Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Congressional research reportOct 6, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Conservation Compliance and
U.S. Farm Policy
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Updated October 6, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42459
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Summary
The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant
agricultural conservation provisions designed to reduce farm production and conserve soil and
water resources. Many of the provisions remain in effect today, including the two compliance
provisions—highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation
(swampbuster). The two provisions, collectively referred to as conservation compliance, require
that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer
agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert
wetlands to crop production.
Conservation compliance affects most USDA benefits administered by the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These benefits can include
commodity support payments, disaster payments, farm loans, and conservation program
payments, to name a few. If a producer is found to be in violation of conservation compliance,
then a number of penalties could be enforced. These penalties range from temporary exemptions
that allow the producer time to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is
ineligible for any USDA farm payment and must pay back current and prior years’ benefits.
A controversial issue in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) debate was whether federal crop
insurance subsidies should be included on the list of program benefits that could be lost if a
producer were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible
land and wetlands. Ultimately the 2014 farm bill did add federal crop insurance subsidies to the
list of benefits that could be lost, but created separate considerations when addressing compliance
violations and the loss of federal crop insurance premium subsidies compared with the loss of
other farm program benefits. How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply,
and traditional exemptions and variances were not amended. The 2014 farm bill also extended
limited protection for native sod in select states.
The levels of interest and debate generated by the changes to conservation compliance in the
2014 farm bill are likely to continue with implementation, raising additional questions and
oversight in Congress. Recent concerns about a growing backlog of wetland determinations in the
Northern Plains and approaching compliance deadlines for crop insurance policyholders have
been raised. Additionally, the reduction in soil erosion from highly erodible land conservation
continues, but at a slower pace than following the enactment of the 1985 farm bill. The leveling
off of erosion reductions leaves broad policy questions related to conservation compliance,
including whether an acceptable level of soil erosion on cropland has been achieved; whether
additional reductions could be achieved, and, if so, at what cost; and how federal farm policy
could encourage additional reductions in erosion.
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Contents
Conservation Compliance Today..................................................................................................... 1
Sodbuster ................................................................................................................................... 1
Swampbuster ............................................................................................................................. 3
Sodsaver .................................................................................................................................... 5
Affected Program Benefits ........................................................................................................ 5
Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 7
Issues for Congress .......................................................................................................................... 8
Wetland Determinations ............................................................................................................ 8
2014 Farm Bill Implementation ................................................................................................ 9
Crop Insurance .................................................................................................................... 9
Wetland Mitigation Banking and Violations ..................................................................... 10
Oversight ................................................................................................................................. 10
Erosion and Conversion Rates .................................................................................................11
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Figures
Figure 1. Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland.................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Soil Erosion on Cropland by Year .................................................................................. 12
Tables
Table 1. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions ........................................................ 4
Table 2. USDA Benefits Affected by Conservation Compliance .................................................... 6
Table 3. Summary of Conservation Compliance Status Reviews ................................................... 7
Appendixes
Appendix. A Brief Legislative History of Conservation Compliance ........................................... 14
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
ederal policies and programs traditionally have offered voluntary incentives to producers to
plan and apply resource-conserving practices on private lands. It was not until the 1980s
that Congress took an alternative approach to agricultural conservation through enactment
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill). The bill’s more publicized
provisions—the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),1 highly erodible land conservation
(sodbuster), and wetland conservation (swampbuster)2—remain significant today. The latter two
“conservation compliance” provisions require that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of
conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production.
F
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79) added federal crop insurance subsidies
to the list of program benefits that could be lost if a producer were found to be out of compliance
with conservation requirements on highly erodible land and wetlands. Compliance violations
related to the loss of federal crop insurance premium subsidies now have separate considerations
from violations related to the loss of other farm program benefits. How compliance is calculated,
where compliance provisions apply, and traditional exemptions and variances were not amended.
The 2014 farm bill also extended limited protection for native sod in select states.
Conservation Compliance Today
The 1985 farm bill included a number of significant conservation provisions designed to reduce
crop production and conserve soil and water resources. The highly erodible land conservation
provision (sodbuster) introduced in the 1985 farm bill was not intended to “allow the Federal
government to impose demands on any farmer or rancher concerning what may be done with
their land; ... only that the Federal government will no longer subsidize producers who choose to
convert highly erodible land to cropland unless they also agree to install conservation system(s).”3
Similarly, the wetland conservation provision introduced in the 1985 farm bill does not authorize
USDA “to regulate the use of private, or non-Federal land”; rather, “the objective of this
provision is to deny various Federal benefits to those producers who choose to drain wetlands for
the purpose of producing agricultural commodities.”4 Since the enactment of the 1985 farm bill,
each succeeding farm bill has amended the compliance provisions. For a brief history of the farm
bill legislative changes to the conservation compliance provisions since the 1985 farm bill, see
Appendix.
Sodbuster
The highly erodible land conservation provision, as enacted in the 1985 farm bill, introduced the
concept that in exchange for certain federal farm benefits a producer must implement a minimum
level of conservation. The provision, still in force today, applies the loss of benefits to land
classified as highly erodible that was not in cultivation between 1980 and 1985 (i.e., newly
broken land, referred to as sodbuster) and any highly erodible land in production after 1990,
regardless of when the land was put into production. Land meeting this classification can be
1 CRP is not discussed in depth in this report. For additional information and issues related to CRP, see CRS Report
R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
2 Highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation are collectively referred to as conservation compliance in
this report.
3 H.Rept. 99-271, p. 84.
4 Ibid., p. 88.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
1
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
considered eligible for USDA program benefits if the land user agrees to cultivate the land using
an approved conservation plan.
In addition to the application of an approved conservation plan, a number of exemptions are
possible.5
Good faith. If the person has acted in good faith and without the intent to violate
the compliance provisions, then the producer may be granted up to one year to
comply with a conservation plan.
Graduated penalty. Under some
What Is “Highly Erodible”?
circumstances, producers could be
For
land
to
be considered highly erodible (as defined
subject to a minimum of $500 and no
under 16 U.S.C. 3801), it must be:
more than $5,000 loss in benefits,
land that currently has, or if put into agricultural
rather than a loss of all benefits.
production would have, an excessive average
Allowable variance. If a conservation
annual rate of erosion in relation to the soil loss
tolerance level (see “The ‘T’’ Factor” text box,
system fails and the failure is
below); or
determined to be technical and minor
cropland that is classified as class IV, VI, VII, or VIII
in nature, and to have little effect on
land under the land capability classification system
the erosion control purposes of the
in effect on December 23, 1985.
conservation plan, then the producer
The land capability classification system is an
may not be found out of compliance.
interpretive grouping on soil maps made primarily for
Similarly, the producer may not be
agricultural purposes. Capability “classes” are broad
categories of soils with similar hazards or limitations.
found out of compliance if the system
There are eight classes, with soil damage and
failure was due to circumstances
limitations on use becoming progressively greater from
beyond the control of the producer.
class I to class VIII.6
Temporary variance. A producer may
NRCS classifies about 101.1 million acres of U.S.
be granted a temporary variance for
cropland—approximately 28% of total cropland—as
highly erodible (see Figure 1).
practices prescribed in the
conservation plan due to issues related
to weather, pests, or disease. USDA has 30 days from the date of the request to
issue a temporary variance determination; otherwise the variance is considered
granted.
Economic hardship. A local Farm Service Agency (FSA) county committee, with
concurrence from the state or district FSA director and technical concurrence
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is allowed to permit
relief if it is determined that a conservation system causes a producer undue
economic hardship.
Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. Producers new to compliance
requirements (after enactment of the 2014 farm bill on February 7, 2014) have
five reinsurance years7 to develop and comply with a conservation plan.
Producers with compliance violations prior to February 7, 2014, are allowed two
reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan before the loss
of the crop insurance premium subsidies.
5 In addition to those listed, a producer who participated in a USDA program that set aside land for the purpose of
reducing production of an agricultural commodity, may also not be considered ineligible. Many of these “set-aside”
programs are no longer utilized.
6 USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Land Capability Classifications System, Agricultural Handbook 210, 1961,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf.
7 A reinsurance year is a 12-month period that begins on July 1.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
2
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Figure 1. Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland
(2007 Natural Resources Inventory)
Source: USDA, NRCS, Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland, 2007, Natural Resources Inventory, Beltsville, MD,
February 2012.
Notes: This map only identifies broad spatial trends and should not be used to determine site-specific
information. Data are not collected on federal land. In some cases, overlaying dots may completely cover up
underlying dots. Data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Pacific Basin.
Swampbuster
The “swampbuster” or wetland conservation provision extends the sodbuster concept to wetland
areas. Producers who plant a program crop on a wetland converted after December 23, 1985, or
who convert wetlands, making agricultural commodity production possible, after November 28,
1990, are ineligible for certain USDA program benefits. This means that, for a producer to be
found out of compliance, crop production does not actually have to occur; production only needs
to be made possible through activities such as draining, dredging, filling, or leveling the wetland.
Similar to sodbuster, the 2014 farm bill amends the wetlands conservation provision to include
crop insurance premium subsidies as an ineligible benefit if found to be out of compliance. The
amendment treats the time of wetland conversion differently (Table 1). The amendment also
extends the list of exemptions for compliance violators, allowing additional time (one or two
reinsurance years) for producers to remedy or mitigate the wetland conversion before losing crop
insurance premium subsidies.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
3
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Table 1. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions
(amendment in the 2014 farm bill)
Timing
Newly Converted Wetlands—
wetlands converted after February 7,
2014.
Violation
Penalty
Converted wetland
violation impacting
five or more acres.
Ineligible for crop insurance premium
subsidies, unless exemption applies or
required mitigation actions are taken.
Converted wetland
violation impacting
less than five acres.
Ineligible for crop insurance premium
subsidies, unless the landowner pays 150% of
the cost of mitigation to a wetland
restoration fund or conducts the required
mitigation actions.
Prior Converted Wetlands—wetlands
converted before February 7, 2014.
Any converted
wetland violation.
Eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies.
Ineligible for other USDA program benefits,
unless exemption applies or required
mitigation actions are taken.
New Insurance Policies—wetlands
converted after February 7, 2014, but
before a new insurance policy or plan is
made available for the first time.
Any converted
wetland violation.
Ineligible for crop insurance premium
subsidies, if prior conversions are not
mitigated within two reinsurance years.
Source: 16 U.S.C. 3821(c)(2).
Notes: Table only applies to federal crop insurance premium subsidies. All other existing wetland compliance
violations were unaffected by the 2014 farm bill provision.
Under the wetlands compliance provision, the following lands are considered exempt:
a wetland converted to cropland before enactment (December 23, 1985);
artificially created lakes, ponds, or wetlands;
wetlands created by irrigation delivery systems;
wetlands on which agricultural production is naturally possible;
wetlands that are temporarily or incidentally created as a result of adjacent
development activities;
wetlands converted to cropland before December 23, 1985, that have reverted
back to a wetland as the result of a lack of drainage, lack of management, or
circumstances beyond the control of the landowner;
wetlands converted if the effect of such action is minimal; and
authorized wetlands converted through a permit issued under Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344), for
which wetland values, acreage, and functions of the converted wetland were
adequately mitigated.
