DOUBT

Ritzville farmer Ron Jirava has looked over his balance sheet and knows this will be a thin year.

Fuel costs are rising. What’s more, a war half a world away is gobbling up federal dollars, contributing to a 40 percent drop in the amount of money he’s collected so far this year from various federal programs under the 2002 Farm Bill. Such circumstances are becoming more common, sparking concern that the bill designed to conserve land and preserve American agriculture is falling short of its promise.

Farmers expect the federal government to withhold about $15 billion in various program payments this year that they had hoped to collect.

Jirava knows 2004 and 2005 likely will be years to just hang on.

“We may just need to keep our heads above water,” he said.

The government is an active partner in agriculture.

Taxpayers help farmers with their insurance costs. They pay them not to plant crops. They underwrite their operations when markets turn mean.

Without a steady stream of federal dollars flowing to farms, the industry would be devastated.

Yet government money is tight this year, and cash needed to pay for such programs is being withheld, leaving farmers worried about financing their operations.

Farmers point to underfunded conservation programs that are designed to keep grain supplies in balance with markets and restore wildlife habitat, a measure that’s politically popular with city dwellers.

The National Farmers Union refers to the anniversary marking passage of the farm bill as “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly,” stealing the title of the Clint Eastwood film.

NFU president Dave Frederickson said new conservation programs instituted under the farm bill were “good”; called inadequate funding for rural development loans “bad”; and panned the government’s handling of a new country-of-origin labeling as “just plain ugly.”

Many farmers believe shoppers want to know where their food is coming from and have pushed for labeling. The government hasn’t put such a program in place, though, in the face of opposition from food makers, who say a labeling mandate would be costly and difficult to implement.

In prepared comments given to Congress, Frederickson urged better funding of the farm bill’s commitment.

Jim Fitzgerald, who oversees the Washington state operations of the federal government’s Farm Service Agency, said he has had to cut about 30 jobs that were held by temporary workers across the state because of the worsening federal budget. Many of the employees had become important fixtures at statewide offices, he said.

“It’s difficult and sad when you have to make these kinds of decisions that affect people,” Fitzgerald said, adding that some of the workers had hoped to turn their temporary assignments into full-time federal jobs.

The staff reductions underscore the seriousness of federal budget problems. Yet Fitzgerald, whose office handles subsidy payments to farmers and administers programs, said the cutbacks have not crippled service and credited his staff with making the best of difficult circumstances.

The federal government is piling on debt as it pays for the war in Iraq, hunts for Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Afghanistan, and beefs up domestic safety.

Outside of military and homeland security, dollars flowing from the capital are fewer than expected, said Gretchen Borck, who leads the lobbying effort for the Washington Association of Wheat Growers.

“Funding is very tight back in Washington. The military may get their dollars and probably Homeland Security … but everything else is a question mark,” she said.

Borck said everyone is looking to next year, which may result in what she called reconciliation.

“That means everything is back on the table. It means slice and dice and nobody is safe,” she said.

One cutback is known for sure: Farmers won’t be asked to enroll acreage in the Conservation Reserve Program this year. The government is now paying about $67 million a year to have about 1.2 million acres of Washington farmland sit idle. That’s the equivalent of 1,719 square miles, or an area roughly the size of Spokane County.

Another measure that’s disappointing to farmers is implementation of the new Conservation Security Program, one of the novel initiatives under the farm bill.

Administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the security program differs from the reserve program because it pays farmers for working land in ways that comply with environmental goals, such as leaving crop cover for wildlife.

The Conservation Security Program was envisioned as a reward for farmers who practice good conservation and as a financial encouragement for others. It has been hailed as the new conservation measure in farm country for the next decade.

But its launch was more pop than bang.

The NRCS was allotted just $41 million to pay for this big new federal program. With such constraints, the agency decided on a pilot-project approach.

The NRCS selected 18 watersheds across the country. In Washington, only farmers in one area of Douglas County can apply for the program. That area receives little rain and is home to endangered species such as the newly listed pygmy rabbit.

An Idaho watershed also is included in the program. Called the Lemhi, it’s located along the Montana border near Salmon.

NRCS spokeswoman Betty Schmitt acknowledged that Conservation Security Program spending is far less than hoped for, but said Washington was fortunate to land one of the pilot projects.

While areas with conservation challenges were left out, such as the erosion-prone Palouse, Schmitt said NRCS is doing the best it can.

“At least the watersheds are a manageable way of dispersing $41 million,” she said.

Among the biggest surprises for farmers are recent price gains for wheat.

With a bushel of wheat selling for more than the government considers a break-even price, farmers will not be able to collect another new subsidy under the farm bill called counter-cyclical payments. Such payments kick in when grain prices dip below the level the government considers the minimal price a farmer needs to break even.

It’s all adding up to a fuzzy year, with no certainty on the horizon.

Borck said it’s hard to solicit added financial support at a time when nearly all government programs are making due with less.

“You go to Washington and its all about how expensive the war is in terms of lives and money,” she said. “The mood is somber.”