# Hey Minnesota Boys!!



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Committee supports CREP plan
By Don Davis 
[email protected]
The Forum - 02/19/2004

ST. PAUL -- A plan to remove 100,000 acres from cropland -- including 42,500 in the Red River basin -- appears ready to advance in the Minnesota Legislature. *Federal funding is not likely, however, until two congressmen get on board.*

The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Wednesday favored the state spending up to $46 million over four years for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed.

The program is meant to prevent erosion, slow flooding and reduce water pollution by taking land out of crop production.

However, Sen. Rod Skoe said the measure that he carries in the Senate faces more trouble in Washington than St. Paul.

*U.S. Reps. Collin Peterson, a Democrat, and Gil Gutknecht, a Republican, oppose the proposal. *

The two Minnesota congressmen appear to have put a hold on the Pawlenty plan, which requires $180 million of federal money.

Their main concern is that Pawlenty encourages some farmland to be permanently removed from production.

Peterson has said he favors allowing farmers to pick the length of an easement. Peterson predicts if the easement provision is not changed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture will reject the state application.

Skoe, DFL-Clearbrook, said a lot of conservation work can be accomplished without permanent easements. Pawlenty has not been willing to change from his proposal that would offer either 50-year or permanent easements.

The major idea of CREP is to pay farmers for easements so grassy areas can act as buffer strips between cropland and bodies of water. Of the Red River basin's 42,500 acres in CREP, 25,500 would be for the buffer. The other 17,000 acres would be used as wetlands wildlife habitat.

"In the end, the water is cleaner and wildlife is more abundant," Skoe said.

Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, added that CREP would decrease Red River basin flooding.

In the Senate committee, two farm organizations that don't often agree took the same side -- against permanent easements.

"Forever is forever," said Doug Peterson, president of the Minnesota Farmers Union.

"The ag community wants a well-designed CREP program that does not rely on long-term and-or permanent land easements," added the Farm Bureau's Duane Alberts.

Kevin Scheidecker, coordinator of the Moorhead-based Red River Basin Commission, said the program targets only marginal land that should not be used to grow crops.

The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy's Henry Van Offelen of Detroit Lakes said planned northwest Minnesota projects could proceed if CREP is approved. Conservation problems "are not going to go away," he said.

Readers can reach Forum reporter Don Davis at (651) 290-0707
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So our buddies in Minnnesota have a golden opportunity to straighten out two congressmen. Will you do it for your own state? Hats off to *your* governor! A governor who seems to care about the resource. Wish it was contagious. :wink:

© 2004 Forum Communications Co., Fargo, ND, 58102, All rights reserved


----------



## DuckBuster (Mar 18, 2003)

Dick- Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I could think of 42,000 acres better utilized for MN hunters than the red river valley. A few ducks, a few chickens, and very few pheasants may benefit by the set aside. Marginal return for any good hunting $ investment. Those RR cats never had a problem with the silt so far.

Let's get CREP or CRP for the southern 1/3 of MN in prime pheasant or waterfowl wetland areas.

MN rejected the PLOTS idea in favor of purchasing land. Problem is about 35% of the acquired land is poor hunting, poor habitat, poor access, or a combination of the above.

I say put that 100K acres into walk-in access hunting and you will gather the support needed to pass.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

ph, the article does not mention the other areas of interest in MN, namely in the SW & SE. I was unable to copy the map, but it takes in far more than the Valley. That plan really needs the support of MN outdoorsmen. Any Minnesota resident that lets this opportunity slip away has nothing to say to anyone else about conservation. Does your MWF actively support it?Are you a member? And if not, why not?

edit update, CREP proposal:
42,500 acres in northern Red River *drainage*, (this reaches far to the east to Red Lake).
15,000 acres in extreme SW MN
42,500 acres in extreme SE MN

http://www.gil.house.gov/contact/formemail.htm
http://collinpeterson.house.gov/email.html
Those two addresses should put you in touch with your boys.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

PH,
I think you are missing the point here. The primary intention of the land retirement in the Red River Valley is to benefit the health of the watershed. Any wildlife benefits are secondary. I see this as a good start. If we start to restore some of the many destroyed watersheds in MN (everywhere really) wildlife populations will surely be quick to respond. However, their presence is just an indicator of the health of the system. Which is the big picture we will need to look at more closely if we want qood stable wildlife populations and quality air and water. Besides, continued watershed restoration will insure that I will have a career if I ever get out of school. 

RC


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Yup, good ol "Colon" Peterson and GG seem to want to only have conservation easements only when commodity prices are low. However, when it becomes profitable to farm some of that marginal land that would be set aside for conservation easements, then they would want to convert it back to farm land. Saaaaaad argument! They are saying that they only want "part time" conservation.

Minnesotans, where ever they live, should contact the two congressmen and tell them to support CREP for permanent and lasting conservation.

P.S. Why does "Colon" hunt with Tony Dean and then not support permanent conservation. Tony, you have to cut this guy loose. Don't ever hunt with him again.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

The otherside of the coin:

1) Any acres set aside for conservation is less land farmed. Fewer working farmers, less grain through the elevators, closing rail spurs because of lack of volume, lost business by the implemment dealers, etc...

