Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Congressional research reportApr 24, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
April 24, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43504
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Summary
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79) was enacted on February 7, 2014.
After years of debate and deliberation, the enacted 2014 farm bill included a number of changes
to the Conservation title (Title II), including program consolidation and reauthorization,
amendments to conservation compliance, and a reduction in overall funding. Debate on the 2014
farm bill focused on a number of controversial issues. While many did not consider conservation
to be controversial, nonetheless, a number of policy issues shaped the final version of the title and
ultimately its role in the enacted farm bill.
Prior to the 2014 farm bill, there were over 20 distinct conservation programs. Discussion about
simplifying or consolidating conservation programs to reduce overlap and duplication, and to
generate savings, has continued for a number of years. The 2014 farm bill contained several
program consolidation measures, including the repeal of 12 active and inactive programs, the
creation of two new programs, and the merging of two programs into existing ones. Overall
changes include the following.
•
The act reauthorizes larger conservation programs through FY2018, including the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
•
It authorizes a new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), which
retains most of the program provisions in the repealed easement programs
(Wetlands Reserve Program [WRP], easements under the Grasslands Reserve
Program [GRP], and Farmland Protection Program [FPP]). ACEP establishes two
types of easements: agricultural land easements and wetland reserve easements.
•
It authorizes a new Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) from the
repealed partnership programs (Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
[AWEP], Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative [CCPI], Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Program [CBWP], and Great Lakes Basin Program for soil
erosion and sediment control [GLBP]). RCPP creates partnership opportunities to
target and leverage federal conservation funding for specific areas and resource
concerns.
•
It incorporates other programs, such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP) and grazing contracts under GRP, into larger reauthorized programs—
EQIP and CRP, respectively.
One of the most controversial issues in the 2014 farm bill 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 and extended limited protection for native sod in select states.
The 2014 farm bill also reduced funding for the Conservation title by $3.97 billion over 10 years.
Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding, and the
Conservation title makes up 6% of the total farm bill 10-year baseline, or $58 billion of the total
$956 billion in mandatory funding authorized in the 2014 farm bill.
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Contents
Policy Issues Shaping the Conservation Title .................................................................................. 1
Simplifying the Conservation Portfolio..................................................................................... 1
Compliance Requirements......................................................................................................... 2
Change in Program Type ........................................................................................................... 3
Budget and Baseline .................................................................................................................. 4
Program Changes ............................................................................................................................. 5
Working Lands Conservation Programs .................................................................................... 7
Environmental Quality Incentives Program ........................................................................ 8
Conservation Stewardship Program .................................................................................... 8
Land Retirement Programs ........................................................................................................ 9
Conservation Reserve Program ........................................................................................... 9
Easement Programs ................................................................................................................. 10
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program .................................................................. 10
Other Conservation Programs ................................................................................................. 12
Regional Conservation Partnership Program .................................................................... 12
Conservation Innovation Grants........................................................................................ 13
Compliance Programs ............................................................................................................. 13
Highly Erodible Lands Conservation ................................................................................ 14
Wetlands Conservation ...................................................................................................... 15
Sodsaver ............................................................................................................................ 16
Figures
Figure 1. Farm Bill Conservation Programs by Type ...................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Budget Scores of the 2014 Farm Bill ............................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Conservation Program Consolidation in the 2014 Farm Bill .......................................... 7
Figure 4. Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) .................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1. USDA Agricultural Conservation Programs by Category ................................................. 6
Table 2. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions ...................................................... 16
Table A-1. Subtitle A—Conservation Reserve Program................................................................ 18
Table A-2. Subtitle B—Conservation Stewardship Program ......................................................... 21
Table A-3. Subtitle C—Environmental Quality Incentives Program ............................................. 22
Table A-4. Subtitle D—Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ........................................ 24
Table A-5. Subtitle E—Regional Conservation Partnership Program ........................................... 26
Table A-6. Subtitle F—Other Conservation Programs .................................................................. 28
Table A-7. Subtitle G—Funding and Administration .................................................................... 30
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Table A-8. Subtitle H—Program Repeals, Transition Provisions, and Technical
Amendments ............................................................................................................................... 33
Appendixes
Appendix. Comparison of Conservation Provisions Enacted in the 2014 Farm Bill to
Prior Law .................................................................................................................................... 18
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
A
gricultural conservation began in the 1930s with a focus on soil and water issues
associated with production and environmental concerns on the farm. By the 1980s,
agricultural conservation policies broadened to include environmental issues beyond soil
and water, especially issues related to production (off the farm). Many of the current agricultural
conservation programs were enacted as part of the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198, Food Security Act
of 1985). These programs have been reauthorized, modified, and expanded, and several new
programs have been created, particularly in subsequent omnibus farm bills. While the number of
programs has increased and new techniques to address resource problems continue to emerge, the
basic approach has remained unchanged—voluntary farmer participation encouraged by financial
and technical assistance, education, and basic and applied research.
The Conservation title (Title II) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79), the 2014 farm bill,
was largely uncontroversial. Both the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642) and the Senate-passed
farm bill (S. 954) reauthorized many of the largest conservation programs and consolidated others
to create new ones. The major difference between the two bills was the extension of conservation
compliance provisions to the federally funded portion of crop insurance and the total reduction in
funding for the title. Total mandatory spending for the title is projected at $28.3 billion over
5 years (FY2014-FY2018) and $57.6 billion over 10 years (FY2012-FY2023). The estimated
spending impact of the 2014 farm bill’s Conservation title is projected to decrease by $208
million over 5 years and close to $4.0 billion over 10 years.
Policy Issues Shaping the Conservation Title
Agricultural conservation has been a stand-alone title in farm bills beginning with the Agriculture
and Food Act of 1981 (1981 farm bill, P.L. 97-98). Its significance has grown with each passing
omnibus farm bill. Debate on the 2014 farm bill focused on a number of controversial issues.
While many did not consider conservation to be controversial, nonetheless, a number of policy
issues shaped the final version of the title and ultimately its role in the enacted farm bill.
Simplifying the Conservation Portfolio
Before the 1985 farm bill, few conservation programs existed and only two would be considered
large by today’s standards. Prior to the 2014 farm bill, there were over 20 distinct conservation
programs with annual spending greater than $5 billion. The differences and number of these
programs created general confusion about the purpose, participation, and policies of the programs
(see below for a list of conservation program acronyms). Discussion about simplifying or
consolidating conservation programs to reduce overlap and duplication, and to generate savings,
has continued for a number of years. The 2014 farm bill contained several program consolidation
measures, including the repeal of 12 active and inactive programs, the creation of two new
programs, and the merging of two programs into existing ones.1 Specific programmatic changes
are discussed further in the “Program Changes” section.
1
All farm bill conservation programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), with the exception of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which is
administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA).
Congressional Research Service
1
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Acronyms
ACEP
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
AMA
Agricultural Management Assistance program
AWEP
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (subprogram of EQIP)
CBWP
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
CCEP
Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement Program
CIG
Conservation Innovation Grants (subprogram of EQIP)
CREP
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (subprogram of CRP)
CRP
Conservation Reserve Program
CSP
Conservation Stewardship Program
CCPI
Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative
EFCRP
Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (subprogram of CRP)
EPP
Environmental Easement Program
EQIP
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
FV
Farm Viability
FW
Farmable Wetlands program (subprogram of CRP)
FPP
Farmland Protection Program
GRP
Grassland Reserve Program
GLBP
Great Lakes Basin Program
HFRP
Healthy Forest Reserve Program
RCPP
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Sodbuster
Highly Erodible Land Conservation
Sodsaver
Crop Production on Native Sod
Swampbuster
Wetland Conservation
VPAHIP
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program
WRP
Wetlands Reserve Program
WHIP
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
Compliance Requirements
Federal 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 1985 farm bill that
Congress took an alternative approach to agricultural conservation with the enactment of highly
erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster)—collectively
known as “conservation compliance.” Both provisions remain significant today and require that
in exchange for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, including
commodity support payments, disaster payments, farm loans, and conservation program
payments, to name a few, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on
highly erodible land and to not convert wetlands to crop production. One of the most
controversial issues in the 2014 farm bill 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. Ultimately the 2014 farm bill did add federal crop insurance subsidies to
Congressional Research Service
2
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
the list of benefits that could be lost and extended limited protection for native sod in select states
(sodsaver). Specific programmatic changes are discussed further in the “Compliance Programs”
section below.
