Bill Overview
Title: Agriculture Disaster Assistance Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies access to Department of Agriculture disaster assistance programs and requires increased interagency cooperation in drought-related activities. The bill specifies that state and federal grazing permit holders are eligible for the Emergency Conservation Program and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program. Further, emergency measures eligible for payments include new permanent measures, such as permanent water wells and pipelines. The bill also waives the 30-day comment period required for applications under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for emergency measures carried out during a drought emergency. Modifications to the Livestock Forage Disaster Program allow for one monthly payment when a county has four consecutive weeks of a D2 rating (severe drought) and two payments for eight consecutive weeks of D2. Currently, one payment is available for eight consecutive weeks of D2. The bill expands coverage for honey bee producers under the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) for losses caused by adverse weather or drought, such as transportation costs and reduced honey crops. Further, the bill requires the ELAP payment rate for honey bee producers to incorporate additional factors, such as per-hive and per-colony rates of loss. The USDA must establish an interagency working group to improve the consistency and accuracy of U.S. Drought Monitor data. Finally, the Farm Service Agency and the Forest Service must enter into a memorandum of understanding to better align their drought response activities.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Farmers, ranchers, livestock producers, honey bee producers, and other individuals in the agriculture sector impacted by drought and natural disasters
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill targets farmers, ranchers, and those in the agricultural industry who are affected by drought and natural disasters.
- Livestock producers and grazing permit holders are explicitly mentioned as beneficiaries of the modified disaster assistance programs.
- Honey bee producers are directly impacted by the expanded coverage under the ELAP for adverse weather loss.
- The bill involves changes to existing USDA and Forest Service programs, hence will also influence policymaking and program implementation for these state and federal agencies.
- Grazing lands and forest restoration programs indicate a focus on those who rely on federal and state permits for land use.
- The agricultural sector in regions prone to drought will see the greatest impact as they stand to benefit from financial support and improved administrative response to drought conditions.
Reasoning
- The policy particularly focuses on farmers, ranchers, livestock producers, honey bee producers, and individuals involved in agriculture who are impacted by droughts and natural disasters.
- Interview participants reflect a mix of directly and indirectly affected individuals, as it is crucial to understand both perspectives.
- The selected simulated individuals represent a diverse range of locations and agricultural practices to ensure varied impact levels and opinions.
- Considering budget constraints, only certain program elements will be likely addressed immediately, like direct payments or emergency support measures, hence affecting responses.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could really help stabilize our cattle operation during dry spells.
- The changes in the payment structure for drought help ease some financial stress.
- I appreciate quicker emergency response measures, which will make a difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Beekeeper (California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful about the expanded ELAP coverage for beekeepers.
- The additional payment factors for bee loss recognition are crucial.
- Increased cooperation among agencies could improve response times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Corn farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am glad this act allows for new permanent water measures.
- However, I am concerned if the budget will cover all required infrastructure needs.
- Improving drought data accuracy is a step forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Environmental consultant (Arizona)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The interagency cooperation is vital for real-time drought response.
- I'm curious about the fast-tracked application process for NEPA.
- Monitoring the implementation is crucial to success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Forest manager (Colorado)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on forest restoration aligns with needed enhancements.
- Waiving certain periods under NEPA could expedite recovery efforts.
- Budget practices will determine specific achievable objectives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Sheep farmer (New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Payments for grazing during droughts will help but may need to be more.
- Simplifying emergency application processes is a win.
- Better drought data is needed, but who implements changes matters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Farm supply business owner (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will likely increase demand for conservation tools and equipment.
- Understanding the nuances will help forecast business impacts.
- Increased measure support can aid business planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Federal grazing permit holder (Montana)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being eligible for payments will ease my financial burdens.
- It's reassuring to see practical permanent measures discussed.
- Hopeful but cautious about long-term implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Soybean farmer (Kansas)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how permanent water measures will play out.
- This could influence whether crop insurance remains enough.
- Consistent drought data can inform future planting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Agricultural policy advisor (Arkansas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cross-agency collaboration can be game-changing.
- Prompt payment structures are a big improvement.
- The focus on better drought data cannot be understated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $40500000, High: $61500000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $41616000, High: $62424000)
Year 5: $54000000 (Low: $43200000, High: $64800000)
Year 10: $58580000 (Low: $46864000, High: $70296000)
Year 100: $942500000 (Low: $754000000, High: $1131000000)
Key Considerations
- Significant start-up costs in the initial years due to implementation of new measures and programs.
- Potential administrative cost savings through improved coordination and expedited emergency response.
- Dynamic response to drought conditions could offer preventive benefits not easily quantified in immediate costs.
- Long-term sustainability and environmental impact of expanded provisions like permanent water wells must be considered.