With a new Congress and some initial attention to the next farm bill, it is a good time to explore some of the significant policy issues and questions for the coming debate. As mentioned in a previous overview of the ag policy and farm bill outlook, there are a number of issues on the agenda for the next farm bill, including the spending on farm vs. food programs, Agricultural Risk Coverage program changes, cotton supports, dairy program reforms and Conservation Reserve Program enrollment caps.

A look today at CRP provides some understanding of the history and current setting for the program, as well as the outlook and policy choices ahead. CRP dates to the 1985 Farm Bill, although a predecessor program called the Soil Bank dates to the 1950s. The primary focus of the 1985 Farm Bill was the 1980s farm crisis and a glut of farm production and low prices, but the bill was also a watershed moment in terms of conversation with cross-compliance or conservation compliance programs and the CRP both included in the legislation. At the time, the idea of setting aside several million acres of highly erodible cropland from crop production into conservation uses likely was seen more as a supply control and price support effort than as a conservation effort, but the program did have solid stakeholder support from both the agricultural and environmental sectors.

Interest from producers was strong from the beginning, as enrolling marginal or highly erodible acres in CRP for a 10-year contract of annual rental payments was attractive compared to market prices and potential crop returns at the time. The program quickly grew to be the biggest conservation program in terms of acreage and dollars, reaching an enrollment of more than 36 million acres and annual payments to producers of more than $1.8 billion by 2007.

CRP’s focus changes
Over time, CRP’s focus has become less an acreage set-aside program and more a conservation program producing environmental benefits. While producers initially bid acres competitively into CRP through a general enrollment process, the addition of a continuous CRP enrollment option for high-priority lands and practices provides a mechanism to target and incentivize specific conservation efforts and outcomes. Today's CRP provides not just reduced wind and water erosion, but also reduced nutrient runoff and improved water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, and other measurable environmental benefits.

The interest in the general enrollment of whole fields or large tracts into CRP seems to largely mirror ag prices and crop profitability expectations. CRP enrollment grew through 2007, but then began to shrink. The continuous CRP enrollment for small, high-priority tracts grew steadily over time, but strong crop prices encouraged producers to pull out expiring acres and bid fewer new acres through the program's general enrollment provisions.

As enrollment fell, Congress reduced the enrollment cap in the CRP from 39 million acres to 32 million acres in the 2007 Farm Bill and to 24 million acres in the 2014 Farm Bill. The lower caps followed the declining enrollment as opposed to driving it, but the reduced enrollment limits did count as budget savings when both farm bills were completed.

With current lower crop prices, there is renewed interest in enrolling acres and expanding CRP, but there is now little opportunity for doing so under the current, lower cap. Enrollment as of October stood at 23.5 million acres, just under the 24 million-acre cap (although spending on annual rental payments remains around $1.8 billion due to higher rental rates, particularly on continuous CRP acres). There is not even enough room under the cap at present to meet the annual demand for enrolling new acres under the continuous CRP enrollment provisions acres.

CRP in next farm bill
The current situation leaves some difficult choices and challenges for policymakers and stakeholders in the next farm bill, from expanding the CRP to encouraging reduced general enrollment to make room for more continuous CRP enrollment.

There is definitely some interest in expanding the enrollment cap under the next farm bill. Many agricultural groups see a larger CRP as a relief on current production and supply challenges. There is also strong support from several environmental groups, including the "hook and bullet" groups that value the wildlife sporting opportunities provided by the CRP. But a larger enrollment cap comes with a substantial cost. At current average rental rates of about $75 per acre nationally, each million-acre increase in enrollment costs about $750 million over the 10-year budget horizon for the next farm bill. Coming up with that funding could be very difficult, pitting a fight against recent growth in other conservation programs (such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program) or against farm income safety net programs, including commodity programs and crop insurance.

Changing priorities
Alternatively, the policy choice may be to encourage less general enrollment in CRP to create more room for the high-priority continuous CRP enrollment that has been judged to provide greater per acre benefits. This is already happening, as the most recent general CRP enrollment period during 2016 accepted only about 400,000 new acres, although a total of 1.7 million acres in the CRP expired during 2016. In addition, USDA recently announced an early expiration option for landowners to withdraw some of the least environmentally sensitive land in the CRP as part of an initiative to encourage farmland transition to the next generation of agricultural producers. Both moves will create more room for the continued growth of enrollment under the continuous CRP provisions and may be the only alternatives available pending any increase in the enrollment cap.

Remember that the development of the next farm bill is just getting underway, so CRP’s fate is far from being settled. However, it does seem to be a clear choice and trade-off between finding more funding for a larger CRP or watching the general enrollment in the CRP continue to shrink so that the continuous CRP acreage can continue to grow with demand. Other alternatives and reforms could be proposed before the process is complete. But like numerous policy issues ahead in the farm bill debate, some difficult challenges need to be addressed.

Lubben is an Extension policy specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.