CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH V SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS We’-‘3Sh' -" . 1 ‘ " ’”Gi’0" Um E - ~ E V9-*?’z3:t1.' Issue Brief E :5‘ ,_ . i In. t -‘-~ "A B K .4‘: ;.,..;,..;'“.§ :14‘: 1 ST. Jfivrfg. 5.-' ‘gr aryzf,-rs’ ,3- .‘ r:-A '- , v ‘.’ ,. “ “ K" 0: 3 .3" ‘L H ‘- § -v 7;’ \-. ,’. ‘I--v~_‘«v :<'."<“ , fl , ‘ L‘ §‘~. '' "- . ,3? 33' . .1 v¢\.‘.,_,.-‘ 34 3 1 NOV 161989 "‘'’I T“ mini niversl 010- WL mi 3940 ssouri C 1‘, ol 0 U m a um AGRICULTURE: SOIL CONSERVATION AND FARMLAND PRODUCTIVITY ISSUE BRIEF NUHBER IB80031 AUTHOR: Dallavalle, Rita 5.’ Office of Senior Specialists Mayer, Leo V. Senior 5 pecialis 1:, Agriculture THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM mm ORIGINATED gggggggg DATE UPDATED ggflgggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 05114 CRS- 1% IBBOO31 UPDATE-O5/13/80 .I.§§E§-.12§E.lEl1‘.l9! Rising demands on American agricultural productivity, the conversion of cropland to urban use, recent strains in farm cost/income balances, and new understanding of the costs and losses from soil erosion have all combined to trigger renewed interest in soil conservation. Soil conservation has been actively supported by the Federal government since 1935 when Congress passed the original Soil Conservation Act (P.L. 73-46). Since then, the Department of Agriculture has offered farmers a number of technical and financial assistance programs (totalling roughly $15 billion) to help reduce the loss of topsoil from the nation's farmland. In the 96th Congress, increased Federal support for soil conservation is included in several bills. 13.A§1i§B.Q.Q"!2-;l.§.12.!iQl-1.91 ...12-1lALZ§.§ Demand for U.S. agricultural products increased rapidly during the 19705, particularly from foreign markets. Increased per capita income in developed countries and increased population growth in developing countries led to a growing dependence on agricultural imports. The American farmer benefitted, earning $1 of every su from export sales at the end of the decade. Supplies of farm product, especially of grain, also increased. The rising output was attributed to continuing improvements in plant varieties and mechanical technology; favorable weather for most of the decade; an increased number of acres in production; expansion of irrigation system; fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide applications; and a higher level of prices. Higher grain prices encouraged farmers to seek more output. The acreage of harvested crops increased from 293 million acres in 1970 to 336 million acres in 1978. Fertilizer use increased. In 1977/78, 21 million tons of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potash were used by the nation's farmers. Development of irrigation systems also occurred in areas that were once restricted by rainfall to a system of summer fallow (alternate year cropping) to conserve soil moisture. By 1977, the acreage under irrigation had increased to 58 million acres, up from an estimated #4 million acres in 1967. The conversion of dryland agriculture to irrigated agriculture was accompanied by a change in crop production from low-yield small grain and grass to high—yield row crops such as corn and soybeans. This new, intensified level of crop production led many agricultural experts to worry that the nation could not sustain productivity to meet the rising world demand for food. Projections by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated that export demand would continue to grow, reflecting an expansion of international markets for feedgrain to meet the needs of expanding livestock industries in developed countries. Growth in demand was p‘ dicted for food grain also, as developing countries sought to upgrade their populations‘ diets. An examination by the Department of Agriculture of the resources required for sustaining and increasing crop production indicated several areas of concern. In a 1977 study, the Department's soil Conservation Service (SCS) estimated a cropland base of 400 million acres and the potential for CRS- 2 IBBOO31 UPDATE-0 5/13/80 development of an additional 111 million acres. Of this potential cropland, however, 76 million acres had limitations that required substanti investment to convert to cropland. Theeconversion of existing cropland into nonagricultural uses became the subject.of increasing debate at all levels of government (see IB78013 -- Farmland Protection Legislation). The Soil Conservation Service also cited water as a limiting factor to future crop production. The high pumping cost for irrigation water, coupled with soaring energy prices, competing demands for regional water resources, decdining water tables in some areas of the country, and increasing costs for irrigation equipment was predicted to 1imit.further expansion of irrigation as the cost of development approached the value of the crop produced (see IB77072 -- Water Resources Development: Conservation of water and Energy in Irrigated Agriculture). ' Reliance on fertilizer to boost output was a concern as well as prices for fertilizer increased due to its close link with fuel for production and supply. In October 1978, a ton of anhydrous ammonia cost $164. one year later, the price had increased to 519a per ton. CONCERN OVER LEVELS OF SOIL EROSION As the price of resource inputs increased and as the level of crop production intensified, concern over the level of soil erosion on the nation's cropland grew.n In hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry in 1977, several