Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8592

Bill Overview

Title: GRAIN for America Act

Description: GRAIN for America Act This bill establishes a one-year moratorium on the enrollment of land in the Conservation Reserve Program, with a specified exception for land that is already subject to a contract under the program. It also prohibits the Department of Agriculture from enrolling prime farmland in the program. Additionally, the bill allows a participant who has entered into a contract under the program to terminate the contract at any time during the one-year period preceding the date on which the contact would expire.

Sponsors: Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in agriculture in the US, particularly those connected with the Conservation Reserve Program

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Farmer (Iowa)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I was planning to enroll another 30 acres of my land in CRP, but now that's not possible.
  • This change could push me towards more crop production, which might increase my income, but also my workload.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Retired Farmer (Nebraska)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having the option to end my CRP contract early is beneficial as I was considering transitioning my land use.
  • The policy provides flexibility, which I appreciate in planning my retirement finances.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Agriculture Consultant (Kansas)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clients might feel uneasy about not being able to enroll new land into CRP, especially if they were relying on this income.
  • The policy might lead to short-term disruptions in conservation goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Environmental Scientist (California)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The halt in new enrollments might set back conservation efforts during this time.
  • This policy could shift priorities away from environmental goals temporarily.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 6
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 6 8

Soybean Farmer (Illinois)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I feel slightly disappointed as I was considering using some of my land for conservation under CRP to diversify.
  • This change means relying more on crop yields or considering other conservation methods.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 9
Year 20 7 9

Rancher (Texas)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Not having the ability to put more land in CRP affects my long-term conservation goals.
  • The policy allows flexibility should I need to withdraw early, but I wasn't planning to.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 8

CRP Manager (Georgia)

Age: 56 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The moratorium changes the dynamics and workload of managing CRP contracts.
  • Some landowners might need advice on transitioning from CRP to direct production.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 8 9
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Agricultural Economist (Ohio)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Economically, the moratorium might mean more immediate production focus, but it could slow sustainable farming adoption.
  • Long-term financial perspectives can be influenced depending on landowners' decisions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 8 9
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Grain Farmer (Montana)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy doesn't directly affect my operations as I'm not using CRP.
  • I might see indirect impacts through market changes or peer farming strategies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Organic Farmer (North Dakota)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy shift might be temporary but it will disrupt those relying on CRP for newer conservation plans.
  • I'm looking into alternative ways to manage and finance conservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 7 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $-1500000000 (Low: $-2000000000, High: $-1000000000)

Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations