America’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners manage roughly 70 percent of the American landscape, so it should be no surprise that agriculture has a dramatic impact on the quality of our rivers, on the fate of rare species, or on the pace of sprawl.

In particular, agriculture is the leading reason 40 percent of America’s rivers, lakes and bays fail to meet water quality goals, the nation’s largest consumer of freshwater, and is a leading threat to America’s endangered and threatened wildlife species. Agriculture is also a significant source of air pollution in some regions and pesticides can drift from their intended target, posing threats to public health and wildlife.

Fortunately, farmers are eager to offer share the costs of a healthier environment. All of America's farmers already take steps to provide cleaner air and water and wildlife habitat, ranging from soil-conserving tillage systems to more precise applications of water, fertilizers, and pesticides. Our farmers are eager to do even more.

But, most farmers offering to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat are turned away because of our misplaced federal spending priorities.

What’s more, our federal farm policies send powerful economic signals through farm and crop insurance subsidies to plow up environmentally sensitive lands to grow crops that create new environmental challenges. The farm and ranchland commonly shifting in and out of production in response to these economic signals is far more likely to harbor rare species and pose water quality challenges. See a recent USDA paper on the subject.

Renewal of farm and food policies is a rare opportunity to reward – not reject – farmers when they offer to help meet America’s environmental challenges and to provide a farm safety net that helps farmers weather the ups and downs of agriculture without providing incentives to plow up environmentally sensitive lands. Unless we reward stewardship and reduce signals to plow up grasslands and wetlands, we will fail to meet some of America’s most pressing environmental challenges.

Restructuring our farm safety net and expanding conservation and renewable energy programs in the 2007 Farm Bill would also help many more farmers and communities, provide consumers with more energy and health choices, and boost rural prosperity.

Congressional leaders should heed the call of more than 200 of their colleagues and expand funding for stewardship incentives. Congressional leaders should also expand the use of better risk management tools.

In particular, policymakers should consider proposals by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IA) and Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Joe Crowley (D-NY) and David Reichert (R-WA) to begin a transition away from our Depression-era subsidies to a system of farmer-held risk management accounts that farmers could use to weather the ups and down of agriculture, make investments, and plan for the future. Their proposals would largely eliminate signals to plow up grasslands and provide significant new funds for USDA conservation programs.

As the Washington Post recently noted, Lugar and House leaders "are on a sensible track, and it is critical that their ideas get a fair hearing. The farm bill can be a vehicle for investing heavily in important priorities . . . without depleting the federal bank account or violating the Democrats' responsible pay-go budget rules — but only if Congress is willing to make agriculture spending more rational."