Small farmers and residents of rural communities have been watching the deliberations over the $171 billion farm bill with the attention they usually reserve for the coming of spring rains. It has not been a promising spectacle.

The House version, passed last fall, was an outright capitulation to the biggest commodity growers. The Senate passed a fairer bill, containing $21.3 billion in new money for conservation programs that would benefit a much wider universe of farmers. But when the two competing versions reached a conference committee, the Senate negotiators caved in, agreeing to generous subsidies for the big growers at the expense of the environmental programs and smaller farmers.

A balanced bill is still within reach if the Democrats, in particular the majority leader, Tom Daschle, can summon even a modest amount of courage when negotiations resume next week. First, the Senate should suggest front-loading conservation spending in the first five years of the bill's 10-year life, much as commodity payments are front-loaded. This would insure generous funding for larger programs of demonstrable value — the wetland reserves program, for example, or the farmland protection program that helps resist suburban sprawl. Second, the Senate must insist on the survival of smaller, experimental programs for which the House has shown little enthusiasm.

Several of these deserve special protection. One is an innovative $100-million-a-year water conservation program sponsored by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada that would pay farmers to provide water otherwise used for irrigation to help threatened fish species. A second water-related program would increase incentives for farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to reduce toxic runoff from their fields.

Also at risk are small but enormously successful Farmer's Market Nutrition Programs, which provide coupons to the elderly and low-income families that can be spent only at farmers' markets. This gives poorer consumers access to fresh foods and puts cash in the hands of small fruit and vegetable farmers. It also strengthens the ties between country and city and helps keep inner-city farmers' markets thriving. Compared with the billions allocated for commodity price supports, the $25 million needed for each of these programs is microscopic.

The $10 million rural microenterprise program deserves protection as well. This money would help low- and moderate-income people start small businesses in rural areas. In Nebraska, for instance, 70 percent of new rural businesses fall into the microenterprise category, which includes people who do not have access to commercial loans. If these communities were as vibrant as they used to be when they were surrounded by farms, there would be little need for a program like this. But the effect of modern agriculture has been to depopulate the countryside and gut the small towns. This provision offers a measure of redemption.