Get a GRIP: Should Area Revenue Coverage Be Offered through the Farm Bill or as a Crop Insurance Program? 2007

The successful expansion of the U.S. crop insurance program has not eliminated ad hoc disaster assistance. An alternative currently being explored by members of Congress and others in preparation of the 2007 farm bill is to simply remove the “ad hoc” part of disaster assistance programs by creating a standing program that would automatically funnel aid to hard-hit regions and crops. One form such a program could take can be found in the area yield and area revenue insurance programs currently offered by the U.S. crop insurance program. The Group Risk Plan (GRP) and Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) programs automatically trigger payments when county yields or revenues, respectively, fall below a producer-elected coverage level. The per-acre taxpayer costs of offering GRIP in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa for corn and soybeans through the crop insurance program are estimated. These results are used to determine the amount of area revenue coverage that could be offered to farmers as part of a standing farm bill disaster program. Approximately 55% of taxpayer support for GRIP flows to the crop insurance industry. A significant portion of this support comes in the form of net underwriting gains. The expected rate of return on money put at risk by private crop insurance companies under the current Standard Reinsurance Agreement is approximately 100%. Taking this industry support and adding in the taxpayer support for GRIP that flows to producers would fund a county target revenue program at the 93% coverage level.

1016-010 Iowa Great Lakes Watershed Final Report

Part of a phased approach, an intensive information and education program, construction of erosion control practices, and sediment control on construction sites is proposed. These proposed practices will manage sediment runoff and nutrient runoff on agricultural and urban areas. Sediment control “structures” such as waterways, wetlands, modified terraces, grade stabilization structures, sediment basins, and rain gardens is proposed and will be combined with nutrient and pesticide management and reduced tillage to reduce non-point source pollution. A reduction of 15% of the sediment and phosphorus delivered to a water body from priority areas will be looked at as a success in this short-term project focused primarily at education within the project area which is also, for the most part, the top 25% sediment load producing sub-watersheds. In addition, four urban areas have been identified as part of this project as needing immediate assistance. A combination of urban and agricultural conservation practices, shoreline revegetation, and education of landowners will be used to achieve these results on both the urban and the agricultural arena.

1204-003 North Fork Maquoketa Watershed Final Report

The Headwaters North Fork Maquoketa River Project encompasses the Hewitt Creek, Bear Creek, and the Coffee Creek-North Fork Maquoketa subwatersheds. These three.sub-watersheds have intensive livestock agriculture production with manures applied generously on the landscape. Approximately 85% of the watershed area is cropland. Although livestock operations are not permitted to discharge waste directly into surface waters, the mishandling and over-application of animal waste and fertilizer have impacted water quality. Each of the subwatersheds has a strong locally led effort, concentrating significant efforts on monitoring, education, and conservation practice adoption. The original MRBI application was accepted by USDA with funding being extended to producers through FY14. A large component of this effort was the IJOBS funds awarded by IDALS to support the Project Coordinator for the first two years of this project. As previous funding for the support of the Project Coordinator has been exhausted, the local partners identified WIRB as a potential replacement funding source. The goal of the existing MRBI effort, in being consistent with this WIRB application, will help landowners and operators in the three selected watersheds voluntarily implement conservation systems that reduce nutrient loss; protect, restore, and enhance wetlands; maintain agricultural productivity; improve wildlife habitat; and achieve other objectives, such as flood reduction.