Wetlands Mitigation
Under wetlands conservation, compliance violators have the option of mitigating the violation through the
restoration of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the creation of a new wetland.8
Debate over these wetland mitigation requirements arose during the 2014 farm bill and centered on the concern
that some producers were required to mitigate wetlands with a greater than 1-to-1 acreage ratio (i.e., more than
one acre of mitigated wetland is required to replace one acre of wetland lost). This is allowed by statute if “more
8 16 U.S.C. 3822(f).
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
4
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
acreage is needed to provide equivalent functions and values that will be lost as a result of the wetland conversion
to be mitigated.” The provisions remained unchanged in the 2014 farm bill. The conference report (H.Rept. 113333), however, included language encouraging USDA to use a wetland mitigation ratio not to exceed 1-to-1
acreage.
The 2014 farm bill also provided $10 million in mandatory funding for mitigation banking efforts. In August 2016,
NRCS awarded over $7 million for agricultural wetland mitigation bank projects through the Wetland Mitigation
Banking Program. NRCS received over 24 applications and funded 10 projects located in the Midwest and
Northern Great Plains states. Projects were selected based on the applicants’ experience with wetland mitigation
banking and geographic location to potential agricultural wetland conversion.9
Sodsaver
The 2014 farm bill amended and expanded the “sodsaver” provision, which reduces benefits for
crops planted on native sod. The provision applies only to native sod acres in Minnesota, Iowa,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska.10 If a producer chooses to plant an
insurable crop on native sod, then crop insurance premium subsidies are reduced by 50
percentage points during the first four years of planting.11 Crops planted on native sod also will
have higher fees under the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) 12 and reduced
yield guarantees.13 This provision is expected to reduce the federal incentive to produce on native
sod.
Affected Program Benefits
As it exists today, conservation compliance applies to most farm program payments, loans, or
other benefits administered by FSA and NRCS. Table 2 includes the statutory description and
examples of specific USDA program benefits that are affected if a producer is found to be out of
compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions.
9 For additional information on the Wetland Mitigation Banking Program, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/programs/farmbill/?cid=NRCSEPRD362686.
10 Section 11014 of the crop insurance title (title XI). Sodsaver was originally authorized in the 2008 farm bill and only
applied to the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. The provision was never activated and is discussed further in
Appendix.
11 In 2016, an average of 63% of the total crop insurance premium is paid for by the federal government, and the
remainder by the participating farmer. Therefore, a 50 percentage point reduction would lower a premium subsidy rate
of 63% to 13%.
12 For additional information on crop insurance and NAP, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance:
Background; CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance; or CRS Report R43494, Crop Insurance
Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
13 The yield guarantee for a crop insurance policy is a producer’s “normal” crop yield based on actual production
history (APH). In the absence of actual yield data (e.g., production on native sod or no yield documentation on existing
fields), a “transition yield” (T-yield) is assigned, which is based on a portion of 10-year average county yields for the
crop. The 2014 farm bill sets the T-yield factor on native sod equal to 65% of the 10-year average county yield for
production on native sod. For other cropland, the percentage can be higher depending on the number of years of actual
data included in the APH. Also, “yield substitution” is not allowed; that is, low farm yields must be used in the APH
rather than replacing them with potentially higher T-yields as allowed for other cropland.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
5
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Table 2. USDA Benefits Affected by Conservation Compliance
Statutory Description
Examples of Benefits
Contract payments under a production flexibility
contract, marketing assistance loans, and any type of
price support or payment made available under the
Agricultural Market Transition Act, the Commodity
Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 et
seq.), or any other Act.
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments, Agriculture Risk
Coverage (ARC) payments, Margin Protection Program
(MPP), and Marketing Assistance Loans
A farm storage facility loan made under Section 4(h)
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act
(15 U.S.C. 714b(h)).a
Farm Storage Facility Loan
Disaster paymentsa
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance program (NAP), ad
hoc disaster assistance programs, Emergency Forest
Restoration Program (EFRP), Emergency Assistance for
Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-raised Fish (ELAP),
Livestock Forage Program (LFP), Livestock Indemnity
Program (LIP), and Tree Assistance Program (TAP)
A farm credit program loan made, insured, or
guaranteed under the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act or any other provision of law
administered by FSA.b
FSA Farm Operating Loans, Farm Ownership Loans, and
Emergency Disaster Loans
Any portion of the premium paid by the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.)
Federal crop insurance premium subsidiesc
A payment made pursuant to a contract entered into
under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) or any other provision of Subtitle D of the
Food Security Act of 1985, as amended
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP),
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), and Regional Conservation Partnership
Program (RCPP).
A payment made under Section 401 or 402 of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 or
2202).
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Emergency
Watershed Protection (EWP) Program
A payment, loan, or other assistance under Section 3
or 8 of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1003 or 1006a).
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention program
Source: 16 U.S.C. 3811 and 16 U.S.C. 3812.
Notes: The examples listed should not be considered an exhaustive list. Also affected would be any payments made
under Section 4 or 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b or 714c) for the storage of
an agricultural commodity acquired by the CCC.
a. Applies only to highly erodible land conservation provisions.
b. Only applies if the proceeds of the loan will be used for a purpose that contributes to the conversion of
wetlands that would make production of an agricultural commodity possible or for a purpose that contributes to
excessive erosion of highly erodible land. Loans made before enactment of the 1985 farm bill are not affected.
c. Does not apply retroactively. Only applies to reinsurance years following final determination and after all
administrative appeals.
If a producer requests any payment, loan, or other benefit subject to the conservation compliance
provision, then the provision applies to all land owned by the producer or the producer’s
affiliates. This includes land located anywhere in the United States or U.S. territories, without
regard to whether payments, loans, or other benefits are actually received for such land. In other
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
6
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
words, if producers are found out of compliance on one portion of their land, they are deemed out
of compliance for all land owned or associated with them, regardless of where it is located.14
Implementation
Both NRCS and FSA implement conservation compliance as part of USDA farm programs. FSA
has primary responsibility for making producer eligibility determinations about conservation
compliance. NRCS has primary responsibility for technical determinations associated with
conservation compliance.
NRCS conducts compliance status reviews on farm and ranch lands that have received USDA
benefits and which are subject to the conservation compliance provisions (highly erodible land,
wetland compliance, or both). A compliance status review is an inspection of a cropland tract to
determine whether the USDA farm program beneficiary is in compliance with the conservation
compliance provisions (Table 3). NRCS selects a random sample of tracts for annual compliance
reviews from data supplied by FSA. Other tracts may be selected for review based on
recommendations from other USDA agencies, whistleblower complaints, observed potential
violations by NRCS, and tracts with prior year variances.15 The review process requires an NRCS
employee to make an on-site determination when a violation is suspected, and ensures that only
qualified NRCS employees report violations. Ultimately, penalties for noncompliance are
determined by FSA. Penalties may range from a good faith exemption that allows producers up to
one year to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is ineligible for any
government payment and must pay back current and prior years’ benefits.
Table 3. Summary of Conservation Compliance Status Reviews
Total Tracts Reviewed
Total Acres Reviewed (approx.)
Tracts Out of Compliance
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
18,704
22,210
24,309
23,627
22,127
3.3 million
2.8 million
3.6 million
3.6 million
3.2 million
344
530
744
680
606
Wetland Conservation Violation Only
177
158
343
216
240
Both Highly Erodible Land and Wetland
Conservation Violations
167
372
401
21
22
Percentage Out of Compliance
1.8%
2.4%
3.1%
2.9%
2.7%
Number of States Recording NonCompliance
28
32
30
34
38
Variances or Exemptions Issued
732
887
1,081
1,354
1,121
Source: USDA, NRCS, complied by CRS.
14 One exception to this was created in the 2014 farm bill. If a tenant is considered ineligible for benefits under
conservation compliance and USDA determines that the tenant has made a good faith effort to comply with restoration
or mitigation requirements and the landowner continues to refuse to comply, then the denial of benefits may be limited
to the farm that is the basis of the ineligibility. The 2015 rule clarified that because federal crop insurance policies are
not constructed on a “farm” basis, tenant relief provisions will be achieved through a prorated reduction of premium
subsidies on all of a person’s policies and plans of insurance. Similarly, a landlord’s premium subsidy on all policies
and plans of insurance will be prorated in the same manner when a landlord is in violation because of the actions (or
inactions) of their tenant or sharecropper (7 C.F.R. 12.9).
15 Additionally, compliance reviews are required at least once every three years on tracts owned or operated by USDA
employees who receive USDA payments. National Food Security Act Manual, 5th edition, Part 518, Subpart A, §518.1
(A)(1)(viii), November 2010.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
7
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Note: Information for 2014 is the most recent available.
The Risk Management Agency (RMA) at USDA administers the federal crop insurance program
and has limited responsibilities with conservation compliance implementation. RMA and
associated approved insurance providers16 are prohibited from making any eligibility
determinations regarding conservation compliance.17 Implementation duties are limited to
providing approved insurance agents with compliance-related records and notifying FSA and
NRCS of cases of misrepresentation, fraud, or schemes and devices where appropriate.
Issues for Congress
The 1985 farm bill created the highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation
compliance provisions, which tied various farm program benefits to conservation standards.
These provisions have been amended with each subsequent farm bill, including the most recent
2014 farm bill. As the 114th Congress continues to review the implementation of farm programs,
issues related to conservation compliance could be debated.
Wetland Determinations
Beginning in the 2000s, weather events and expanded production in the northern plains states
resulted in an increased number of wetland determination requests from producers in order to
remain in compliance with wetland conservation provisions. NRCS has sole responsibility for
making wetland determinations, and the growing number of requests has resulted in a backlog.
This backlog has continued to grow in recent years, reaching to over 4,000 pending wetland
determinations in the Prairie Pothole region in the summer of 2015.18 As of July 2016, pending
wetland determinations totaled less than 3,000. According to testimony, NRCS continues to chip
away at the backlog by redirecting staff and resources to the Prairie Pothole region states with a
goal of eliminating the backlog within three years.19 Budget restrictions are cited as the primary
obstacle for reducing the backlog sooner.20
In November 2014, NRCS proposed changes to the offsite methods used to make wetlands
determination in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.21 The changes allow the four
16 Insurance policies for the federal crop insurance program are sold and completely serviced through 18 approved
private insurance companies known as approved insurance providers. For additional information on how federal crop
insurances is administered, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
17 16 U.S.C. 3821(c)(4)(C).
18 Prairie potholes are depressional wetlands that fill with snowmelt and rain in the spring. Some of these wetlands are
temporary, and some are permanent. Most of the prairie potholes are located in portions of Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa and make up the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. The northern plains
location of these wetlands is ideal habitat for migratory waterfowl and provides natural flood control for snow melt and
spring rains.
19 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Farmers and Fresh Water: Voluntary
Conservation to Protect Our Land and Waters, testimony of Jason Weller, Chief of the NRCS, 113th Cong., 2nd sess.,
December 3, 2014.
20 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, The Agricultural Act of 2014
Implementation After One Year, testimony of Tom Vilsack, Secretary of USDA, 114th Cong., 1st sess., February 24,
2015.
