Opinion - Let the CRP acreage cap stand

Conservation Reserve Program sign ups are taking place now.

This year there is concern that the total number of acres in the program may go over 25 percent of the county’s total farmland acreage. Twenty-five percent is the cap for the program unless the county commissioners give special dispensation to exceed it.

CRP was designed to pay farmers for not farming environmentally sensitive and highly erodible land in order to protect the land and waterways.

The idea is a good one. It pays farmers to protect the environment and their land. Land in the program must be returned to its natural state.

As the program grew, more and more good farmland was put into the program. Eventually, entire productive farms or large portions of them were enrolled. Land that supported families for generations is in CRP.

With CRP, there is no need for tractors, combines, fertilizers and workers. A classic example of the program’s social and economic impact is LaCrosse. The town has been devastated by the loss of farm activity as the result of CRP.

The value of the protective and environmental purpose of the program cannot be denied. A good portion of the land in the program, however, is not highly erodible. It is instead highly farmable. In fact, interest in entering land in CRP is as much a function of crop prices as environmental needs. If crop prices are low, there is more interest in the program.

Chances are the 25 percent cap will not be reached. Ironically, the waiver sought is based on ignoring the total of the most endangered acres already in CRP—that land for which the program was designed.

The limit on acres in CRP should not be increased. The requirements instead should be tightened. If highly erodible land needs to be included and would boost the percentage of land in the program over the cap then the truly farmable lands should not be enrolled.

Whether or not to exceed the cap is a question about the economic survival of our rural county. Why so much land qualifies for the program without covering the most sensitive lands first is a question about how CRP is being used and administered.

The commissioners should say “no” to going over the basic limit. There is enough Whitman County land in CRP. It just may not be the right land. And, the feds should say “no” to allowing perfectly good and farmable lands into the program if it means truly sensitive, erosion prone lands are kept out of it.

This is a program to preserve and protect the land, not to preserve and protect the lifestyle of non-farming land owners.

Gordon Forgey

Publisher