witness expressed concern over the effects of soil erosion on soil fertility and plant growth. Research in Georgia, conducted over a three-year period,w estimated that each inch of eroded topsoil cost the producer approximately 5 3/4 bushels of corn per acre per year (Langdale et al., 1979). Lower yields were attributed to the loss of soil nutrients and the adverse effects of topsoil loss on the water holding capacity and physical condition of the soil. One estimate calculated that each ton of a medium textured topsoil eroded resulted in a loss of 26 pounds of potassium, 7 pounds of phosphorous, and 2 pounds of nitrogen (Logan, 1977). Broding soil was also cited as a major water pollutant during the hearings. Sediment adversely affected fish and other aquatic life, diminished reservoir capacity and the recreational value of streams and lakes, and transmitted chemical residues from fertilizers and pesticides into drinking water and aquatic plants and animals. A 1979, USDA-sponsored, Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., survey of the public's attitudes on several major agricultural issues, including resource conservation, indicated that 50% of all.Americans considered misuse of the nation's soil and water resources a very serious problem. By 7 to 1, Americans also supported Federal action to protect farmland from erosion. THE NATIONAL RESOURCES INVENTORY To assess the extent of the erosion problem and to evaluate the curre state of the nation's cropland resources, the Soil Conservation Service undertook a National Resources Inventory (RBI) in 1977. The study indicated that the average loss of soil from surface erosion by water was 4.3 tons per acre on cropland and pasture per year. However, the regional losses of soil ranged from a high of 10.6 tons per acre per year in the Appalachian States to a low of 1.3 tons per acre per year in the Pacific Coast States. The Corn CBS- 3 IB80031 UPDATE-05/13/80 Belt, where much of America's row crops.are grown, was estimated to have an average soil loss of 8.1 tons per acre per year. Much of the eroded topsoil i ym cropland was deposited at the baseeof fields or was washed into the nation's streams, lakes, and rivers. According to soil scientists, the estimates of soil loss contained in the National Resources Inventory were "permissible" for many soil types. Rates of soil formation vary but, on average, it is estimated that 30 years are required to form one inch of soil. Experts recommend that soil erosion not exceed the yearly rate of soil addition, which is roughly 0.03 inches, or 5 tons, per acre. If thetrate of soil erosion exceeds this amount, soil productivity slowly declines. While the National Resources Inventory indicated that soil loss was within acceptable limits nationally, the estimates were criticized by some soil conservationists as too low. Soil loss on cropland and pasture was estimated jointly; however, soil erosion on pastue was generally low and tended to depress the average. In addition, the Universal Soil Loss Equation used in the inventory was criticized. The equation was developed in the East where rainfall is the dominant factor in the equation. In the Great Plains and arid West, however, rainfall is sparse. Here, much of the water applied to cropland comes from snowfall which melts in the spring and provides moisture for winter wheat and other small grains. Scientists in the Soil Conservation Service modified the equation for the snowmelt but critics still questioned the validity of the estimate. A third criticism of the inventory was the application of the soil-loss equation on irrigated land. The equation did not account for soil loss due to application of irrigation water. SOIL CONSERVATION METHODS Soil conservationists generally agree that erosion can he reduced to acceptable levels through engineering and biological methods and practices. These soil-conserving practices are designed to ensure that land is used in such a way that its use is sustained and the soil is maintained. Practices for soil conservation include terracing, strip cropping, planting windbreaks, rotating crops, converting erosive and marginally productive cropland to pasture, practicing minimum tillage, planting grassed waterways, and farming on the contour. In the past, during periods of high crop prices, these soil conservation methods were viewed as costly to the iulividual because some practices, such as windbreaks, terraces, or the conversion of cropland to pasture, took cropland out of production. Farmers questioned the value of minimum tillage when crop yields were depressed in some»areas and increased application of herbicides and insecticides were required. Farmers were also discoraged from maintaining existing terraces or installing new ones because maneuvering large farm equipment around terraces proved to be time-consuming and increased fuel consumption. RENEWED INTEREST IN SOIL CONSERVATION Current concern over soil erosion stems from three sources. First, experts believe that the high levels of soil loss from agricultural land in CRS— H IB80031 UPDATE-05/13/80 the long run may damage the nation 's productive capacity and the country may not be able to meet future international demands for food. Loss /‘ international agricultural trade could injure the nation's ytrade accounts. Second, soil erosion is detrimental from a national standpoint because of the cost involved with sediment clean-up. Finally, as the costs of traditional means of boosting productivity rise, farmers are becoming more aware of the costs of soil erosion in terms of fertilizer requirements and are looking to methods of soil conservation as an economic alternative to inputs of fuel and fertilizer. Their question is: should the Federal government play a larger .role? Others ask whether farmers should be subsidized by the taxpayers at all to maintain their own capital resources. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN SOIL CONSERVATION Since 1935, the 0.5. Department of Agriculture has taken an active role in encouraging soil conservation. The Soil Conservatio Service (SCS), an agency within the USDA, was established in 1935 by the Soil Conservation Act (P.L. 7H—46). Its purpose was to carry out a national program of soil conservation and erosion control. ‘ Initially, SCS encouraged soil conservation by providing information on soil types, suggested management techniques in areas of erosion hazard, information on water supplies for irrigation use, and identification of vegetative plants best suited for soil conservation on a low-cost basis to individuals, private firms, and public agencies who sought assistance. The original Soil Conservation Act also contained provisions for researtn to study the process of soil erosion and to develop new approaches and techniques in soil conservation work. The Soil Conservation Service maintained responsibility for this activity until a departmental reorganization in 1952. The Science and Education Administration now conducts much of this work. Once Federal support for soil conservation began, it was not long before it was expanded. During the second session of the 7uth Congress in 1936, the original Soil Conservation Act was amended by P.L. #6-Q61. The new law established the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), and under the program acreage adjustment plans oriented to conservation objectives were eligible for financial assistance. Crops were classified into two categories, "soil—depleting" and "soil-conserving." Federal payments were available through the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to farmers who shifted acreage from soil-depleting crops, such as corn, cotton, or tobacco, to soil-conserving crops, namely grasses, legumes, and forages. Payments were also made to farmers for applications of fertilizer and lime and other “soil-building” practices. The 1936 legislation was enacted shortly after the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Hoosac aills.decision). The Depression had severely reduced farm income and the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed to increase farm income by raising prices of farm products by reducing acreage of basic crops and storing excess production on farms. It also provided for adjustment payments to farmers, financed from taxes levied on processors. The purpos of the 1936 legislation were basically the same. Payments to farmers were financed from general revenues, rather than from the processing tax. The 1936 program stimulated interest.in soil conservation but they broad range of practices eligible for cost-share payments included production-oriented farming practices, as well as soil-conserving practices. CBS- 5 IB80031 UPDATE-O5/13/80 The production-oriented practices were claimed to result in minimal soil c iservation, an issue that has been rerargued by Congress many times over the years. During the 1940s and 1950s, Congress further expanded the responsibilities lof the Department of Agriculture to include protection of farmland, local communities, rivers, and streams from damaging floods, and the Secretary of Agriculture in turn assigned this responsibility to SCS. Passage of the Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 78-534) in 1944 and the watershed Protection and Flood Preventio Act (P.L. 83-566) in 1954 established a watershed program within SCS. The legislation authorized surveys of rivers and streams in order to plan assistance for land treatment to slow run-off and prevent soil erosion. Along with these technical services offered to individuals, local groups, and States, the law provided financial assistance in the form of cost-share payments. The Federal government, through SCS, would ‘pay an "equitable" share of local cost for installation of flood prevention measures, such as dams and streambank protection, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. And, under the program, funds were provided for loans to communities for the local share of cost through the Farmers Home Administration. Objectives of the program broadened in 1956 with the passage of an amendment (P.L. 84-1018) to the 1954 Act. It directed the Secretary to bear the entire cost of the flood control features of any structure installed under P.L. 566. The amendment also liberalized restrictions for Federal cost-share assistance to include cost-share payments of up to 50% for fish, wildlife, and recreation development and up to 30% of the costs for municipal and industrial water supply. 