2) Cargill and ADM take a cut or two from every bushel of grain moved. Does not matter if price is high or low, they always take their cut.

3) Anyone know how much these MN congressmen received from Cargill or ADM. ND congressmen for that matter?

Dick: I am not so sure MN has a larger Generic Wildlife association, but has many "individual" associations and active chapters of national "animal to be named" groups. I am a member in about 1/2 dozen of these state and/or national groups and active in two (one bird, one dog).

Robert: I grew up in the valley. 42K acres has absolutely no impact on the overall river system - unless it is located on the tributaries. The valley is flat for many miles on either side of the river (ND and MN). A lot of silt is headed into the river no matter what.

The current quality of the fishery in ND/MN (cats) and in Manitoba (cats and eyes) may indicate that this effort is not needed.

Now if the original proposal of a scenic riverway with access points and parks were to be proposed ... go for it and support it, but private non accessable land via CREP or CRP in the valley ... not enough birds produced to make it worth while. ND and MN has better places to put their money and get bigger returns.

I ramble on - my points taken?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

PH, geeeeze man, you'd get an ice cream cone in July and complain it gave you a headache when you ate it too fast. Good god, the glass has to be half full at least once in a while 

I've got to go with Robert on this one - it's all about leverage. Would MN, in today's budget circumstance, allocate $46MM to better hunting and habitat alone? Probably not. Multi-task with environmental or something else and maybe you get enough support, or perhaps more important, get past the opposition.

This easement length debate has always baffled me. ND has a 99 year limit on easements (all - very scary), and a bill was defeated last session that would have permitted longer easements for purposes very similar to the current MN proposal - river buffers. It was opposed by NDFB and most of the "land" groups (don't know about FU). The main rationale? That longer easements are an infringement on a landowner's right of alienation. Huh? Isn't it the ultimate form of alienability for a landowner to decide how long of an easement he/she wishes to grant? It seems inconsistant to oppose a restriction on alienation by supporting a limit on how much any one person can alienate their real property. In MN, landowner doesn't like Pawlenty's length, don't sign up.

Think this one is worth a quick email of support to the opposers - see Dick's earlier post for the email addresses - take you 3 minutes, tops.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Your point is well taken but how long do you think that landowner is going to live? The 'alienation' of rights argument isn't meant for the person who enrolls it but for future owners. Yes future owners would be aware of it when they purchase the land but what if 50 years from now there are better more efficient options for conservation of that land? It would be stuck in the program forever. Besides, isn't CREP a one time payment to the current owner? (correct me there if I'm wrong) And even if it's not, you would have to pay me one heck of a lot of money to get that enrolled permanently.

People don't want to be told what they have to do with their land. They want options. This program doesn't allow for that. From a conservation standpoint a permanent easment sounds like a great idea. But from a personal standpoint of a landowner I'd have to think long and hard before I would consider enrolling in it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm not sure why but the old timers say never sign an easement.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

USFWS, NDGF, MDNR or for that matter Excel Energy like long-term easements because: (a) getting the easement (the admin time and effort in making the arrangements) is expensive and a hassel, and (b) when an investment is made, you want to actually get something for it and be able to amortize infrastructure costs and admin expenses. Too short of easement lengths, and too much of the programs dollars get used for admin as opposed to acres.

The length of the easement usually affects price. Long term easements, that greatly impair otherwise highest and best use (in this case tilling), are normally valued at something very close to full FMV. The price/length has to work out in the economics of the deal. The shorter the easement the lesser the price. It would be nice to see this and other programs offer different payment levels (as a percentage of FMV) for different lengths, but with a minimum length so that setup and admin costs are reasonably recouped.

A long term easement from what I know of the CREP program is a pretty good application. Since these will likely be irregular shaped parcels along rivers and tributaries, the easement format allows landowners to maintain ownership of more normal shaped parcels. Since it's an easement as opposed to a fee grant, it also allows the landowners continued access to the water.

One-time payment is neither here nor there to anything, so long as the level of payment matches the easement duration. A one-time payment for an easement has the effect on the value of that parcel the same as harvesting timber on a wooded parcel. Once you've done it, can't be done again for a while, and the one who created the easement and was paid must recognize that a later sales price will be lower - just got paid some of the value earlier.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

No just can not support this one. Money spent just for the sake of money spent is never a good idea. I would hate to see this one hang us for future better appropriations.

The MN DNR fought for some con-con lands a few years ago and much of this land was in the Red Lake / northern RR valley area. This one was supported pretty heavily by MN sportsman.

Dick: IMO the two most politically active wildlife organizations in MN are/were the MDHA and MWA. The Minnesota Deer Hunter Association is good at lobbying wildlife issues beyond what their title infers. They may be the best voice for MN sportsman right now.

Minnesota Waterfowl Assoc is in a bind right now due to board member ethics, etc... Not sure if they will recover.

I belong to neither, but maybe I should consider the MDHA.


----------

