Wilson ind's post on controlling trees in CRP started a lively discussion on CRP. I want to share my thoughts on the issue.
The concept of the public helping to control erosion and encourage wild life is a good one. The real problem is how the current and past program has been administered.
It has a more common name around here is: Grain Farmer retirement Program. The biggest issue I have with all of the so called conservation programs is that they basically short change those that have done the right thing and not caused erosion problems or over production. That usually is the livestock/hay farmer.
Here is the local history of the CRP program. The rental rates around here in the late 1980s where about an $75-90 per acre. So the CRP program came along and the local rate for it was 15-20% higher than the current rental rates. The first contracts around here where for over $100 per acre. So that raised the rental rates for everyone, First strike against it.
Then a real nice thing was it got a bunch of younger farmers thrown off of farms they had been renting. The rules where supposed to protect the renter but they where easy to get around. The owner would just throw the long term renter off the ground. Have the farm custom farmed for one year then sign it up into the CRP program. So many retired farmers would throw the renter off and farm the government. This even prevented the natural selling of the farm at retirement too. Made land not change hands like it usually would. Second strike against it.
Then they started to take whole farms into the program. They also got fast and lose with the HEL rating. There are many farms in CRP that are not HEL. They are many times more flat than mine. You could go into the old Soil Conservation office and get your land rated how you wanted if you pushed the issue. I did not want the ASCS telling me how to run my land so very little of it is rated HEL even with many slopes over 6% grade. So there where many acres in that really resulted in very little erosion gain. Then the real kick in the butt was the guys that plowed fence to fence and caused the grain surplus got the better bids on the ground they abused. The guys that had grass strips and grass head lands where not eligible for the program. So the abusers got treated better than the good guys. Third strike against CRP.
Then they decided that we had too much corn. So they came out with the "Corn Bonus". You bid your ground in for so much an acre. Then you got paid $2.00 per your ASCS yield in a corn bonus. This bonus was paid up front with the first years rent. Remember this was in the mid to late 1980s. Farm land was still struggling to regain the losses of the early 1980s. There where farms around me bought for $700-800 per acre. They then bid them into the CRP. Several got $125 per acre bids then the had ASCS corn yields in the 150 range. So the first year payment was $125 plus $2 x 150/$300 or $450. The government paid for 50% or more of the farm in the first year. I know of very few farmers that where able to buy land then. SO Uncle Sam helped the real estate investors and other rich guys to some cheap land. This added to the fact that renters could be thrown off the land easily meant that the normal land transfer from one generation to the next was stopped/delayed. This is the reason that many guys around fifty years of age don't own much ground. The time period they should have been buying ground was interfered with by the government. This is strike number four( Program has already struck out with me long before this).
The CRP program also made absentee owner ship easier. You could buy the ground and then bid it into the CRP program and then forget it and have a nice steady check come in. Then take county boards that are incompetent( don't want to make anyone mad) to enforce any type of rules on the CRP ground and you have farms that are nothing but weeds and trees. I do mean weeds not grass. There are acres and acres of thistles spread over the country. In the late summer when they are going to seed you can drive west out of Dubuque on Route 52 and it looks like it is snowing with all of the seed blowing around. It is not as bad now because the high rental rates have pulled many acres out of the CRP but it is still an issue.
Another problem with the program is that they have allowed hay to be made off of it too many times. I think it should take a real LOCAL weather problem to allow the ground to be mowed for hay. They have made the owner give back $30 dollars an acre and he would sell the hay for $75-100 per ton. Many made $300-400 per acre. I think this charge was way too cheap. The ASCS/tax payers paid for the grass to be seeded. The ASCS/payers paid the land rental then the majority of the hay income should have gone back to the tax payers that paid the bills. Plus allowing this hay to sell just short changed the guy that was trying to make hay a cash crop. The government just caused his crop to be worth less. Hay fields should be encouraged as they really stop erosion but the CRP actually discourages hay acres by making the hay worth less.
So I think that we do need some type of conservation program. It should not be able to have whole farms bid in to the program anywhere. Lets make the money go to the areas that really have problems. Some counties may not have many acres that would qualify. Make the rules on HEL be scientific and be nationally the same. Lets have more buffer strips along water ways. We need more grass end rows and filter strips. Putting a whole field in when maybe only 10-20% of it is HEL is not good use of tax payer money. Make the bidder have to have had an active roll in the farming of the ground for 5 or more years before he can get 100% of the money. If the owner cashed rented the ground then he should get his cash rent payment then the tenant should get the rest. We need to encourage ownership of land by active farmers. If we don't then we are heading back to a feudal system with the farmers being a mere surf on the gentry's land. That is not what this country was settled for. Well I have ranted on way too long so what do you guys think???
