<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>FEDERAL POLICY</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Editorial: A welcome
drought</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Riverside Press-Democrat -
2/13/05</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>California agriculture can weather a drought in federal farm subsidies, and
with a federal budget deficit nearing one-half trillion dollars, the nation
needs to quit squandering money. </P>
<P>President Bush wants to trim $587 million in farm subsidies nationally. The
cut may sound large, but it's chicken feed given the absurd sum the government
spends on farm subsidies: $16.4 billion in 2003, the latest figure available.
</P>
<P>But the cuts worry California rice and cotton farmers, who collect most of
the state's federal farm subsidies. Those farmers harvested $562 million of the
$758 million in total agriculture subsidies California received in 2003,
according to the Environmental Working Group's database of farm payments. </P>
<P>Yet these farms' operations accounted for just $1.1 billion of the state's
$29.3 billion agricultural output that year. Most of the state's other farmers
don't get federal crop payments, and thrive economically. </P>
<P>It's never made much sense to grow rice -- a water-intensive crop -- in arid
California, where water is a precious commodity. The president's plan might lead
some farmers to switch crops, thus making more efficient use of the state's
water supplies. Such a move would help nourish California, as well as U.S.
taxpayers. #</P>
<P><A
href="http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_op_13_ed_subsidies3.58a1a.html"><U><FONT
color=#0000ff
size=4>http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_op_13_ed_subsidies3.58a1a.html</U></FONT></A></P><FONT
size=4>
<P> </P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>RELATED</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Editorial: Subsidy program needs alterations
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Chico Enterprise-Record -
2/13/05</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>President Bush caused a stir this week, both locally and nationwide, by
announcing his intention to cut farm subsidies. </P>
<P>The political fallout has been fascinating. Red-state farmers are howling at
the president and environmental groups are in what may be a first praising Bush.
Or as close as they can come. The group Environmental Defense, for example,
called Bush's proposal for farm subsidy reform "a small step in the right
direction." </P>
<P>Even the new federal agriculture secretary, Mike Johanns, a former governor
of ag-rich Nebraska, says the cuts in farm subsidies are necessary. </P>
<P>Among the targets are rice farmers, which is why Bush's proposal raised
concerns in the north valley. </P>
<P>After four years of Democrat-like spending, Bush finally realizes his
spending habits didn't match his billing as a fiscal conservative. He proposed
spending cuts in many programs and departments, including agriculture. We salute
the president for trying to cut spending, and for daring to challenge his
political base. </P>
<P>Congress will now massage the proposal, and may eliminate it altogether. The
lobbying has already begun. </P>
<P>There are some aspects we like about Bush's proposal, and at least one major
issue that concerns us. </P>
<P>On the encouraging side, the subsidy program needs reform and Bush's proposal
seems more fair. The Bush administration said the cuts would save $5.7 billion
over the next decade. Large corporate farms get the most benefit from subsidies.
According to the administration, the top 8 percent of subsidy recipients
received 78 percent of total subsidies in 2003. We're all for helping small
family farms. Any reform should find ways to make that happen. </P>
<P>The proposal also would reduce the annual limit on payments to farmers from
$360,000 to $250,000, and would eliminate loopholes that allow some growers to
claim several times the limit. </P>
<P>A 5 percent across-the-board cut would have wide repercussions in this area.
According to the Farm Services Agency, Butte County growers received $31.6
million in subsidies in 2004 and Glenn County farmers received $29.9 million.
</P>
<P>And that's part of the big problem we see. A 5 percent cut would mean $3
million less in income in the two counties. The rice market is already in the
tank, and a cut in government subsidies may give more rice farmers the easy out
that many are taking selling water to Southern California or selling land to
developers. </P>
<P>The worse the economic climate for farmers, the more likely they are to
become ex-farmers. We walk a delicate balance, trying to keep farming healthy
without spending too much in government assistance. When farmers' land is worth
more as a subdivision than a rice field, and when the water is worth more if
it's sold than if it's used to grow crops, then the entire north state is in
danger. </P>
<P>Farming is critical to our area's economy and environment. The challenge is
to encourage farming without too much dependence on the government. We wish the
president luck.# </P>
<P></FONT><A
href="http://www.chicoer.com/Stories/0,1413,135~25090~2709247,00.html"><U><FONT
color=#0000ff
size=4>http://www.chicoer.com/Stories/0,1413,135~25090~2709247,00.html</U></FONT></A></P><FONT
size=4>
<P> </P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>STATE BOND PROPOSALS</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Chesbro proposes $3B bond for improving
California parks </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>Eureka Times-Standard -
2/12/05</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>SACRAMENTO -- Concerned about the restoration of North Coast rivers and
protection of California's coastline, Sen. Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, Friday
introduced a $3 billion act aimed at protecting a wide range of state and local
park programs. </P>
<P>Chesbro said the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks,
and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (SB 153) "will provide California an
opportunity to finish the Coastal trail, continue our work restoring salmon and
steelhead habitat, and protecting the North Coast." </P>
<P>He added: "The economic strength of coastal California is tied to
environmental protection. The dramatic landscapes and recreational fishing
opportunities draw visitors from throughout the world helping to make tourism
one of our top industries. We need to continue our investments in California's
natural assets." </P>
<P>Included in the measure is more than $1 billion for forest protection, open
space, coastal access and river restorations. </P>
<P>In addition, the bond also allocates $700 million for new state parks and
maintenance at existing parks, over $1 billion for local cities and counties for
recreational programs, athletic fields and parks, $200 million for historic
preservation, and a final $100 million for California senior center facilities.
</P>
<P>"It is time for the state to become a partner with local governments to
assist preserving the state's historic treasures," Chesbro added. "Without our
actions, thousands of treasures, public buildings and architectural gems will be
lost to neglect." </P>
<P>The new bond measure is a follow-up to Propositions 40 and 50, which Chesbro
also authored. Those measures are beginning to run out of funding. Additional
bonds will need to be approved by the voters if programs such as salmon
restoration are to continue to be funded. </P>
<P>Chesbro has organized a bipartisan coalition of state legislators who are
supporting the Park Bond Act, including Assemblywoman Patty Berg of Eureka,
Assemblywoman Noreen Evans of Santa Rosa and Assemblyman Joe Nation of San
Rafael. </P>
<P>SB 153 has to be in print for 30 days before it is heard by the Senate
Natural Resources Committee. #</P>
<P></FONT><A
href="http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2707876,00.html#"><U><FONT
color=#0000ff
size=4>http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2707876,00.html#</U></FONT></A></P><FONT
size=4>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>