Associated Press | September 9, 2001 | By KILEY RUSSELL, Associated Press Writer
FRESNO, Calif. - A group of Sacramento Valley rice growers reaped the second-largest amount of federal farm subsidies last year, but the nation's most fertile state ranked far below Midwestern peers in total support payments.
California farmers received $812 million of the $27 billion doled out to U.S. farms last year, ranking the state 12th despite its place as the most productive agricultural state, according to a review of U.S. Department of Agriculture records by The Associated Press.
By comparison, Iowa, which produces less than half the bounty of California, received $2.7 billion - more than three times as much in federal funds.
Critics blame the disparity on a support system that is out of kilter with the needs of the average cash-strapped farmer. Large landowners who plant a few select crops are rewarded, leaving fruit, nut and vegetable growers on smaller farms to fend for themselves. Most payments are tied to acreage: more land equals bigger checks.
And you don't even have to work the land to reap the rewards.
"Absentee 'farmers' in places like Beverly Hills and Malibu - as opposed to struggling Central Valley family farms - are getting hundreds of thousands in subsidies," said Bill Walker of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based group working to increase conservation funding in national farm legislation.
Chevron, for example, received $100,770 for its oil-bearing land in Kern County that is farmed by tenants. The company collects the government payments to maximize its return on the property.
The bulk of the subsidy payments go to so-called program crops: wheat, corn, sorghum, rice, oats, feed grain and cotton, none of which ranks among California's top crops.
More than 90 percent of the money is fixed payments based on acreage or triggered when market prices drop. The largest of the other programs pay owners to recover from disasters or protect environmentally sensitive land.
The idea behind the program was to keep market prices stable by controlling supply.
"There wouldn't be too much corn on the market, for example, so the prices wouldn't drop too low," said USDA spokeswoman Erica Szlosek.
With gluts of numerous commodities, however, vegetable and fruit farmers are largely left without price supports even though they have coped with the same low prices as program crops in recent years.
Of the state's 76,000 farms, 54,000 are less than 100 acres, said Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League, which lobbies for about 1,000 San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast farmers.
"Those smaller farms produce 73 percent of total output," Cunha said. "How do we compete without assistance?"
In California, most of the money goes to support cotton and rice growers.
Although Colusa County is not among the state's top 10 agricultural counties, its rice paddies helped it float in $94 million in subsidies. Fresno County, the state's biggest agricultural producer, was second at $88 million.
In Sacramento, the Farmers Rice Cooperative received $16.8 million, the single largest share in the state and second in the nation.
The money was intended to make up the difference between a slumping world market price and farmers' costs. It was divided among 900 farmers, averaging $18,000 per farm.
California's crop of subsidies went to 7,308 businesses and 12,541 individuals - some as far away as Australia and Germany. Some people received as little as $1, others as much as $285,000.
The Buttonwillow Land and Cattle Co. in Kern County took in $1.6 million, largely for cotton and grain crops. It was the fourth-highest federal payment in the state.
"It's a tough issue to pitch to the public, when they look at their home budget and compare that to what a farmer is getting," said Bill Tracy, 59, patriarch of the massive 140-year-old family-owned ranch.
"But they don't realize what it actually costs for even a family farmer to run an operation."
Without supports, many growers argue they would be driven out of business by lower-priced imports or tempted by developers to plant homes and contribute to already sprawling suburbs.
The subsidies are based on complex formulas in the 1996 Farm Bill, which expires next year. Congress is currently writing a new bill that will set the payment structure for the next six years.
One of those working on the bill is U.S. Rep. Cal Dooley, D-Calif., who sits on the House Agriculture Committee and is both a critic and a beneficiary of subsidies.
Dooley is part owner in a 1,000-acre family farm in Visalia, 45 miles south of Fresno, that grows cotton, alfalfa and walnuts. Last year the farm earned $117,081 in subsidies.
Dooley would like to restructure payments around the market, said his spokesman, Adam Kovacevich.
"The current system doesn't tie payments to the amount of products the market will bear," Kovacevich said. "It encourages growers to produce more than the market will bear."Associated Press:
