Will Tom Vilsack represent more than Iowa in Washington?

WASHINGTON — At first blush, Barack Obama’s selection today of Tom Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary seems no great gift to reformers.

After all, Vilsack was governor of Iowa, where farmers received $3.76 billion (with a “b”) in federal crop program payments during the most recent three-year period available, according to the Environmental Working Group data base derived from government records.

That’s more than California, Texas or any other state. (Missouri was 9th with $1.4 billion; Illinois 3rd with $3.3 billion.

Then there’s ethanol, produced in Iowa in twice the quantity of any other state (Nebraska is next) and totaling one-third of the nation’s corn-made biofuel.

Last month, ethanol subsidies in the U.S. celebrated their 30th birthday, with taxpayers committing billions of dollars annually for ethanol production in addition to guaranteeing ethanol makers a market with something called the renewable fuels mandate.

We’ve all heard the food v. fuel debate and the controversies over the water (1 million gallons-plus of water per dayper average plant) and other environmental costs of ethanol. Yet the pro-ethanol farm lobby in Congress seems to always carry the day.

So in this new era of limits, how will Vilsack’s stewardship of the Agriculture Department be recalled?

Agriculture secretaries tend to be remembered when other cabinet members are forgotten. Many recall Henry Wallace, the Confucius-spouting corn breeder (from Iowa) who became a champion of food reserves and soil conservation.

There was Earl Butz, whose 1960s exhortation to farmers to plant “fence row to fence row,” helped promote farm prosperity while sacrificing protective buffers. Too bad Butz is remember mostly for an awful joke.

You might remember Bob Bergland in the 1970s speaking passionately about the loss of family farms or Mike Espy, the first African-American ag secretary.

Dan Glickman, who irritated fellow Clinton administration biotech devotees by raising legitimate questions about genetic engineering, is still in the Washington game as head of the Motion Picture Association of America.

For Vilsack, an ardent supporter of ethanol, a big test will come early with the Iowa-centric biofuels industry seeking more taxpayer money — this time billions in assistance in the stimulus package now being crafted.

We’ll also be able to see soon how vigorously Vilsack pushes Obama’s proposal to cap subsidies to “millionaire farmers.” 

Farm groups and advocacy organizations were quick to praise Vilsack. (It’s not customary for somebody to pan an appointee they’ll be dealing with.)

The Natural Resources Defense Council said Vilsack would be a good fit for the job with leadership that could clean up national forests and better deal with genetically modified crops.  (Remember that the U.S. Forest Service is part of the Agriculture Department.)

The Consumer’s Union observed that Vilsack “will face enormous challenges in taking this huge bureacracy and making it work better in areas like food safety and nutrition.”

The Environmental Working Group’s Craig Cox, who is based in Iowa, recalled Vilsack statements critical of farm subsidies. In Vilsack, Cox said he sees the potential of a ”Nixon to China” element as far as “putting the breaks on this headlong expansion of corn ethanol regardless of what we’ve learned about its impact on the environment and commodity prices … It could make it easier for him because he can speak credibly on this issue, even in Iowa.”