FARM BILL
NGFA’s farm bill priorities are focused on agricultural economic growth. The certainty that a farm bill provides to our industry’s farmer-customers, including preserving a strong federal crop insurance program, is extremely important.
Crop insurance is a safety net that is becoming increasingly vital to stability in rural America. NGFA urges Congress to once again protect crop insurance from harmful cuts. NGFA, along with U.S. producers, agribusinesses and farm-state lawmakers, recognize crop insurance as a linchpin of the farm safety net and as crucial to the economic and food and fiber security of urban and rural America.
NGFA also continues its efforts to preserve market-driven commodity programs in the farm bill. Historically, when government commodity programs encourage planting that is inconsistent with market demand, it negatively affects markets, international trade relationships and the agriculture industry as a whole.
Finally, conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) help producers enhance natural resources and improve their business operations. Prioritizing these working lands conservation programs promotes sustainability, combats climate change and keeps U.S. agriculture competitive.
NGFA’s Farm Bill Priorities
1) Congress should increase investments in working lands conservation programs and ensure the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prioritizes EQIP and CSP.
2) USDA conservation programs should target the most environmentally sensitive portions of farms.
3) The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage cap should not be increased from 27 million acres.
4) Congress should build on the positive CRP rental rate reforms in the 2018 farm bill to prevent the federal government from competing against socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers for land.
5) The underutilized Transition Incentives Program (TIP) which transitions expiring CRP acres to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers should be improved.
The 2018 farm law included several Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) reforms that the NGFA supported throughout the legislative process, including reducing rental rates to provide a market-based disincentive to enrolling productive cropland. The NGFA believes the CRP should be targeted at the most environmentally sensitive portions of farms and avoid enrollment of whole farms or large tracts of productive farmland. The NGFA also notes that many of rural America’s local economies are driven by agricultural production. Enrolling whole farms in CRP detracts from the economic viability of those local economies.
Click on the counties below to see how a more targeted CRP program could help local economies.
Even though half of the land in Baca County, Colorado, is dedicated to native pasture and grassland, the next largest chunk of land in the county is idled in the government’s conservation program — the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
Read more about CRP in Baca County.
If CRP operated as a working lands program that truly targeted the most environmentally sensitive land, Brown County would be allowed to reap the full economic benefits of its productive farmland while also conserving natural resources.
Read more about CRP in Brown County
The NGFA advocates for conservation practices that improve the resources needed for an agricultural economy to thrive – principally, soil and water. However, none of the CRP acres in Dawson County are maintained with practices mean to directly improve soil and water quality. In 2016, all 92,900 acres of CRP land in the county were idled primarily for wildlife habitat.
Read more about CRP in Dawson County.
Some CRP acres in Huron County have the potential to generate substantial economic activity, but are being idled in the USDA program. The government paid $136 for an acre in CRP in 2016, but an acre planted to corn in Huron County had the potential to generate $1,146 of economic activity (including expenses and revenue).
Read more about CRP in Huron County.
CRP’s intended purpose is to pay farmers to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production. When whole farms are enrolled in CRP as in Kittson County, the local economy suffers and productive farmland – which could be enhanced with targeted conservation practices – is wasted.
Read more about CRP in Kittson County.
Even though CRP acres contribute far less to the local economy, in 2015, more than 164,000 acres in the country were idled in CRP.
Read more about CRP in Lincoln County.
For the 3,000 people in Ness County, Kansas, wheat and sorghum farming is the top economic driver and the backbone of the community.
Read more about CRP in Ness County.
Some CRP acres in Starke County have the potential to generate substantial economic activity, but are being idled in the USDA program. The government paid $161 for an acre in CRP in 2016, but an acre planted to corn in Starke County had the potential to generate $1,283 of economic activity (including expenses and revenue).
Read more about CRP in Starke County.
Some CRP acres in Union County have the potential to generate substantial economic activity, but are being idled in the USDA program. The government paid $95 for an acre in CRP in 2016, but an acre planted to corn in Union County had the potential to generate $1,283 of economic activity (including expenses and revenue).
Read more about CRP in Union County.
In Wayne County, Iowa, one acre of corn cropland can generate $1,342 of economic activity for the area. In 2015, the more than 64,000 acres of corn in the county resulted in $86 million of direct economic activity. In contrast, one acre of land in the Conservation Reserve Program generated $113 that year.
Read more about CRP in Wayne County.
Recent articles, press releases and issue advisories on agricultural policy.