21 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Notice of Proposed Changes to Section I of the Iowa, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota State Technical Guides,” 79 Federal Register 65615, November 5, 2014. The
proposal was not a rulemaking action, and therefore no final proposal was issued. Public comments were addressed on
NRCS’s website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=nrcseprd399229&ext=pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
8
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Prairie Pothole states to make initial wetland determinations based on new mapping technology
rather than on-site visits. A producer may request an on-site wetland determination if unsatisfied
with the initial off-site determination.22 The proposal was met with opposition from a number of
wildlife and conservation organizations that expressed concern that the off-site methods may not
accurately account for seasonal and temporary wetlands, and that additional analysis should be
conducted to ensure the determination methods are at least as accurate as the previous methods.23
In response, NRCS officials say the new process will be faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more
consistent across the four states.24
2014 Farm Bill Implementation
On April 24, 2015, USDA published an interim final rule (2015 rule) amending conservation
compliance regulations in accordance with changes made in the 2014 farm bill.25 The rule made
three main amendments: (1) applied conservation compliance provisions to federal crop insurance
premium subsidies, (2) modified easement provisions related to wetland mitigation banks, and (3)
amended provisions related to agency discretion for certain violations. The level of interest and
debate generated by the changes to conservation compliance in the 2014 farm bill is likely to
continue as USDA proceeds with implementation.
Crop Insurance
The majority of changes made by the 2015 rule are in response to the 2014 farm bill’s addition of
federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of program benefits that could be lost if a producer
were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible land and
wetlands. The changes and deadlines for compliance are correlated to the changes made in the
2014 farm bill.26 How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply, and
traditional exemptions and variances were not amended by the rule. Producers must continue to
self-certify their compliance with the sodbuster and swampbuster provisions, and approved
conservation plans currently in place will remain valid.
The first deadline following the 2014 farm bill was on June 1, 2015.27 To remain eligible for crop
insurance premium subsidies, producers are required to certify their compliance with sodbuster
and swampbuster provisions using a form known as an AD-1026. USDA conducted a number of
outreach activities to notify producers who were enrolled in the crop insurance program but did
not have a current AD-1026 compliance form on file with FSA.28 In July 2015, USDA reported a
22 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, Implementing the
Agricultural Act of 2014: Conservation Programs, 114th Cong., 1st sess., June 11, 2015, H.Hrg. 114-17, p. 55.
23 Letter from 29-90 Sportsmen’s Club, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Friends of the Big Sioux, et al.
to Jason Weller, Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, February 3, 2015,
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRCS-2014-0013-0084.
24 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Budget Hearing—Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and
Environment, testimony of Chief Jason Weller, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., February 26, 2016.
25 USDA Office of the Secretary, “Conservation Compliance,” 80 Federal Register 22873-22885, April 24, 2015.
26 For additional information, see CRS Report R43504, Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
27 USDA, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, “General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk Protection
Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations; and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic
Provisions,” 79 Federal Register 37155-37166, July 1, 2014.
28 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk
Management, Farm Bill, Implementing the Agricultural Act of 2014: Commodity Policy and Crop Insurance, 114th
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
9
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
98.2% certification rate, suggesting that those not certified were likely no longer farming or had
filed forms with discrepancies that may still be reconciled.29
Wetland Mitigation Banking and Violations
Under wetlands conservation, compliance violators have the option of mitigating the violation
through the restoration of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the
creation of a new wetland. The 2015 rule amends regulations related to wetland mitigation
banking and defining wetland conservation violations.
Wetland mitigation banking is a type of wetlands mitigation whereby a wetland is created,
enhanced, or restored, and “credit” for those efforts is sold to others as compensation for the loss
of impacted wetlands elsewhere. While wetland mitigation banks are not new, challenges related
to access and cost have prevented agricultural producers from utilizing this option for mitigation.
The 2014 farm bill changes the wetland mitigation banking provision to allow for third parties to
hold wetland mitigation easements, rather than USDA itself. The 2014 farm bill also created a
permanent wetland mitigation banking program and provided $10 million in mandatory funding
(discussed above).
Other changes in the 2015 rule were not directed by the 2014 farm bill, including a clarification
regarding wetland conservation violations. According to the rule, there are two types of wetland
conservation violations with two different consequences. The first type is violations for
production on converted wetland, which can result in a graduated penalty determined by USDA,
rather than a denial of all benefits.30 The second type is a conversion of wetland to production,
which can result in a denial of all benefits.31 According to USDA, previous language was used by
producers who converted a wetland to argue that USDA has discretion to issue a graduated
penalty similar to that of production on converted wetlands rather than a full denial of benefits. It
is unclear what level of confusion existed prior to this change and what impact, if any, this
clarification will have on determining wetland compliance violations and associated appeals in
the future.
Oversight
In 2015 and 2016, the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated the process
NRCS and FSA used to identify and monitor conservation compliance provisions.32 In a series of
audit reports, OIG found a number of weaknesses with NRCS’s internal controls. The final OIG
report notes that NRCS state offices have developed inadequate guidance for consistently
applying standards in conducting compliance reviews. Of particular concern is the treatment and
control of gully erosion,33 which the report highlights as being inconsistently applied across
states, therefore leading to inconsistent noncompliance determinations. The report also found that
NRCS guidance on the role of a wetland compliance reviewer needed updating to reflect the
Cong., 1st sess., March 26, 2015.
29 USDA, “Record Number of Farmers and Ranchers Certified Under 2014 Farm Bill Conservation Compliance,” press
release, July 10, 2015, http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAOC/bulletins/10e8a2c.
30 16 U.S.C. 3821(a)(2).
