existing ones.

The FY 2006 budget proposal offers an opportunity to engage Congress on the future of both programs—one that is young vibrant and succeeding—and one that is not so young and vibrant. But both are in need of some discussion of the appropriate program direction and the appropriate future federal role. We met with the National Association of RC& D Councils on February 28, and we will meet with the National Watershed Coalition next week. The House appropriations hearing is next week, and the Senate appropriations hearing is April 13. Neither proposal is new, suggesting an underlying issue that needs to be resolved.

More broadly, the FY 2006 budget is a budget that frames difficult choices in the service of pressing needs. The history of NRCS—and to a lesser extent, FS—is tied to the New Deal. Both were given substance when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

However, between 1940 and 1944, Roosevelt reduced discretionary domestic spending by 37 percent. He did so because we were then, as we are now, a nation at war. And reflecting that reality, we must do everything we can to reduce unit costs, set clear budget priorities and establish new partnerships and revenue streams to augment Treasury dollars.

As I sometimes contemplate how much easier it would be to serve during a period of budget surpluses and above average rainfall, I try to remember that we are engaged in an endeavor much larger than ourselves—larger than our particular programs.

We are asking our agencies and employees to make sacrifices—and those sacrifices are recognized and appreciated. They are, however, dwarfed by the sacrifices of others who are being asked to secure our safety at home and spread freedom abroad. We owe them no less than our best efforts and commitment to our assigned tasks.