Dave Nomsen is vice president of government affairs for Pheasants Forever. He led that group's efforts to retain key conservation provisions in the recently passed federal farm bill. In the interview below, Nomsen discusses the future of the Conservation Reserve Program in light of the administration's decision last week to require farmers to pay a penalty if they wish to leave the program early and return their set-aside acres to production. Q: Was the administration's decision that producers can't leave CRP without paying penalties a vote of support for CRP and conservation?
A: Not necessarily. I applaud the decision, but it was more related to commodities and recent commodity prices than conservation. Commodity prices have softened in recent weeks. That, combined with forecasts about the amount of corn and other commodities expected to be produced this year, led the administration to the decision.
Q: Were conservationists close to having that decision go the other way?
A: Yes, very close. This was a very difficult call for USDA and the White House to make.
Q: Your position is that CRP and farmland conservation in general remain troubled going forward?
A: Very much so. We have to recognize that CRP is a voluntary, incentive-based program. The problem today is that farmland values and rental rates have risen so much that oftentimes CRP payments aren't competitive. A lot of the benefits of CRP that have been realized in terms of wildlife abundance, clean water and reduced soil erosion are the result of a fully enrolled, fully subscribed program. If we want that again, we'll have to pay for it.
Nationwide, CRP payments average $51 per acre. But farmland rental rates can reach $200 or so in Minnesota and elsewhere. Clearly, if we are going to be competitive, we're going to have to fund the program more fully.
Q: Is the penalty for leaving the program substantial?
A: Yes. Producers have to return the CRP money they were paid to retire land in the program, plus pay a penalty.
Q: Is it practical to think in the current cash-strapped environment that CRP can be sustained above, say, 30 million acres -- especially when land values have risen so much, in part due to the ethanol boom?
A: I think it's practical, especially if you add up the benefits from CRP on our agriculture landscape. Wildlife benefit. Soil erosion is reduced. Lake and stream water qualities increase. Family farmers are helped.
Q: The CRP that you and other conservationists envision is different in important ways from previous programs.
A: I recognize we can do a better job of targeting the program, so specific benefits are delivered to the landscape in specific areas. The large CRP tracts of the past were and are good. But there are other ways we can use the program that can be more efficient in some instances. For example, in Minnesota, we're trying to recreate 40-acre habitat modules on the landscape, within which we might have grass filter strips, stream buffers, restored wetlands and other habitats. By doing this, we can reap the benefits of CRP, while farmers can still have good farm production.
Q: Still, CRP rates are still going to have to rise to entice farmers to enroll, aren't they?
A: Generally, yes. And we put provisions in the recently passed farm bill that allow USDA to use more current data on rental rates to compute CRP rates. Historically, the process has been so slow, the government has been about three years behind on rental rates. In the new farm bill, we hope to get that process down to about a year or so.
Q: But the new farm bill still reduced the size of CRP.
A: Yes. A few years ago the USDA had 37 million acres in the ground, enrolled in CRP. In the most recent farm bill, we took a step back. In order to keep some of the other farmland conservation programs strong and funded, CRP was reduced to 32 million acres. But that reduction doesn't occur until Oct. 1, 2009. In the meantime, the USDA can continue to fully administer the ongoing continuous CRP and CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) acres.
Q: With millions of CRP acres being converted to production, will the effects on wildlife be noticeable to hunters and others in coming years?
A: Yes. We could see some dramatic declines. Overall, I expect CRP to fall well below 30 million acres, perhaps to the mid-20s. You can't lose millions of acres of habitat and not see differences.
We can fix it. But the clock is ticking. We have time to rebuild the program. But we'll have to get rental rates up.
Q: What can the average person can do to help?
A: They should talk to their members of Congress about how viable the program is.
Your father and my father often recalled the good old days of the Soil Bank in the '50s and '60s. Your kids and my kids today are living the legacy of CRP. We need to keep it going, and we'll need to be aggressive to do it.