31 16 U.S.C. 3821(d).
32 USDA, Office of Inspector General, USDA Monitoring of Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation
Violations, Audit Report 50601-0005-31, June 2016, https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-0005-31.pdf.
33 Gully erosion is a process whereby water concentrates in narrow channels and removes the soil through narrow areas
to varying depths. There are two types of gully erosion: ephemeral and classic.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
10
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
review’s role when wetland inventory maps are found to be inaccurate. This lack of guidance has
led to inconsistencies across states.
Annually, NRCS selects a random sample of tracts for annual compliance reviews from data
supplied by FSA. As part of their investigation, OIG determined that NRCS did not use a
comprehensive set of eligible tracts in 2015, because it included only producers participating in
one program. Also, FSA had inadvertently omitted 10 states that historically make up about 34%
of eligible tracts.34 Overall, NRCS and FSA concurred with the OIG findings and
recommendations. However, stakeholders’ views continue to vary on how well USDA is
enforcing the conservation compliance provisions. For instance, environmental organizations
advocate for more consistent and rigorous status reviews. Producer organizations advocate for
continued flexibility and more additional
voluntary programs incentives to support any
The “T” Factor
necessary improvements.
Soil erosion occurs for a variety of natural and
Erosion and Conversion Rates
The reduction in soil erosion from highly
erodible land conservation continues, but at a
slower pace than following enactment of the
1985 farm bill (Figure 2). The leveling off of
reduced erosion leaves several broad policy
questions, including whether an acceptable
level of soil erosion on cropland has been
achieved; whether additional reductions could
be achieved, and if so, at what cost; and how
federal farm policy should encourage additional
reductions in erosion. Some environmental and
conservation groups have asked Congress to
tighten compliance requirements as one way of
reducing soil erosion. Many agricultural
groups, however, prefer additional financial
incentives through voluntary conservation
programs, such as EQIP.
manmade reasons. An evaluation of different soil types
and surrounding conditions (e.g., soil depth, slope, etc.)
allows soil scientists to determine what an “acceptable”
rate of soil erosion is for a given area. This is
commonly referred to as “T” or soil loss tolerance
rate. T is the maximum rate of annual soil loss that will
permit crop productivity to be sustained economically
and indefinitely on a given soil. Erosion is considered to
be greater than T if either the water (sheet and rill)
erosion or the wind erosion rate exceeds the soil loss
tolerance rate. The higher the T value, the more soil
erosion can be tolerated.
The use of T is one of the bases for identifying highly
erodible land associated with conservation compliance.
The erodibility index for a soil is determined by dividing
the potential average annual rate of erosion for each
soil by its predetermined soil loss tolerance (T) value.1
T is also used as one of the criteria for planning soil
conservation systems required by conservation
compliance. Conservationists focus on reducing soil
loss to or below T by applying practices, such as
terraces, contour strips, grassed waterways, and
residue management.
The use of T has been and will likely remain
controversial. Some soil scientists have suggested that
the current values of T far exceed the actual soil
formation rates and therefore are not truly
“sustainable” (Craig Cox, Andrew Hug, and Nils
Bruzelius, Losing Ground, Environmental Working
Group, April 2011). Despite these concerns, T remains
the only commonly used standard by which soil erosion
is measured.
According to USDA’s Natural Resource
Inventory, in 2012, 101 million acres (28% of
all cropland) was eroding above soil loss
tolerance (T) rates (see text box).35 This
compares to 175 million acres (42% of
cropland) in 1982. Between 1982 and 2012,
farmers reduced total cropland soil erosion by
44% (Figure 2). The bulk of this reduction
occurred following the 1985 farm bill and the
implementation of CRP and conservation compliance requirements. Reduction in soil erosion
34 USDA, Office of Inspector General, USDA Monitoring of Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation
Violations (Interim Report), Audit Report 50601-0005-31, March 2016.
35 USDA, NRCS, Summary Report: 2012 National Resources Inventory, August 2015, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd396218.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
11
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
may also be attributed to other factors. Estimates indicate that compliance provisions could be
responsible for approximately 295 million tons, or 25% of the 1.2 billion ton reduction in
cropland soil erosion that occurred between 1982 and 1997 (most recent information available).36
Another 31%, or 365 million tons, reduced could be attributed to land use changes, including
CRP enrollment.37
Figure 2. Soil Erosion on Cropland by Year
(billions of tons)
Source: USDA, NRCS, Summary Report: 2012 National Resources Inventory, August 2015,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd396218.pdf.
Notes: Total includes cultivated and non-cultivated cropland. Water erosion includes sheet and rill erosion.
In addition to soil erosion reductions following the 1985 farm bill, the number of wetlands
converted to cropland was also reduced. Unlike the highly erodible land conservation provision,
the impact of the wetland conservation provision is increasingly difficult to measure.
Swampbuster is one of several federal, state, and local policies that discourage the conversion of
wetlands to other uses.38 Other farm bill programs, such as Wetland Reserve Easements in the
36 Roger Claassen, “Have Conservation Compliance Incentives Reduced Soil Erosion?” USDA, ERS, Amber Waves,
June 2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June04/Features/HaveConservation.htm.
37 Ibid. The 2014 farm bill reduced the acreage enrollment in CRP from an authorized level of 32 million acres
declining to 24 million by FY2018. This could have a potential impact on soil erosion, the magnitude of which is
unclear.
38 The other major federal policy is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. For additional information, see CRS Report
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
12
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and CRP, seek to provide a reverse effect
and encourage landowners to restore wetlands. Between 1997 and 2007, USDA estimates that the
United States experienced a net wetlands gain of about 250,000 acres.39 Sixty percent of the gross
loss (440,000 acres) during that time period is attributed to urban and industrial development and
15% is attributed to agriculture.
