When Congress passed the 2008 farm bill on June 18, 2008, it promised to increase funding for the most important and popular program in farm country to prevent water pollution and tackle other priority conservation problems. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was to be funded at $1.337 billion dollars in fiscal year 2009-an increase of $320 million over the fiscal year 2007 funding for EQIP.
Just 29 days after the 2008 farm bill became law, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a bill, S. 3289, that proposes to fund EQIP at only $1.052 billion-an increase of $35 million over fiscal year 2007. Congress's proposed "increase" in EQIP funding is really a cut of $285 million from what was promised in the 2008 farm bill.
EWG has analyzed the cuts in EQIP funding that states will suffer if Congress does not keep the promises it made in the 2008 farm bill. Table 1 compares the increase in EQIP funding states should get if Congress keeps its 2008 farm bill promises to what states will get if Congress fails to reverse the cuts proposed in the Senate bill.
Fourteen states stand to see their mandated increases in EQIP reduced by more than $6 million each (Table 1). The five states that stand to lose the most EQIP funding are Texas (-$22.5 million), California (-$15.5 million), Colorado (-$10.0 million), Minnesota (-$8.1 million) and Nebraska (-$8.0 million).
Table 1: Fourteen States Poised to Lose More Than $6 million each
State | Increase State Should Get | Increase State Will Get | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Texas | $25,604,995 | $3,144,473 | -$22,460,522 |
California | $17,716,182 | $2,175,671 | -$15,540,510 |
Colorado | $11,417,634 | $1,402,166 | -$10,015,469 |
Minnesota | $9,264,396 | $1,137,733 | -$8,126,663 |
Nebraska | $9,124,519 | $1,120,555 | -$8,003,964 |
Montana | $8,981,516 | $1,102,993 | -$7,878,523 |
Kansas | $8,676,492 | $1,065,534 | -$7,610,958 |
Oklahoma | $8,307,025 | $1,020,161 | -$7,286,864 |
New Mexico | $7,523,437 | $923,931 | -$6,599,506 |
Iowa | $7,366,755 | $904,689 | -$6,462,065 |
Arizona | $7,324,762 | $899,532 | -$6,425,230 |
Florida | $7,161,626 | $879,498 | -$6,282,128 |
Utah | $6,945,715 | $852,983 | -$6,092,732 |
Arkansas | $6,877,154 | $844,563 | -$6,032,591 |
TOTAL | $142,292,209 | $17,474,482 | -$124,817,727 |
The six states in the Chesapeake Bay region will suffer a cut of over $16 million in EQIP funds, erasing much of the $23 million gain the Bay states are set to receive under the new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program created in the 2008 farm bill (Table 2). Either figure is a fraction of the $262 million per-year experts estimate is needed from the federal government to pay for agricultural practices that will "clean up the Bay" by 2010-the deadline established in the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.1
Table 2: Chesapeake Bay States Poised to Lose Over $16 Million
State | Increase State Should Get | Increase State Will Get | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Delaware | $2,027,977 | $249,050 | -$1,778,927 |
Maryland | $2,298,227 | $282,238 | -$2,015,989 |
New York | $4,031,570 | $495,105 | -$3,536,465 |
Pennsylvania | $3,845,235 | $472,222 | -$3,373,013 |
Virginia | $4,023,216 | $494,079 | -$3,529,137 |
West Virginia | $2,157,308 | $264,933 | -$1,892,376 |
Total | $18,383,532 | $2,257,627 | -$16,125,906 |
In February 2008, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey completed a study that found that agriculture is the predominant source of the nitrogen and phosphorus that cause the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, the scientists reported that 9 states-Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi-account for 75 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorus delivery to the Dead Zone.2 These 9 states are poised to get over $47 million less in EQIP funding than they should under the 2008 farm bill (Table 3). Five of those states are among the 14 states set to lose more than $6 million of the EQIP increase promised in the 2008 bill.
Table 3: Key Mississippi River States Poised to Lose Nearly $48 Million
State | Increase State Should Get | Increase State Will Get | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Illinois | $5,004,171 | $614,547 | -$4,389,624 |
Iowa | $7,366,755 | $904,689 | -$6,462,065 |
Indiana | $3,748,560 | $460,349 | -$3,288,210 |
Missouri | $6,767,252 | $831,066 | -$5,936,186 |
Arkansas | $6,877,154 | $844,563 | -$6,032,591 |
Kentucky | $6,877,154 | $844,563 | -$6,032,591 |
Tennessee | $6,877,154 | $844,563 | -$6,032,591 |
Ohio | $4,609,211 | $566,043 | -$4,043,168 |
Mississippi | $5,850,915 | $718,533 | -$5,132,382 |
Total | $53,978,327 | $6,628,917 | -$47,349,409 |
Every state faces pressing natural resource and environmental problems associated with agriculture and each of those states is in danger of losing millions of dollars of EQIP funds (Table 4). If the cuts to EQIP proposed by Congress stand, tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers who are volunteering to make things better, and share the cost of doing so with the government, will be turned away and taxpayers will face more delays in getting the improvements air, water, soil, and wildlife habitat they are willing to pay for.
