James Bovard's April 6 editorial-page article on the
Agriculture Department's "swampbuster" policy gives a
one-sided account of the problems surrounding this provision
of the Farm Bill.

The current swampbuster controversy is not, as Mr. Bovard
suggests, a battle between defenseless, fragile lands and
swampbusting farmers. There are examples of abuse, but most
farmers facing problems are only improving drainage on land
they have farmed continuously.

In my part of Minnesota, where we have had five very wet
years, many farmers need to drain low spots in their fields.
A common practice, this kind of drainage helps a farmer deal
with wet weather, and it does not bring new land into
production. The current regulations, however, can view this
as the equivalent of converting a swamp into a field of corn.
Farmers who do this have been told they are violating the
law.

Such senseless implementation of this law runs the risk of
undermining an important conservation policy before it can
even have an effect. The Farm Bill exempts any action that
has a "minimal" effect on the wetland characteristics of an
area. In the final regulations, due early this summer, the
Agriculture Department needs to tie that exemption to
cropping history, so that farmers are clearly exempted when
they are improving drainage on land they have continuously
farmed.

This simple change in regulation will solve the bulk of
the swampbuster problem. Then the government can focus its
energy on protecting our wetlands, not on interfering with
the maintenance of farmland.

Vin Weber (R., Minn.)

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington