The CRP has decreased cropland erosion, improved water quality, and increased land values and wildlife benefits. Negative effects include some noxious weed problems and business fluctuations in some agriculturally dependent communities. Studies found that the program could have been more cost-effective if the bid process had been more competitive and if more environmentally sensitive lands had been enrolled. The USDA states that CRP benefits have exceeded its costs. All support a CRP renewal.
Groups recommend different levels of acreage enrollment.
All favor multiple targeting. A majority favors economic land use options, of which haying and grazing is the most controversial. All support more localized control of the program. The current program will be renewed, terminated, or modified. Erosion control, water quality, and wildlife benefits would increase.