|
Regional
Journalism Project
Cash for CREP going fast By Nancy L. Torner Center for Rural and Regional Studies Text version of this story (Part one of a two-part series) Demand is likely to deplete Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) funding before it expires next September, according to officials who administer the program. About $39.5 million of the allotted $51.4 million in state money already is spoken for, said Kevin Lines, conservation easement section manager with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources in St. Paul. Any future funding depends on future farm bills. "To be honest, I feel we will have spent the money months before the deadline," Lines said. "CREP is one of the best tools we've ever had. But the bottom line is it is only successful because landowners are looking at it and judging it as good for them." Payment levels vary by soil type and county, but land owners average between $1,500 and $2,500 per acre paid over 15 years. The land remains in the family, and taxes typically are reduced, Lines said. Applications totaling about $3.5 million were approved just between July 27 and Aug. 29, Lines said. Federal matching funds also apply to cover the full cost of the program. CREP is a national program that Minnesota is administering only in the Minnesota River basin watershed, which spans 37 counties and consists of roughly 10.5 million acres, 9.9 million of which are in intensive crop conditions, Lines said. Program support comes from two conservation programs: the state's Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM), previously available statewide; and the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which caps participation nationwide at 36.4 million acres. To date, 1,348 easements totaling nearly 54,261 acres are enrolled in CREP. Wetland restoration accounts for nearly 28 percent of the easements and about 43 percent of total acreage. Approximately 99 percent of the acres carry lifetime easements, Lines said. "We're looking at roughly one percent of cropland being enrolled in CREP," Lines said. "But it's significant because it's targeted to riparian and wetland restoration areas. Every single acre we're enrolling is making a difference on that river." Program goals include improving water quality, reducing erosion, and creating fish and wildlife habitat, Lines said. Minnesota was among the first states to submit program applications, Lines said. Only Illinois has enrolled more acres, but Minnesota has enrolled more lifetime easements. "We're looking for a permanent solution to a permanent problem," Lines said. "We're not trying to put a band-aid on this. There's no way to farm these lands without causing significant environmental damage." Minnesota River water testing at the Mankato sediment monitoring station shows a 25 percent reduction in sediment concentrations during average flows between the 1970s and 1990s as a result of other conservation methods, said Jim Klang, senior engineer with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. However, flows in the 1990s were significantly higher. "While we're making good progress in the Minnesota basin as evidenced by our sediment monitoring and our trend comparison, it shows that much more load is actually being delivered because of these larger flows," Klang said. A current evaluation has not been done that takes into account CREP, one of the few management practices addressing larger flow events, Klang said. However, because enrollment is first come, first served, CREP easements aren't always targeting the most sensitive areas, he said. "If you put a wetland at the mouth of the Redwood River it has to be a large complex to not be blown away by the Redwood River," Klang said. "But if you put it up into some of the tributaries that feed the Redwood River, then you're talking about a reasonable size that can actually be effective. "It's a very complex system out there, where you have many factors that any one of those, if they're pulled in a direction, tend to pull the rest of the parameters like a spider web would pull. I think the beauty of a program like CREP is that it includes wetlands, which are a very necessary component for buffering the hydrology and the upland delivery of the sediment and nitrogen delivery." Some farmers who enrolled acres earlier in either RIM or CRP wish they had waited because CREP payments are considerably better, said Tom Warner, a CREP specialist with the Chippewa County Soil and Water Conservation District. However, farmers who wait for something even better stand to loose their cropping history as a result of flooding. To qualify, land must have been farmed for two of the previous five years. "You've always got speculators out there," Warner said. "I think this is the program of the time right now. But again, who's to say if there will be something bigger and better, or if this is the last hurrah?" Jamie Thomazin, a conservationist with the Yellow Medicine Soil and Water Conservation District who took a river boat ride last summer to look at the Minnesota River said that the water looked like chocolate milk pouring into the Mississippi River. CREP is unlikely to make a drastic change in the look of the river, but improvements invisible to the naked eye exist. "It's a tough decision," Thomazin said. "It's permanent, and after 15 years there's really no more income generated off the land, and it's going to be taxed." However, as the deadline looms, increasing numbers of farmers are seeking program information, Thomazin said. The decision often is philosophical, said Tabor Hoek, board conservationist with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources in Marshall. "Many farms are a century or more old," Hoek said. "For some, it's nostalgia. But it's not the same prairie their ancestors began farming." A minimum of 377,000 tillable acres exist within 150 feet of a stream, river or ditch, Hoek said. About 20 percent of this land is now buffered, but lakes and wetlands also need buffering. "Being satisfied with 20 percent is falling short of what it's going to take to start cleaning up our rivers in a significant way," Hoek said.
ABOUT
US | ACTIVITIES
| NEWS
| RESEARCH
| TEACHING
| CONFERENCES
| LECTURES
PUBLICATIONS | FELLOWSHIPS | HISTORY CENTER | SEARCH | LINKS
Last updated: February 1, 2006
|