Conclusion
Since its introduction in the 1985 farm bill, conservation compliance has remained a controversial
issue. Most producers prefer voluntary financial incentive programs such as EQIP, to policies
such as conservation compliance, which discourages the degradation of private lands by
restricting access to other federal benefits. With continued fiscal challenges, increasing or
maintaining funding levels for financial incentive programs could be difficult. Conservation
compliance, on the other hand, does not increase federal spending but continues to be unpopular
among many producer groups. The compliance requirements have also made significant
contributions to reducing soil erosion and maintaining wetlands since the 1980s. These
environmental gains appear to be leveling off, however, and raise questions about conservation
compliance’s ability to further conservation goals. Similar to previous farm bills, the changes to
conservation compliance in the 2014 farm bill debate were controversial. As Congress evaluates
the implementation of the 2014 farm bill, conservation compliance might continue to generate
interest.
RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues.
39 USDA, RCA Appraisal: Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, Washington, DC, July 2011,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044939.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
13
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Appendix. A Brief Legislative History of
Conservation Compliance
Prior to the 1985 farm bill, approximately two dozen soil and water conservation programs
existed. These programs reflected a pattern that was established in the 1930s—voluntary
cooperation from land users and incentive-based programs—and changed little in 50 years. The
expansion of agricultural production in the 1970s to respond to growing world demand for farm
products was accompanied by an increase in soil erosion.40 Much of this erosion was attributed to
producers expanding their acreage into “marginal” land—land that easily erodes and is often less
productive. Intense production practices were supported by many of the federal farm policies in
place at the time.
In 1977, Congress enacted the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (P.L. 95-192, referred
to as the RCA). The RCA required USDA to appraise the nation’s natural resources on nonfederal
land and provide Congress with an annual evaluation report. Many of the soil and water resource
issues were highlighted in the 1980 RCA report and drew attention to the high societal cost of soil
erosion and wetland conservation that resulted from intense production.41 As part of the National
Program for Soil and Water Conservation, USDA presented the alternative of “cross-compliance,”
in which farmers who receive USDA benefits would be required to meet minimum conservation
standards.42
In the early 1980s, large-scale commodity surpluses of certain agricultural products developed
from weak global demand and advances in agricultural productivity. In response, during the 1985
farm bill debate, Congress sought new farm policies to increase export markets and reduce
domestic production, thereby reducing surpluses. The result was what some classified as a radical
departure from the traditional conservation approach.
1985 Farm Bill
The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant
conservation provisions designed to reduce production and conserve soil and water resources.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), as authorized in the 1985 farm bill, was allowed to
remove up to 45 million acres of land from production under multi-year rental agreements. The
financial incentives of CRP far exceeded those of most early conservation programs, and CRP
remains the largest conservation program (in terms of funding) to date.43 The other conservation
provisions were highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation
40 J. Douglas Helms, Leveraging Farm Policy for Conservation: Passage of the 1985 Farm Bill, USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Historical Insights Number 6, June 2006, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/
FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044129.pdf.
41 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summary of Appraisal, Parts I and II, and Program Report, GPO 1980 633769/460, 1980.
42 U.S. Department of Agriculture, A National Program for Soil and Water Conservation, 1982 Final Program Report
and Environmental Impact Statement, GPO 1982-0-522-010/3711, September 1982.
43 CRP is currently authorized to enroll up to 32 million acres and annually spends an average of over $2 billion in
mandatory funding. The purpose of CRP has long been debated. In its early years, some believed the program’s sole
purpose was for production control. Others saw CRP as a soil erosion control program. Today, many view it as a
wildlife habitat program. The program’s objectives and purpose are not debated in this report. For additional
information and issues related to CRP reauthotization, see CRS Report R42093, Agricultural Conservation and the
Next Farm Bill.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
14
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
(swampbuster). Despite the historic significance of these provisions there was surprisingly little
debate recorded at the time.
Sodbuster
The highly erodible land conservation provision, as enacted in the 1985 farm bill, introduced the
requirement that in exchange for certain federal farm benefits a producer must implement a
minimum level of conservation. The provision applies the loss of benefits to land classified as
highly erodible that was not in cultivation between 1980 and 1985 (i.e., newly broken land,
referred to as sodbuster) and any highly erodible land in production after 1990, regardless of
when the land was put into production. Land meeting this classification could be considered
eligible for USDA program benefits if the land user agreed to cultivate the land using an approved
conservation plan.
There were two main exceptions. First, the farmer had until January 1, 1990, or two years after
the completion of a soil survey—whichever was later—to be actively applying an approved
conservation plan. Second, if a farmer was actively applying an approved conservation plan, then
they had until January 1, 1995, to be full in compliance with the plan. The program benefits that
could be lost included
price supports and related payments,
farm storage facility loans,
crop insurance,
disaster payments,
any farm loans that will contribute to excessive erosion of highly erodible land,
and
storage payments made to producers for crops acquired by the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC).
Swampbuster
The “swampbuster” or wetland conservation provision extends the sodbuster requirement to
wetland areas. Producers who plant a program crop on a converted wetland would be ineligible
for certain USDA program benefits. The most controversial debate over the swampbuster
provision was on the definition of an affected wetland areas. This resulted in many wetland areas
being exempt, including
wetlands converted before enactment (December 23, 1985),
artificially created lakes, ponds, or wetlands,
wetlands created by irrigation delivery systems,
wetlands on which agricultural production is naturally possible, or
wetlands converted if the effect of such action is minimal.