Change in Program Type
Land retirement programs (e.g., the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP) provide producers with
financial incentives to temporarily remove from production and restore environmentally sensitive
land. In contrast, working lands programs (e.g., the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
EQIP) allow land to remain in production and provide producers with financial incentives to
adopt resource-conserving practices. Over time, high commodity prices, changing land rental
rates, and new conservation technologies have led to a shift in farm bill conservation policy away
from the more traditional land retirement programs toward an increased focus on conservation
working lands programs. Some of this shift has already occurred in the last decade and was
continued in the 2014 farm bill as the percentage of mandatory program funding for land
retirement programs has declined relative to working lands programs (see Figure 1).
Most conservation and wildlife organizations support both land retirement and working lands
programs; however, the appropriate “mix” continues to be debated. Some are still divided
between shorter-term land retirement programs such as CRP and longer-term easement programs
such as the new wetland reserve easements under the Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP). Unlike land retirement programs, easement programs impose a permanent or
longer-term land-use restriction that is voluntarily placed on the land in exchange for a
government payment. Supporters of easement programs cite a more cost-effective investment in
sustainable ecosystems for long-term wildlife benefits. Short-term land retirement program
supporters cite the increased flexibility, which can generate broader participation than permanent
or long-term easement programs.
Figure 1. Farm Bill Conservation Programs by Type
(2002, 2008, and 2014 farm bills)
2002 Farm Bill
Land
Retirement
54%
2008 Farm Bill
Other
1%
Other
0%
Working
Land
35%
Easement
11%
Land
Retirement
36%
Easement
13%
2014 Farm Bill
Other
2%
Working
Land
50%
Land
Retirement
37%
Working
Land
54%
Easement
7%
Source: CRS. Compiled from funding levels in annual appropriations, CBO baseline projections, and the CBO
conference agreement score, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2642LucasLtr.pdf.
Notes: Figures include mandatory funding for farm bill authorized conservation programs. The 2002 and 2008
farm bill charts cover the period after enactment to the next bill’s passage and are adjusted for reductions,
rescissions, and sequestration. The 2014 farm bill chart is based on the CBO estimate of direct spending for the
life of the farm bill (FY2014-FY2018). Funding for conservation education, extension and research, and
discretionary spending are not included.
Congressional Research Service
3
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
There has also been a rising interest in programs that partner with state and local communities to
target conservation funding to local areas of concern. These partnership programs leverage
private funding with federal funding to multiply the level of assistance in a select area. A number
of these partnership programs were repealed in the 2014 farm bill and replaced with the new
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). RCPP is designed to allow local
organizations to partner with USDA to address resource concerns specific to that area. Partners
are required to supply a significant portion of the overall cost of the project.
Budget and Baseline
Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding. The
Conservation title makes up 6% of the total projected farm bill spending, or $58 billion of the
total $956 billion in 10-year mandatory funding authorized in the 2014 farm bill.2 Like many
titles in the farm bill debate, discussion was driven in part by the need for budget reduction.
While a few titles did receive an increase in authorized mandatory funding over the projected
baseline, three major titles did not, including Conservation.3 Ultimately the Conservation title was
reduced by $3.97 billion over 10 years, or 24% of the total $16.5 billion in savings (see Figure
2).4 If the baseline to write the 2014 farm bill had not been reduced by sequestration, the enacted
2014 farm bill could have been credited for reducing conservation spending by about $6 billion
over 10 years. But sequestration had already been factored into the baseline, so the official CBO
score remains at $3.97 billion reduction from the Conservation title.5
In addition to sequestration, other budgetary dynamics may have an effect on farm bill
conservation programs in the future. Since the 1996 farm bill, the number and size of
conservation programs receiving mandatory funding has continued to grow. Currently the level of
mandatory spending for conservation is roughly five times that of discretionary spending for
conservation. For more than a decade, appropriators have placed limits on mandatory spending
authorized in the farm bill, including a number of conservation programs. These limits are also
known as CHIMPS, “changes in mandatory program spending.” Many of these mandatory
programs usually are not part of the appropriations process since funding is authorized in the farm
bill for a specific time period (FY2014-FY2018) and is assumed to be available based on the
statute and without further congressional action. Most of these conservation spending reductions,
however, were at the request of both the Bush and Obama Administrations. The mix of programs
and amount of reduction has varied from year to year. Some programs, such as CRP, have not
been reduced by appropriators in recent years, while others, such as EQIP, have been repeatedly
reduced below authorized levels. Even with these reductions, total mandatory funding for
conservation programs has remained relatively constant at around $5 billion annually for the past
five years. Conservation advocates are concerned that future CHIMPS would further deepen the
cuts made by potential future sequestration and the 2014 farm bill reductions.
2
Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, CBO, to Honorable Frank D. Lucas, Chairman House Committee on
Agriculture, January 28, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45049. The CBO baseline is an estimate (projection) at
a particular point in time of what future federal spending on mandatory programs would be under current law.
3
The other two titles reduced in the 2014 farm bill were Nutrition (Title IV) and Commodities (Title I).
4
The House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642) would have reduced Title II funding by $4.83 billion over 10 years,
compared to the Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954), which proposed a reduction of $3.51 billion over 10 years.
5
The projected impact of sequestration was released by CBO in the May 2013 baseline for farm bill programs, and the
2013 scores of the House and Senate farm bill proposals. For more information, see CRS Report R42484, Budget
Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
Congressional Research Service
4
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Figure 2. Budget Scores of the 2014 Farm Bill
(change in outlays relative to 10-year baseline FY2014-FY2023, by farm bill title)
0
Enacted Title II
Net: -$3.97 billion
$ Million
$ Billion
2014 Farm Bill
Net: -$16.5 billion
0
Source: CRS, using CBO cost estimates available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45049. For additional
information, see CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
Notes: The CBO baseline is an estimate (projection) at a particular point in time of what future federal spending
on mandatory programs would be under current law. The proposed changes to a current law are “scored” by
CBO as either savings (negative, below the baseline) or spending (positive, above the baseline), as shown in this
figure. The green shaded area provides more detail about the Conservation title and is not to scale. The
Conservation title is stated in millions of dollars, whereas the remaining chart is stated in billions of dollars. A list
of acronyms may be found on page 2.
Program Changes
The 2014 farm bill reauthorized, repealed, consolidated, and amended a number of conservation
programs. Generally, farm bill conservation programs can be grouped into the following
categories based on similarities: working land programs, land retirement programs, easement
programs, conservation compliance programs, and other programs and overarching provisions
(see Table 1 and page 2 for a list of conservation program acronyms). Most of these programs are
authorized to receive mandatory funding (i.e., they do not require an annual appropriation) and
include authorities that expire with other farm bill programs at the end of FY2018. Other types of
conservation programs—such as watershed programs, emergency programs, and technical
assistance—are authorized in other non-farm bill legislation. Most of these programs have
permanent authorities and receive appropriations annually through the discretionary
appropriations process. These programs are not generally addressed in the context of a farm bill
and are not covered in detail in this report, except for cases where the 2014 farm bill made
amendments to the program.
Congressional Research Service
5
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Table 1. USDA Agricultural Conservation Programs by Category
(after enactment of the 2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79)
Farm Bill Agricultural Conservation Programsa
Working Lands Programs—allow private land to remain in production, while implementing various conservation
practices to address natural resource concerns specific to the area.
•
EQIP, CSP, AMA
Land Retirement Programs—provide federal payments to agricultural landowners for temporary changes in land
use or management to achieve environmental benefits.
•
CRP (CREP, FW)
Easement Programs—impose a permanent land-use restriction that is voluntarily placed on the land in exchange
for a government payment.
•
ACEP, HFRP
Compliance—prohibits a producer from receiving most federal farm program benefits (including conservation
assistance) when conservation requirements for highly erodible lands and wetlands are not met.
•
Highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster), wetland conservation (swampbuster), and sodsaver
Other Conservation Programs—programs that do not fit easily into the above categories. They are either
regionally specific, use existing conservation program funds as leverage for partnership agreements with non-federal
funding, or provide grants to states or research organizations.
•
RCPP, CIG, VPAHIP
Non-Farm Bill Conservation Programsb
Technical Assistance Programs—provide landowners with science-based conservation information and technical
expertise (e.g., engineering and biological) unique to the region and land use type. Usually do not include financial
assistance.
•
Conservation Operations (includes Conservation Technical Assistance, Survey, Soil Survey, Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative, and Plant Materials Centers)
Emergency Programs—provide disaster assistance for farmland rehabilitation and impairments to watersheds.
Programs are usually funded through supplemental appropriation acts.
•
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program (includes
floodplain easements) and Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP)
Watershed Programs—partner with local sponsors to carry out activities for soil conservation; flood prevention;
conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; watershed surveys; and dam and flood structure
rehabilitation.
•
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (also referred to as the Small Watershed Programs, P.L. 566
and P.L. 534), and Watershed Rehabilitation program.
Source: CRS.
Notes: A list of acronyms may be found on page 2.
a.
Generally, these programs originated or are reauthorized in farm bills. The 2014 farm bill repealed and
consolidated a number of programs reflected in this table. Amendments to remaining programs are not
reflected.
b.
Generally, these programs originated outside of farm bill legislation and are considered to be in categories
separate from most farm bill programs. Amendments to these programs may occur in farm bills, but those
changes are not reflected in this table.
Congressional Research Service
6
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Figure 3. Conservation Program
Consolidation in the 2014 Farm Bill
General programmatic amendments,
reauthorizations, and consolidations are
discussed in the sections below. The
Appendix provides a series of tables detailing
the changes enacted in the 2014 farm bill as
compared to prior law. The 2014 farm bill
included several program consolidation
measures, including the repeal of 12 active
and inactive programs, the creation of two
new programs, and the merging of two
programs into existing ones. Table 1 and
Figure 3 illustrate these consolidation
measures.
Working Lands Conservation
Programs
Working lands conservation programs are
typically classified as programs that allow
private land to remain in production, while
implementing various conservation practices
to address natural resource concerns specific
to the area. Program participants receive some
form of conservation technical assistance and
planning to guide the decision on the most
appropriate practices to apply, given the
natural resource concerns and land condition.
If selected, participants receive federal
financial support to defray a portion of the
cost to install or maintain the vegetative,
structural, or management practices agreed to
in the terms of the contract.
Source: CRS.
Notes: For a list of acronyms see page 2.
Congressional Research Service
The two main working lands programs are the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP). Other working lands
programs, such as the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP) and Agricultural
Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), were
repealed and incorporated into either new or
existing programs. The Agricultural
Management Assistance (AMA) program is
generally amended in Title XI (Crop
Insurance) because its original authorizing
statute resides in the Federal Crop Insurance
7
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Act.6 However, 50% of the funding is used as a conservation working lands program. Both the
House- and Senate-passed farm bills included amendments to AMA, but none were adopted in the
conference agreement.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
The 2014 farm bill reauthorized and amended EQIP at a total of $8 billion between FY2014 and
FY2018. The program provides financial and technical assistance to producers and landowners to
plan and install structural, vegetative, and land management practices on eligible lands to
alleviate natural resource problems. Eligible producers enter into contracts to receive payment for
implementing conservation practices. Approved activities are carried out according to an EQIP
plan developed in conjunction with the producer that identifies the appropriate conservation
practice(s) to address resource concerns on the land. The program is reauthorized through
FY2018 with a graduating level of mandatory funding—$1.35 billion (FY2014); $1.6 billion
(FY2015); $1.65 billion (FY2016-FY2017); and $1.75 billion (FY2018). A similar progression
was authorized in the 2008 farm bill; however, EQIP funding has been reduced in the annual
appropriations process (CHIMPS) since 2003, and has never received its full authorized level of
funding (see “Budget and Baseline” discussion above).
One of the major changes to EQIP in the 2014 farm bill was the incorporation of the WHIP.
WHIP provided technical and financial assistance to private landowners to develop upland
wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fish and other types of wildlife
habitat. The program operated very similarly to EQIP, but had a direct focus on improving
wildlife habitat. The 2014 farm bill repeals WHIP and amends EQIP to require that 5% of total
EQIP payments benefit wildlife habitat. Other elements of WHIP are also incorporated, including
the requirement for consulting with State Technical Committees annually to determine eligible
wildlife habitat practices. The farm bill also reauthorizes the requirement that 60% of all EQIP
payments benefit livestock. The two EQIP subprograms—AWEP and Conservation Innovation
Grants (CIG)—are discussed further below. A detailed analysis of EQIP changes may be found in
Table A-3.
Conservation Stewardship Program
The 2014 farm bill also reauthorized and amended CSP. The program provides financial and
technical assistance to producers to maintain and improve existing conservation systems, and
adopt additional conservation activities. Under CSP, participants must meet a “stewardship
threshold” for a set number of priority resource concerns when they apply for the program, and
then must agree to meet or exceed the stewardship threshold for additional priority resource
concerns by the end of the five-year contract. In exchange, participants receive annual payments
that are based, in part, on conservation performance. The program is limited by the number of
acres available for enrollment each fiscal year, not total funding. Enrollment is offered through a
continuous sign-up and applications are accepted year-round.
The 2014 farm bill amended CSP by making a whole-program substitution of statutory text. This
did not mean, however, that all elements of the program changed as a result of the amendment.
Primarily the changes reorganized the statutory language and refocused the program on
6
7 U.S.C. 1524(b).
Congressional Research Service
8
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
generating additional conservation benefits. The amendments also raise the entry bar for
participants, who are now required to address two priority resource concerns upon entry and meet
or exceed one additional priority resource concern by the end of the contract. Contract renewal
participants must meet the threshold for two additional priority resources concerns or exceed the
threshold for two existing priority resource concerns. The 10% limitation on nonindustrial private
forest land was lifted and flexible transition options are available for land coming out of CRP.
Another major change was the reduction in enrollable acres. Under the 2008 farm bill, CSP could
enroll up to 12.769 million acres annually. The FY2014 farm bill reduces this to 10 million acres
annually. This reduction creates an estimated $2.272 billion in savings over 10 years (see Figure
2). CSP was reduced in FY2011 and FY2012, when appropriators placed limits on mandatory
spending (CHIMPS). The program was further reduced in FY2013 by sequestration. If these
reductions continue, then the lower 10 million acre cap authorized in the farm bill would continue
to slow program growth. At the end of FY2013, 59 million acres were enrolled in CSP. A detailed
analysis of the programmatic changes may be found in Table A-2.
Land Retirement Programs
Land retirement programs provide federal payments to private agricultural landowners for
temporary changes in land use or management to achieve environmental benefits. The primary
land retirement program—the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—was reauthorized to enroll
a decreasing number until FY2018. Other sub-programs of CRP, such as the Farmable Wetlands
(FW) program, were also reauthorized and amended.
