U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–640 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–489

OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSERVATION RESERVE

PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, 

AND RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 27, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEVEN MEEKS, Majority Legislative Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Oversight of the Conservation Reserve Program .................................................. 01

Wednesday July 27, 2005

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Crapo, Hon, Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ......................................................................... 01

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S. Senator from Arkansas ........................................ 05

Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................ 08

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

Little, James, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 02

PANEL II 

Foster, Dan, Director, Georgia Department of National Resources, Wildlife 

Resources Division, Social Circle, Georgia ......................................................... 19

Harden, Krysta, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Conservation 

Districts (NACD), Washington, DC .................................................................... 16

Keith, Kendall W., President, National Grain and Feed Association, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 14

Nelson, Jeffery W., Director of Operations, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Great 

Plains Regional Office, Bismark, North Dakota ................................................ 18

Reese, Sherman, Presedent, National Association of Wheat Growers, Echo, 

Oregon ................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Foster, Dan ....................................................................................................... 92

Harden, Krysta ................................................................................................. 79

Keith, Kendall W .............................................................................................. 68

Little, James ..................................................................................................... 34

Nelson, Jeffery W ............................................................................................. 83

Reese, Sherman ................................................................................................ 64

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Environmental Defense and the Nature Conservation ................................. 102

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSERVATION 

RESERVE PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2005

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL

REVITALIZATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in SR–

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, chairman 

of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Crapo, Lincoln, and 

Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO, 

Senator CRAPO. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

This is the hearing on the Conservation Reserve Program oversight 

by the Senate Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural 

Revitalization. 

For the past 20 years CRP has been a tool for farmers and 

ranchers to voluntarily achieve their conservation goals. Conservation programs such as the CRP have helped producers protect wetlands, water quality, and wildlife habitat while meeting environmental standards. Today the CRP is the Nation’s largest Federal 

program for private lands conservation, with an annual budget of 

roughly $2 billion and a current enrollment of almost 35 million 

acres. With more than 22 million acres under CRP contracts that 

are scheduled to expire in 2007 and 2008, and the upcoming farm 

bill reauthorization, it is timely to address the long-term direction 

of the program, including how to deal with expiring contracts and 

re-enrollments and the effect of the CRP on rural economies. 

Additionally, this hearing, as well as the hearing held before this 

subcommittee yesterday, also provides an excellent opportunity to 

review how programs involving incentives for landowners can help 

endangered species and speed recovery efforts. For example, CRP 

has been credited as a major tool for the restoration of threatened 

and endangered species across the United States, including salmon 

and the sharp tailed grouse in Idaho. The most immediate concern, 

however, is the scheduled expiration of millions of CRP acres between 2007 and 2010. Sixteen million acres will expire in 2007 

alone. 

Last year, the USDA requested public comment on several longterm policy questions involving CRP. These included whether to 

2

stagger CRP contract expirations, conduct a competitive re-enrollment process, and modify the environmental benefits index. 

Today we are going to hear from a number of witnesses with differing views on how to address the expirations and the overall impact of the program on rural communities. Some organizations and 

individuals have submitted comments to the USDA urging an increase in CRP’s environmental benefits, particularly for wildlife, by 

re-enrolling the expiring acres with the highest environmental 

value, bringing in new enrollments that significantly benefit wildlife, managing all CRP acres to maximize wildlife benefits, and 

stopping inappropriate CRP plantings. 

At the same time, others have raised concerns that retiring land 

in rural, largely agricultural communities is negatively impacting 

local economies by resulting in fewer farmers and farm-supply 

businesses in those areas. The would like to see a competitive reenrollment process to ensure that only the most environmentally 

sensitive land is enrolled in the long-term contracts. 

I welcome our witnesses and I look forward to hearing this discussion today. The comments of the witnesses today will help to ensure that the CRP lives up to its potential. 

Our witnesses today include James Little, the Associate Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, as our first panel. Following Mr. 

Little, we will hear from our second panel, which I will introduce 

at that time, and which includes the farm, conservation, and wildlife interests of the country. 

I do want to say that we are expecting that Senator Lincoln may 

be able to attend here briefly, and if she does make it in, I will 

probably interrupt and let her make an opening statement at that 

time, if she chooses to do so, because her schedule today is very 

time-sensitive. 

With that, why don’t we go ahead and get started. I will say to 

you, Mr. Little, as well as to all the witnesses, we like to encourage 

you to remember the instructions to stick to the 5 minutes. As I 

always say to our witnesses, it is very difficult to keep to 5 minutes 

because I know that very few people, including myself, can say everything they want in 5 minutes. But please be assured that the 

reason we want to hold it to 5 minutes for your initial presentation 

is because we do want to have opportunity for give-and-take in discussion, and you will be able to get a lot of your points in in discussion as well. 

So with that, Mr. Little, why don’t you go ahead and proceed? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES LITTLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LITTLE. Thank you. Good morning, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss the Conservation Reserve Program. The President recognizes that, for farmers and ranchers—and I quote—every 

day is Earth Day. To support this ideal, the President welcomed a 

strong conservation title in the 2002 farm bill to respond to a broad 

range of emerging conservation challenges faced by our Nation. 

CRP assists farmers and ranchers in reducing soil erosion, improving water quality and air quality, conserving wetlands, and enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:42 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27640.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
3

hancing wildlife habitat. CRP participants voluntarily plant longterm resource-conserving vegetative covers on environmentally sensitive land. In return, FSA provides financial assistance. 

CRP enrolls environmentally sensitive land on a competitive 

basis during general signups on a non-competitive, continuous 

basis. An important subset of the program is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which uses State, Federal, and private partnerships to addresses targeted, State-specific conservation 

issues. We are gradually covering the whole spectrum of the country, as you can see from the first chart. Overall, 800,000 participants have enrolled nearly 35 million acres in CRP, producing 

widespread environmental benefits. The chart on the easel shows 

you where these are located. 

Of the 35 million acres currently enrolled in CRP, 16 million, as 

you said, are scheduled to expire in 2007 and another 12 million 

would expire in the following 3 years. You can see in the second 

chart where the concentration of these acres are located. Last August, President Bush announced that the USDA will offer re-enrollments and extensions on the expiring and existing acres. He also 

announced initiatives to increase quail habitat and restore nonfloodplain wetlands, including prairie potholes and playa lakes, 

which FSA is diligently working to implement. 

FSA issued a request for public comment in the Federal Register 

on how re-enrollments and extensions should be administered. In 

the 5,000–plus comments that we received, the public expressed 

broad support for the program, but they did have varied ideas for 

implementation. FSA also held a public meeting in June 2005 to 

obtain additional input. We are analyzing all public comments and 

expect to announce procedures governing the re-enrollment and extensions later this year. 

Also last August, the President announced the Northern Bobwhite Quail Initiative to increase quail numbers by 750,000 birds 

annually and the Wetlands Restoration Initiative to restore 

250,000 acres or larger wetlands outside of the 100–year 

floodplains. 

To make CRP as well as FSA’s total program portfolio more efficient and effective, FSA is aggressively modernizing its business 

case and retooling its information and automation infrastructure. 

We are already showing much progress. For instance, FSA used 

Web-based and geographic information technology systems coupled 

with NRCS’s soils data base in the last two general CRP signups, 

resulting in a significantly compressed signup period with higher 

quality control and more efficiency than any previous signup. 

As we approach CRP’s 20th anniversary, CRP has clearly had 

significant positive impacts on the environment, including the improvement of habitat for endangered and declining species. Our future plans, especially on how to re-enroll and extend expiring acres, 

will enhance the extraordinary benefits this program has always 

provided. 

For the committee’s information, I have attached detailed CRP 

performance data and other program information. 

This concludes my oral statement. I will be glad to answer any 

questions that you or other members of the committee might have. 

4

[The prepared statement of Mr. Little can be found in the appendix on page 2.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Little. 

In your testimony, you talked about changes that have been 

made to the Environmental Benefits Index since it was developed 

to evaluate the environmental benefits as well as the cost of enrolling in the program. And some, including witnesses who will be 

here today, have urged further enhancements to the EBI prior to 

accepting re-enrollments or new contracts. Are you planning to 

make such modifications or any kinds modifications to the EBI. 

Mr. LITTLE. Well, as we move forward in implementing the President’s commitment to re-enrollment existing acres and expiring 

acres, we are evaluating that as we speak. As a matter of fact, one 

of the issues that is included in the EBI is cost. We are in the process now working with NRCS to reevaluate and reset our local rental rates because we find in some portions of the country some rental rates are higher than the local market, some are lower. So we’re 

looking at cost as one item. We are also looking at making sure 

that the way we establish the EBI, right now it is basically using 

water quality, soil erosion, and wildlife, along with cost. Based on 

the comments, we will be taking a look at whether or not we are 

going to redo the EBI as we move forward in establishing the 

President’s commitment. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Do you also expect to make other 

policy changes, such as adjusting the rental rates or rebalancing 

the purposes of the program? 

Mr. LITTLE. Well, I mean, that—you know, as you mentioned, 

that is one of the, some of the comments that we have been hearing. By using the three criteria—wildlife, soil erosion, and water 

quality—sometimes does focus it into areas, more specific areas. If 

we were to look primarily at water quality, there might be a shift. 

If we looked at soil erosion, there might be a shift. If we just looked 

at wildlife, there might be a shift. So we are taking all of those into 

consideration as we move forward in making a decision. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, thank you. 

As you are probably aware, yesterday we held a hearing in this 

committee with regard to the conservation programs of the farm 

bill in general and how they might be able to be coordinated more 

effectively with species recovery and assisting landowners to have 

the proper incentives to implement obligations under the Endangered Species Act. In your testimony, you mention some of the specific ways in which CRP has increased wildlife, such as the example of increasing the numbers of ducks by over 2 million. 

In this regard, I think it is vital that we develop the tools that 

allow us to quantify the benefits of our conservation programs. And 

at the hearing yesterday, Chief Knight shared that the NRCS is 

working to have some interim work done soon on the Conservation 

Effects Assessment Program, CEAP. And I recognize that such 

work takes a lot of time to ensure that it is done right, but I want 

to reiterate the importance of having something in place that helps 

us to tell the story of conservation benefits in numbers and science, 

not just by anecdotes. And I welcome your comments today on the 

ability of the USDA to quantify the results of the CRP as we prepare for the farm bill reauthorization. 

5

The question I have is, is the FSA working with the NRCS on 

the Conservation Effects Assessment project, and what other efforts is the Agency engaging in to measure these outcomes? 

Mr. LITTLE. That is a very good question, sir. As a matter of fact, 

under CEAP, NRCS and FSA are fully cooperating together to provide the funds to go out into the marketplace, so to speak, to ensure that we do have the science to go along with the program. As 

a matter of fact, under PART, under the President’s Accountability—under the President’s PART program, where we have to be 

accountable for our programs, we have entered into, I would say, 

probably 10 or 15 research contracts with public institutions—the 

United States Geological Survey; ERS, the Economic Research 

Service—in trying to quantify the program. I could provide for you 

a list of the contracts that we have in place right now. 

I am just reminded that every single one of our Conservation Reserve Enhancement programs does has a monitoring and evaluation component. The ERS, as a matter of fact, has just recently 

done a study on the economic impacts on rural communities that 

the CRP has. We had a conference last year in Fort Collins in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey to get the wildlife groups 

and environmental groups to come in and just talk about what 

CRP is doing and how it is improving the environment. So we are 

doing a lot in cooperation with NRCS and other Federal and State 

and local institutions and universities. So I think we are providing 

a lot of research to really quantify what we are doing. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much. I just want to commend you for that work and encourage you to continue to work 

very closely with all the other agencies, and particularly NRCS, so 

that we can quantify these impacts. I have said a dozen times if 

I have said it once that probably the most unsung success story we 

have in environmental protection in this country is the farm bill, 

and the conservation title in particular. And I really believe that 

efforts to quantify that so that we can truly tell the story of what 

this means to the environment and to conservation can be assisted. 

We have been joined by Senator Lincoln, and I understand that 

you have a very tight time schedule. So I am going to turn the time 

over to you for an opening statement. If you want to ask any questions, that you can do as well. Senator Lincoln is a great friend and 

an outstanding Senator. We work very closely together, and I am 

proud of that, and we are going to work closely together on this 

issue, too. 

Senator LINCOLN. We are. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for all 

your leadership on this issue. I do apologize that I will have to 

probably leave at some point due to my schedule, but that certainly 

is no indication of my lack of interest in this issue. And the chairman knows that. He knows I am dedicated to working with him. 

We do have, I think, an unusual opportunity to not only build 

but enhance relationships that now exist among Government entities, and the tremendous work that the farm bill has allowed the 

Department of Agriculture to experience along with our environVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:42 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27640.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
6

mental groups, our conservation groups, certainly recreation—I see 

Ducks Unlimited out there—so many different groups that can 

partner to make a real difference in the preservation of wildlife as 

well as our habitats. So it is a great pleasure on my part to be here 

again for the second consecutive day to conduct a hearing on another important topic, and that is the future of the Conservation 

Reserve Program. 

Yesterday we did touch broadly on what our conservation programs provide our farmers, our conservationists, and certainly our 

society as a whole. And today, under the chairman’s leadership, we 

look more closely at the future of the Conservation Reserve Program, which is such a vital component of our conservation efforts 

nationally. As Chairman Crapo noted, the Conservation Reserve 

Program is the Federal Government’s largest private land retirement program. And obviously, the current enrollment numbers top 

34 million acres. And thanks to the 2002 farm bill, as he mentioned, we can expect that number to increase, nearing the program’s authorized cap of 39.2 million acres. 

We can also expect about 80 percent of those CRP contracts to 

expire from 2007 to 2010, which is why we are here today and will 

probably be the basis for a lot of my questions, because I am getting them from my constituents. Because they love these programs. 

They see what they do not only for wildlife and conservation, but 

they see what they do for their farming operations and what a critical role that they play. 

We have certainly got some distinguished witnesses and panels 

to discuss how to handle the expiring contract and the re-enrollment of nearly 28 million acres, 16 million of those coming in 2007 

alone. So that is certainly a daunting prospect in terms of what we 

have ahead of us and the job that you have to do. We want to be 

helpful and certainly as productive as we can in providing you the 

assistance that we need to continue such a vital program. 

For my State, we are anticipating contracts on nearly 90,000 

acres to expire from 2007 to 2010, and almost half of the total CRP 

acreage in our entire State. So we have a lot ahead of us. And 

again, for a program that is so well received by our agricultural 

producers and our State in general, we are going to be really focused on making sure that we do it correctly and working with you. 

I would also like to acknowledge USDA’s effort with regard to 

this issue. Just as Chairman Crapo and I are doing today, USDA 

has begun an extensive process in seeking out the interest groups 

and beginning the investigation on how to best handle that situation. We are very grateful to you for that. We want to be of all the 

assistance we can. I know that you all have already begun those 

listening sessions with interest groups—as I mentioned, Farm Bureau, Ducks Unlimited, EPA, the National Association of Conservation Districts—just multiple groups that are out there. And that is 

so critical, to involve everybody, because I think in order to do it 

correctly, having as much input as we possibly can is going to be 

vital in making this process a success. 

So I look forward to the outcome of all of the combined efforts. 

Certainly hearing from you all today and submitting questions, if 

I may, but also maybe just touching on a few here, if we can, before 

I have to excuse myself. 

7

And I guess, in your opinion, Mr. Little, one of the things that 

we were hoping to get some guidance on as quickly as we can is 

what contracts should be re-enrolled, extended, or left to expire? Is 

there some kind of criteria? You all may have already touched on 

that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. But some of the ideas coming 

from you all in terms of what will be used as those evaluations are 

made. 

And what environmental objectives should be considered? I 

know, certainly, from your standpoint you may have that, but there 

will be other panelists, later panelists that will be able to answer 

those questions, too. 

And I guess one more question would be should the extensions 

and the re-enrollments be limited to just 25 percent cropland limitations, or some lower numbers, to provide room for some of the 

continuous CRP and WRP enrollments? And what about updating 

rental rates and how we apply that? 

Those are just a few of my questions. There are a few more that 

I will submit for the record. But any of those you would like to 

touch on now would be enormously helpful in guiding me. 

Mr. LITTLE. OK, thank you, Senator. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. 

Mr. LITTLE. Yes, as we are—we have been doing a lot of collaboration with the environmental groups, the Farm Bureau, wildlife 

groups, the whole gamut. Took over 5,000 comments in last year 

through a Federal Register notice. We had a listening session this 

past June to really get the public’s input on how we should do the 

re-enrollments and extensions as the President promised last August. We have several options on the table. I can assure you that 

we have not come to a conclusion on any of them yet. We are looking at, you know, using the EBI to make a determination as to 

what contracts should be enrolled, whether they should all be enrolled, re-enrolled; should some of them be staggered; should some 

of them just be extended for a year or two. So we are—you know, 

all of those things are on the table and we still have not come to 

a conclusion as to exactly where we are going to go. 

The environmental decisions, as you probably know, are EBI currently looks specifically at soil erosion, wildlife benefits, and water 

quality. We will be looking at whether or not we are going to reevaluate that as we move forward also, in both the re-enrollments, 

extensions, whatever. 

With regard to rental rates, we are already working with NRCS 

to update rental rates. Whether or not and/or how we utilize those 

updated rental rates in the extensions and re-enrollments, that still 

remains to be seen. Those decisions haven’t been made as well. 

With respect to the cap, the 25 percent cap is established in law. 

Obviously we can’t exceed that. The only way we can exceed the 

25 percent cap—and I know that is a concern in some States—the 

only way we can extend that is if the county can prove that it does 

not affect the economy of that particular county and whether or not 

the county is having difficulty meeting the conservation plans that 

are put into place for the particular farmer. 

So those two things—we cannot exceed the 25 percent cap. We 

are looking at whether or not we want even to go up to the 25 percent cap, so that we can preserve some space for future CREP 

8

agreements. I mean, sometimes we will run a CREP agreement—

we can’t get any new farmers into a CREP agreement because the 

county is already gotten up to the 25 percent—or so that we can 

have a general signup in the future. 

So all of those things are on the table. No decisions have been 

made. But we are taking the public comment and all of those 

issues have been raised as questions. But we will definitely be glad 

to consult with the committees before we make any final announcement or any final decisions. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 

move forward. 

I would definitely say that the committee would appreciate that. 

I certainly would. As you move through this process, if you could 

keep us apprised or certainly informed in terms of the things that 

are moving forward, I think it would be most helpful. We do want 

to be helpful to you. This is a critical program and we hear certainly a tremendous amount from our constituencies about the 

positive nature of these programs. We want to keep it that way. So 

any way we can be helpful. 

Mr. LITTLE. Yes, ma’am, thank you. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Little. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for your leadership. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Senator Salazar, if you have any opening statement or questions, 

you are certainly welcome to make them now. 

Senator SALAZAR. I do, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much and thank you for holding this hearing on this very important subject. And Ranking Member Blanche Lincoln, it is good to serve with you on this committee 

in the Senate. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the bottle of vodka yesterday. 

It is made out of Idaho potatoes, so it will——

Senator CRAPO. Highly ranked, too. 

Senator LINCOLN. It is third in the world. 

Senator SALAZAR. Third in the world. Trying to compete with 

Colorado potatoes——

Senator CRAPO. I have to tell you, the only two vodkas that beat 

it were both Russian, and we are going to take them next year. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SALAZAR. Let’s hear it for Idaho. 

Let me just make an opening statement. This is a very important 

program for our country, very important program for agriculture, 

very important program for conservation. In my own State alone 

we have over 2 million acres that are enrolled in CRP, and I have 

known many farmers around my State that have been involved in 

the CRP program. So I think that as we look forward to the farm 

bill that it is important that this is one of the key components that 

we focus on. 

One of the greatest concerns that I have heard, and I ask this 

of you, Mr. Little, is this sense from people who live in the eastern 

parts of my State in Colorado, where we probably see that part of 

9

America that is the most forgotten and having the most difficult 

times, where populations in those counties continue to decline, 

where county commissioners, frankly, don’t know whether their 

counties are going to be able to survive to the end of the decade. 

And what I have heard from some of my county commissioners in 

Colorado is their deep concern about the abuses related to—what 

they consider abuses with respect to the CRP program. 

The way that it is articulated to me, for example, in Kiowa County, which has a population of about 1,500 people throughout the 

county but with some very wide expanses, is that people from, 

frankly, other States have become absentee landlords of huge acreages within Kiowa County and that, as a result of that, they basically are using the CRP program simply as a gravy train, a revenue stream to fund their high-flying lives in New Orleans or New 

York or other places and they really aren’t contributing back to the 

economy or to the community. 

And so that is just an area where I am going to be very focused 

on to try to make sure that, as we expend these huge amounts of 

dollars to help with the Conservation Reserve Program, that those 

dollars are in fact being spent also to help with the revitalization 

of rural communities. And I think that when you have the kind of 

absentee landlord situation that is described to me by the commissioners in Kiowa County, that it doesn’t help with the kind of rural 

revitalization that I have talked to Under Secretary Dorr and Secretary Johanns about in the past. 

So maybe at this stage, if you could just maybe comment on that 

issue in general, but it is something that I very much look forward 

to working with you and with Chairman Crapo and Senator Lincoln as well. 

Mr. LITTLE. That is a very interesting comment and one that I 

could certainly understand would have an impact on a local economy, because, you know, there are studies that have been made by 

various groups that would indicate that CRP doesn’t have a negative on local economies. But I think that situation that you just 

mentioned could be definitely an issue that the Secretary and we 

should probably take a look at, because I can certainly understand 

how, if a farmer, you know, if somebody from outside of the State 

comes in and purchases land and all he does is take the Government’s money as a rental payment and doesn’t live there or make 

any contribution to the local economy, it could have a significant 

impact. 

But, you know, I would have to say that, you know, under the 

current program we certainly wouldn’t have any authority to limit 

participation in it. I mean, if they qualify under the signup, we 

would really have no authority to say no, you can’t come in. But 

it certainly is an issue that we might want to, you know, that the 

Secretary would want to take a look at it in future discussions during the next farm bill. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me ask you, Mr. Little, in terms of just the 

facts themselves, because in every other sector sometimes there is 

a lot of myth and it is important to get down to the facts, does the 

Department of Agriculture today have an inventory, if you will, and 

an assessment of the ownership patterns with respect to people 

who are participating in the CRP program around the Nation, 

10

whether it is family farmers whose livelihood is dependent upon 

the farm; is it—I mean, what kind of understanding is it that you 

would portray to this committee today about the customers that 

you have for participating in the CRP program? 

Mr. LITTLE. You mean profiling participants? You know, I would 

have to be honest. I don’t know what types of information that we 

would keep specifically on individual farmers other than the information we would collect routinely on a farmer, such as, you know, 

the crops that they grow, the conservation applications that they 

might have. I know NAS, during their annual—I mean their every–

5– or 10–year survey that they do for the farm census, I know they 

collect data, but it is not person-specific. But I would say that we 

do not include information on individuals, you know, whether they 

are a family farmer, other than if they take a farm loan. If they 

have a farm loan, I am not real sure that we have, you know, a 

data base right now, a rigorous data base that would be able to 

compare out data base for the farm loans to a conservation program or even EQIP or so forth. I don’t believe we would have that 

data at this point in time. We do collect data on foreign residency, 

but I don’t believe on domestic. 

Senator SALAZAR. And is that because you lack the authority now 

at USDA to collect that information? 

Mr. LITTLE. I would say yes. 

Senator SALAZAR. Well, Chairman Crapo and Mr. Little, it is 

something that I am very interested in, because I think, at the end 

of the day, when you look at communities in Idaho and Kansas and 

Colorado, that the CRP program is one of those programs where we 

as a National Government invest significant resources into a program that is intended to help agriculture in rural communities. I 

understand the environmental and conservation benefits that come 

from this program as well, but at the end of the day, for me, what 

is going to be a major driver is whether or not the CRP program 

is in fact helping the communities of the Eastern Plains or the 

rural communities of Idaho. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. And those are very important issues. 

We will work with you on those. 

Mr. Little, I have a couple of more questions. The FSA received 

more than 5,000 comments, as has been indicated, on the long-term 

objectives for the CRP program last December, and generally it has 

been the practice of the Agency to make these comments available 

to the public shortly after, by posting them to the Agency’s Web 

site. It is my understanding, though, that they are not available 

other than by coming in to make an appoint to review the entire 

docket in person. Is that correct? And if so, are these comments 

going to be posted on the FSA Web site? 

Mr. LITTLE. I believe your statement is correct. I think they are 

so voluminous it was pretty difficult for us to be able to publish 

them on the Web site. 

Senator CRAPO. OK. So at this point there is no intention to publish them on the Web site? 

Mr. LITTLE. I don’t believe so, no, sir. 

Senator CRAPO. What is the FSA’s technical assistance cost per 

acre for the CRP and for the CREP program, do you know? 

11

Mr. LITTLE. I could provide that information for the record, sir. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. I would appreciate that, if you would. 

And in your testimony, you also highlighted the unique State, 

Federal, and private partnerships provided through the CRE program, which is a subset of the CRP program. And the State of 

Idaho, as you know, is very interested right now in trying to get 

approval for its first CREP proposal, something which I very 

strongly support because it is going to help us in Idaho, if we can 

get it implemented, to help to reduce some of the water usage from 

an underground source and enable restoration of historic flows for 

other lands that we will be able to continue to work. We need to 

find ways to reduce the water consumption in Idaho in this particular watershed because of the extensive impacts of draught. 

I am particularly intrigued by the example in your testimony 

about additional in-stream water hoped to be gained when the 

CREP program is fully implemented in Nebraska. Can you talk a 

little bit about how the CREP program is assisting with this type 

of State-specific conservation need? 

Mr. LITTLE. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, we have been working 

very closely with the folks in Idaho trying to get that very important CREP agreement approved and we are anxious to get it to closure. I think we are fairly close, from our perspective. 

Senator CRAPO. That is good. So you think maybe in 24 hours 

you could get that done? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LITTLE. If you could provide me some assurance that the 

money is there, we will be glad to do it with you. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. We will work on that. 

Mr. LITTLE. But anyway, you know, we have gotten back with 

the State office and are waiting from your side of it before we can 

move forward on that. 

But the way it is working in Nebraska, and I believe it is supposed to be working relatively the same in Idaho when that agreement is finalized, that we would be paying irrigated rental rates 

to farmers to take their land out of production, which would in 

turn save that water that could go downstream into—to help the 

end down the stream and ground and surface water, which would 

take pressure off of the local water supply and then, in the end 

run, it would end up helping the wildlife at the end of the line, so 

to speak. 

The way we are working that program in Nebraska, and I assume it would be very similar in Idaho, that those, if you have, you 

know, it depends on the State, State-by-State, the water rights, if 

that water—let’s say that I am going to get it under the program, 

the water that I would be using would not be able to be utilized 

by another farmer down the stream if they had junior water rights. 

So the premise of it is to reduce the amount of water that goes into 

irrigation and put it back into the natural supply, you know, ultimately helping the environment, helping the water quality down at 

the end of the line, and helping to end up improving the wildlife 

habitat. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much. And I do thank you 

for the specific attention that you are giving to the situation in 

Idaho. I know Idaho is not unique; in fact, I suspect Colorado has 

12

been facing similar circumstances. But we are facing very bad 

draught circumstances and we have had it almost consistently for 

years now, and it is not getting better. And although we certainly 

can’t make it rain and snow as much as we would like, we can do 

some things to alleviate the pressure, and the CREP program at 

the Federal level is probably one of the best opportunities we have 

to help. So I appreciate your attention to this. 

Mr. LITTLE. If I could comment, we are working also with Colorado to do a similar CREP. 

Senator CRAPO. Good. Very good. 

That concludes my questions. Did you have any more for Mr. Little, Senator? 

Senator SALAZAR. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I do hope 

that this is an issue that we can continue to provide some attention 

to long before we get to the actual consideration of the farm bill 

so that we have a very good understanding of what CRP is doing 

and how it is that we might be able to make improvements on this 

very important program. 

Senator CRAPO. I can assure we will do that, and I think we do 

have good cooperation from the Agency. So with that, Mr. Little, 

we will excuse you, and we appreciate your attendance here today. 

Mr. LITTLE. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. We will now call up our second panel. Our second panel consists of Mr. Sherman Reese, who is the president of 

the National Association of What Growers. He is from Oregon; Mr. 

Kendall Keith, president of the National Grain and Feed Association; Ms. Krysta Harden, chief executive officer of the National Association of Conservation Districts; Mr. Jeffrey Nelson, director of 

operations of Ducks Unlimited, and he is from the Great Plains Regional Office in Bismarck, North Dakota; and Mr. Dan Forster, director of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife 

Resources Division, from Social Circle, Georgia. 

We welcome all of you here. And as you are taking your seats, 

I just want to remind you of the 5 minutes on the clock. Like I said 

at the outset, it is really hard to get everything in in 5 minutes, 

but I assure you we will have some time for discussion. And also, 

sometimes it is hard to pay attention to that clock, too, so if any 

of you start running over too far, I will just kind of tap the gavel 

here to remind you to look down at the clock. 

Why don’t we go ahead in the order I introduced you, and we will 

start with you, Mr. Reese. 

STATEMENT OF SHERMAN REESE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, ECHO, OREGON 

Mr. REESE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Sherman Reese. I am a wheat farmer from 

eastern Oregon and I am currently serving as president of the National Association of Wheat Growers. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify before you today on issues involving the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, particularly those that involve expiring 

CRP contracts and CRP contract extensions. 

My written testimony covers the history and evolution of the 

CRP, as have previous witnesses, so I need not elaborate further 

here. And as previously noted by the committee and others, many 

13

of the contracts on this enrolled acreage are set to expire between 

2006 and 2008, over 22 million acres—or roughly an area over twothirds the size of Idaho. 

As president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, I 

would be remiss if I didn’t note the geographical distribution of the 

34.8 million acres currently enrolled and those acres set to expire, 

as shown on these maps. Texas has the largest enrollment of over 

3.9 million acres, with 3 million acres set to expire by 2008. Montana is next, with 3.4 million enrolled and 2.4 million set to expire; 

followed by North Dakota, with 3.3 million enrolled and 2.2 million 

expiring; Kansas, with 2.3 million acres enrolled and 2 million expiring; and Colorado, with 2.3 million acres enrolled and 1.7 million 

acres expiring. Iowa is sixth, with 1.9 million acres enrolled and 

894,000 acres expiring. And for the record, Idaho has 789,538 acres 

enrolled, with 603,651 acres expiring, ranked as the 12th-largest 

CRP-enrolled State. 

These States with the largest CRP enrollments are also where 

you find concentrated product of corn, soybeans, cotton, rice, grain 

sorghum, barley, and livestock. So most major production agricultural commodities also have a strong interest in the CRP program. 

I said I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the geographic distribution, because four out of the five top CRP enrolled States happen to be our top wheat producing States—North Dakota, Kansas, 

Montana, and Texas—with a handful of others not far behind both 

in CRP enrollment and in what production. So we have an unusually high interest in the CRP program and its future administration. 

The large amount of expiring contract acreage presents a nearterm problem that the committee and the Administration has correctly focused on. First, I appreciate the Farm Service Agency’s recent announcement that producers with CRP contracts set to expire 

this year may extend their contracts for 1 year. This will apply to 

about 437,000 acres. We would support the continued use of shortterm contract extensions to ease the administrative burdens of 

processing the large volume of contract expirations in any given 

year. These should be staggered through extensions ranging from 

1 to 5 years, with longer extensions for lands with higher environmental benefits index, of EBI, rankings. 

We would discourage the use of early or automatic re-enrollments and would strongly suggest that any acreage re-enrolled be 

administered through the competitive bid system. We would also 

encourage the application of revised rental rates to all full-term reenrollments to ensure that payment rates are up to date and reflect 

actual local land rental market conditions. 

For acreage that is not re-enrolled and is put back into production, we would urge USDA to restore crop-based acres that were 

lost when the land was initially enrolled in the CRP. Nearly 3 percent of farm program base acres currently enrolled in CRP are 

wheat-based acres. For longer-age farm bill policy issues, we believe we should look for ways to make adjustments in the EBI so 

CRP is focused on the most environmentally sensitive lands. 

We also believe we should acknowledge the interest in utilizing 

CRP for cover vegetation. That has a dual use as a biomass feedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:42 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27640.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
14

stock. There may be opportunities to offset CRP program costs 

through the value derived from biomass vegetative cover. 

As I mentioned, Montana is one of our largest wheat-producing 

States as well as one of the largest CRP participants. The Montana 

Grain Growers Association recently completed a farm bill issue survey of their members, and I believe two comments received regarding CRP are instructive of the dichotomy within our own organization and the policy challenges ahead for all of us. 

Comment No. 1: ‘‘Our president is really pushing conservation. 

We have about half our land in the CRP, and if not for it to help 

with the expenses for other land, we would be belly up.’’ That is 

from McCone County. 

Comment No. 2: ‘‘CRP has been the most devastating program 

for rural communities ever devised by USDA.’’ That is from Richland County. 

And these comments are from neighboring counties in Montana, 

but I think they point to a need for a deliberative approach, which 

I hope Congress and the Administration will follow in addressing 

the issues regarding CRP. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the fundamental 

issue here is one of balance, determining where we place the fulcrum to balance equally important competing interests of conservation with the ability to produce a crop that allow the farmer to remain on the land in the first place. That balance was eloquently 

and simply stated by one of the great conservation presidents of 

the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt: I ask nothing of this Nation 

except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who 

skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer 

is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself 

and provide for the education of his children, leaves it to them a 

little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of 

a Nation. 

Allow us to continue farming the productive agricultural land to 

support our families and our Nation and, in turn, continue to create opportunities for us to leave the land a little better than we 

found it ourselves. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reese can be found in the appendix on page 12.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Reese. That is a great 

quote you ended up with. 

Mr. Keith? 

STATEMENT OF KENDALL W. KEITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KEITH. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am 

Kendall Keith and I am president of the National Grain and Feed 

Association. Today I am also representing members of the Alliance 

for Agricultural Growth and Competitiveness. Individual members 

of that alliance are noted in our written testimony. 

We think the increased focus on conservation has mostly been 

positive, but programs that idle productive acres can also become 

15

an impediment to economic growth. To maintain a balance, we 

would offer the following points. 

First, USDA says it is fully committed to enrolling, at a maximum, 39 million acres. If the goal of this program is to maximize 

environmental benefits, this unconditional commitment is misguided. Maximizing idle acres is not equal to maximizing environmental benefits. Putting a narrow strip of land along a waterway 

in the program may seem expensive, but likely provides benefits 

many time statement of enrolling more acres of flat land in dry climates. 

Second, we do not favor automatic long-term extensions or re-enrollments without critical evaluation. The Administration says this 

may be necessary to ease Government workload. While we acknowledge the large expiring acreage, every private business encounters crunch times and it is not unreasonable to expect the 

same in Government. Re-enrollments need to be fully evaluated 

and be done through competitive bidding. USDA needs to seriously 

review whether the land that has been enrolled for 15 to 17 years 

should be re-enrolled or permit other landowners a chance to bid 

for the program. Also, partial fields may offer more benefits for taxpayer dollars than whole farms. 

Third, we are concerned about the amount of land that will be 

needed to support traditional sectors of agriculture in the future, 

such as livestock and poultry. Ethanol production now absorbs 14 

percent of U.S. corn production and is growing rapidly. The impact 

of soybean rust on yields is highly uncertain today. U.S. wheat 

acreage has shrunk over 10 million acres in the last 7 years. And 

it appears we are losing overall farm acreage as the total land in 

both CRP and crops has declined 9 million acres in the last 7 years. 

If the U.S. does not employ the land base to stay world competitive 

in grains, we will force sizable portions of our own livestock and 

poultry production offshore. 

Fourth, we are seeing the CRP causing troubling disinvestments 

in marketing infrastructure in Western States, where it is concentrated. Railroads are abandoning track, the loss of infrastructure means the cost of moving the remaining grains is more expensive and farm prices are lowered. 

Fifth, there appears to be excessive focus in the CRP program on 

game birds and hunting at the expense of water quality. Three 

major goals of the program are erosion control, wildlife, and water 

quality, yet USDA estimates that water quality improvements represent only 8 percent of CRP non-market benefits. Water quality 

needs more emphasis. This means more stream buffers rather than 

large tracks. 

Sixth, excessive early enrollments could restrict congressional options in the next farm bill. In our view, Congress should determine 

if more funds should be diverted to working lands to improve the 

rural economy. Congress should determine if more funds should be 

diverted to EQIP to enhance water quality. Congress should consider if the CRP is too concentrated in Western States and determine if the acreage cap should be reduced. 

Seventh, the administration of the 25 percent cap on the CRP 

acres in a given county we think needs to be examined to see if the 

performance conforms with the intentions of Congress. It appears 

16

that because of the use of outdated data by USDA, actual CRP 

acres in many counties far exceed the 25 percent modern-day cultivated acres. We see up to 35 to 40 percent of actual acres in counties being idled in the program. 

The economic damage caused by heavy acreage idling is real. Our 

written testimony contains letters from agribusiness operations in 

Idaho, in the State of Washington, noting that the CRP is driving 

merchants out of business and driving people out of the communities. CRP payments benefit landowners, but it is often forgotten 

that the program does the most damage to those that many would 

most like to help—beginning farmers and tenant farmers trying to 

earn a reasonable income. CRP raises land rents and it reduces the 

amount of farmland available. It puts a double hit on the profitability of tenant farmers. 

This highly negative CRP impact led USDA’s own beginning 

Farmer and Rancher Advisory Committee in 2004 to recommend to 

the Secretary to ‘‘direct ERS, FSA, and NRCS to research policy options for the CRP program to enhance beginning farmer and rancher opportunities as the next big wave of CRP contract expirations 

begin in fiscal year 2006 through 2008.’’

We are hopeful that USDA has plans under way to address this 

issue. 

That concludes my testimony. I look forward to questions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keith can be found in the appendix on page 14.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Keith. 

Ms. Harden? 

STATEMENT OF KRYSTA HARDEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (NACD), WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. HARDEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Salazar. I am 

Krysta Harden, and I am the CEO of the National Association of 

Conservation Districts. With your permission, my written comments will be added to the record. And please note, they also represent the views of the following associations, including NACD: the 

National Association of State Conservation Agencies, the National 

Conservation District Employees Association, and the Sustainable 

Agriculture Coalition. 

NACD knows that all titles of the farm bill are important and 

help make the package stronger, more effective and, frankly, passable by Congress. We believe much of the success of the last several farm bills, and especially the 2002 farm bill, can be credited 

to the conservation title. Over time, the conservation title has improved and increased in significance to producers as well as taxpayers. The conservation title has multiple benefits to farmers and 

ranchers by providing technical and financial assistance. 

There are also other benefits to both producers and taxpayers, including better management of our natural resources, a healthier 

farm economy, increased productivity to improve practices and 

management methods, and the development and use of emerging 

technologies and tools. The investment in conservation gives all of 

17

us cleaner air and water, healthier soils, and increased wildlife 

habitat. 

While not answering all the problems of every producer or every 

environmental concern, we do believe the farm bill conservation 

programs at authorized levels can provide meaningful resources to 

many producers and help our landscape stay clean, beautiful, and 

healthy. And we look forward to the continued review of conservation programs and to a lively debate regarding any gaps in programs and opportunities for improving our conservation system. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am very excited and passionate 

about conservation programs and I could talk about these issues on 

and on. But due to my time limit, I will shift gears here and talk 

about the issues at hand today, the CRP program. 

It is appropriate that we begin our review of farm bill conservation programs with the CRP. This successful program is one of the 

largest and oldest. Over the last almost 20 years, it has helped producers and taxpayers make many key conservation goals and has 

been enhanced by CREP and buffer initiatives. NACD still supports and believes we can meet the acreage goals of CRP established by the 2002 farm bill within the next several years. The real 

questions are what acres will be enrolled and when will they be enrolled. We believe managing the large number of expiring contracts 

will place a tremendous burden on the system. And as you know, 

Mr. Chairman, conservation districts work directly with producers 

at the local level to implement conservation programs and practices, and we feel the conservation system will face a severe challenge in accommodating all the needs of the community at one 

time. 

We prefer a more deliberate approach, with short-term extensions, staggered re-enrollments, and other methods of making sure 

the right acres are enrolled. We know many of the acres subject to 

expiring contracts will be and should be re-enrolled. However, we 

also feel there are acres that should be reviewed and may require 

additional maintenance activities or conservation practices. And 

there may be new acres eligible for the first time. We just want to 

make sure the most environmentally sensitive acres are enrolled. 

This is certainly best for the landowner, the integrity of the program, and the taxpayer. And we believe a focused approach will accomplish these objectives. 

In closing, I want to thank this committee and the Congress for 

changes made to fix the technical assistance problems in CRP and 

WRP. By allowing both programs to pay for their own technical assistance, we believe FSA will have the ability to utilize services of 

partners, including Federal and State agencies, conservation districts, and technical service providers. Thank you for your help in 

this important change. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to present these thoughts 

and ideas today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harden can be found in the appendix on page 16.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Ms. Harden. 

Mr. Nelson? 

18

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY W. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC., GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL 

OFFICE, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

committee for allowing us once again to provide some of our 

thoughts on this important topic, and also for the leadership your 

subcommittee continues to show in the conservation title and all 

the benefits that have already been mentioned. 

I am Jeff Nelson. I am the director of the Great Plains Office of 

Ducks Unlimited, so I am going to have a bit of a bias toward the 

northern part of the Great Plains. But I do represent today 18 different wildlife organizations who comprise more than 5 million 

members. 

In our submitted testimony, we only had 13 on. There are five 

more who have joined since then. I would like to just quickly mention them: The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the Land 

Trust Alliance, the National Wildlife Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Wildlife Mississippi. So we are pretty 

well represented here. 

I would also like to start by saying we do have productive partnerships with many of the producers on the land, farmers, ranchers. Every day we work with them. We also work with FSA and 

NRCS and appreciate their partnership and leadership in everything we do. 

Our submitted testimony, of course, goes into more depth than 

time allows here, so I am just going to hit a couple of key points 

and then answer questions. 

There can be no dispute, the conservation title of the farm bill, 

and CRP in particular, has been a huge success and a great investment for American taxpayers, in our view. The CRP has been very 

well received by American farmers and ranchers. Evidence of that 

is there is far more demand for CRP than could be met by the current fund and particularly with the general signups. The response 

continues to be overwhelming. For every four people that submit 

bids, only one is accepted right now. So we see continuing strong 

interest by farmers in this program. 

The program has measurable benefits for wildlife. That has been 

documented. You asked for the science; there are several studies in 

our submitted testimony. On the chart over here on my left is a 

graph showing that as we add grassland—through CRP, in this 

case—we certainly see an impact on waterfowl, in this case, their 

ability to nest successfully. But we continue to see the same sort 

of response for pheasants and songbirds and other wildlife. So 

there can be no dispute. The science is there. CRP has been good 

for wildlife. 

On the issue of rural economies, rural economies are in transition right now and that has been referred to by several here on the 

panel. I think the evidence is in from USDA, one of the studies 

they just completed, that CRP—it is tough to point at CRP as the 

reason for that. Their results would indicate that it is not related 

to the loss of populations, at least in the big scale. There are a 

bunch of factors that are impacting what is going on in rural America right now. On balance, we don’t think CRP is hurting rural 

areas. It is hurting in some areas and probably helping in others. 

19

On the issue of the expiring acres, we are all concerned about 

getting those acres re-enrolled somehow. We have all submitted 

comments. We are focused on trying to get the follow-up on the 

President’s announcement in Minnesota last year, where he recommended the option for early re-enrollment for farmers. We will 

continue to push because we know producers are interested in this 

and we are glad to hear today that FSA is hoping to get that issue 

resolved by sometime later on this fall. 

Of course, the second thing is getting CRP fully reauthorized in 

the next farm bill. We think the evidence is in for all the benefits 

it provides. Even at current levels, at the current cap, there is 

more demand that can be met. 

In conclusion, there is desire by both landowners and conservationists to continue the program. The program gives farmers many 

options in their individual operations. Most farmers don’t enroll 

their whole farm. It gives them good flexibility in helping them 

with risk management and other concerns. If it wasn’t for all the 

popularity of the program, we would be concerned, but the farmers 

definitely want in. It is not destroying the rural economy, in our 

opinion, and many other factors need to be looked at when we look 

at declines in rural areas. 

CRP should be continued at current levels and it can be continued while meeting the Nation’s food and fiber needs and allowing 

for a productive farm sector. We ought to fully implement CRP and 

maintain it in the next farm bill. 

I thank you for your time and look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson can be found in the appendix on page 18.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Forster? 

STATEMENT OF DAN FORSTER, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION, SOCIAL CIRCLE, GEORGIA 

Mr. FORSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dan Forster, and 

it is my pleasure to serve as the director of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division. In that capacity, I also serve as chairman of the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative Committee, which is a committee of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency Directors. I also 

serve as vice chairman of the International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies’ Agricultural Conservation Committee. My comments today will generally reflect the views of all these organizations. 

The CRP is arguably the single most effective conservation program ever developed for agricultural lands. My comments today 

focus on wildlife conservation aspects of CRP, which is generally 

improve wildlife habitat and populations, particularly in the Midwest and the Northern Great Plains. Unfortunately, CRP has not 

been nearly as positive for wildlife in the Southern U.S., and across 

this region can best be described as a program whose potential is 

still to be realized. 

20

That being said, I want to further emphasize that, overall, CRP 

is a program with many positive attributes, but one that needs adjusting to reach its full potential in the South. 

I recommend that CRP be maintained in the next farm bill at 

least at the current level of 39 million acres, and if possible, expanded to 45 million. CRP could be a natural fit with the Northern 

Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, NBCI, which is a 22–State plan 

to provide habitat for bobwhites in numerous songbird species that 

are in serious decline. The CRP goes hand-in-hand with bobwhite 

restoration because bobwhites are a working land bird and they are 

favored by natural and human-induced disturbances. Research and 

management show that it is both ecologically and economically feasible to restore bobwhites and other grassland wildlife through ecologically sound ag-enforced management. 

This knowledge led to the development of CRP practice CP33, 

Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds, which was announced last August by President Bush, and for which USDA should be praised. I 

believe CP33 is a giant step toward making CRP more wildlife 

friendly in meeting NBCI goals. CP33 provides incentives to landowners for field buffers around the perimeter of crop fields. These 

buffers provide critical habitat for bobwhites, songbirds, and other 

wildlife. They help control soil erosion and improve water quality. 

And CP33 is working. 

For example, Dr. Wes Burger, wildlife professor at Mississippi 

State and specialist in bobwhite research, reported that Mr. Jimmy 

Bryan, owner of B-Bryan Farm in Clay County Mississippi, is seeing quail in places where he hasn’t seen birds in many years. Mr. 

Bryan has 195 acres of CP33 buffers on his 1,200–acre farm. And 

we have reports like these coming in from across the South. 

I believe it is noteworthy and appropriate that CP33 has been 

chosen as one out of 30 conservation case studies to be featured at 

the upcoming White House conference on conservation in August. 

A number of Southern States have researched management 

projects proving that the same success that CRP is providing for 

wildlife in the Great Plains and Midwest regions are possible for 

bobwhites and grassland birds in the South. In fact, if properly 

managed, the currently enrolled CRP habitats, specifically the 

more than 10 million acres that are predominantly in exotic grass 

and densely stalked pines in the 22 NBCI States, could support 2.2 

million bobwhite coveys. This represents 81 percent of the NBCI 

bobwhite recovery goal. 

CRP can be the champion for bobwhite and songbird recovery. It 

can become a program that truly provides equitable conservation of 

soil, water, and wildlife to all regions of the country. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to comment, and 

look forward to further discussions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forster can be found in the appendix on page 19.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Forster. And I have 

to also commend this entire panel. I think every one of you finished 

before your time was up. I don’t know if we scared you into that 

or not, but it is very much appreciated because it helps us keep on 

schedule. 

21

Let me start out with you, Mr. Reese. In your testimony, you indicated that you would argue against an earlier automatic re-enrollment and suggest that new contracts or re-enrollments go 

through a competitive bid process and that CRP should be focused 

on the most environmentally sensitive lands. Do you believe there 

is a consensus among farm groups that that is the way we should 

approach the CRP program? 

Mr. REESE. I can’t speak for other farm groups. I know that within our own organization, the wheat growers, it has been a very difficult issue to come down on one side or the other. We are speaking 

to policy as we currently have it there within that statement. Within CRP itself, though, overall it seems to be that the older you are, 

the more you favor it, because it becomes a land retirement program. The younger you are, the more you are against it, because 

it doesn’t allow you to competitively bid for farmland for production. 

Senator CRAPO. And you may not be in the program yet, right? 

Mr. REESE. That is right. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Keith, do you have any comments on that? 

The question being basically what kind of consensus is there 

among farm groups about early re-enrollment and automatic re-enrollment. 

Mr. KEITH. Based on the testimony that was given on June 24th 

at the USDA hearing, what I heard from most producer groups 

there was to favor some extensions, possibly up to 5 years, where 

there was very high EBI scores, but in general, more in the 1– to 

3–year period, to at least push some acres forward to get rid of the 

big lump of acres in the program. But not automatic re-enrollments. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. On this issue, do any of the other 

witnesses want to weigh in? Mr. Forster? 

Mr. FORSTER. Thank you. Yes, one issue in the South in particular, we are very interested in continuing the enrollment but are 

also equally interested in the EBI, in the benefits. And some of the 

enrolled acres, I think, to help the staggering problem would be 

something we could look at there, particularly with pines, and offer 

an extension so that the highest quality habitats can be enrolled 

initially and then those maintenance activities that may be needed 

to boost those EBIs up to benefit wildlife could be part of that staggering program. So I think there are some creative ways to both 

improve wildlife habitat there and also address some of those staggering issues. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. One of the challenges we fail is this regional variation in the current CRP that is on the ground. We have had debates within the conservation community about this. In the Southeast there is a definite need for better management of some of the 

tracts and maybe replacement of habitat. In the Northern Great 

Plains, however, there is pretty broad consensus that things are 

pretty good the way they are, and those areas might be ready for 

re-enrollment as-is without—I mean, there are good lands that 

should be in the program and they are really producing the way 

we wanted them to just the way they are. 

22

Senator CRAPO. All right. Let me ask a question—well, I guess 

I will throw this out to the whole panel. You don’t all have to answer, but if any of you do want to chime in on this, feel free to. 

Is it a foregone conclusion for CRP lands that are not re-enrolled 

that they would necessarily be put back into wheat or whatever 

other production was originally utilized on them? In other words, 

is it a foregone conclusion that these lands will go back into production if they are not re-enrolled? Mr. Reese? 

Mr. REESE. I will take a stab at that. I farm in an area of the 

country where it is fairly dry. And I have a neighbor who had 

about, oh, a thousand acres or thereabouts in CRP. And when the 

contract came do, he chose to put that into grazing for cattle because the wheat price was so low. So I think there are areas where, 

particularly if you look at the average wheat production in the 

United States is about 40 bushels per acre, if they can’t be competitive at that level of production or lower, and with cattle prices relatively high, they may choose to actually forgo re-enrollment and 

go into cattle or some other grazing alternative. We, of course, as 

wheat producers, as a wheat organization, aren’t very happy with 

that possibility. 

Ms. HARDEN. I would agree, Senator Crapo, with Mr. Reese’s 

comments that some of the land we think might go into grasses 

and grazing instead of back into production, depending on where 

they are, and the water issues, I think, play a large role in that 

decision. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Keith, did you want to say something? 

Mr. KEITH. Yes. I think some of this depends on the pattern of 

ownership. You do see nonresident owners buying more land, in 

some cases, really, for the existing CRP payments and for hunting. 

And they would have no intention of ever putting that land back 

in production. They don’t want to go out and try to find a renter. 

Their goal is, it is kind of a recreational thing for them. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, one of the things that I would add to that is 

to remember that a lot of the fields that are in CRP used to be 

cropland and don’t typically have perimeter fences. With the 

changes in genetics in our part of the world, we are seeing with 

soybeans and corn, we are seeing a lot of native prairie actually 

being plowed up right now. I expect that is a pretty good indicator 

of what would happen to some of the CRP, that it would in fact 

get plowed up, because we are already seeing it in areas where 

they have to move huge rocks as big as refrigerators and they still 

enough economic value in doing that, that they are doing it. 

Senator CRAPO. Yes, Mr. Forster? 

Mr. FORSTER. Again, with respect to pines in the South, our experience with the old soil bank program suggested that less than—

or about 2 percent of those pines went back into crop production. 

So in the South, where the majority of our CRP lands are in pine, 

we expect it would be a very low percentage that would go back 

into production. 

Senator CRAPO. OK, I appreciate that information. 

One of you, I believe it was Mr. Keith, raised the question of focusing on water quality versus wildlife habitat. Was that you, Mr. 

Keith, that raised that question? And it was interesting. I think, 

23

if I understood your comment correctly, you indicated that there 

had been quite a bit of success in the program in terms of basically 

maybe upland game and wildlife, in that context, waterfowl and 

hunting, but not necessarily in water quality improvement. And 

that kind of perked up my interest, because I am very supportive 

of all of those interests but, looking at the draught we are facing 

in the West and the potential for using the CREP program for 

water quantity, I am wondering whether there is a need to focus 

on CRP more with regard to water quality issues. 

And I just—I know, Mr. Keith, you have already had a comment 

on that. There may be some comment—maybe I would start with 

you if you want to expand at all, and then let other members of 

the panel jump in on that issue. 

Mr. KEITH. Well, no, I mean, USDA has done an assessment, and 

I assume it is objective, and they found a lot more benefits coming 

from wildlife production than they did from water quality. And, you 

know, the tradeoff, you may have to pay $100 or $150 per acre to 

get some of those stream banks in the program, but it is very 

worthwhile. Water quality is a major challenge for agriculture longterm in this country. 

Senator CRAPO. Ms. Harden? 

Ms. HARDEN. I just would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the 

original intent of the program was soil erosion which kept soil on 

the ground and not in the water. So I think the water quality benefits over the 20 years can be traced back. You say there have been 

improvements. And certainly the buffer strip initiatives and the 

CREP do make a big difference in the latter years. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. I think you might want to—I am not sure where 

the numbers came from, but it seems to me that a lot of CRP provides all those benefits at the same time. I don’t know how you separate them out. The cover that might be put in from a water quality perspective also provides wildlife habitat. The issue of the whole 

field enrollment, I think some areas of the country with a lot of 

CRP have small wetlands that make it impossible to just put buffer 

strips around the wetlands and farm economically, so they would—

the farmers prefer to enroll the whole field as opposed to trying to 

cookie-cutter out areas for filter strips and things like that. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Forster, you indicated that we had more success in the Midwest, I think it was, than in the South. Why is that? 

Mr. FORSTER. I think, as our partners from Ducks Unlimited eloquently pointed out, there has been just, you know, significant, 

measurable increases in some of the wildlife species that have been 

targeted for some of the programs, ducks being the primary one. 

In the Southeast, those landowners that have taken advantage 

largely of CRP programs, the focus there was on the soil and the 

water elements of the program, which are highly beneficial. But 

the truth has been the majority of the properties that have been 

enrolled have gone into either exotic pasture grasses, which provide 

very little wildlife benefits, and into pine plantations, which pines, 

if managed correctly or for a specific benefit, can certainly add 

value, but unthinned pine stands planted at high stocking rates 

does not provide very much in the way of wildlife benefits. 

24

One of the targeted species of interest, both as mentioned by the 

President and many of the groups that I referenced earlier, has 

been bobwhite quail and other early successional songbird species—dickcissels and a variety of sparrow species, Eastern meadowlarks, indigo buntings. We have seen significant declines over time 

which rely on early successional species. And in order to benefit 

those species in terms of habitat, there are some modifications that 

need to be made to switch the emphasis away from exotic grasses 

and away from high stocking rates and unmanipulated pine stands 

to benefit those more open-habitat-needy species. 

Senator CRAPO. One of the witnesses, I think more in the written 

testimony, indicated that we need to have more local control. Was 

that you, Ms. Harden? 

Ms. HARDEN. Probably. 

Senator CRAPO. In any event——

Ms. HARDEN. It is what we usually say. 

Senator CRAPO. Good. I believe in that, too, by the way. What I 

am hearing here is that there are regional differences and to me 

that means that perhaps the local control could help us be much 

more effective at meeting these regional needs. I am seeing heads 

nod yes. Anybody on the panel want to comment on that? 

Mr. FORSTER. I would love to address that initially. I think in our 

written testimony you will find a recommendation there to establish State habitat teams, which may be very beneficial in addressing the EBI index, so that you can weight some of those benefits 

equally across soil, water, and wildlife, but also implement regional 

practices, perhaps statewide, that do maximize a benefit. There are 

clearly some great successes and some opportunities, and I think 

that is a great way to address that in the future. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Keith? 

Mr. KEITH. We think that local communities certainly understand their environmental needs better from a macro setting, and 

we understand that. But there is a part of the local decisionmaking 

process we are a little bit troubled by, and that is in the past, 

where they have allowed local communities to vote or do referendums on whether they want to exceed the cap or not. It becomes 

a little bit of a popularity contest. And frankly, if you are concerned 

about the overall economics of the economy, it is hard to express 

those views at a local level. 

Senator CRAPO. That is a good point. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, I think local input is certainly important, at 

the State level or even more locally than that. But I would point 

out that there are some areas where CRP has been a very big component of the landscape that are nationally important and have 

been identified as national priority areas. And I think, at least in 

those areas, there ought to be some direction from the Federal Government as to the importance of those areas because they do provide key habitat for migratory species that cross State borders and 

what happens there does have an impact on other States and 

areas. 

Senator CRAPO. Good prospectus. Mr. Reese? 

Mr. REESE. I guess I would also, from a production agricultural 

standpoint, endorse local control. As someone who has held a CRP 

contract both in the beginning and also I am holding one now, in 

25

addition to a CSP and a continuous CRP, I am well acquainted 

with the problems on the ground of local control, from the technical 

aspect especially, where we have been asked to plant competing 

species which, in the case of legumes and grasses, forced us into 

a situation where we have to choose, if we have to get rid of weeds, 

which invasive specie do we get rid of and which of the grasses or 

the legumes do we harm by that. So local control and inputs, particularly in the technical aspect, is important. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. You know, one of the—this is a constant battle at the Federal level over policymaking and environmental decisionmaking, and one of the things that I have always 

felt would be a good compromise between the various perspectives 

is to try, to the extent possible, to have the Federal standards, as 

flexibly as possible, established and then let the local communities 

or the States figure out how to meet those standards and how to 

accomplish the objectives. 

I think there is pretty broad consensus among the witnesses and 

among others I have talked to on this issue that, however we approach re-enrollment or enrollment, we ought to do so in a way 

that gives us the maximum environmental benefit. That yields the 

question, how do we measure that? How do we determine the 

standards by which we will evaluate? To a certain extent, I think 

we are answering that by saying we need to have some local control, but we also need it at the policy level here in establishing the 

program to somehow give some guidance on what we mean when 

we say that. Could any of you weigh in on your thoughts on that, 

if you would like to? I know that is a really broad question. Mr. 

Keith? 

Mr. KEITH. I think part of it is just efficient use of money. And 

I think some of the statements by USDA suggesting automatic reenrollments or automatic extensions just raises the issue how do 

you establish today’s rental rate. Now, you can say you can update 

those rental rates, but it is really hard to do that because you are 

talking existing CRP ground and the intentions and the plans of 

that owner for that ground, and they are very diverse. I have noticed some are urban, some folks are local landowners that could 

find a renter that would like to put it back in production. I can see 

some land that is out there that might require a considerably higher rent from the Administration, from Congress, to continue with 

the program. I can see some land out there that is in the program 

that would accept a much lower rent and continue in the program. 

So I think this automatic update is probably not a wise use of taxpayer money. 

Senator CRAPO. Ms. Harden? 

Ms. HARDEN. I think it is the balance that we all struggle for, 

using the EBI, a national perspective, and carrying through the 

State technical committee and down to the local level with input 

and looking at the balance on the value of the acres that are either 

in there—And as I said in my comments, some of them need to be 

reviewed. Some may need additional conservation practices. I think 

you have to have an open mind in looking at these acres and not 

assuming, because they have been in there, that they are the best 

acres that should be. And as budgets get tighter and the focus is 

much stronger scrutiny at these acres, I think we have to define 

26

the balance between national priorities and our local priorities as 

well. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Ms. Harden, yesterday we heard testimony regarding the establishment of native cover on CRP ground. 

And in your written statement, you noted that the NACD supports 

planting native vegetation but that you are not sure it is always 

wise or necessary or even economically practical to require a producer to remove non-native vegetation. Can you expand on that a 

little bit? Should the FSA develop standards on this issue? 

Ms. HARDEN. Possibly, and that is something we would like to 

work with them on. There are a lot of complaints from producers 

who have had CRP enrolled and had good environmental benefits, 

wildlife habitat reestablished on their CRP acres, and then they 

are told when they are re-enrolling and there is a review that they 

need to break this ground out and re-plant something else. So in 

many cases it does not make sense for the existing wildlife habitat 

and certainly economically. So working with the Agency just—it is 

a common-sense issue, really, what works for a local level, and not 

just a mandate that it has to be a specific vegetative cover in every 

case, but looking at the whole picture. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. The next issue I want to get into is 

one that has been raised by Senator Salazar, to a certain extent, 

and it is one on which I know there is disagreement among this 

panel. And I am not trying to start a big debate here, but I think 

we need to get into this issue a little bit. And that is the question 

of what is the economic impact of CRP. Some have said that there 

is a question here of whether CRP actually is harmful, and I know 

we have some charts that Mr. Nelson has provided in that context. 

Senator Salazar raised the question of whether there is an economic impact on rural communities in the way that some landowners are approaching this. 

I would just like to get each member of the panel, if you choose, 

an opportunity to expand on your thoughts on that issue as we approach this. Mr. Reese? 

Mr. REESE. When that question was raised, I jotted down some 

figures. Where I farm, it is a wheat-fallow rotation, which means 

you only get a crop on that acre every other year. So for us, if you 

figure that it is a $3.50 wheat price and a 50–bushel yield would 

yield a gross of about $175 an acre, a third of that normally goes 

to the landowner. So in that case, you lose $55 a year every other 

year on that acre. It goes out of the county, if you want to look at 

it that way, from an absentee-landowner standpoint. At the same 

time, that ground would yield a rental payment currently of about 

$42 an acre every year, so that is $84 versus the $55. So there is 

a net loss, I guess you could put it, of maybe $29 an acre out of 

the county for each acre that is an absentee-landowner situation. 

I would posit, however, that when we were in CRP, heavily involved in the 1980’s, we didn’t buy a new combine but we did go 

down to Main Street and buy a new pickup. We didn’t buy as much 

fertilizer, but we bought more clothes for the kids or maybe went 

on a vacation or did other things which were economically enhancing, but they weren’t necessarily tied to agricultural production. So 

there is a tradeoff, obviously. But to say that those dollars necessarily go out of the area may or may not be true. It depends on 

27

the amount of absentee landowners, what the rental rates are, and 

what the competing interests are, obviously. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Anybody else want to jump in? 

Ms. HARDEN. I will be happy to. I am not an economist, by the 

way, so this is just a personal opinion. And I have read the studies 

over the last several years going both ways, that it had a large impact, that it has not. And what I can gather is the impact was 

early, in the early days of CRP, and it might have been more drastic than was anticipated. But that has kind of leveled out. The 

question in my mind is what would have happened to those acres 

anyway as folks moved away from the farm, they were retired, they 

get that age—a parent does, kids move, would that have been sold 

for farming and ranching? In some cases, yes; others, it might have 

been developed. 

So I think, here again—and ‘‘balance’’ is often a word I use because I think we have to look at the balance. I think we are doing 

a better job targeting acres than we did in the early days of CRP. 

Some of the concerns in looking at some of these charts, maybe 

that has leveled off and we are doing a better job, with buffer strip 

initiatives instead of whole farms, and that we are looking at distributing CRP to the Southeast and other areas of the country, so 

the impacts will not be significant in just certain parts of the country. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Keith? 

Mr. KEITH. I am an economist by training, trade association exec 

by occupation. But, you know, we have reviewed a lot of studies 

and we think there is a lot more studies that indicate that there 

is true economic damage created by acreage idling programs. 

USDA did a very, what appears to be a thorough study. They chose 

a timeframe that I am not sure was the right timeframe. I mean, 

it picked up when the CRP program originally began, but we were 

heavy into acreage idling well before that in other programs. And 

so I am not sure of the total economic impacts of pre- versus poststart of the CRP program. 

But the USDA conclusions are counter-intuitive. I mean, if you 

look at a local economy, if they are traditionally dependent on output of farmers, those farmers buy inputs, they sell to local merchants. It is what drives the economy. And to assume that idling 

resources is like idling plants in any industry, is going to provide 

some kind of an economic boost, is simply counter-intuitive. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Just quickly responding to the idea of idling, whereas I think there is a misconception that CRP has been idle ever 

since it has been put on the ground. We continually use CRP in the 

Northern Great Plains in draught emergencies, flood emergencies, 

and it was very important to maintaining ranchers in the western 

part of North Dakota just last year, when they were extremely dry 

and had no hay, and the CRP provided that hay for them that year. 

So it is a little bit of a misconception that CRP is just never used. 

It is used actually quite often. I would just point to the chart of 

the North Dakota situation with a number of farms, and it is pretty clear that we have a steady decline in the number of farms going 

way back to the 1930’s. In fact, if anything, the line has flattened 

off a little bit since CRP. 

28

There is just, as I mentioned in the written testimony, there is 

a bunch of things going on in the farm community. Unfortunately, 

for farmers to compete in today’s world markets, they don’t use 

many people. They have high capitalization, they have big equipment, and farming is just not a big employer of people anymore 

like it used to be. And so things have changed. I think it is unfortunate that people continue to point at CRP as the root cause of that. 

I think the world has just fundamentally changed. All you have to 

do is look at Canada. They have the same exact patterns going on 

in Canada. Their rural communities are struggling and they have 

nothing like CRP. They are just simply trying to compete in the 

world marketplace and it just demands bigger equipment and bigger farms. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Keith, rebuttal? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KEITH. Well, just one brief comment on the chart, since he 

referred to it, showing the farm decline and appearing to slow since 

the CRP program began. You could do a chart like that probably 

on every State in the Union, regardless of whether it has much 

CRP land or not, and you would see probably roughly the same 

pattern. What is going on in agriculture is you are seeing bigger 

getting bigger and you are getting hobby farmers part-time, and so 

the net number of farms is kind of leveling out there. But it doesn’t 

have a whole to do with CRP, frankly. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I knew we wouldn’t resolve it. Did you 

want to say something, Mr. Forster? 

Mr. FORSTER. Just a quick comment. I do agree with the gentleman that there are a lot more complexities involved than a single root cause that we can show correlation to. But with respect, 

again, to the issue of pines, the harvesting of pines has actually 

generated some significant economic benefit at the local community 

levels because that is a significant source of income and will continue to be that until the entire rotation of that pine stand has expired. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. And like I said, I figured we 

wouldn’t resolve the issue entirely today, but I wanted to let everybody kind of weigh in on it because obviously it is a part of the debate as to how we approach the issue. 

And in that context, though, I would like to have you all, if you 

choose, address sort of a similar perspective on this. I think it was 

you, Mr. Reese—I am sorry I tend to—your testimony blurs for me 

on some of these things, especially when I have read the written 

testimony before. But I think it was you, Mr. Reese, who said that 

the CRP was one of the most successful or maybe the most successful—was that—? 

Mr. REESE. I think it was down there. 

Senator CRAPO. Down here? Ms. Harden, OK. You are all taking 

credit for it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. Maybe that is the answer to my question. I tend 

to think that the CRP program is one of the top conservation programs that we have in the farm bill in terms of its success. One 

of the debates that we engage in as we try to reauthorize the farm 

bill is what should the size of the Federal Government’s dollar comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:42 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27640.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
29

mitment be to the conservation title, which I think we have had 

some great success in expanding. But also, what should be in the 

conservation title? And there are lots of different competing ideas 

for how to approach conservation in the farm bill. 

Last time we went through this—and I am expecting it will be 

similar this next time—there were a lot more ideas than there 

were dollars. And so we had questions as to how much finding 

should we allocate to CRP versus—well, I am not going to create 

any battles here on other programs, but versus other programs. 

The question I kind of want to get at with you is there are a lot 

of proposals for new programs or to expand existing programs, and 

where should the CRP program fit in our priorities in terms of 

what we now have on the table? I realize you don’t even know what 

new ideas may be proposed, so you can’t really comment on them 

yet, but could you just give me a picture of your belief as to the 

value of the CRP program and where we should rank it in terms 

of how we approach the establishment of the new farm bill conservation title. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, I think the group that I represent would rank 

it right at the top, at or near the top, mostly because it is a program with documented benefits. Some of the newer programs, 

newer ideas, we really don’t know what kind of benefits we are 

going to get. There are other parts of the conservation title that are 

also very important, and I would—I guess I am not going to go and 

rank those. But I would say that it is not to say they aren’t important, but CRP has been, I would say, the linchpin of the conservation title from the—certainly from the perspective of wildlife and, 

I would argue, from water quality and air quality benefits as well. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Reese? 

Mr. REESE. I will take a shot at it, although as an association 

president, you don’t like to get too far out in front of your association. 

Senator CRAPO. We will give you a waiver on that. 

Mr. REESE. You know, conservation is easy if you just take production ground and plant it to grass and walk away from it. I think 

where the hard part of conservation is if you are a farmer, as I am, 

and you are trying to conserve working lands. So from that standpoint, CRP has been very valuable in overall conservation efforts, 

but from a production—and I am sure Mr. Keith would agree with 

me—from a production ag standpoint, if you apply that conservation standard to the working lands, you come up with something 

entirely different, and that is how do you keep land in production 

and yet still have environmental benefits that would flow back to 

the general public and how do you reward the farmer for that effort? 

So I think that needs to be kept in mind as well, that we can’t 

simply lock up and walk away, nor can we expect production agriculture in this country to stay viable if we have to compete with 

the Federal Government and the Federal Treasury for the chance 

to farm ground. And so from that standpoint, I guess from the National Association of Wheat Growers, to coin a phrase, we support 

the farmer’s right to choose. 

Senator CRAPO. Ms. Harden? 

30

Ms. HARDEN. Mr. Chairman, you know that conservation districts work with landowners and operators in every State and just 

about every county. And there is no one program, including CRP, 

as big and great as it may be, that suits the need of every landowner. There has got to be other programs, other tools, to meet the 

environmental demands put on producers these days. And we do 

support CRP, a very viable CRP that is targeted to the most environmentally sensitive lands we have all talked about today to have 

additional benefits, but there must be other programs that meet 

the needs and the pressures that are put on producers and those 

that are still producing food and fiber and livestock. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Forster? 

Mr. FORSTER. I think the rank of the CRP program is extremely 

high, in particular if the EBI can be modified to more specifically 

meet some of the regional perspectives. I also think there is a very 

important critical link in helping to answer that question with respect to the other national initiatives that are ongoing, particularly 

on the wildlife front and, I am sure, elsewhere, things like the 

State wildlife comprehensive strategies that are being developed 

now in all 50 States identifying species of concerns, habitats of 

need. Melding this important program into addressing some of 

those statewide initiatives and concerns is critical. The Northern 

Bobwhite Conservation Initiative I spoke of, national plan, trying 

to marry as many opportunities as we can, I think, is going to 

maximize the benefit for all. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Keith? 

Mr. KEITH. We would favor Congress taking a hard look at working lands and the EQIP program, which promises improvements in 

water quality. We think that CRP has done a lot of good. We think 

that in some cases we have really put very productive farmland 

into the program for 20 years, and you have to seriously think 

about that going forward—is this what we want to do with the taxpayer money or not. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, well, thank you. We certainly do have 

a breadth of perspective on this and it is going to be an interesting 

time as we at this level, policy level here at the Congress, try to 

work through all this. I don’t myself even know exactly what ideas 

are going to be put forward, but the perspective that each of you 

has brought here today is very helpful. 

I have a lot more questions, but I have run out of time, too. So 

I am going to have to bring this hearing to a close. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for your excellent written 

and oral presentations. It has been very helpful to the committee 

and I think it is going to be very helpful to USDA for this oversight 

process. And I would encourage you to continue to give us your 

input and thoughts on these issues as we progress and as matters 

develop. 

Again, I want to let everybody know that we are very committed 

at this committee level to making sure that we not only conduct 

adequate oversight over the CRP, but that we get ourselves totally 

prepared for the next conservation title of the farm bill with a 

strong focus on conservation, but doing it in a way that helps make 

sure that we provide the necessary incentives and support to the 

private property owners, the landowners, those who work the proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:42 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27640.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
31

ductive land and otherwise, and help to make them partners in the 

process even more effectively than they now are. As we also, from 

the regulatory side, put mandates onto the landowners—and I am 

not suggesting that we should be putting more mandates on, but 

that they are already put on, and that we need to find a way to 

help increase our effectiveness in this partnership for conservation. 

I will say it again at the conclusion of this hearing, I think that 

the issues we are dealing with here and the conservation title of 

the farm bill is probably the most powerful and most effective opportunity that we have to truly improve conservation and strengthen our environment in this country. And we can get a win-win out 

of it by working with our landowners as well. 

So with that, I again thank all of you and I will declare this 

hearing concluded. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(33)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 27, 2005

34


27640.001
35


27640.002
36


27640.003
37


27640.004
38


27640.005
39


27640.006
40


27640.007
41


27640.008
42


27640.009
43


27640.010
44


27640.011
45


27640.012
46


27640.013
47


27640.014
48


27640.015
49


27640.016
50


27640.017
51


27640.018
52


27640.019
53


27640.020
54


27640.021
55


27640.022
56


27640.023
57


27640.024
58


27640.025
59


27640.026
60


27640.027
61


27640.028
62


27640.029
63


27640.030
64


27640.031
65


27640.032
66


27640.033
67


27640.034
68


27640.035
69


27640.036
70


27640.037
71


27640.038
72


27640.039
73


27640.040
74


27640.041
75


27640.042
76


27640.043
77


27640.044
78


27640.045
79


27640.046
80


27640.047
81


27640.048
82


27640.049
83


27640.050
84


27640.051
85


27640.052
86


27640.053
87


27640.054
88


27640.055
89


27640.056
90


27640.057
91


27640.058
92


27640.059
93


27640.060
94


27640.061
95


27640.062
96


27640.063
97


27640.064
98


27640.065
99


27640.066
100


27640.067
(101)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JULY 27, 2005

102


27640.068
103


27640.069
104


27640.070
105


27640.071
106


27640.072
107


27640.073
108


27640.074
109


27640.075
110


27640.076
111


27640.077
112


27640.078
113


27640.079
114


27640.080
115


27640.081
116


27640.082
117


27640.083
118


27640.084
119


27640.085
120


27640.086
121


27640.087
122


27640.088
123


27640.089
124


27640.090
125


27640.091
126


27640.092
127

Æ


27640.093