Table 4: Shortfall in EQIP Funds by State
State | Increase State Should Get | Increase State Will Get | Difference | Total State Should Get | Total State Will Get | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | $4,593,381 | $564,099 | -$4,029,282 | $20,050,726 | $16,021,444 | -$4,029,282 |
Alaska | $1,953,300 | $239,879 | -$1,713,421 | $8,389,946 | $6,676,525 | -$1,713,421 |
Arizona | $7,324,762 | $899,532 | -$6,425,230 | $33,830,927 | $27,405,697 | -$6,425,230 |
Arkansas | $6,877,154 | $844,563 | -$6,032,591 | $31,259,358 | $25,226,767 | -$6,032,591 |
California | $17,716,182 | $2,175,671 | -$15,540,510 | $79,805,711 | $64,265,200 | -$15,540,510 |
Colorado | $11,417,634 | $1,402,166 | -$10,015,469 | $51,633,992 | $41,618,524 | -$10,015,469 |
Connecticut | $1,736,850 | $213,297 | -$1,523,553 | $7,921,694 | $6,398,141 | -$1,523,553 |
Delaware | $2,027,977 | $249,050 | -$1,778,927 | $9,306,140 | $7,527,213 | -$1,778,927 |
Florida | $7,161,626 | $879,498 | -$6,282,128 | $33,521,262 | $27,239,134 | -$6,282,128 |
Georgia | $5,367,782 | $659,201 | -$4,708,581 | $24,335,611 | $19,627,030 | -$4,708,581 |
Hawaii | $2,151,366 | $264,203 | -$1,887,163 | $9,160,572 | $7,273,409 | -$1,887,163 |
Idaho | $5,572,974 | $684,400 | -$4,888,574 | $24,902,988 | $20,014,414 | -$4,888,574 |
Illinois | $5,004,171 | $614,547 | -$4,389,624 | $22,876,425 | $18,486,801 | -$4,389,624 |
Indiana | $3,748,560 | $460,349 | -$3,288,210 | $17,812,300 | $14,524,089 | -$3,288,210 |
Iowa | $7,366,755 | $904,689 | -$6,462,065 | $33,698,467 | $27,236,401 | -$6,462,065 |
Kansas | $8,676,492 | $1,065,534 | -$7,610,958 | $39,101,309 | $31,490,351 | -$7,610,958 |
Kentucky | $3,829,676 | $470,311 | -$3,359,365 | $17,503,179 | $14,143,814 | -$3,359,365 |
Louisiana | $5,204,849 | $639,192 | -$4,565,657 | $23,240,238 | $18,674,581 | -$4,565,657 |
Maine | $2,583,893 | $317,320 | -$2,266,573 | $11,093,374 | $8,826,801 | -$2,266,573 |
Maryland | $2,298,227 | $282,238 | -$2,015,989 | $10,864,110 | $8,848,121 | -$2,015,989 |
Massachusetts | $1,496,463 | $183,776 | -$1,312,687 | $6,971,693 | $5,659,006 | -$1,312,687 |
Michigan | $5,567,241 | $683,696 | -$4,883,545 | $25,989,052 | $21,105,507 | -$4,883,545 |
Minnesota | $9,264,396 | $1,137,733 | -$8,126,663 | $42,170,983 | $34,044,320 | -$8,126,663 |
Mississippi | $5,850,915 | $718,533 | -$5,132,382 | $25,624,290 | $20,491,908 | -$5,132,382 |
Missouri | $6,767,252 | $831,066 | -$5,936,186 | $31,469,180 | $25,532,994 | -$5,936,186 |
Montana | $8,981,516 | $1,102,993 | -$7,878,523 | $40,351,775 | $32,473,252 | -$7,878,523 |
Nebraska | $9,124,519 | $1,120,555 | -$8,003,964 | $41,576,800 | $33,572,836 | -$8,003,964 |
Nevada | $2,415,388 | $296,627 | -$2,118,761 | $10,745,888 | $8,627,127 | -$2,118,761 |
New Hampshire | $1,563,881 | $192,056 | -$1,371,826 | $6,889,665 | $5,517,840 | -$1,371,826 |
New Jersey | $1,423,732 | $174,844 | -$1,248,887 | $6,570,973 | $5,322,085 | -$1,248,887 |
New Mexico | $7,523,437 | $923,931 | -$6,599,506 | $31,876,439 | $25,276,933 | -$6,599,506 |
New York | $4,031,570 | $495,105 | -$3,536,465 | $19,078,964 | $15,542,499 | -$3,536,465 |
North Carolina | $5,221,686 | $641,260 | -$4,580,426 | $24,186,300 | $19,605,874 | -$4,580,426 |
North Dakota | $6,394,434 | $785,281 | -$5,609,153 | $28,779,627 | $23,170,474 | -$5,609,153 |
Ohio | $4,609,211 | $566,043 | -$4,043,168 | $20,618,157 | $16,574,989 | -$4,043,168 |
Oklahoma | $8,307,025 | $1,020,161 | -$7,286,864 | $37,815,928 | $30,529,064 | -$7,286,864 |
Oregon | $6,398,157 | $785,739 | -$5,612,419 | $28,248,298 | $22,635,880 | -$5,612,419 |
Pennsylvania | $3,845,235 | $472,222 | -$3,373,013 | $17,801,483 | $14,428,470 | -$3,373,013 |
Rhode Island | $1,419,404 | $174,313 | -$1,245,091 | $6,062,361 | $4,817,270 | -$1,245,091 |
South Carolina | $2,678,503 | $328,939 | -$2,349,564 | $11,507,767 | $9,158,203 | -$2,349,564 |
South Dakota | $6,005,592 | $737,529 | -$5,268,063 | $26,893,220 | $21,625,157 | -$5,268,063 |
Tennessee | $3,680,413 | $451,981 | -$3,228,433 | $16,949,222 | $13,720,790 | -$3,228,433 |
Texas | $25,604,995 | $3,144,473 | -$22,460,522 | $114,729,478 | $92,268,956 | -$22,460,522 |
Utah | $6,945,715 | $852,983 | -$6,092,732 | $31,459,722 | $25,366,990 | -$6,092,732 |
Vermont | $1,698,357 | $208,570 | -$1,489,787 | $8,044,479 | $6,554,692 | -$1,489,787 |
Virginia | $4,023,216 | $494,079 | -$3,529,137 | $18,211,392 | $14,682,255 | -$3,529,137 |
Washington | $5,791,749 | $711,267 | -$5,080,481 | $26,018,088 | $20,937,606 | -$5,080,481 |
West Virginia | $2,157,308 | $264,933 | -$1,892,376 | $10,089,099 | $8,196,724 | -$1,892,376 |
Wisconsin | $5,990,755 | $735,707 | -$5,255,049 | $27,638,154 | $22,383,106 | -$5,255,049 |
Wyoming | $5,079,573 | $623,807 | -$4,455,765 | $22,570,874 | $18,115,108 | -$4,455,765 |
Pacific Basin | $600,297 | $73,721 | -$526,576 | $3,558,726 | $3,032,150 | -$526,576 |
Puerto Rico | $1,924,452 | $236,336 | -$1,688,116 | $9,119,838 | $7,431,722 | -$1,688,116 |
Total | $285,000,000 | $35,000,000 | -$250,000,000 | $1,289,926,249 | >$1,039,926,249 | -$250,000,000 |
How We Estimated each State's Share of EQIP Cuts
The amount of EQIP funding a state receives each year is determined using a formula that stays fairly constant from year to year. We calculated the percent share of total EQIP funds each state received on average each year in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007 (the most recent information available from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service).3 Table 5 presents those data.
Table 5: Average State Shares of EQIP Funding, 2005 to 2007
State | Average Share |
---|---|
Alabama | 1.61% |
Alaska | 0.69% |
Arizona | 2.57% |
Arkansas | 2.41% |
California | 6.22% |
Colorado | 4.01% |
Connecticut | 0.61% |
Delaware | 0.71% |
Florida | 2.51% |
Georgia | 1.88% |
Hawaii | 0.75% |
Idaho | 1.96% |
Illinois | 1.76% |
Indiana | 1.32% |
Iowa | 2.58% |
Kansas | 3.04% |
Kentucky | 1.34% |
Louisiana | 1.83% |
Maine | 0.91% |
Maryland | 0.81% |
Massachusetts | 0.53% |
Michigan | 1.95% |
Minnesota | 3.25% |
Mississippi | 2.05% |
Missouri | 2.37% |
Montana | 3.15% |
Nebraska | 3.20% |
Nevada | 0.85% |
New Hampshire | 0.55% |
New Jersey | 0.50% |
New Mexico | 2.64% |
New York | 1.41% |
North Carolina | 1.83% |
North Dakota | 2.24% |
Ohio | 1.62% |
Oklahoma | 2.91% |
Oregon | 2.24% |
Pennsylvania | 1.35% |
Rhode Island | 0.50% |
South Carolina | 0.94% |
South Dakota | 2.11% |
Tennessee | 1.29% |
Texas | 8.98% |
Utah | 2.44% |
Vermont | 0.60% |
Virginia | 1.41% |
Washington | 2.03% |
West Virginia | 0.76% |
Wisconsin | 2.10% |
Wyoming | 1.78% |
Pacific Basin | 0.21% |
Puerto Rico | 0.68% |
Total | 100.00% |
We then used the three-year average annual share of total EQIP funds shown in Table 5 to compare each state's share of the $320 million increase in EQIP funds mandated by the 2008 farm bill to the $35 million "increase" proposed by Congress in S. 3289.