Conservation Reserve Program
CRP is the largest federal, private-land retirement program in the United States, spending more
than $2 billion annually. The program provides financial compensation for landowners (annual
rental rate) to voluntarily remove land from agricultural production for an extended period
(typically 10 to 15 years) for the benefit of soil and water quality improvement and wildlife
habitat. The 2014 farm bill reauthorized CRP and reduced the enrollment cap from the previous
32 million acres to 24 million acres in FY2018. While CRP enrollment has fluctuated since its
creation in the 1985 farm bill, recent enrollment has declined from its peak in FY2007 (with 36.8
million acres enrolled) to 25.6 million acres in FY2013. Further reduction in the farm bill was
viewed as inevitable, given the fiscal challenges. Conservation and wildlife groups, however,
remain concerned that reduced enrollment will impact critical species habitat and soil and water
quality. Others point to the reduced enrollment as a product of high commodity prices, low rental
rates, and declining interest in retiring land from production. The 2014 farm bill enrollment
reduction created an estimated savings of $3.3 billion over 10 years.
The 2014 farm bill made several amendments to CRP, mostly centered on permitted activities.
Emergency harvesting, grazing, and other use of forage are permitted, in some cases, without a
reduction in rental rate, as well as livestock grazing for a beginning farmer or rancher. Other
approved activities, such as annual or routine grazing, may continue to require a reduction in
rental rate. The 2014 farm bill repealed the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) and incorporated
grassland contracts, similar to what was repealed under GRP, into CRP. The 2014 farm bill also
allows CRP participants the opportunity to terminate their contract early if the land has been
Congressional Research Service
9
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
enrolled longer than five years and does not contain environmentally sensitive practices. A
detailed analysis of the programmatic changes may be found in Table A-1.7
Easement Programs
Conservation easements impose a permanent land-use restriction that is voluntarily placed on the
land in exchange for a government payment. The 2014 farm bill repealed the conservation
easement programs—Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Farmland Protection Program (FPP),
and GRP—and created a new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
The three repealed easement programs had similar but slightly different goals. All three programs
were voluntary and sought to protect land from development by using permanent or long-term
easements to achieve this goal. Participants were compensated based on a fair market easement
value of the conservation easement. All three programs provided technical assistance and required
some form of conservation planning and conservation practice adoption. The major distinctions
among the three conservation easement programs were the type of land protected; whether
production was allowed; the duration of the protection; and who held the easement. More
information on these repealed programs is provided in the text box below.
Overview of Repealed Conservation Easement Programs
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)—WRP funded the purchase of easements (30 years or permanent),
restoration agreements (usually 10 years in length), and 30-year contracts to assist land owners in protecting and
restoring wetlands. It provided technical and financial assistance, and emphasized restoration to original natural
wetland conditions where possible. The program was authorized to enroll up to 3.014 million acres at any one time
nationwide.
Farmland Protection Program (FPP)—FPP provided funds to state, tribal, and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to help them purchase conservation easements from willing sellers to limit conversion of
farmland to nonagricultural uses. USDA provided up to 50% of the fair market value of the conservation easement.
The program was authorized to receive $200 million of mandatory funding in FY2014.
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)—GRP used long-term rental agreements and easements to help landowners
and producers restore and protect grasslands while maintaining them in a condition suitable for grazing using
common management practices. Participants voluntarily limited future development and cropping uses of the land
while retaining the right to conduct common grazing practices and operations related to the production of forage and
seeding, subject to certain restrictions during nesting seasons of bird species in significant decline or protected under
federal or state law. A grazing management plan was required for participants. GRP was authorized to enroll up to
1.22 million acres between FY2009 and FY2012.
The 2014 farm bill provides permanent baseline funding for ACEP. Funding became an issue
when the 2008 farm bill was not reauthorized and easement programs such as WRP and GRP did
not have baseline funding.8 This meant that farm bill extensions did not restore funding for the
7
Additional information about CRP may be found in CRS Report R42783, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP):
Status and Issues.
8
Further explained in CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
Congressional Research Service
10
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
programs, thus leaving them inactive until reauthorized.9 While permanent funding was seen as a
victory by many, others pointed out that total funding for the three repealed programs (WRP,
GRP, and FPP) was higher in the previous five years than the total authorized level for ACEP for
the next five years. Additionally, the enacted level of funding for ACEP was less than the levels in
both the House- and Senate-passed farm bills.
ACEP retains most of the program provisions in the repealed easement programs by establishing
two types of easements: agricultural land easements (similar to FPP and GRP) that limit nonagricultural uses on productive farm or grass lands, and wetland reserve easements (similar to
WRP) that protect and restore wetlands. General program provisions are the same across both
easement types, including ineligible land; subordination, exchange, modification, and termination
procedures; and compliance requirements. Priority enrollment is given to expiring CRP acres.
Agricultural Land Easements
Similar to FPP, ACEP requires USDA to enter into partnership agreements with eligible entities to
purchase agricultural land easements. Agreements with certified entities10 are a minimum of five
years with a review and recertification required every three years thereafter. Agreements with
non-certified entities are three to five years in length. The entities agree to share the cost of the
easement; purchase easements according to USDA’s requirements; and enforce and monitor
easements purchased. Also similar to the repealed FPP and GRP easements, agricultural land
easements allow production to continue on the land while prohibiting nonagricultural uses.
ACEP provides funding to purchase easements through eligible entities and provides technical
assistance for developing an agricultural land easement plan. The federal share of the easement
may not exceed 50% of the fair market value11 of the easement. The nonfederal share must be
provided by the eligible entity and should be equivalent to the USDA share. Up to 50% of the
nonfederal share may be a charitable donation or qualified conservation contribution from the
private landowner, assuming the remaining nonfederal share is a cash contribution from the
eligible entity. These cost-share requirements may be waived for grasslands of “special
environmental significance.” In this case, the federal share may be up to 75% of the fair market
value of the easement and the nonfederal share cash requirement may be waived entirely.
Agricultural land easements are permanent or for the maximum duration allowed under state law.
Wetland Reserve Easements
Much like WRP, wetland reserve easements are used to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands
through the use of 30-year or permanent easements, or the use of 30-year contracts for Indian
tribes. Landowners who have owned the land for at least 24 months prior to enrollment may
submit an offer to USDA that will be evaluated based on its conservation benefits, cost
effectiveness, and financial leverage. If selected, the landowner agrees to restore and maintain the
9
Further explained in CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Certified entities are defined in statute as having a plan for administering easements that is consistent with the
purposes of the program, the capacity and resources to enforce and monitor easements, and policies and procedures to
protect the integrity of the easements and complete timely acquisitions and evaluations of such easements.
11
The value may be determined using the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, an area-wide market
analysis or survey, or another industry-approved method.
10
Congressional Research Service
11
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
wetland according to an approved wetland reserve easement plan. USDA, in return, provides
technical and financial assistance for wetland restoration.12 Landowners are compensated for the
wetland reserve easement based on the fair market value of the land13 and the length of the
easement or contract.14 USDA is also allowed to delegate the management, monitoring, and
enforcement responsibilities of a wetland reserve easement to a separate authority.
A comparison of repealed program provisions (where applicable) to the new ACEP provisions
may be found in Table A-4.
Other Conservation Programs
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Similar to the consolidation of the easement programs, the 2014 farm bill consolidated a number
of the “other” conservation programs that provided partnership opportunities or multi-state
funding for watershed-scale projects. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
creates partnership opportunities to target and leverage federal conservation funding for specific
areas and resource concerns. A number of eligible activities are defined in statute. However,
consistent with the repealed programs, water quantity and water quality concerns continue to have
a large presence in RCPP.
RCPP incorporates the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), the Cooperative
Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program (CBWP),
and the Great Lakes Basin Program for soil erosion and sediment control (GLBP). Both AWEP
and CCPI utilized partnership agreements to focus conservation program funds to targeted areas.
The CBWP provided additional funds through existing conservation programs in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. The GLBP also targeted funding to a specific watershed, but unlike the other
three programs, the GLBP did not receive mandatory funding and was last funded through
appropriations in FY2010.15
RCPP uses 7% of available conservation program funds plus an additional $100 million annually
in mandatory funding to address specific natural resource concerns in selected project areas.
