Wheat Life reached out to Patrick Bell, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) state executive director, to ask him about growers’ concerns with the Conservation Reserve Program. These are the written answers Bell provided.
As rental rates continue to decrease in Eastern Washington, CRP is becoming less attractive to growers. What factors are causing rental rates to decrease, and is there anything the state FSA can do about it?
FSA periodically reviews and updates CRP soil rental rates to ensure that CRP payment rates are set at an amount that encourages enrollment of eligible land but does not adversely impact the cropland rental market.
The rate process is informed by National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cash-rent survey data. If this data is not available, provisional rates are established using the six closest counties with available NASS rates. The FSA state committees can provide alternative rates for review and approval if supporting justification can be provided. We actively look at these rates and make supported justifications with valuable input received from our local county committees and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) partners. It is important to note that market dynamics — crop prices, input costs, and land demand — also influence cash-rent market trends, which feed into CRP soil rental rate calculations.
Overall, the single most important thing individual producers can do to ensure soil rental rates are accurate is to complete their annual NASS surveys and encourage neighboring producers in their county to do so as well.
For many growers in the less-than-12” rainfall zone, the 24-month seeding limit is not conducive to establishing a successful stand. Why can’t the contracts take local conditions into consideration?
Standard CRP contracts require seeding within 12 months, but up to 24 months can be granted if certain criteria are met on a case-by-case basis. These limits were implemented to accelerate stand establishment.
Under USDA national policy 7 CFR 1410.20, producers must comply with contract terms — including establishment timelines — which are uniform nationwide, with only limited flexibility at state or county level. These rules ensure consistency and fairness across the country, but they don’t always reflect the realities of extremely dry environments.
Acknowledging the feedback producers have shared regarding the challenges our stand establishment limits have created in arid parts of Eastern Washington, I am committed to opening further, proactive dialogue with FSA and USDA leadership and to providing constructive, field-based feedback that could support more flexible standards in the future.
Growers in the less-than-12” rainfall zone, specifically in the Horse Heaven Hills, have issues meeting stand count requirements. Again, why can’t the CRP contracts take local conditions into consideration when setting requirements?
We understand the challenges low precipitation poses for our state’s producers. Producers in the Horse Heaven Hills area, with an average of 6–9” annual precipitation, probably have some of the toughest stand establishment challenges anywhere in the region.
As with seeding timelines, stand count and density requirements are standardized across CRP contracts, as NRCS and FSA apply national technical criteria using USDA’s Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). While state-level adaptation is limited unless explicitly provided for in national regulations, I am working with my counterpart here in Washington at the Natural Resources Conservation Service, our sister agency, to identify ways we might be able to tailor the seeding timeline and density issues producers are facing in our especially arid climates.
How are cost share payments calculated? What factors might decrease cost share payments?
CRP cost share reimburses up to 50% of eligible establishment costs, based on either actual expenses or USDA’s established allowable costs, whichever is lower.
If actual costs come in higher than the cost share maximum allowable amount for that practice or component, the reimbursement cannot exceed 50% of the allowable cost, not the producer’s full cost.
WAWG supports making CRP a more regional program, rather than a one-size-fits-all program. Where does that effort begin, and how can WAWG members help?
One of the most helpful things WAWG and its members can provide is local data and examples, as Chris Herron and others have done. In my view, this only strengthens WAWG’s case, whether it be in farm bill advocacy, engaging with elected officials, or making proposals for policy flexibilities to FSA at the state and national levels.
You recently met with growers to discuss CRP. What did you take away from that meeting?
What stood out most was the willingness of producers to speak candidly about where CRP works well for them, and where the program may not be meeting their needs. While providing feedback and expressing concerns, they also offered practical ideas for program improvement. I left the meeting encouraged that we can make progress, by working together to address some of the thornier issues that have crept up in some regions of the state.
Serving as the FSA state executive director, I think it’s fundamental in this role that I make producers’ concerns, my concerns. That means listening, learning, and going to work to get results on their behalf. Probably my biggest single takeaway is that producers are passionate about the program. I heard a lot of proposals on ways to improve it by trying to tailor it to local needs to the extent it can be.
As I mentioned previously, I am actively working with NRCS leadership to identify ways we can collaborate on improvements to our service delivery for producers who sign up for CRP, as well as proactively explore, in consultation with national office leadership, opportunities for policy flexibilities to address local concerns.
I do want to also encourage continued producer engagement, through the grassroots county committee process, in regional producer meetings, and during CRP sign-ups, to ensure FSA remains responsive and informed to local needs and concerns.
Anything else you’d like to add about CRP?
For 40 years, CRP has been USDA’s flagship conservation program, and we want to keep it that way for another 40 years. Many producers right here in Washington state helped lead the charge to establish the program. I’m encouraged producers are now focused on ways to further improve the program, and I am also encouraged by the depth of knowledge and experience we have at our disposal, from producers, our state FSA team, and our partners at NRCS.
For my part, I’m committed to continuing to collaborate with NRCS, WAWG, and our national FSA office to explore strategies that will produce results.
