Last night, the House of Representatives passed its FY22 continuing resolution paired with yet another “emergency” disaster supplemental. The bill contains $10 billion in ad hoc disaster aid for agricultural businesses, an expensive cherry on top of a generous taxpayer subsidy sundae. Farm businesses experienced record farm subsidies last year (nearly $50 billion, making up nearly 50 percent of net farm income) and have already benefitted from $6.4 billion set aside in ad hoc agriculture disaster aid since 2018.  

It’s not only the cost of agriculture disaster funding that keeps ballooning, but also the scope.  

First, the cost…  

The Ag lobby’s appetite for “emergency” subsidies keeps growing. Recent bills – including the Senate’s FY22 agriculture appropriations bill and a stand-alone bill voted out of the House Agriculture Committee – proposed to add up to $8.5 billion more in agriculture disaster spending. Earlier this month, the White House proposed $9 billion. Both the House and Senate’s FY22 continuing resolutions – currently under consideration – have ratcheted this up to $10 billion. The costs just keep adding up. If the FY22 CR is enacted, ad hoc disaster spending directed just to agriculture (not to mention wildfire or other disaster spending) will total $16 billion – all of which is unbudgeted. And it’s in addition to the $7 billion expected to be spent on farm bill subsidy programs in 2021, plus $9 billion on crop insurance annually.  

The scope of the ad hoc aid is expanding as well…  

Each time more money has been piled onto the ever-expanding pot of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) “temporary” Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) program, Congress has stretched the list of losses eligible for taxpayer subsidies. While some losses due to this year’s extreme heat, for instance, may be warranted, many recipients of past disaster aid were already covered by existing disaster programs, meaning taxpayer dollars were wasted. The most recent additions to the FY22 disaster supplemental include coverage of losses due to: 

• Derechos (going back to Iowa in 2020… not the presidential election, but rather the derecho), 

• Excessive heat (think Pacific Northwest in 2021), 

• Winter storms (broadened to cover not just the previously eligible “snowstorms”),  

• Polar vortexes (Texas and beyond earlier this year),  

• Smoke exposure (wildfires in the West), and more.  

Less severe drought losses would be eligible as well, as compared to previous ag disaster bills, with $750 million set aside for livestock due to 2021 drought or wildfire losses. While some of these losses may be unforeseen and not already covered by a private or taxpayer-subsidized insurance program, already numerous permanent disaster aid programs exist in the farm bill to cover crop and livestock losses. Federal crop insurance subsidies were expanded in recent farm bills, with a claimed goal of eliminating the need for ad hoc disaster aid.  

As Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Chair of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, recently said,  

“[The bill] also requires any producer who receives a payment under WHIP+ to enroll in crop insurance and we know that the more acres we have enrolled in crop insurance, the less we’ll have to rely on disaster programs like this one.”  

The same argument was used BEFORE Congress enacted billions more in disaster aid. Recent climate-related losses, paired with some producers not signing up for taxpayer-subsidized insurance, have led to agricultural special interests from across the country knocking on Congress’s door and lobbying for additional aid. To make matters worse, payment limitations agreed to as part of the last farm bill have been watered down during USDA’s implementation of WHIP and WHIP+. The most recent FY22 bill would only water them down further by allowing specialty crop producers, for instance, to receive up to $900,000 in payments in each 2020 AND 2021.  

Overall, the ballooning cost and ever-expanding scope of disaster programs is failing to increase agriculture’s resilience in the face of looming climate risks. It is also failing to help create a more cost-effective, transparent, and accountable farm safety net that is responsive to both producers’ and taxpayers’ needs. Congress must do better, helping producers reduce the risk of loss instead of increase dependence on federal subsidies.