Project areas are defined by eligible partners and are selected through a competitive state or
national competition. Partnership agreements (known as Regional Conservation Partnerships,
RCPs) are for five years with a possible one-year extension. In addition to defining the project
area, providing assistance, and possibly acting on behalf of the producers within the project area,
12
Permanent easements are eligible for not less than 75% and not more than 100% of the restoration costs. 30-year
contracts and 30-year easements are eligible for not less than 50% and not more than 75% of the restoration costs.
13
Compensation is based on the lowest of: 1) the fair market value, 2) a geographical cap determined by USDA, or 3)
the offer made by the landowner.
14
Thirty-year contracts or 30-year easements may not be less than 50%, or more than 75% of the compensation for a
permanent easement.
15
The GLBP was last funded as a congressional directive (earmark) in FY2010 for a total of $404,000. Funds directly
supported the Great Lakes Commission and local conservation priorities in the Great Lakes region. Funding was
terminated in the FY2011 short-term continuing resolution (P.L. 112-4), which said that all FY2010 earmarks, “have no
legal effect.” Ultimately, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) terminated funding for the GLBP and
has not entered into any new agreements since. While funds were no longer provided to the Commission, NRCS began
redirecting other conservation program funding to the Great Lakes region as part of a larger Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, which includes 11 federal agencies. For more information, see http://greatlakesrestoration.us/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
12
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
partners must also provide a “significant portion” of the overall cost of the project. This leverages
the partner’s state, local, or private funding with RCPP’s federal funding. Funds are also directed
through “critical conservation areas” or CCAs. These areas are selected by USDA, are limited to
eight nationwide, and expire after five years.16 To be eligible for an RCPP contract, a producer
must be located in either a CCA or RCP, but is not required to work with the sponsoring RCP
partner and may choose to work directly with USDA. Figure 4 gives a general illustration of how
RCPP funding may be obligated to producer contracts based on the 2014 farm bill.
RCPP contracts will follow the existing rules and requirements of the covered programs (i.e.,
EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and the Healthy Forest Reserve Program, HFRP). Alternative funding
arrangements are allowed for multistate water resources agencies. Also, five-year payments may
be made to producers participating in water quantity and quality projects, specifically, conversion
from irrigated to dryland farming and improved nutrient management. A comparison of repealed
program provisions (where applicable) to the new RCPP provisions may be found in Table A-5.
Conservation Innovation Grants
The Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program is a sub-program of EQIP. The program is
intended to leverage federal investment, stimulate innovative approaches to conservation, and
accelerate technology transfer in environmental protection, agricultural production, and forest
management. The program was reauthorized in the 2014 farm bill through FY2018 at an
unspecified funding level of total EQIP funding. The farm bill reauthorized and reduced the air
quality component, which requires that payments be made through CIG to producers to
implement practices to address air quality concerns from agricultural operations in order to meet
federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. This air quality component was previously
authorized at $37.5 million annually and is reduced to $25 million annually (between FY2014
and FY2018) in the 2014 farm bill. The farm bill also adds a reporting requirement that no later
than December 31, 2014, and every two years thereafter, a report must be submitted to Congress
regarding CIG funding, project results, and technology transfer efforts.
Compliance Programs
The 1985 farm bill included a number of conservation provisions designed to conserve soil and
water resources. Two of the provisions remain in effect today—highly erodible land conservation
(sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster). The provisions, collectively referred to as
conservation compliance, require that in exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer
agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and to not convert
wetlands to crop production.17
16
In addition to the covered programs’ authority, RCPP may also use authority under the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (referred to as Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO), 16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) for
water quantity improvement projects within a CCA. For additional information on WFPO projects, see CRS Report
RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
17
For additional information on how conservation compliance works, see CRS Report R42459, Conservation
Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy.
Congressional Research Service
13
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Figure 4. Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
Source: CRS.
One of the most significant changes made by the 2014 farm bill was the addition of federal crop
insurance premium subsidies to the list of benefits that could possibly be lost if a producer were
found out of compliance. How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply, and
traditional exemptions and variances were not amended. The 2014 farm bill did create separate
considerations when addressing compliance violations and the loss of federal crop insurance
premium subsidies.
Highly Erodible Lands Conservation
The highly erodible land conservation provision (sodbuster) applies 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 to any highly erodible land in production after 1990, regardless of when the land
Congressional Research Service
14
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
was put into production. Land meeting this classification can be considered eligible for USDA
program benefits if the producer 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 before benefits would be lost. These provisions were unchanged by the 2014 farm bill.
What did change under the 2014 farm bill was the list of USDA program benefits that could be
lost if a producer were found out of compliance with the sodbuster provision. The list was
expanded to “include any portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act.”18 This does not mean that
producers cannot purchase a crop insurance plan through the federal crop insurance program;
rather, if found out of compliance, they would be ineligible to receive the insurance premium
subsidy paid by the federal government.19 The loss of the insurance premium subsidy is not
retroactive and would only take effect after all administrative appeals were exhausted.
The 2014 farm bill also extends the list of exemptions, allowing producers new to compliance
requirements additional time (five reinsurance years)20 to develop and comply with a
conservation plan before the loss of federal crop insurance premium subsidies. Producers with
compliance violations prior to the farm bill’s enactment are allowed two reinsurance years to
develop and comply with a conservation plan before the loss of the subsidies.
Wetlands Conservation
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.
The wetlands compliance provision also includes a number of exempt lands.21 These provisions
were unchanged by the 2014 farm bill.
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 2). 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.
Producers must continue to self-certify their compliance with the sodbuster and swampbuster
provisions. USDA is required to review certifications in a “timely manner”; otherwise, producers
will be held harmless with regard to eligibility even if a subsequent violation is found. Producers
18
7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
In 2013, an average of 62% of the total crop insurance premium was paid for by the federal government, and the
remainder by the participating farmer.
20
Reinsurance year is a 12-month period that begins on July 1st. For additional information about the federal crop
insurance program, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
21
Examples of exempt wetlands include a wetland converted to cropland before enactment of the 1985 farm bill
(December 23, 1985), artificially created lakes, ponds, or wetlands, and wetlands created by irrigation delivery systems.
A full list of exempt lands may be found in CRS Report R42459, Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy.
19
Congressional Research Service
15
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
who do not self-certify and are found to be in violation must pay an “equitable contribution” to a
wetland restoration fund, not to exceed the premium subsidy amount. USDA retains sole
responsibility for implementing the conservation compliance provisions.
Table 2. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions
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.
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.
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.
New Insurance Policies—wetlands
converted after 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.
The 2014 farm bill also amended the wetland mitigation banking program. 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.22 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. This is allowed by statute if “more acreage is needed to provide
equivalent functions and values that will be lost as a result of the wetland conversion to be
mitigated.”23 The House-passed farm bill would have limited wetland mitigation to not more than
a 1-to-1 acreage ratio. The Senate-passed farm bill would have required a study to assess the use
of wetland mitigation, determine impacts on wildlife habitat, and provide recommendations for
improving wetland mitigation procedures. Ultimately, the conference agreement adopted neither
the House nor Senate provision and instead provided $10 million in mandatory funding for
mitigation banking efforts. While the provision remains unchanged in statute, the conference
report (H.Rept. 113-333) includes language encouraging USDA to use a wetland mitigation ratio
not to exceed 1-to-1 acreage.
Sodsaver
The 2008 farm bill created a compliance provision under the Crop Insurance title, known as
sodsaver. The sodsaver provision would have made producers who planted crops (five or more
22
23
16 U.S.C. 3822(f).
16 U.S.C. 3822(f).
Congressional Research Service
16
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
acres) on native sod ineligible for crop insurance and the noninsured crop disaster assistance
(NAP) program24 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. Ultimately no governors opted to participate in the program and sodsaver was
never activated.
The Crop Insurance title (Title XI) of the 2014 farm bill amended and expanded the sodsaver
provision.25 Unlike the 2008 sodsaver provision, there is no opt-in requirement and the provision
became effective upon enactment. The sodsaver provision also applies to native sod in six
states—Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska—rather than only
the area covered by the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. Crop insurance premium subsidies
will now be reduced by 50 percentage points for production on native sod during the first four
years of planting.26 Crops planted on native sod will have reduced benefits under NAP. The farm
bill also clarified that native sod may include land that has never been tilled or cases where the
producer cannot substantiate that the ground has ever been tilled.
