House Panel Looks At Expanding CRP Acreage

July 23,1999

The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Resource Conservation looked at legislation to expand the Conservation Reserve Program Thursday. The 36.4 million acre limit could be reached in fiscal year 2003. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants to increase that to 45 million acres.

Thomas Grau, deputy under secretary at USDA, told the subcommittee USDA agrees with the objectives of the Peterson bill, "but its full support is contingent upon the identification of acceptable offsets and the provision of sufficient technical assistance."

And expanded enrollment would provide opportunities for many land owners and operators otherwise excluded from participating to get in on the CRP, he added, and "there remain many millions of acres of environmentally sensitive land that would provide significant benefits if enrolled."

The next general CRP sign up, he added, should be finalized by fall.

David Stawick, president, National Conservation Buffer Council, suggested that USDA increase incentives for buffer enrollment. Land owners who install buffer improvements now get an annual bonus up to 20% of their contract rental rate. That should be increased to 25%, Stawick said.

A new payment, such as a one-time bonus, "might be useful in spurring interest," he added. USDA also should consider new buffer practices, such as constructed wetlands below tile drainage outlets.

The NCBC thinks it's premature to consider increasing the acreage limit until the limit is reached, Stawick said. Then "we would be able to evaluate the environmental benefits of land in the CRP and make a judgment as to how much more environmentally sensitive land might appropriately be enrolled."

However, the National Grain and Feed Association said the goal of the CRP appears to be a "supply control tool." To expand the enrollment cap "is extremely short sighted. It would send an encouraging signal to our international competitors." Only the United States and the European Union idle any significant acreage," NGFA said. To expand acreage "would give strong support and financial protection to our competitors that want to expand their production base."

More imports of Canadian hard wheats and barley could be expected through such a policy, said NGFA. "Acreage idling for supply control is not a sound policy to help U.S. farmers and is counterproductive to economic growth in agriculture."

Idling "productive" areas will not increase prices; the only way U.S. farmers can share in a growing global demand is to leave the 36.4 million acre limit in place "and minimize the number of productive, non-environmentally sensitive acres in the program," said NGFA.