CRP and the 15-year limit

February 2, 2001Farm Bill Network e-mail List Discussion Summaries

By Amy Papenfuss and Wendy Dickie, umbsn@smumn.edu

In this discussion, participants debated whether the focus of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) should be more local or multi-regional when dealing with water quality. Using the Gulf of Mexico’s hypoxia (lack of oxygen) problem as an example, some felt intensifying efforts on the local level (improving water quality locally) was the best solution, while others felt a larger perspective was necessary. Participants also discussed land retirement from the CRP program and whether it was in the best interest of conservation. Following are highlights from the discussion:

Ralph Heimlich

• Unfortunately, many local water quality problems are phosphorus-limited, while the Gulf hypoxia problem (and most estuary water quality problems) are nitrogen-limited.
• Fixing one may actually exacerbate the other, particularly in animal waste issues where the nutrients occur in fixed proportions that don't necessarily match plant nutrient needs. Land retirement in these cases may limit nutrient application on the retired acres, but may make the situation worse where a given quantity of animal waste needs to find a home on a reduced quantity of land.
• The fact is that land retirement, while a great solution for wildlife issues, is a pretty blunt instrument for most issues relating to externalities from agricultural production, such as sediment, nutrient, and pesticide runoff. We need to think of solutions tailored to changing HOW we farm, rather than just WHERE we farm.

Tim Gieseke

• The Gulf's hypoxia problem is multi-regional, but if I could address my local water quality with efficiency and more ease, and if others can do the same thing locally, the hypoxia problem will diminish.
• If we would want to reforest the entire Mississippi River basin, it is going to be done locally. Water quality is no different. Too many people are getting hung up on the nitrate vs. phosphorus vs. BOD as the cause.
• In Minnesota waters, high phosporus-low oxygen conditions can cause N to be limiting, and then N is fixed (added to water column). The federal government should supply a broad framework from which we can build locally, state-by-state or regionally.

Rachel Doughty

• While we as a country have spent a lot of money on CRP and other conservation programs, the Gulf is still hypoxic. This suggests to me that a larger perspective than local may be necessary. This is especially true since the nitrogen load reductions required to address the hypoxia problems are larger than would be needed to address freshwater eutrophic situations (not to mention that phosphorus is generally the limiting nutrient in fresh water).
• It seems to me that logically states would address their own pressing water quality needs before those of the Gulf. That is why the Action Plan proposes federally funded voluntary projects. I would be quite interested to see if the Gulf is a compelling enough problem to inspire action in Montana farmers - I would argue that as geographic distance between the source and problem increase, it is logically harder to muster local support to address the problem at the source. There will have to be a strong outside incentive.
• With regard to CRP, I was concerned that time and money would be put into restoration programs for 15 years, and that effort would be ruined by a requirement to return the land to production. I was thinking that for sites that are valuable for habitat, water quality, etc., perhaps the 15 consecutive year limit on participation should be waived. Obviously there are some problems with this argument, and I wanted to hear some pros and cons to this approach.

Mike Williams

• The hypoxia problem is hardly regional. There are one hundred major rivers and thousands of streams involved from New York to Montana, then south to the Gulf.
• There are many diverse regions of wetlands, both depressional and linear, in this giant watershed that have different problems with different geographies.
• I think the current policy of local problem solving by States is going to give the best bang for the buck. Much has been learned in the last decade about watershed problems and States can work within the regional priority zones, such as the prairie pothole for example. I did not understand your 15-year question relating to wetlands. Do you want to remove CRP or the 15-year period?