The concept of the public helping to control erosion and encourage wild life is a good one. The real problem is how the current and past program has been administered.
It has a more common name around here is: Grain Farmer retirement Program. The biggest issue I have with all of the so called conservation programs is that they basically short change those that have done the right thing and not caused erosion problems or over production. That usually is the livestock/hay farmer.
Here is the local history of the CRP program. The rental rates around here in the late 1980s where about an $75-90 per acre. So the CRP program came along and the local rate for it was 15-20% higher than the current rental rates. The first contracts around here where for over $100 per acre. So that raised the rental rates for everyone, First strike against it.
Then a real nice thing was it got a bunch of younger farmers thrown off of farms they had been renting. The rules where supposed to protect the renter but they where easy to get around. The owner would just throw the long term renter off the ground. Have the farm custom farmed for one year then sign it up into the CRP program. So many retired farmers would throw the renter off and farm the government. This even prevented the natural selling of the farm at retirement too. Made land not change hands like it usually would. Second strike against it.
Then they started to take whole farms into the program. They also got fast and lose with the HEL rating. There are many farms in CRP that are not HEL. They are many times more flat than mine. You could go into the old Soil Conservation office and get your land rated how you wanted if you pushed the issue. I did not want the ASCS telling me how to run my land so very little of it is rated HEL even with many slopes over 6% grade. So there where many acres in that really resulted in very little erosion gain. Then the real kick in the butt was the guys that plowed fence to fence and caused the grain surplus got the better bids on the ground they abused. The guys that had grass strips and grass head lands where not eligible for the program. So the abusers got treated better than the good guys. Third strike against CRP.
Then they decided that we had too much corn. So they came out with the "Corn Bonus". You bid your ground in for so much an acre. Then you got paid $2.00 per your ASCS yield in a corn bonus. This bonus was paid up front with the first years rent. Remember this was in the mid to late 1980s. Farm land was still struggling to regain the losses of the early 1980s. There where farms around me bought for $700-800 per acre. They then bid them into the CRP. Several got $125 per acre bids then the had ASCS corn yields in the 150 range. So the first year payment was $125 plus $2 x 150/$300 or $450. The government paid for 50% or more of the farm in the first year. I know of very few farmers that where able to buy land then. SO Uncle Sam helped the real estate investors and other rich guys to some cheap land. This added to the fact that renters could be thrown off the land easily meant that the normal land transfer from one generation to the next was stopped/delayed. This is the reason that many guys around fifty years of age don't own much ground. The time period they should have been buying ground was interfered with by the government. This is strike number four( Program has already struck out with me long before this).
The CRP program also made absentee owner ship easier. You could buy the ground and then bid it into the CRP program and then forget it and have a nice steady check come in. Then take county boards that are incompetent( don't want to make anyone mad) to enforce any type of rules on the CRP ground and you have farms that are nothing but weeds and trees. I do mean weeds not grass. There are acres and acres of thistles spread over the country. In the late summer when they are going to seed you can drive west out of Dubuque on Route 52 and it looks like it is snowing with all of the seed blowing around. It is not as bad now because the high rental rates have pulled many acres out of the CRP but it is still an issue.
Another problem with the program is that they have allowed hay to be made off of it too many times. I think it should take a real LOCAL weather problem to allow the ground to be mowed for hay. They have made the owner give back $30 dollars an acre and he would sell the hay for $75-100 per ton. Many made $300-400 per acre. I think this charge was way too cheap. The ASCS/tax payers paid for the grass to be seeded. The ASCS/payers paid the land rental then the majority of the hay income should have gone back to the tax payers that paid the bills. Plus allowing this hay to sell just short changed the guy that was trying to make hay a cash crop. The government just caused his crop to be worth less. Hay fields should be encouraged as they really stop erosion but the CRP actually discourages hay acres by making the hay worth less.
So I think that we do need some type of conservation program. It should not be able to have whole farms bid in to the program anywhere. Lets make the money go to the areas that really have problems. Some counties may not have many acres that would qualify. Make the rules on HEL be scientific and be nationally the same. Lets have more buffer strips along water ways. We need more grass end rows and filter strips. Putting a whole field in when maybe only 10-20% of it is HEL is not good use of tax payer money. Make the bidder have to have had an active roll in the farming of the ground for 5 or more years before he can get 100% of the money. If the owner cashed rented the ground then he should get his cash rent payment then the tenant should get the rest. We need to encourage ownership of land by active farmers. If we don't then we are heading back to a feudal system with the farmers being a mere surf on the gentry's land. That is not what this country was settled for. Well I have ranted on way too long so what do you guys think???
