| By encouraging intensive production of major crops, previous U.S. agricultural policies have promoted commodity surpluses and excessive soil erosion. The Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA) addressed these problems by making achievement of soil conservation standards a precondition for receiving government farm program benefits.;To assess the economics of soil conservation in the eastern Washington Palouse, a zero-one mixed integer linear programming model incorporating the commodity and conservation provisions of the FSA was developed. Modeling results showed that without the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and conservation compliance, no highly erodible land would be retired in the Palouse. With the current $60/ac CRP erodible land retirement was not profitable in the eastern sub-region, but 20.1 and 50.4 percent of the qualified acreage, respectively, in the central and western subregions would be profitably retired. When FSA conservation compliance was enforced at the 1-2T in combination with $60 CRP, erodible land retirement increased to 20.0 and 33.2 percent in the eastern and central subregions, respectively. CRP and 1-2T conservation compliance reduced net incomes of farmers in the eastern subregion by 10.2 percent, but increased incomes by 3.7 to 34.1 percent, respectively, in the central and western subregions. The policies saved taxpayers $6.02, $9.83 and $10.92/ac in deficiency payments but these gains were offset by $10.49, $16.65 and $25.00/ac CRP expenses in the eastern, central, and western regions, respectively.;Assuming a 1-2T conservation standard, cost-effective policies in the eastern subregion included combined $60 CRP plus $20/ac no-till cost share and combined $60 CRP plus $11.41/ac set-aside grass subsidies. The respective costs per ton of soil saved for these policies were $2.15 and $1.13 borne by taxpayers and $0.19 and $1.21 borne by farmers. In the central subregion the most cost-effective policies were the $40 CRP, and the combined $40 CRP plus $10/ac no-till plus $20/ac set-aside grass subsidies, each of which cost the taxpayer $1.13/ton of soil saved. In the western subregion, the farmer received a subsidy under all policy alternatives. At $1.55/ton, the $40 CRP was the least-expensive option for the taxpayer. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.). |
