FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Boondoggle in the Fields

by GEORGE WUERTHNER

The Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, was established in 1985. Designed to keep marginal lands out of Ag production, CRP pays farmers and ranchers to retire acreage from commodity production in exchange for an annual rental fee. In 2007 the cost of the program was $1.8 billion.

With the raising price for commodities like corn and other grains due to the ethanol craze, farmers and ranchers are now crying to have their (CRP) contracts terminated. They are appealing to the Secretary of Agriculture, Ed Schafer, to terminate the contracts due to “national emergency” which they claim is the need to grow more food to reduce consumer prices. Of course, it is really about growing farmer and rancher bank accounts.

Some environmental groups are opposing contract termination, and are trying to keep these lands in the CRP program, for a host of reason, not the least that CRP does reduce soil erosion, improvements in water quality, and provides wildlife habitat.

Allowing farmers and ranchers to opt out of their contracts simply because they can “earn” more money farming the land for its green gold than farming the US Treasury is not a good reason to cancel the CRP contracts.  The attempt to terminate contracts displays one of the greatest weaknesses of the CRP program—its lack of permanence.

CRP benefits are transitory and at a high price–$36 billion so far and counting. It’s time to reconsider its future.

HOW IT WORKS

The CRP pays landowners an annual rental fee to retire land from commodity production and usually requires the planting of some kind of cover vegetation like crested wheatgrass or other plants (the cost of which is also co-shared by taxpayers). During the life of the contract (typically 10-15 years) the farmer/rancher agrees not to plow or graze the enrolled lands. Most of the enrolled acreage is on the Great Plains; eastern Montana, eastern Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, eastern Colorado are among the regions with the highest CRP acres.

Originally conceived as a means of keeping commodity prices higher by reducing farm output, CRP is now lauded as a conservation program and enjoys support from many environmental groups who see it as one way to tap into the farm bill which is so loaded down with pork that it drips fat. Better to get some conservation value, even if expensive and transitory than none at all, or so the thinking goes.

The conservation values of CRP are exaggerated, and coincidental and accidental to other concerns (like getting money to farmers/ranchers), while the cost is high ($1.8 billion in 2007).

We spend nearly six times more on the CRP annually than the current cost of operating all 500 plus wildlife refuges across the country. Which has more real wildlife value? The refuges, hands down!  For a fraction of what we are paying farmers/ranchers to idle lands we could buy these same lands and add them to our existing national wildlife refuge or national grassland system. Public ownership would provide permanent protection against subdivision, provide public access, and keep these lands in native vegetation, thus reducing erosion—permanently.

No doubt there are some conservation benefits to CRP lands—especially since it covers more than 36 million acres. However, that is like comparing a Walmart parking lot to a golf course. Just because it’s green and has some plants, the golf course is better for wildlife than the pavement. Similarly, a plowed field planted to some row crop like corn is a biological desert—far worse in terms of its biological value than, say, a subdivision (which is not to say that a subdivision is good—just a heck of a lot better than a continuously farmed field of exotic corn or wheat that sprayed with pesticides, loaded down with fertilizers, etc.). Because Ag land is about the least valuable wildlife habitat imaginable, taking any row crop out of production almost guarantees higher wildlife significance.

Furthermore, since enrollment is based upon rancher/farmer needs, not the needs of wildlife, many of the enrolled parcels are small, isolated, often surrounded by other fields in agricultural production. Thus these lands become population sinks drawing in nesting birds, for instance, which are then easily caught by predators who focus their hunting on the small tracts of unplowed land. Some studies on CRP focus on bird nesting, rather than actual recruitment and can exaggerate CRP values as a result. Small parcels are also not much value to larger mammals like pronghorn or elk unless they are adjacent to very large tracts of undeveloped public or private land.

Nevertheless, CRP lands do have significant value for some wildlife. For instance, one study in the Prairie Pot Hole region found that CRP lands were responsible for producing 1.8 million additional grassland birds including sedge wrens, grasshopper sparrows, dickcissels, bobolinks, and westeren meadowlarks. Another study found that CRP contributed to 30 percent increase in five major duck species in the same region.

Still, the bulk of the lands enrolled have little wildlife habitat value, and we could realize equal or more benefits at less cost with a program that focused on buying critical or important wildlife habitat?

LACK OF PERMANENCE

The biggest defect I see in the CRP program, besides its huge cost and its haphazard approach to protecting critical wildlife habitat, is its lack of permanence. At the end of the 10 or 15-year contract, any producer can decide to start plowing the former CRP acreage, completely negating any conservation value that may have been achieved.

Indeed, even without termination of the contracts, the vast majority of CRP lands are, at some point during the contract period, frequently released for livestock grazing and even farming due to “emergencies” like drought, floods, and other reasons used to remove CRP lands from the limited protections offered by the program.

BUYING LAND THE BEST SOLUTION

If we are truly concerned about keeping erosion-prone lands out of production, as well as creating more habitat for wildlife, then we should buy the land. A focused land acquisition program would produce far more long-term conservation benefits than the current lease system.

Acquisition can also permanently remove these lands from potential subdivision, and reduce overall crop acreage thus ensure higher prices for crops produced on non-conservation lands. Finally, the public would also realize guaranteed public access for hiking, hunting, wildlife watching, camping, and so forth. A similar acquisition of marginal farmland in the 1930s helped to create our national grassland system. It’s time to consider a similar program. Perhaps in the end Ag efforts to terminate the CRP contracts can be an opportunity—a chance to implement a real conservation reserve program that buys, rather than rents, highly erodible lands.

GEORGE WUERTHNER is an ecologist, writer and photographer with 34 published books, including Wild Fire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy and Montana, Magnificent Wilderness and, most recently, Thrillcraft: the Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation.

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail