BOARD00146 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 3/12/2007
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

I
. Regarding Ditch Bill Easement applications, what constitutes sufficient proof of water; rights
ownership and date of appropriation or Jonstruction of ditch on USFS land, and what m>e of
map is required; I .
. requirements for installing operable headgates;
. ditch repairs; [I
. wilderness issues;
. issues pertaining to threatened and endangered species and species of concern; and
I
. what water users can to do assist in Ditch Bill Easement processing.
I .

There were several questions and a lively discus1sion of these topics by workshop attendees and the USFS
representatives. A copy of the materials provid~d by the USFS at the workshop is included in :the Board
notebook. I :

White House Farm Bill Proposed, Initial Reattions: Department of Agriculture Secretary ~ike
Johanns unveiled the 2007 Farm Bill in late Jan~ary, and negotiations on various aspects ofthe bill are
continuing into March as different interests resp~md. The Bush administration has outlined a reform-
minded agricultural policy program in its draft reauthorization of the 2002 Farm Bill, which could help
stimulate global trade liberalization. However, the overrepresentation rural states enjoy in the Senate
means it faces an uphill legislative battle. '

The Farm Bill, which requires periodic reautho~zation, encompasses wide-ranging programs ;
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These are deeply enmeshed in U.S. rural
society and affect major public policy questions!. They enjoy political protection from client groups and
their political patrons in Washington. However, I such interest groups increasingly face competition for
taxpayer subsidies. '

The highlights of the bill as introduced and initial reactions from lawmakers are as follows:
I

.

. Direct payments to individual farmers wo~ld be limited to $360,000 a year, and farmers :could not
I '
collect payments for more than one farm. Members of both parties have supported capping such
payments in the past. '

I
I
. Farmers who make more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income would be ineligible for farm
payments. Currently, farmers who make uPlto $2.5 million in adjusted gross income can c'ollect from
the government. Lawmakers from both chambers have indicated they will give this proposal serious
I
thought. '
I
. Countercyclical payments, which are designed to guarantee farmers a certain level of yearly income,
would be paid under new criteria. The administration is proposing to pay them when the national
I
revenue per acre for a commodity falls belor the national revenue target. Such payments ~ow kick in
when the price of a crop falls, and many lawmakers say the current system works. i

. Crop loan rates would be set against a crop's average market price ofthe preceding five years. Loan
rates would be capped at levels established by the 2002 farm bill (PL 107-171). Farm bill ~ters may
be skeptical of this proposal because it coul(l require farmers to pay more for loans.
I
. Research into renewable energy, such as ~orn-based ethanol, would receive $1.6 billion In new
funding over 10 years. The administration also wants to offer $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for
projects related to cellulosic ethanol - a v~rsion of the fuel made from materials such as ~ass or
wood chips. Lawmakers have called for more government support of the biofuels indust:rY, as part of
a national effort to reduce America's reliantre on oil imports. I

.

. Fruit and vegetable growers would get $5 ibiIlion over 10 years, including $2.75 billion ip
government purchases for federal food programs. The government now spends about $290 million a
I 12 I

i