Renewal of farm and food policies in the 2007 Farm Bill provides a rare opportunity to help more farmers and the environment.

But, neither of the conservation proposals unveiled by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees last week provides nearly enough funding to meet some of America's most pressing environmental challenges. As a result, most farmers will continue to be turned away when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment with USDA.

Both proposals would provide roughly $29 billion for conservation programs over the next five years. But, both proposals would partially rely upon "offsets" — cuts to other programs or new revenues.

Without including the "funny money," the House proposal is actually more generous than the Senate proposal — the House would provide $25 billion in "real" funds for conservation, while the Senate would provide less than $23 billion. See some recent coverage on the subject.

Here's the kicker: neither proposal would provide as much "real" money as the proposal by the Bush Administration.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns would provide $27 billion over five years in "real money" for conservation programs like the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and would have restructured traditional farm subsidies to make the math work. Johanns has made an equitable farm bill that helps more farmers, communities and the environment the primary test of the 2007 Farm Bill.

So far, House and Senate Democrats appear to be failing that test.

There's no word yet on whether House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) or Senate Agriculture Committe Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) will restructure or reduce traditional farm subsidies to help more farmers and meet other farm and food priorities, such as conservation, health and renewable energy. Both chairmen have said that $25 billion in "direct" subsidy payments linked to the production history of crop farmers are on the chopping block, but early indications are that the Chairmen plant to use a jack-knife rather than an an ax.

The House proposal includes important reforms to USDA's two major working lands incentives programs — the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) — that would provide more environmental benefits and better reflect local environmental priorities. The House proposal also promotes the use of 'cooperative conservation' agreements to bring local farmers together to meet local environmental challenges. The Senate proposal would combine CSP and EQIP into a single program. With the right reforms, a single working lands program could reduce administrative burdens and simplify the alphabet soup facing farmers.

But while both proposals provide an interesting roadmap to the right destination — a healthier environment — neither proposal puts enough fuel in the tank. Without more funds for conservation, two out of three farmers will continue to be turned away when they offer to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat. And many of America's most pressing environmental challenges will not be met.