Changes Since the 1985 Farm Bill
Since the enactment of the 1985 farm bill, each succeeding farm bill has amended the compliance
provisions (both highly erodible land and wetland conservation).
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
15
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
1990 Farm Bill
The compliance provisions were amended in several ways in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-624, 1990 farm bill). Conservation provisions were expanded to
include wetlands converted after enactment (November 28, 1990), where agricultural commodity
production was made possible. This meant that crop production did not actually have to occur in
order to be found out of compliance, only that production was made possible through activities
such as draining, dredging, filling, or leveling the wetland. The 1990 farm bill added six more
federal farm programs to the list of benefits that could be lost for non-compliance, including
many of the conservation programs. A graduated penalty was added so that under some
circumstances, producers could be subject to a loss in benefits of between $500 and $5,000. This
graduated penalty may be applied only once every five years. The revisions protect tenant farmers
who may be ruled out of compliance because of the actions of the landowner or previous tenants.
Compliance exemptions were also expanded to include highly erodible land set aside, or taken
out of production, under the commodity support programs.
1996 Farm Bill
Beginning in 1994, conservation policy discussions in Congress focused on identifying ways to
make the compliance programs less intrusive on farmer activities. As a result, conservation
compliance provisions were significantly amended in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127, referred to as the 1996 farm bill). Many of the conservation
compliance changes enacted in the 1996 farm bill were meant to provide producer flexibility and
reduce the impact on farm operations. Some of the major amendments to highly erodible land
conservation compliance in the 1996 farm bill include
removing crop insurance from the list of benefits that could be lost if the farmer
is found out of compliance;
adding production flexibility contracts44 to the list of benefits that could be lost if
found out of compliance;
highly erodible land exiting CRP would not be held to a higher compliance
standard than nearby cropland;
providing violators with up to one year to meet compliance requirements;
developing procedures to expedite variances for weather, pest, or disease
problems;
requiring an erosion measurement before the conservation system is
implemented;
allowing third parties to measure residue and require that residue measurements
take into account the top two inches of soil;
allowing producers to modify plans as long as the same level of treatment is
maintained;
allowing local county committees to permit relief if a conservation system causes
a producer undue economic hardship; and
establishing a wind erosion estimation pilot study to review and modify as
necessary wind erosion factors used to administer conservation compliance.
44 Producer flexibility contracts are now referred to as direct payments.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
16
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
Several changes were made in the 1996 farm bill to the wetland conservation provisions as well.
Similar to the provisions for highly erodible land, wetland conservation provisions were meant to
provide greater program flexibility. Major changes included
exempting swampbuster penalties when wetland values and functions are
voluntarily restored following a specified procedure;
providing that prior converted wetlands will not be considered “abandoned” as
long as the land is only used for agriculture;
giving the Secretary of Agriculture discretion to determine which program
benefits violators are ineligible for and to provide good-faith exemptions;
establishing a pilot mitigation banking program (using the CRP);
repealing required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
expanding the definition of agricultural lands used in a 1994 interagency
Memorandum of Agreement.
While the 1996 farm bill reduced the impact of the compliance requirements it also expanded the
voluntary incentive-based programs for agricultural conservation. For the first time the majority
of conservation funding was authorized as mandatory funding.45 Total funding levels for
conservation were increased. The conservation agenda was also broadened by adding wildlife
considerations and evaluating nonpoint source pollution from agricultural sources.
2002 Farm Bill
The Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171, 2002 farm bill) continued
and expanded many of the conservation priorities in the 1996 farm bill, especially those related to
voluntary incentive programs and increased funding. Few changes were made to the conservation
compliance provisions. The primary change was the requirement that USDA not delegate
authority to other parties to make highly erodible land determinations. Also, any person who had
highly erodible land enrolled in the CRP was given two years after a contract expires to be in full
compliance.
2008 Farm Bill
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, referred to as the 2008 farm bill)
again made few changes to the conservation compliance provisions. The primary change was the
addition of a second level of review by the state or district FSA director, with technical
concurrence from the state or area NRCS conservationist if USDA determines that this exception
should apply.
The 2008 farm bill also created the “sodsaver” provision under the crop insurance title (XII). The
sodsaver provision would have made producers who planted crops (five or more acres) on native
sod ineligible for crop insurance and the noninsured crop disaster assistance (NAP) program for
the first five years of planting. The 2008 farm bill limited the provision to virgin prairie converted
to cropland in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area, but only if elected by the state. States
included in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area are portions of Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Ultimately no governors opted to participate in the program
and sodsaver was never activated.
45 Mandatory funding is made available by multiyear authorizing legislation and does not require annual appropriations
or subsequent action by Congress.
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
17
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
2014 Farm Bill
When the farm bill debate began in 2012, the fiscal climate made reductions in the farm bill
baseline all but certain. One of the largest programs on the chopping block was direct payments
in the commodity title. Because conservation compliance is tied to farm program benefits the loss
of such a large benefit would ultimately reduce the incentive to comply with conservation
requirements. Conservation advocates cited the need for additional farm program benefits to be
tied to conservation compliance in exchange for the loss of direct payments. Ultimately the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, 2014 farm bill) added the federally funded portion of crop
insurance premiums to the list of benefits that could possibly be lost if a producer were found out
of compliance. The amendments, however, treat compliance violations and the loss of federal
crop insurance premium subsidies separate from the loss of other farm program benefits.
Additionally, the 2014 farm bill amended the sodsaver provision by removing the elective option,
reducing crop insurance subsidies rather than eliminating them, and expanding the provision to
six states. For a more detailed comparison of changes made by the 2014 farm bill, see CRS
Report R43504, Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
Author Contact Information
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
R42459 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
18
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who
produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any
other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.