Report Reveals Discrepancies In Crp Program Different Rules Last Spring Hindered Enrollment Of Washington Farmland In Federal Program

A new report by federal inspectors confirms what Washington state farmers suspected last spring: Less of their land was accepted into a popular conservation program because they had to play by different rules.

U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt said Tuesday the report refutes last year’s claims by top U.S. Department of Agriculture officials that the Conservation Reserve Program was administered fairly and evenly across the country.

When Washington finished last among all states for land accepted into the March 1997 sign-up, Nethercutt and other members of the congressional delegation challenged Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, who insisted no mistakes were made in processing applications.

“What we kept hearing from (top department officials) was ‘We gave the same instructions to every office, they gave the same instructions to every farmer,”’ Nethercutt said.

But a report from the department’s own inspector general says Washington farmers were given different instructions and had to meet different standards than farmers with similar land in neighboring states.

“The audit disclosed that (program rules) … varied significantly between Washington and Oregon,” Inspector General Roger Viadero wrote in the report. “As a result, Washington offers were accepted at a much lower rate than Oregon offers.”

The program gives farmers cash payments for idling environmentally sensitive farmland. In return, farmers must maintain the land to prevent erosion and serve as habitat for wild animals.

Land being proposed for the program was evaluated and given scores for different features that met those goals. The higher the score, the more likely land would be accepted.

Washington officials with the Natural Resources Conservation Service required that state’s farmers to meet different rules, the report said. To get top scores they were expected to have shrubs on the land to provide shelter for animals; Oregon and Idaho farmers had no such requirement.

To score high for protecting endangered species, Washington farmers’ land had to be within 500 feet of a “fish-bearing” stream, the report added. Oregon farmers only had to show they were “in the drainage area” - a much easier standard.

After the land was evaluated and scored, 83 percent of the acreage in Idaho and 82 percent in Oregon was accepted into the program; only 21 percent of the Washington acreage was accepted.

The different rules for Washington were a result of discussions with the state Fish and Wildlife Department, said Ross Laren, in the conservation service’s Spokane office. State and federal officials were looking for ways to improve the land that was in the conservation reserve.

“It’s hard to administer a program on a national basis and treat everybody the same,” Laren said. “I felt that in Washington state, we met the intent of the law.”

After repeated complaints from Washington farmers and Glickman’s visit to the state last summer, the program was revised. About 82 percent of the Washington land proposed for the fall sign-up was accepted into the conservation reserve.

Farmers who had been rejected for the program in the spring were given an extra six months of payments if they applied again in the fall and their land was accepted.

Nethercutt said the higher rate of acceptance and the extra payments don’t completely repair the damage to the department’s credibility.

“It spills over into questions of fairness about other USDA programs,” he said.

, DataTimes