Page 65 - MFB State Annual Meeting 2018 -- RESOLUTIONS BOOK

production/revenue losses and associated disposal and clean-
up costs.
2.2. We oppose livestock producers losing the ability to obtain both PRF
and LFP and continual funding of USDA disaster programs.
3. Business Interruption
3.1. We support USDA providing business interruption payments and the availability of private business interruption insurance to help manage the risks of a Class A animal disease outbreak. 
#235 Conservation Reserve Program (amendment at line 3.13)
1. We support:
1.1. The protection of tenant farmers' rights;
1.2. Reasonable limits on participation to protect the economic stability of
individual counties or regions; and
1.3. Eligibility for Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) enrollment for
highly erodible land producing all crops.
2. Land that is not environmentally sensitive enough to be placed in the
CRP should not be required to have a conservation compliance plan. Land enrolled in CRP should be limited to only those site-specific locations in critical need of conservation measures, such as highly erodible land. In regions where working land conservation programs are better for the rural economy, general whole farm enrollments should be eliminated unless all acres on the farm meet the local criteria for conservation measures. We favor targeted acreage signups that provide enhanced environmental protection, conservation and renewed economic opportunities in these areas.
3. We support:
3.1. The current rule limiting CRP acres to 25 percent of the total
county crop acres including Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and all experimental pilot projects except for small acreage enrolled in continuous CRP. Any waivers in effect when expiring contracts were enrolled should remain in effect, as determined by the appropriate state Farm Service Agency committee;
3.2. Limitations on participation rates so as not to adversely affect local farmland rental rates;
3.3. Producers being allowed to maintain their crop base history on CRP acres as long as the producer has met all contract obligations;
3.4. Tree planting programs for such land;
3.5. Farm land that was enrolled in the old CRP program, planted with
approved grasses, should not be required to be plowed and reseeded. Established grasses should qualify on highly erodible land accepted in the new CRP sign-up;
3.6. Existing grass waterways and buffer strips on land with a three- year crop history should be eligible for continuous CRP sign-up. However, acres enrolled in the continuous CRP should not count against county acreage caps;
3.7. The current CRP rule on length of the rental agreement with farmers continue and that at the end of the 10-year contract the farmer is given the option of bringing the land back into production or bidding it back into the reserve with additional consideration given to the existing CRP enrollee to rebid their established CRP land;
3.8. Benefits to incentivize the leasing or selling of acres under CRP contracts to beginning farmers;
3.9. Cost-share options should be approved to accelerate conservation structure installation in the year prior to CRP contract expiration;
3.10. Provisions should allow an additional 5 to 10-year extension;
3.11. CRP contracts should be allowed to remain as written. There
should be no additional restrictions put on the use of the land when
it comes out of the long-range CRP;
3.12. Compensation for land removed from production to provide water
quality protection. Such land should be eligible for CRP. Producers receiving CRP payments should not be allowed to produce nontraditional crops (biomass) on CRP acres because it provides
AFBF Policies – Page 9