|
One of the best treatments for soil erosion and its consequences is to take highly erodible land out of
production. To speed this practice along, the 1985 Farm Bill's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was formulated to provide financial incentives to farmers who voluntarily take highly
erodible cropland and other environmentally sensitive land (e.g., wetlands, wildlife habitat) out of production for ten to fifteen years. "Out of production" means no haying, grazing, or
harvesting of the land. The major objectives of the CRP are to decrease erosion, improve water quality, and preserve wildlife habitat. The CRP was also a means of helping ailing farmers
during a recession.
|
SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES
|
- Conservation tillage: no till, ridge till, or mulch till (leaving crop residue on top of the
soil).
|
- Taking land out of production
|
- Terracing and contour planting to prevent water run-off and soil erosion
|
- Planting of high residue producing crops
|
|
At the introduction of the program in the 1985 Farm Bill (The Food Security
Act of 1985) , the CRP provided farmers with the opportunity to enter into a ten- to fifteen-year contract to take highly erodible land out of production
and planting resource conserving covers such as trees and grass. In turn the landowner receives an average of $40 per acre per year rental fee and a
one-time, fifty-fifty cost share payment to plant a permanent soil-conserving cover--average payment to the landowner is $50. In the 1985 Farm Bill, the
CRP imposed a 25 percent cap per county on the amount of land eligible for the program. On average, cropland retired under the CRP was eroding at 13
tons per acre per year (To be considered non-erodible, soil loss should be less than than 5 tons per acre per year). After the land was taken out of
production and grass coverage was established, the average per-acre rate of erosion was reduced to 2 tons per year. From 1985 to 1993, the CRP
program has been credited with saving nationally 694 million tons of soil per year. It has been estimated that during
this time period the program was responsible for reducing erosion nationally by 22 percent.
Experts also point out the additional environmental benefits of the CRP, including improvements in air and water quality
and an increase in wildlife habitat for game and nongame birds, mammals, and reptiles. Various regions of the country
where there have been large enrollments of land in the CRP have documented large increases in bird populations, even some species that there is concern for extinction.
These benefits have become apparent in parts of Texas. Soil conservation specialists in Terry and Lubbock counties
reported a noticeable reduction in wind erosion and change in air quality as well as increase in wildlife after cropland
was enrolled in the CRP. However, no current Texas specific study documenting these benefits has been conducted.
The most complete study undertaken to date of the affect of the Farm Bill's conservation programs on wildlife
concluded that even if all the evidence was not in yet, " There is no question that these programs are making a
significant conribution[s]toward conservation of the nation's fish and wildlife resources."*
As the CRP contracts were beginning to phase out in 1995, criticism began to be voiced. Some critics complained that
too much good farmland had been allowed into the program. In Texas, residents of the Panhandle, where 20 percent
of the farmland went out of production, complained that agriculture-related services, such as cotton gins and seed,
pesticide, and equipment dealers were forced out of business. In addition, there has also been criticism about the high
cost of the program. The direct costs of setting aside 36. 5 million acres nationally is estimated to be $19.2 billion over
the life of the CRP contracts (10 to 15 years). But CRP advocates point out that if farmers who are currently enrolled in
the CRP were growing rice, cotton, grains, and other crops eligible for income supports, the deficiency payments would be equal to, if not more than, the CRP costs.* As the Congress considered the reauthorization of the 1996 Farm Bill and
the CRP, proponents of the CRP suggested that the environmental benefits of the CRP at between $6 billion and $13 billion.* Proponents of the CRP also suggested that much of the acreage taken out of production would revert to row
crops and therefore continue the cycle of crop erosion. Texas Tech University's Department of Agricultural Economics
predicted that economic considerations would force farmers to return 64 percent of the land in the 55 counties of the Plains to crop production unless the CRP was extended after 1996.* The CRP was included in the 1996 Farm and the
2002 Farm Bill.
Due to the influence of conservationists and wildlife advocates, there were significant changes to the CRP in 1990 and
1996 Farm Bill.
Those changes included the addition of environmental criteria in recognition that agriculture is a major cause of
wildlife habitat destruction and alteration, and of non-point source pollution.
Under the 1996 and subsequently the 2002 Farm Bill, CRP land must meet a new minimum erosion standard. The land
must meet one of the following criteria:
- have an erosion index of eight or higher;
- be considered a cropped wetland;
- be devoted to any of a number of highly beneficial environmental practices (wildlife habitat, wetland);
- be subject to scour erosion;
- be located in a national or state CRP conservation priority area; or
- be cropland associated with or surrounding non-cropped wetlands.
At the encouragement of a wide range of interested parties, the 1996 CRP also incorporated an Environmental Benefit
Index (EBI) designed to rank and prioritize CRP applications. The more EBI points received, the better an applicant's
chances of being accepted into the program. Some of the EBI factors related to the environment are: (1) proposed
planting of a mixture of different native plant species, including legumes, or forbs that will improve wildlife habitat and
increase plant diversity; (2) location of offered acreage in the range of a threatened, endangered, or candidate species
(one being considered for listing as endangered or threatened) and use of a ground cover that benefits one of these
species; and (3) the establishment of permanent wildlife habitat corridors or wildlife habitat.*
The 2002 Farm Bill raised the number of acres that can be enrolled nationally in the CRP from 36.4 million acres to
39.2 million acres.
The CRP enrollment in Texas:
- From 1986 to 1996, Texas producers received approximately $164 million in rental fees and approximately $100
million in cost sharing in return for taking 3.9 million acres out of production and converting that acreage to
grass, legumes, and trees. Texas had more land in the program than any other state from 1986 until 1996.
(This is expected due to the large amount of agricultural land in Texas) More than 80 percent of the CRP
acreage in Texas, as well as 60 percent of the participating farmers, are in the High Plains and Rolling Plains regions.
- In 1994, the Environmental Working Group stated that the CRP had saved Texas 144.8 million tons of soil. *
- As of August 2002, Texas again led the nation in the amount of acreage in the CRP---4,037,445 acres in the CRP.
Along with the allocation of $1.6 billion in 2002 Farm Bill for the Conservation Reserve Program, Congress authorized or
reauthorized other conservation programs, including EQUIP, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Resource Conservation and Development Program, the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program, Conservation Security Program,and authorized new initiatives to address agriculture related ground and surface water problems.
|
