The recent compromise agreement regarding the federal Conservation Reserve Enhan-cement Program (CREP) is good news for farmers and wildlife enthusiasts alike. While neither side got everything it wanted, I believe in the end all parties will benefit. Under the compromise deal struck by Governor Tim Pawlenty and U.S. Representatives Gil Gutknecht and Collin Peterson, the number of acres idled will increase to 120,000 – up from 100,000 in the original proposal. However, in a move that acknowledges concerns in the farm community, permanent easements will be limited to 24,000 acres for wetlands restoration and 5,000 acres for flood mitigation. The remaining 45,000 acres will be set aside for up to 45 years. The good news for environmental groups and wildlife enthusiasts is that the compromise will allow the state to proceed with the next round of CREP. This means more improvements in water quality and stronger waterfowl populations. The good news for farmers is that they can rest assured that they will not be forced to accept permanent easements, which some feared might harm the long-term health of our agricultural production sector. During the months of discussion and debate leading up to these compromises, not everyone understood or appreciated the farm community’s concerns with the original proposal and its greater use of permanent easements. However, the concerns were a bit more understandable if you look at it from the farmers’ perspective. This latest CREP proposal came on the heels of a previous round of CREP in which some farmers came away frustrated that permanent easements had been too heavily pushed. They felt that permanently idling large portions of tillable acreage in a region weakens the agriculture industry in that area and gives local producers less flexibility to adapt to changes down the road. Furthermore, they argued, idling large portions of the state’s farm land could hurt small-town businesses supported by agriculture. With fewer farmers growing fewer crops and buying fewer implements, the economic balance of the area could be significantly altered. This has the potential of further stressing the already-struggling economies of rural Minnesota communities. I understand farmers’ concerns. At the same time, I firmly believe CREP can play an important role in protecting our state’s natural resources. It would have been a shame if we had been unable to reach a deal and consequently missed out on the opportunity to participate in the federal CREP program. To their credit, Gov. Pawlenty and our congressional delegation came up with a deal that addresses farmers’ concerns while at the same time maintaining the option of permanent easements for the most environmentally sensitive lands. Farmers and conservationists around the state will reap benefits as a result.
