|
<br />....~7~S
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />_ passed both Houses of Congress but were
<br />not finally enacted.
<br />
<br />Through a carefully planned series of brief-
<br />ings and workshops, both in Washington
<br />and in the field, Program DirectorJudy
<br />Campbell Bird and her aSsistant, Jilnet Ed-
<br />mond, succeeded iil building consensus on
<br />some of the most complex and conte.ntious.
<br />issues in the fann policy debate. Farmers;
<br />researchers; 'representatives of busin-ess,
<br />fann, commodity and environmental
<br />groups; Members of Congress; and state
<br />and local officials participated, and EE5!
<br />succeeded in building trust among the
<br />many groups involved. .'
<br />
<br />Climaxing dozens of educational programs
<br />in preparation for Congressional action on
<br />the fann bill, EE51 hosted a conference in
<br />Des Moines in February. The session was a
<br />high point, giving us a chance to get reac-
<br />tions from the field to the variety of policies
<br />and ideas being considered in Washington.
<br />The conference was chaired by two very ac-
<br />tive Members of the House Agriculture
<br />Committee. Rep. Jim Jontz (D-Ind.) was the
<br />leader on sustainable agriculture, while
<br />Rep. Fred Grandy (R-Iowa) was the
<br />committee's primary,proponent of ground-
<br />water'protection mandates fo, the Depart-
<br />ment of Agriculture. During consideration
<br />of the fann bill, they became champions for
<br />the ideas generated in Iowa. '
<br />
<br />Significant agreement evolved around the
<br />link between groundwater contamination
<br />and federal commodity programs, many of
<br />which have the effect of encouraging fann-
<br />ers to grow the same crops on the same
<br />acres year after year. Such "monocrol'ping"
<br />~quires intensive use of pesticides and fe,-
<br />tilizers.A fortunate confluence of interest
<br />grew out of the desire,in thefann COQ1mu-
<br />, nity for mo,e flexibility in commodity' pro-
<br />grams and the desire in the environmental
<br />community for reducing the' adverse effe<:ts
<br />of current agricultural practices. "Though
<br />we did not start from the same place," said
<br />Janet Edmond, "the fact is thatl;>udgetary ,
<br />constraints and fann groups' discontent
<br />with existing law made possible environ-
<br />mental gains we never expected when we
<br />began."
<br />
<br />Just before Senate and House floor action
<br />on the 1990 fann bill, EE5l rek!ased The
<br />1990 Farm Bill: Opportunities for Groundwa-
<br />ter Protection. We were able to hand:deliver
<br />the report to every Congressional office,
<br />
<br />\ .
<br />
<br />and to send it to some 3,300 contacts
<br />around the COW1try. The report laid,outrec-
<br />- ommendations for revising federal com-
<br />modity, programs in order to enable fann-
<br />ers to shift to "sustainable" or "low-input"
<br />farming practices. These terms have long
<br />beelfusl'Cl pejoratively; EE5I's work has
<br />been credited with helping mOve such con-
<br />c~pts toward the center of debate:
<br />
<br />OUf de~ision to emphasize water and agri-
<br />culture policy and to focus on the 1990
<br />farm bill tumed out to be a good one. Much
<br />of the information EE51 collected and dis-
<br />semin,1ted provided the basis for provis-
<br />ions included in the legislation signed by
<br />President Bush. Right after enactment, EE51
<br />issued a summary report, Congress Passes
<br />1990 Farm Bill With Key Groulldwater Protec-
<br />tion Provisions, ~hich wa':i e.1gerly snatched
<br />up by farm bill followers and widely dis-
<br />tributed on and off Capitol Hill.
<br />
<br />Regrett.1bly, Program Dim:tor Judy Camp--
<br />bell Bird, dl'Cided in the fall to leave EE51.
<br />She had served'ls the Groundwater Pro--
<br />gram Director since EE5l's founding, Mark-
<br />,ing her departure, Judy sijid the time was,
<br />right: "throughout those five years, compre-
<br />hensive fl'deral groundwater policy often,
<br />seemed beyond our grasp, but our efforts
<br />have_enabled. us. to achieve incremental
<br />, progress, most notably in the good provis- '
<br />ions' of the 1990 farm bill." .
<br />
<br />Water efficiency is EE5I's newest initiative
<br />in the waterarea, In February, we organ-
<br />ized a WaterSupply Alt<,matives Work-
<br />shop in Tucson, Ariz. The,U.s.-Environmen-
<br />tal Protection :Agency asked uS to conduct, '
<br />the workshop to help the' agency better un-
<br />derstand the potential, and the limitations,
<br />of'pursuing water conservation and effi-
<br />ciency as alternatives-to,traditional water
<br />supply projects. The agency's interest was
<br />sparked ~y the controveisy over its deci-
<br />sion to veto the proposed Two Forks water
<br />supply project in Colorado, where water ef-
<br />ficiency was cited as a "supply" alternative.
<br />
<br />EE5l director David Freeman, head. of th.e
<br />Sacramento Municipal Utility District in
<br />California and a veteran of energy -
<br />policymaking, gave the keynote address at
<br />the Tucson conference. Freeman drew the
<br />analogy between energy efficiency and
<br />water efficiency, and EE51 is continuing to
<br />identify opportunities to apply. lessons
<br />learned in energy policymaking to water is-
<br />sues.
<br />
|