USDA and Tribal Nations: A Shared Commitment to Productive Lands and a Healthy Environment

Remarks prepared for delivery by Arlen L. Lancaster, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, at the Tribal Outreach and Training Conference: “Getting to Know Each Other and Caring for Mother Earth.”

Toppenish, Washington
September 25, 2007


Introduction
Thanks, Pauline [Capoeman], for that nice introduction. Acting Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner sends his greetings and best wishes, as well. Thanks for inviting me to this very timely “meeting of the minds” here in the Evergreen State. This gathering comes at an opportune moment, it seems—when conservation and sustainability have become daily topics in our national conversation and previously disinterested citizens are giving real thought to farm bill policy and how we care for the land. And, I think we can all agree, interest is continuing to build.

We recently celebrated the 70th anniversary of the founding of the first soil conservation district in North Carolina and it has been more than 50 years since the first Tribal Conservation District was established by the Shoshone Paiute in Nevada. Also in 2007, the Intertribal Agriculture Council is celebrating 20 years as a respected voice in the Indian community. It has been 15 years since USDA adopted an American Indian Alaska Native policy and our agency’s American Indian Alaska Native Employee Association is marking a decade’s worth of achievements.

I share this list of anniversaries with you to emphasize that the aforementioned momentum for change has not come about in an instant. Rather, it is the result of a lot of hard work by many dedicated people over a long span of years. Some of those people are in this room, representing IAC, the Indian Nations Conservation Alliance and other key partners, along with my colleagues from the various USDA components. But there exists the opportunity to do much more: to get more conservation on tribal lands, to make communities stronger, and to do it in a way that supports both economic and environmental goals.

The Value of Information Exchange
Information sharing is and will remain critical to this effort so I appreciate your leadership in bringing us all together this week to advance our mutual knowledge and awareness. Individual farmers and ranchers, as well as tribal governments, face enormous pressures from environmentalists, developers and other groups and are bombarded with often-conflicting data and recommendations. Providing these landowners with the timely, accessible, authoritative and science-based information they need to make sound decisions is a major focus for us at USDA.

Since becoming Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, I have become increasingly convinced that if you give people sound information, they will use it to make wise decisions: for the land, their children, their grandchildren, their neighbors up and downstream, and the community at large.

Producers tell us that they want to stay on their land, so the task becomes one of helping them do that. Conservation occurs within the context of economics so we must prove that good stewardship is good business. In addition to outlining the conservation benefits of practices or programs, we must also be able to make the economic case for a particular course of action.

Just last week, I had occasion to talk about this to a television crew from Chengdu, China, who wanted to know how we balance production concerns with environmental ones on working lands in the United States. I first explained that participation in our programs is and always has been voluntary; landowners look to us for resource information and technical assistance to enable them to strike that balance.

But I also stated with certainty that the real key to success for any of our rural development or conservation programs lies in working cooperatively at the local level. The ongoing Toppenish Creek wetlands project nearby is a wonderful illustration of this concept, with multiple partners coming together over time to restore balance across a landscape, and it is just one of many successful jointly supported projects around the state.

While we have in place an array of national standards, policies and guidance that form the framework for financial and technical assistance, we also know that farmers, ranchers and tribes want and need assistance designed to address their unique needs and aspirations. The seafaring Makah Tribe in Neah Bay has different resource and community concerns than do the tribes here on the state’s East Side, and we have to be sensitive to those differences and to understand when, how and why they matter.

The Value of Partnerships
Because we tailor our services and products for delivery locally, we achieve greater buy-in from individuals and communities and can often have a greater impact as a result. Let me cite one quick example. The Secretary of Agriculture recently announced that Northwest Indian College in Bellingham will receive almost $350,000 in grants, about $45,000 of which will equip a new child daycare building. Another $3.65 million in grants was awarded to tribal colleges in six other states, to meet specific needs on their campuses, ranging from classroom renovations to library tables. It didn’t make sense to give all of the institutions money for classroom renovations, because they didn’t all have the same need; instead, we coordinated locally to help each college achieve its unique goal.

Let me talk briefly about how we do that all the way from Washington, D.C. to Washington State, because I think it will give you some insights into how you can help shape—and benefit from—what USDA has to offer. How do we take “big government” programs and make them relevant and accessible at the regional, state or unit level?

Within USDA, beginning with the Director of Native American Programs in the Secretary’s Office and through a network of tribal liaisons, we solicit priorities from tribal governments and other advisors on services relating to natural resources and the environment, rural development, agricultural expansion, food safety and nutrition, marketing and regulatory programs, and education and extension activities.

Just as we do with the almost 3,000 county-level soil and water conservation districts nationwide, we in NRCS and in the Forest Service also rely on the leadership of the 27 Tribal Conservation Districts to define needs, refine programs and set priorities. State Technical Committees assist us in this effort, too; perhaps soon, Tribal Conservation Advisory Councils will play a similar role.

In my agency alone we have more than 200 assigned tribal liaisons working with the more than 100 different tribal nations who participated in our programs so far during 2007. As you might imagine, that generates a lot of discussion, feedback and recommendations about how we do our business.

 That feedback and those recommendations come back up to us in the national headquarters via our state conservationists and three regional assistant chiefs, where they then come under the purview of Edie Morigeau, our NRCS Tribal Government Relations Coordinator. You may already have met her this morning, but in case you haven’t, I’ll ask her to stand. Edie is a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation in Northwest Montana.

If you ask Edie what her job is, she’ll tell you without hesitation that it is to facilitate putting conservation on tribal lands. One of the ways she goes about this is to determine if a policy change can make things easier for our tribal customers and then she begins drafting the proposed change. Edie came to us from the Forest Service’s Office of Tribal Relations and so understands that public, private and tribal lands don’t function in isolation—and neither do their owners—so cross-cutting solutions are often called for.

That is also why, with INCA’s and IAC’s encouragement, we have recently signed interagency memoranda of understanding related to planning and implementing agriculture conservation programs on Indian lands. I had the honor of signing both of them. The first, inked last December at the INCA conference, involves both Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture agencies; specifically, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, NRCS and the Farm Service Agency. The second was between NRCS and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, or NASS. We entered into these agreements because (a), we know that working across agencies can sometimes make things harder for you than they should be and (b), we hope to make the most of our various authorities and funding streams.

Making Conservation Easier
My number one priority as Chief of NRCS—and a focal point of the administration’s proposals for the 2007 Farm Bill—is making conservation easier, for our employees and for our customers, including tribal governments and individual farmers and ranchers. In developing our proposals, we held nearly 50 “listening sessions” nationwide, in communities large and small. We kept hearing from producers that they like many of the farm bill programs but sometimes find them too complex. They also get frustrated when there is not enough funding to go around.

With that in mind, our proposals would increase conservation funding by $7.8 billion over 10 years; simplify and consolidate programs and eligibility requirements; support emerging priorities, such as renewable energy research; and provide direct benefits to beginning farmers and ranchers and socially disadvantaged producers. In fact, our proposal is for 10 percent of farm bill conservation funding to be dedicated to these producers to better level the playing field.

Here is the status of the 2007 Farm Bill. The House passed its version in the end of July and there is currently a Senate Ag Committee proposal circulating. We are hearing that mark up may come as soon as next week, but that of course is after the existing farm bill expires.

However, there is no floor vote yet scheduled for the 2007 bill, so your guess is as good as mine about when the new legislation will finally emerge. Nor can I tell you what will be in the final version. But, I can tell you that in NRCS and the department, we remain fully engaged in the process, making visits to the Hill and responding as quickly as possible to committee and member questions and concerns.

We are continuing the fight for farm bill proposals we think are reform minded, merit based and market oriented, that will prepare us to meet future challenges, make conservation easier and be more transparent in our business practices.

Many of you have been through this before and know we have a long way to go. When our employees ask me what all this means, I tell them that whatever happens ultimately, it is critical for us to keep service, conservation planning and other essential activities front and center. I genuinely believe that if we remain focused on our core missions—with leadership and commitment from the conservation districts and our other partners—we will make progress for conservation every day, regardless of changes in funding, personnel, or policy.

The Value of Resiliency

I started my remarks this afternoon by highlighting our more than 70-year commitment to locally led conservation efforts and describing some of the milestones attained by the county and Tribal Conservation Districts. I also mentioned the Yakima Valley restoration project, which has been underway for more than 18 years—all to underscore that conservation and worthwhile community development require vision, planning, perseverance and cooperation. Throughout USDA, we are committed to maintaining these critically important government-to-government relationships with Tribal Nations and to maximizing all our partners’ collective expertise, experience and resources to meet your needs.

There will continue to be enormous pressures on rural America in general and on Native American landowners relating to urbanization, agricultural production and water and air quality issues. We must continue to communicate in venues like this and to work together to seize the current momentum for change. By doing so, we will make a difference in both the short-and long-terms. Thank you for all you have done and for all you continue to do to ensure productive lands and a healthy environment, caring for Mother Earth and the people of Washington State.

I would be happy to take a few questions if there is time….

[end]