5 The Soil Bank Act (Title I, P.L. 84-540) established the Conservation Reserve Program in 1956. Farmers who placed their cropland in a conservation use such as woodland or wildlife habitat for up to ten years were eligible for an annual cash "rental payment" plus cost-share assistance and technical guidance in implementing land treatment.measures. The program, which expired in 1960, served a dual purpose: _ it reduced surpluses of agricultural commodities and established conservation practices on the land. 9 other legislation established the Great Plains Conservation Program in 1956 by an amendment (P.L. 84-1021) to the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. The legislation recognized the climatic problems iof the Great Plains, an area where climate~affects farm production to unusually extreme degrees. The law authorized the secretary of Agriculture to enter into long—term (3—- to 10-year) contracts with farmers and ranchers in portions of ten Great Plains States. Technical and financial assistance were extended to individuals who agreed to put the entire acreage of their farm or ranch under a conservation plan and to install recommended conservation practices. The Soil Conservation Service was assigned full responsibilities for the program by the Secretary of Agriculture. To restore productivity on agricultural land after natural disaster, financial aid to farmers was authorized in 1957 by passage of the Third Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 85-58). The Emergency Conservation Measures Program, developed and administered by the Agricultural Conservation at _stabilization Service, provided cost-share assistance to farmers to return land to productive agricultural use when. an area was adversely affected by wind, erosion, floods, or other natural disasters. other programs and objectives of the Department of Agriculture were broadened in the 1960s, reflecting a growing concern with agricultural productivity as it affects rural development. The Consolidated Farmers Home CBS- 6 IB80031 UPDATE-05/13/80 Administration Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-128, Title III) authorized the Farmers Home Administration to make loans to individuals, associations and nonprof” corporations, and public agencies for land and water development, use, and conservation. Through passage of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-703), Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a Resource Conservation and Development Program. The law was passed during a period of relatively low farm income and surpluses of agricultural products, and the program was designed to assist local canmunities in developing programs of land conservation and use where acceleration of present activities was needed and where projects aided economic development. The Soil Conservation Service was assigned leadership and responsibility for the technical planning aspects of the program by the Secretary o Agriculture. The Farmers Home Administration was delegated responsibility for loans made in the program. In the 1970s, the national focus shifted to the environment. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) in 1972 and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and administer a program to control sediment from nonpoint sources, chiefly farmland. The Rural Clean Water Program, first funded in FY80, is an outgrowth of this legislation. Rural land owners and operators who enter into contracts of 5 to 10 years with the Secretary of Agriculture are provided with technical advice and financial assistance when certain. management systems are established and maintained to control nonpoint source pollution. Cngress split responsibility for the program. The Soil Conservation Service was made responsihile for the technical aspects of t’ program; responsibility for cost-share ‘was delegated to the Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service. In 1977, the Soil and water Resources Conservation Act (P.L. 95-192) was also passed by Congress. Recognizing that agricultural land was uner a variety of pressures from population, agriculture, and industry, and the increased demand on agricultural products to balance trade deficits, Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare an appraisal of the present condition of the nation's soil, water, and other resources, and to update this appraisal at five-year intervals. The financial investment in soil conservation was recognized also. Nearly $15 billion had been spent on soil conservation since the mid—1930s, yet a GAO study (CED-77-30, To Protect Tomorrows Food Supply, Soil Conservation Needs Priority Attention) reported that topsoil losses threatened the productivity of the nation's cropland. It criticized the Department's soil conservation efforts and suggested that money and technical help could be used more wisely by targeting assistance to farmers with severe ertsion.prob1ems. The Act directed the Secretary to evaluate the effectiveness of current conservation programs and to suggest new national programs and methods to implement these programs. The appraisal was completed in early 1980 by an interagency committee composed of eight BSDA agencies, under leadership of the Soil Conservation Service. Draft documents were prepared and are currently under public review. In March, the review will be completed and the interagency committee will then evaluate public comments and prepare program recommendations for the Secretary and the President. The President will then make a national soil and water poli statement and recommend a program to the Congress in July. STATE SOIL.CONSERVATION PROGRAMS At the State level, conservation programs, independent of Federal control, CBS- 7 IB80031 UPDATE—O5/13/80 are being tested. In 1979, the Iowa legislature established a pilot program to provide cash payments to farmers who.implemented methods of conservation t ilage in their farming operations instead of practicing traditional tillage methods. , The "Iowa Till" program‘ covered seven counties and was pfunded with $500,000. The Iowa Deparment of Soil Conservation administered the program and provided a one—time $30 per acre payment to farmers who signed a five-year contract to leave the surface»of cultivated fields 55% covered with crop residues. In 1979, the Iowa legislature also initiated a Hindbreak Incentive program in 8 counties. The program was designed to keep blowing soil out of the road ditches and to protect motorists against this driving hazard. Financial payments were made for planting windbreaks, seeding tall grass strips on land adjacent to roadways, and implementing conservation tillage in areas that were causing wind erosion near roads. other States have deweloped conservation programs. Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have begun State-funded cost-share conservation programs similar to the program in Iowa. LEGISLATION IN THE 96TH CONGRESS Legislation in the 96th Congress addresses the issue of soil conservation from several angles: soil conservation loans, establishment of a. national s .1 conservation program, cross-compliance -- an approach that requires performance of conservation activities as a condition of) eligibility for other USDA programs including commodity price support programs, lo-interest loans, crop insurance and cost-sharing programs - and an extension of the Great Plains Conservation Program. one bill (H.R. 5983) would provide agricultural producers with conservation loans for purposes of maintaining and improving the productivity of farmland through pollution control and conservation measures. Another bill (H.R. 3789) would extend the Great.Plains Conservation Program, due to expire in 1981; another (5. 1015) would allow" income tax credit for expenditures on windbreaks for soil conservation; and yet another (H.R. 3681). would limit participation in price support program for the 1980 and 1981 crops of feedgrains and wheat to producers who implement soil conservation plans on their farms. other bills (H.R. 6732, S. 2388) propose the establishment of a soil conservation program which would operate in designated areas of the country which suffer from severe erosion. Another bill (H.R. 7022) would provide farmers with financial.incentives for using good soil conservation practices and would authorize a pilot program whereby the Federal governnent would offer to purchase erosion reduction, water savings, and other conservation outputs from farmers. The eligibility concept was also included in bills to offset the impact of the suspension of grain sales to the Soviet Union announced by President Carter on Jan. 4, 1980. These bills (H.R. 6382, H.R. 6428), which would establish a land diversion payment program for the 1980 crop of feedgrains, would require participating feedgrain producers to devote a percentage of their 1980 crop-planted acreage to approved soil and water conservation practices. CRS- 8 IB80031 UPDATE-05/13/80 LEGISLATION H.R. 3789 (de la Garza, E., et al.) Amends the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act to extend the period under which the Secretary of Agriculture can enter into contracts with landowners for soil conservation in theesreat Plains Conservation Program to Sept. 30, 1991. Raises annual ceiling on program payments from $25 million to $50 million. Increases overall limitation on program cost from $300 to $600 million. Reported to House (H.Rept. 96-755). Passed House Feb. 21, 1980, 380-2. Received in Senate Feb. 26, 1980; Committee on Agriculture reported to Senate favonably (S.Rept. 96-6&8) Mar. 31, 1980. Rational 5.2.11 C nse.1;;ve§.i.9.I_1_L’.I_=.os1I.re;-. H.R. 6732 (Jones, E., et al.)/S. 2488 (Church et al.) Authorizes a program for soil and water conservation in special designated areas; provides technical and financial.assistance to owners and operators of non-Federal agricultural land. H.R. 6732 referred to House Committee on Agriculture Mar. 6, 1980. S. 2088 referred to Senate Committee Agriculture Har. 27, 1980. H.R. 7022 (Grassley) Authorizes a national soil conservation program whith utilizes financial incentives to landowners toiestablish and maintain conservation measures. Establishes a pilot program to test the purchase of conservation benefits by the Federal government. . ro§§.§9.a2.1..i. a_1;2e H.R. 3681 (Jeffords) Amends the Agricultural Act of 1949. Provides that farmers may not participate in price support programs for the 1980 and 1981 crop of feedgrains and wheat unless they implement plans for soil conservation on the farm that meet established minimum standards. Introduced Apr. 20, 1979; referred to Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit, and Livestock and Grains- Executive comment requested from USDA May 2, 1979. H.R. 6382 (Bedel1)/H.R. 6028 (Daschle et al.) Amends the Agricultural Act of 19u9 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish land diversion payment program for the 1980 crops of corn and wheat. Requires, as a condition of eligibility for such payments. that grain producers devote to approved conservation uses a certain amount cropland. Referred to House Committee on Agriculture. Committee consideration and mark-up session held on H.R. 6382, Mar. 18, 1980. .I22r..;I.n<.=en1.=;zs§ CRS- 9 IB80031 UPDATE-05/13/80 S. 1015 (Pressler) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow an income tax credit in an a lunt equal to the amount spent for qualified conservation expenditures paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year. Defines such expenditures as any amount paid or incurred to establish or maintain a wind erosion control and wildlife habitat area on land held by the taxpayer and used for producing agricultural products or for livestock. Introduced Apr. 25, 1979; referred to Senate Committee on Finance. Committee requested executive comment from OMB, USDA, and Department of Treasury, May 7, 1979. §.<2.§»..<2.rz.<‘=;’2;'t.9.I.1-.I:9..=;u.s. H.R. 5983 (Jones, E. et al.) Provides agricultural producers with conservation loans through sthe Commodity Credit Corporation for purposes of maintaining and improving the productivity of farmland through pollution control and conservation measures recommended by County and State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation committees. Limits unsecured conservation loans to $10,000. Limits total of secured and unsecured loans to $200 million in any one fiscal year. Introduced Nov. 28, 1979; referred to Agriculture Committee; referred to Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit Nov. 29, 1979; requested executive comment from USDA Dec. 6, 1979. flfiéfilflfié 0.3. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit. Amend the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session, June 6, 1977- Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 68 p. 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry. Federal soil conservation cost-sharing programs. Hearings, 94th Congress, 2d session, July 6, 1976. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 129 p. 0-5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry. Soil conservation. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session, Apr. 11, 1977. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 80 p. ---- Soil Conservation Service budget cuts- Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session, Feb. 24, 1978. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 27 p. 3EEQ§$§-A!2.§Q!§§§§§lQEAL.2Q§Q!EE$§ iv.s. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977; report together with Congressional Budget Office cost estimate to accompany H.B. 75. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 25 p. (95th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 95-3uu) 0.3. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. prevention program; report to accompany S. 1462. Govt. session. U.S 01/28/80 o1/on/so 11/01/79 10/22/79 12/27/77 11/18/77 02/26/70 10/OH/72 01/01/70 Benbrook, Charles. a policy proposal. July-August 1979: CR5-10 IB80031 UPDATE-05/13/80 Emergency runoff retardation and soil erosion Washington, Off., 1977. 5 p. 1st Report no. 95-3 72) Print. (95th Congress, Senate. Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland announced that there would be no land diversion program in 1980. SCS announced wind erosion damage on nearly 1.0 million acres in theeereat Plains States during November and December 1979. President Carter announced a suspension of grain sales to the Soviet Union. Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland urged intensified soil conservat ion . USDA announced that there would be no "set—aside“ plan for 1980. Clean Rater Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) amended Section 208 of the Federal Hater Pollution Control Act and established the Rural Clean Water Program. The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-192) authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an appraisal of the soil and water resources of the United States . Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz emphasized the policy of the Department of full crop production on the nation's farms. Section 208 of the Federal water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) required each State to submit a Water Quality Management Plan to the EPA which identified non-point sources of water pollution and to set forth procedures and methods of control. National Environment Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) became effective. The law declared it to be the policy of the Federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill social and economicireguirements of present and future generations of Americans. Integrating soiluconservation and commodity program: Journal of soil and water conservation, v. 314, 160-167. CBS-11 IBBOO31 UPDATE-05/13/80 Carter, Luther, J. Soil erosion: the problem persists despite the billions spent on it. science, v. 196, Apr. 22, 1977: 409-H11. Langdale, G.w., J.E. Box, Jr., R.A. Leonard, A.P. Barnet, and W.G." Fleming. Corn yield reduction on eroded Southern Piedmont soils. Journal of soi1.and water conservation, v. 3Q, September-October 1979: 226-228. Logan, T-J. Establishing soil loss and sediment yield linits for agricultural land. In Nationa1.synposiun on soil erosion and sedimentation by water, Chicago, American society of agricultural engineers, 1977. ASAE Publication 4-77: 59-68. 0.3. Department of Agriculture. Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 1980 appraisal, review draft, parts 1 and 2. 0.5. General Accounting Office. To>protect toaorrow's food supply, soil conservation needs priority attention. Report to the Congress by the»Conptroller General of the United States. 0313-77-30, Feb. 111, 1977. 59 p. 0.5. General Accounting Office. A framework and checklist for evaluating soi1.and water conservation programs. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. Mar. 31, 1980. 13H p. (PAD-80-15) Williams, Craig L. Soil conservation and water pollution control: the nuddy record of the United States Department of Agriculture- Boston college environmental affairs law review, v. 7: 365-421. LIBRARYV OF WASHINGTON uwavsasuw aw‘. LOU!$ - MO.