Conservation program shrinks for energy aims

WOODLAND, Calif. – Over the past two decades, the federal government has built the nation’s largest conservation program for private lands by spending billions of dollars to encourage farmers to protect land that is prone to erosion and important to wildlife.

Now the Conservation Reserve Program is about to shrink by millions of acres as part of the Bush administration’s plans for stimulating corn production for ethanol and reducing dependence on foreign oil.

Federal agricultural officials recently suspended new enrollments in the program for at least a year. They also have been considering releasing farmers and ranchers from existing contracts that protect land already in the program, although it is unlikely they will do that this year.

The suspension of new enrollments comes as many California landowners feel increasing pressure to leave the conservation program and convert their property to more lucrative crops or building.

The $2 billion-per-year federal program pays owners not to cultivate land that is prone to erosion, marginal for farming or significant for wildlife habitat.

About 37 million acres of private land are enrolled – more than the total acreage of the national wildlife refuge system in the lower 48 states. But U.S. Department of Agriculture officials expect the program to decline by several million acres within the next few years as existing contracts expire.

Conservation groups say the administration’s strategy is counterproductive. “Most of this land was enrolled because it is highly erodible or very environmentally sensitive,” said Terry Riley, vice president of policy at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “So why on Earth would we be encouraging people to get out of the program and put it into production, which encourages more runoff, fertilizer and pesticides?”

Moreover, conservationists contend that opening protected lands for corn production does not make sense because much of it is not suited for that crop. “What are we trying to accomplish here?” said Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, farm bill coordinator for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

In its proposed alternative fuel rules, the Environmental Protection Agency said last September that raising corn on conservation lands that are erosion prone, steep or near lakes and streams posed risks to water quality.

Federal officials in California say most of the 150,000 acres of the state’s enrolled land is steep, not irrigated and ill-suited for corn.

USDA officials acknowledge that not all land in the program will be appropriate for corn production – and they say they will take steps to protect the most environmentally sensitive places.

“There is a very difficult balancing act that has to be played out over the next couple of years to adjust to this biofuels boom,” said Keith Collins, USDA’s chief economist. “If thought of as a seesaw, one seat would be historically tight crop markets, with ethanol driving tightness in corn. … On the other seat would be the environmental benefits of the (program), which are considerable.”