CREP reform would require drought agreements, adjust payments

Summary#

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Improvement Act of 2025 would amend the Food Security Act of 1985, which contains the existing Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Its stated purpose is to modify that program; the bill is not law and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.

  • It would change the Secretary’s authority to enter the drought and water conservation agreements described in the law from “may” to “shall,” making it a duty within the terms of that provision.
  • It would specify that covered agricultural land can include land kept in continuous crops or crop rotation, and add dryland agricultural uses and grazing as examples of appropriate practices.
  • It would require certain agreements to follow a conservation plan adopted for the land.
  • It would let an owner or operator choose how annual payments are allocated among the agreement’s years. For certain agreements, it would set payment rates using irrigated-acre rates, or the difference between irrigated- and dryland-acre rates.
  • It would require retroactive rate changes for certain existing agreements when their current rate is lower than the new calculation, and exempt CREP rental payments from the Act’s payment limitation.
  • The program would remain under the Secretary; the bill creates no new agency.

What it means for you#

  • Owners and operators: You could choose how annual payments are spread across agreement years. Certain drought and water conservation agreements would use the specified irrigated-acre or rate-difference calculations. Some existing agreements would have to be recalculated retroactively.
  • Owners and operators with CREP rental payments: Those payments would no longer count under the payment limitation in the Food Security Act. Other program requirements would still apply.
  • The Secretary administering CREP: The bill would require entry into the subsection (e) agreements, rather than leave it as a choice. The exact limits on that duty depend on the full existing provision, which is not supplied.
  • The public: The bill does not create a new front-line service, tax, or fine.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated cost.

  • The bill would require the Secretary to enter the specified agreements and would require some payment-rate adjustments, including for certain existing agreements.
  • It does not provide a spending estimate, staffing estimate, or limit on the added costs.
  • Exempting CREP rental payments from the payment limitation could allow payments that would otherwise be restricted by that limit. The bill does not estimate the effect.

What is unclear#

  • The current text of the Food Security Act provision is not supplied, so the full existing agreement rules—and the precise scope of the new “shall” duty—could not be verified.
  • The bill does not set out application steps, decision deadlines, appeals, or reporting rules. Existing law may address some of these, but that could not be checked.
  • It does not state how many agreements or acres would be affected, or how much the payment changes and payment-limit exemption would cost.
  • The bill gives no start date or separate rules for putting these changes into effect.
  • The bill does not define “other appropriate practices” in the text provided.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to make drought and water conservation agreements available as a required part of the program, rather than leave entry into them to the Secretary’s discretion.
  • It could give landowners and operators more payment flexibility by letting them choose how annual payments are allocated across agreement years.
  • The specified rates may better reflect the difference between irrigated and dryland uses, while paying irrigated-acre rates when water rights are permanently retired.
  • Naming dryland uses, grazing, and land in continuous crops or crop rotation could give the program more ways to cover working agricultural land.

Case against#

  • Requiring the Secretary to enter agreements could increase program commitments, but the bill provides no cost estimate or staffing plan.
  • Removing CREP rental payments from the payment limitation could permit larger payments than the limit would otherwise allow. The bill does not explain the scale of that effect.
  • The bill changes payment rules, including for some existing agreements, without estimating the resulting retroactive costs.
  • Adding dryland uses and grazing may create a trade-off between keeping land in agricultural use and meeting conservation aims. The bill does not specify how that balance would be assessed.