Impact of the Program on the Economy of the Area 



The more noticeable changes in the Coos County economy relating to 

 the operation of the Program are: 



1. Gross income to the agricultural resources of the county and gross 

 income to all resources of the county do not appear to be appreci- 

 ably changed by the Program. Based on estimates of possible future 

 income, the Conservation Reserve and practice payments appear to 

 compensate for most of the expected loss of agricultural income from 

 enrolled cropland and complementary resources. 



2. The Program induced a change in expenditure patterns influencing 

 different segments of the nonagricultural economy. By shifting re- 

 sources out of agricultural production, the Program decreased the 

 expenditures for farm operation. However, since total income re- 

 mained about the same, a shift to the purchase of more consumer 

 goods is anticipated. 



3. The costs of nonparticipating farmers were increased through a de- 

 crease in the number of rural units available for addition to or- 

 ganized units through renting or purchasing and for producing hay 

 for sale. 



Impact of the Program on Resource Use Efficiency 



The more important changes in resource use efficiency attributable to 

 the Program are: 



1. Historical trends were hastened. A large number of small or un- 

 economic holdings and operations were enrolled in the Program, 

 thereby speeding up the trends in land and farm adjustment. 



2. A major change in land use was facilitated. Cropland being, or 

 soon to be, abandoned was converted to forest land without the 

 long period of unproductiveness associated with natural forest re- 

 production. 



3. Relocation of rural people and retirement of labor resources from 

 agriculture was accelerated and eased. Low-income and underem- 

 ployed agricultural landowners were provided a way to obtain an 

 income from their land without tying up their labor and other re- 

 sources in its operation. These landowners were essentially disin- 

 vesting in their rural capital. 



4. In attaining these changes in resource use, the Program did much 

 to encourage a more efficient use of farm resources. The goals of 

 the Program were to reduce the production of crops for which there 

 is a surplus and promote conservation of natural resources, so in- 

 complete attainment of the efficiency goal is to be expected. How- 

 ever, in the total appraisal of a program such as the Consen^ation 

 Reserve, a comparison of results should be made against a theo- 

 retical optimum resource use pattern. H the program had operated 

 in such a way that the theoretical optimum resource use pattern was 

 obtained, then no acreage under contract would be of greater pro- 



39 



