LOCAL FARMERS MONITOR PROGRAMS BEST

In a recent press release from our nation's capital, an environmental activist group attacked the farm program payments which local and state farmer committee members receive. To read what the Environmental Working Group says, one would truly believe that the fox is guarding the hen house. The first question that comes to mind is why do environmental groups care about payments to farmers? Could it be that as the 1995 farm bill is being debated they want some trading stock? Could it be that they want to discredit payments to farmers and ranchers and then have leverage to cut a deal with farm lobbyists? Might this deal include environmentalists' support for continuation of farm deficiency payments in return for support from farm groups for the so-called green programs the environmentalists favor?

In truth, the local farmer/rancher county committee system of the Farm Services Agency functions well. The local FSA county committees by law must be farmers/ranchers (or their wives). It makes sense to have local farmers and ranchers who understand these complicated farm programs oversee the program management at the county level. These programs are completely operated by federal employees who are, in turn, regulated by federal laws and regulations. The county executive directors are supervised by state FSA offices which, in turn, are fully supervised by the Washington offices of FSA.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's office of inspector general is constantly monitoring and reviewing commodity programs all the way down to the local level. This specifically includes program payments to county and state committee members and USDA employees. The abuses of this program are rare, although the big-city press would have us believe that the isolated incidents are commonplace.

Other local groups such as the county conservation district boards provide guidance for all conservation operations that are put in place by federal employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Some state and local employees work out of these district offices.

In reality, farmers and ranchers on these local and state committees know local conditions and practices and will make honest decisions in 99.5 percent of all cases that come before them.

The ultimate answer appears to be gradual withdrawal of the federal government from farmers' and ranchers' financial and cropping decisions. It appears that pressures to reduce federal spending will accomplish this in the next seven to 10 years. Many in the agricultural community will welcome this phase-out of federal farm program payments that we have known for the past 65 years. Some sectors and areas in the farming community may well have difficulty adjusting to the loss of income that these payments provide. Land values will have to adjust where crop allotments have provided extra income from those acres. The key here is to make these reductions gradually, but firmly, so that all program participants know what to expect and can adjust their cash flows accordingly.

What will the environmentalists use when farm program payments are no longer an inducement for farmers to comply with sodbuster, swampbuster and conservation compliance? Will they be pushing for federal laws with punitive damages for farmers and ranchers?

The next seven years will be filled with change for America's tillers of the soil. I believe that our resourceful, hardworking and innovative farmers and ranchers will make the adjustment and continue to provide all citizens of the United States (and many others in the world) with wholesome, reasonably priced food and fiber.

Peter C. Myers Sr., president of Myers Land Management Co. of Sikeston, was deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture during the Reagan administration.