Crop yield guarantees might also be affected for crop insurance policies. 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. This is expected to reduce the incentive to produce on native sod.
24
For more information on crop insurance and NAP, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background
and CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
25
Section 11014.
26
For example, a 50 percentage point reduction would lower a premium subsidy rate of 62% to 12%. In 2013, an
average of 62% of the total crop insurance premium was paid for by the federal government, and the remainder by the
participating farmer.
Congressional Research Service
17
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Appendix. Comparison of Conservation Provisions
Enacted in the 2014 Farm Bill to Prior Law
This appendix includes a series of tables arranged by subtitle included in Title II of the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79). U.S. Code citations are included in brackets in the “Prior
Law” column. Corresponding section numbers in P.L. 113-79 are included in brackets in the
“Enacted 2014 Farm Bill” column. Funding for most Title II programs is covered in the “Funding
and Administration” subtitle (Table A-7). Where appropriate, funding levels are repeated within a
program’s corresponding subtitle table.
Table A-1. Subtitle A—Conservation Reserve Program
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec.1231(a-b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA)
(P.L. 99-198, or the 1985 farm bill), as amended,
authorizes the CRP through FY2013. CRP provides
annual rental payments to producers to replace crops on
highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land with
long-term resource conserving plantings. [16 U.S.C.
3831(a-b)]
Extends authorization through FY2018. Adds grasslands
to list of eligible lands, which is consistent with the
consolidation of Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)
rental agreements under CRP (also see Duties of the
Secretary, sec. 1233 of FSA). Amends eligible land
definition for land not enrolled in CRP to include
filterstrips and land enrolled in other conservation
practices. [Sec. 2001(a-b)]
Sec. 1231(c) of the FSA, as amended, determines the
planting status of certain land. [16 U.S.C. 3831(c)]
Deletes language allowing land enrolled in the Water
Bank Program and cropland expiring in CY2000-CY2002
to be enrolled. [Sec. 2001(c)]
Sec. 1231(d) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
maximum acreage enrollment levels; the program is
currently authorized through FY2013 to enroll up to 32
million acres. [16 U.S.C. 3831(d)]
Reduces enrollment to 27.5 million acres in FY2014; 26
million acres in FY2015; 25 million acres in FY2016; and
24 million acres in both FY2017 and FY2018. Also caps
grassland enrollment at 2 million acres between FY2014FY2018. Gives expiring CRP acres priority enrollment
for grassland contracts. Grassland sign-up is continuous
with one or more ranking periods. [Sec. 2001(d)]
Sec. 1231(e) of the FSA, as amended, defines the
duration of contracts. [16 U.S.C. 3831(e)]
Amends language for land devoted to hardwood trees,
shelterbelts, windbreaks, or wildlife corridors to allow
flexible contract lengths beyond the current 10-15 years.
[Sec. 2001(e)]
Sec. 1231(f) of the FSA, as amended, lists conservation
priority areas as the Chesapeake Bay Region, the Great
Lakes Region, and Long Island Sound. Watersheds with
significant adverse water quality or habitat impacts
related to agricultural production activities are eligible
for priority designation. Areas expire after five years or
upon application of the state. [16 U.S.C. 3831f]
Deletes the watershed-specific language, but retains the
use of conservation priority areas as determined by
USDA. [Sec. 2001(f)]
General Provisions
Farmable Wetlands Program
Sec. 1231B(a-f) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes a
pilot program for up to one million acres of wetland and
buffer acreage in CRP. [16 U.S.C. 3831b]
Congressional Research Service
Renames the pilot program “Farmable Wetlands
Program.” Reauthorizes the program through FY2018,
and clarifies language related to constructed wetlands
receiving water from agricultural drainage. Reduces
acreage limitation from one million acres to 750,000
acres. [Sec. 2002]
18
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Duties of Owners and Operators
Sec. 1232(a)(8) of the FSA, as amended, establishes
approved use of harvesting, grazing, and wind turbine use
on CRP acres. [16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(8)]
Deletes language related to harvesting, grazing, and wind
turbine use on CRP acres and adds similar language
under the Duties of the Secretary section (sec. 1233 of
FSA). [Sec. 2003(a)]
Sec. 1232(b & d) of the FSA, as amended, requires a
conservation plan on all CRP acres and reduces rental
payment for certain authorized uses. [16 U.S.C.
3832(b & d)]
Amends conservation plan language by removing possible
base acre retirement. Deletes rental payment reduction
requirement for certain authorized activities and adds
similar language under the Duties of the Secretary
section (sec. 1233 of FSA). [Sec. 2003(b-c)]
Duties of the Secretary
Sec. 1233 of the FSA, as amended, specifies the duty of
USDA to make cost-share payments and rental
payments. [16 U.S.C. 3833]
Deletes the current section and adds new section. In
return for a CRP contract, USDA makes cost-share and
rental payments. Certain permitted activities are allowed
if consistent with an approved conservation plan and are
subject to restrictions for nesting birds that are
economically significant, in decline, or conserved by law.
Emergency harvesting, grazing, and other use of forage
are permitted without a reduction in rental rate.
Livestock grazing for a beginning farmer or rancher is
permitted without a reduction in rental rate. Other
certain permitted activities (harvesting, grazing, and wind
turbines) are permitted in exchange for not less than a
25% reduction in rental rates. Grazing, harvesting, and
fire suppression are permitted on enrolled grasslands. In
exchange for a reduced rental rate, a landowner may
install land improvement practices up to one year before
the CRP acres expire. This land may not reenroll in CRP
for five years. [Sec. 2004]
Payments
Sec. 1234 of the FSA, as amended, establishes a
framework for calculating annual rental payments. [16
U.S.C. 3834]
Congressional Research Service
Specifies that tree and shrub maintenance cost share
payments are limited to between two and four years
beginning on the date of planting. Adds the requirement
that incentive payments be limited to no more than 150%
of the cost of thinning or other practices conducted.
Amends rental payment calculation to include grassland
contracts for not more than 75% of the grazing value.
Adds the requirement that the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) conduct a rental rate survey no
less than once a year. Dryland cash rental rates may also
be used as a factor for determining annual rental rates.
Deletes language allowing for in-kind commodities as a
form of CRP payment. Payments must be made in cash
and may be in advance of performance determinations.
[Sec. 2005] Limits of $10 million for thinning activities
between FY2014-FY2018 [Sec. 2601(a)].
19
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1235(e) of the FSA, as amended, allows owners and
operators to terminate a contract entered into before
January 1, 1995, at any time if the contract has been
effect for at least five years. Land with filterstrips,
waterways, strips adjacent to riparian areas, windbreaks,
shelterbelts, erodibility index of more than 15, and other
land of high environmental value (e.g., wetlands) are not
eligible for early release. The contract termination
becomes effective 60 days after the participants notice.
Rental payments are prorated and conservation
compliance requirements remain in effect. [16 U.S.C.
3835(e)]
Allows owners and operators to terminate their CRP
contracts in FY2015 if the contract has been in place for
at least five years. Adds to the list of excepted land,
including land with: hardwood trees, wildlife habitat, duck
nesting habitat, pollinator habitat, upland bird habitat
buffer, wildlife food plots, State Acres for Wildlife
Enhancement (SAFE), shallow water areas for wildlife,
rare and declining habitat, farmable wetlands, restored
wetlands, diversions, erosion control structures, flood
control structures, contour grass strips, living snow
fences, salinity reducing vegetation, cross wind trap
strips, sediment retention structures, federally designated
wellhead protection areas, an easement under CRP, and
average width of a perennial stream or permanent water
body, and a CREP contract. Terminations become
effective upon approval. [Sec. 2006(a)]
Sec. 1235(f) of the FSA, as amended, facilitates the
transfer of CRP acres from a retiring owner to a
beginning/socially-disadvantaged producer to return land
to production, and allows new owner to begin land
improvements or start organic certification process one
year before CRP contract expires. [16 U.S.C. 3835(f)]
Adds “veteran farmer or rancher” as eligible individuals
for the transition option, in addition to beginning farmer
or rancher. Specifies that approved land improvements
include preparing to plant an agricultural crop. [Sec.
2006(b)] Reauthorizes and increases the limit on the
CRP transition option to $33 million total between
FY2014-FY2018. [Sec. 2601(a)]
No comparable provision
Allows landowners to enroll in CSP (see Table A-2) and
conduct activities required under CSP in the final year of
the CRP contract without violating the terms of the
contract. Allows USDA to terminate or modify a CRP
contract if eligible land is transferred into ACEP (see
Table A-4). [Sec. 2006(c)]
Sec. 1235A of the FSA, as amended, allows land enrolled
in CRP before enactment of the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101624, November 28, 1990) to convert vegetative cover to
hardwood trees or restored wetlands [16 U.S.C.
3835a]
Repeals provision. [Sec. 2007]
No comparable provision.
Provides transition language stating that changes made by
the 2014 farm bill do not affect the validity or terms of
existing contracts. Allows CRP participants to update
their current contract to reflect the new terms and
conditions under Sec. 2004 (permitted activities). [Sec.
2008]
Contract Requirements
Funding
Sec. 1241(a)(1) of the FSA, as amended, allows the use of
funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to carry out CRP. Limits payments for
thinning activities to $100 million total between FY2009FY2013 and payments for the transition assistance to $25
million total for FY2009-2013. [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(1)]
Reduces limit for incentive activities (see Sec. 2005) to
$10 million total between FY2014-FY2018 and increases
limit for transition assistance (see Sec. 2006) to $33
million total between FY2014-FY2018. [Sec. 2601(a)]
Source: CRS.
Congressional Research Service
20
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Table A-2. Subtitle B—Conservation Stewardship Program
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1238D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as
amended, defines program terms for CSP, including:
conservation activities, conservation measurement tools,
conservation stewardship plan, priority resource
concern, program, resource concern, and stewardship
threshold. [16 U.S.C. 3838d]
Deletes the definition of ‘conservation measurement
tool.’ Moves the definition of ‘agricultural operation’ and
‘eligible land’ from the Conservation Stewardship
Program section (sec. 1238E of FSA) to the list of
definitions. Amends the definition of ‘eligible land’ to
specify nonindustrial private forestland rather than agroforestry, removes the term prairie land, and states
pastureland rather than improved pastureland. Merges
the term ‘resource concern’ with the definition of
‘priority resource concern.’ [Sec. 2101(a)]
Definitions
Conservation Stewardship Program
Sec. 1238E of the FSA, as amended, establishes the CSP
program for FY2009-FY2014. Eligible land includes
private agricultural land, tribal agricultural land (that has
been planted to crops in four of preceding six years), and
nonindustrial private forest land. Land enrolled in CRP or
WRP is considered ineligible. [16 U.S.C. 3838e]
Reauthorizes the program through FY2018. Moves
definition of ‘eligible land’ to the definition section (sec.
1238D of FSA, discussed above) and removes
nonindustrial private forest land limit of not more than
10% of total annual acres. Permits CSP enrollment of
land under a CRP contract provided the CRP contract is
scheduled to expire at the end of the year in which the
land is enrolled in CSP; and CRP payments for the land
cease prior to the date of the first CSP payment. Land
enrolled in a wetland reserve easement through ACEP is
ineligible. Retains the ineligibility for land not planted in
crops for four of the preceding six years. [Sec.
2101(a)]
Stewardship Contracts
Sec. 1238F of the FSA, as amended, establishes contract
requirements for addressing at least one resource
concern upon application and meeting or exceeding the
threshold for at least one priority resource concern by
the end of the contract. Establishes ranking criteria of
applications, contract provisions, contract renewal, and
contract terminations. [16 U.S.C. 3838f]
Increases the entry requirement to address two
resource concerns upon applying and meeting or
exceeding the threshold for at least one additional
priority resource concern. Adds expiring CRP acres
transitioning to production as a consideration for ranking
applications. Adds that USDA must agree to the transfer
of duties and rights when there is a change of interest in
the land under CSP contract. Requires contract renewal
participants to meet the threshold for two additional
priority resources concerns OR exceed the threshold
for two existing priority resource concerns. Moves the
‘coordination with organic certification’ provision to the
Duties of the Secretary section (sec. 1238G of FSA).
Removes the ‘On Farm Research and Demonstration or
Pilot Testing’ provision. [Sec. 2101(a)]
Duties of the Secretary
Sec, 1238G of the FSA, as amended, outlines the duties
of USDA, including offering continuous enrollment with
at least one ranking period per year, identifying between
three to five priority resource concerns, and developing
a conservation measurement tool. Limits acreage
enrollment to 12,769,000 acres for each fiscal year 2008
through 2017. Requires a national average rate of $18
per acre (to include all costs). Payments may be based on
the costs incurred, income foregone, and expected
environmental benefits. In general, payments are made at
the beginning of each fiscal year and are limited to a total
Congressional Research Service
Increases the number of priority resource concerns
identified by USDA to not less than five. Removes
references to a conservation measurement tool. Reduces
the number of enrollable acres to 10 million acres for
each fiscal year 2014 through 2022. Adjusts the payment
limit aggregate to $200,000 for all CSP contracts
between FY2014 and FY2018. In addition to costs
incurred, income foregone, and expected environmental
benefits, annual payments are also based on the extent
concerns are addressed through conservation activities,
level of stewardship maintained over time, and degree
21
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
of $200,000 for all CSP contracts during any five-year
period. [16 U.S.C. 3838g]
which activities are integrated across the entire
operation. Requires a prorated performance over the life
of the contract to create equal payments each fiscal year.
Removes data collection requirements. [Sec. 2101(a)]
No comparable provision.
Provides transition language stating that changes made by
the 2014 farm bill do not affect the validity or terms of
existing contracts. Funding for existing CSP contracts
may be made from current year funds. [Sec. 2101(b)]
Source: CRS.
Table A-3. Subtitle C—Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as
amended, authorizes EQIP, stating its purpose as
promoting production and environmental quality as
compatible goals, and optimizing environmental benefits
by assisting producers: (1) to comply with national
regulatory requirements; (2) to avoid the need for
regulation; (3) to install and maintain conservation
practices; (4) to make cost-effective changes to current
production systems, and (5) to reduce administrative
burdens by consolidating planning and regulatory
compliance. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa]
Removes the purpose of requiring the reduction of
administrative burdens on the producer through
consolidating conservation planning and streamlining
regulatory compliance processes. Adds wildlife habitat
improvement and development practices to the purpose
list. [Sec. 2201]
Purpose
Definitions
Sec. 1240A of the FSA, as amended, defines six terms:
eligible land, National Organic Program, organic system
plan, payment, practice, and program. [16 U.S.C.
3839aa-1]
Incorporates the definition of the National Organic
Program into the definition of an organic system plan.
[Sec. 2202]
Establishment and Administration
Sec. 1240B(a-b) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes EQIP
through FY2015. Contracts are one to ten years in
length. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(a-b)]
Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2018. Removes the
minimum one-year contract length requirement. [Sec.
2203(1-2)]
Sec. 1240B(d) of the FSA, as amended, limits EQIP
payments to not more than 75% of the cost (up to 90%
for limited resource, socially disadvantaged farm or
rancher, or a beginning farmer or rancher) and not more
than 100% of income forgone. Greater significance is
provided for determining income foregone payments for
specific management practices. Advance payments for
certain producers are limited to 30% of the cost-share
rate. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(d)]
Broadens the list of practices afforded greater
significance when determining income foregone. Adds
veteran farmer or rancher to the list of certain
producers eligible for cost-share rates up to 90% and
advanced payments. Increases the limit for advanced
payments to certain producers to 50% and requires
advanced payments not used within 90 days to be
returned. [Sec. 2203(3)]
Sec. 1240B(f) of the FSA, as amended, requires that 60%
of EQIP payments go to practices related to livestock
production requirement between FY2008-FY2013. [16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2(f)]
Extends through FY2018 the requirement that 60% of
payments be for livestock production. Requires a
minimum of 5% of annual funds go to payments benefiting
wildlife habitat through FY2018 (see Sec. 2203(5)). [Sec.
2203(4)]
Congressional Research Service
22
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1240N of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), providing
cost-sharing to landowners who improve habitat.
Authorized to receive mandatory funding of $85 million
annually through FY2013. [16 U.S.C. 3839bb-1]
Adds a new provision under EQIP specifically for wildlife
habitat incentive practices. Language is similar to the
WHIP, which is repealed in Sec. 2707. Requires USDA to
consult with State Technical Committees once a year
when determining eligible practices. [Sec. 2203(5)]
Evaluation of Applications
Sec. 1240C(b) of the FSA, as amended, identifies
priorities to program applications. Gives higher priority
for producers using cost-effective conservation practices
to achieve environmental benefits. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa3(b)]
Changes “environmental benefits” to “conservation
benefits.” [Sec. 2204]
Duties of Producers
Sec. 1240D(2) of the FSA, as amended, states that in
exchange for EQIP payments, producers will not conduct
any practices on the farm, ranch, or forest land that
could defeat the purpose of the program. [16 U.S.C.
3839aa-4(2)]
Changes the practice restriction from “farm, ranch, or
forest” land to “enrolled” land. [Sec. 2205]
Limitation on Payments
Sec. 1240G of the FSA, as amended, limits EQIP
participant’s payments to $300,000 for any six-year
period. This may be waived to up to $450,000 for any
six-year period if the contract is of environmental
significance. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-7]
Raises the EQIP payment limit to an aggregate of
$450,000 between FY2014-FY2018 and eliminates the
waiver authority for contracts of environmental
significance. [Sec. 2206]
Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)
Sec. 1240H(a) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes
Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG), a competitive
grant program within EQIP. Grants are provided, on a
matching basis, to implement innovative conservation
practices. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-8(a)]
Adds research and demonstration activities, and new
technology pilot testing as eligible projects. [Sec.
2207(1)]
Sec. 1240H(b) of the FSA, as amended, provides $37.5
million of EQIP funds annually (FY2009-FY2013) to
address air quality concerns. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-8(b)]
Reauthorizes but reduces the air quality funding carveout to $25 million of EQIP annually through FY2018.
[Sec. 2207(2)]
No comparable provision
Adds a reporting requirement that no later than Dec. 31,
2014, and every two years thereafter, a report must be
submitted to Congress regarding CIG funding, project
results, and technology transfer efforts. [Sec. 2207(3)]
No comparable provision
Provides transition language stating that changes made by
the 2014 farm bill do not affect the validity or terms of
existing contracts. [Sec. 2208]
Funding
Sec. 1241(a)(6) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes
mandatory EQIP funding, rising from $1.2 billion in
FY2008 to $1.622 billion in FY2015. [16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(6)]
Authorizes mandatory EQIP funding: $1.35 billion
(FY2014); $1.6 billion (FY2015); $1.65 billion (FY2016FY2017); and $1.75 billion (FY2018). Amended Sec.
1241(a)(5). [Sec. 2601(a)]
Source: CRS.
Notes: The enacted FY2014 appropriation (P.L. 113-76) reauthorized and amended EQIP. Because the changes
were enacted prior to the enactment of the 2014 farm bill, they are reflected in the table as prior law.
Congressional Research Service
23
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Table A-4. Subtitle D—Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
No directly comparable provision. Similar to the
establishment and purposes section of the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP, Sec. 1237(a)), the Farmland
Protection Program (FPP, Sec. 1238I(a)&(b)), and the
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP, Sec. 1238N(a)) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as amended.
[16 U.S.C. 3837(a); 3838i(a)&(b); 3838n(a)]
Establishes the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP). Combines the purposes of WRP, FPP, and GRP.
Amended Sec.1265of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA)
[Sec. 2301(a)]
Establishment
Definition
No directly comparable provision. Similar to
definitions found in Sec. 1237 (WRP) and Sec. 1238H
(FPP) of the FSA, as amended. [16 U.S.C. 3837 &
3838h]
Divides the easement program into two types—agricultural
land easements (ALE), which include components of FPP and
GRP; and wetland reserve easements (WRE), which include
components of WRP. Defines the following:
•
agricultural land easements—an easement that
protects the natural resources and the agricultural
nature of the land, while maintaining production
•
eligible entity—an agency of state or local
government, Indian tribe, or eligible organization
•
eligible land—separate for ALE and WRE. ALE
includes land: with a pending ALE offer; with prime,
unique, or productive soils; that contains historical or
archaeological resources; that would protect grazing
uses; that furthers a similar state or local policy; that is
cropland, rangeland, grassland, area historically
dominated by grassland, pastureland, or nonindustrial
private forest land. WRE includes: farmed or converted
wetlands; cropland or grassland that has prior flooding
from a closed basin lake or pothole if the state or other
entity is willing to provide a 50% cost-share of the
easement; wetlands enrolled in the CRP, have high
wetland functions, and are likely to return to production
after CRP; riparian areas that link protected wetlands;
or wetlands determined by USDA to be significant.
•
wetland reserve easement—an easement defined
and delineated in a deed that stipulates the rights, title,
and interests in the land conveyed to USDA and
reserved by the landowner
Amended Sec. 1265A [Sec. 2301(a)]
Agricultural Land Easements
No directly comparable provision. Similar to Sec.
1238I (FPP) of the FSA, as amended. Provides for the
purchase of conservation easements by limiting the
land’s nonagricultural uses. The federal cost may not
exceed 50% of the appraised market value of the
easement and entities must contribute a minimum of
25% of the acquisition purchase price. Prohibits
bidding down (or choosing between similar projects
based on lowest price). Requires USDA to include a
contingent right of enforcement in the terms of the
easement, and that a conservation plan be required
for any easements that include highly erodible
Congressional Research Service
Retains much of the FPP easement requirements for costshare assistance, agreements with eligible entities,
certification of eligible entities, including review and
recertification requirements. Allows for grazing as a
protected agricultural use, similar to GRP easements.
Requires appraisals based on uniform standards of
professional appraisal practice or any other industryapproved standard. Requires eligible entities to provide
contributions equivalent to the federal share, or at least 50%
of the federal share if the entity includes contributions from
the private landowner. Allows up to 75% federal cost-share
for grasslands of special environmental significance.
24
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
cropland. Establishes a certification process for
USDA to enter into agreements. Entities must have
the authority and resources to enforce easements,
polices, and procedures. Agreements with certified
entities are a minimum of five years with a review
and recertification required every three years.
Agreements with non-certified entities are three to
five years in length. [16 U.S.C. 3838i(c)-(h)]
Authorizes USDA to waive any portion of the eligible entity
cash contribution requirement for projects of special
significance, subject to an increase of private landowner
donation equal to the amount of the waiver if donation is
voluntary. Establishes evaluation and ranking criteria for
applications. All easements are permanent or for the
maximum duration allowed under state law. Amended Sec.
1265B [Sec. 2301(a)]
Wetland Reserve Easements
No directly comparable provision. Similar to Sec.
1237-1237F (WRP) of the FSA, as amended. WRP
enrolls lands through the use of permanent
easements, 30-year easements, restoration costshare agreements, or any combination thereof.
Eligible lands under WRP include: farmed wetland or
converted wetland, together with adjacent land,
except wetlands converted before December 23,
1985; cropland or grassland that was used for
agricultural production prior to flooding from the
natural overflow of a closed basin lake or pothole;
and possibly farmed wetlands enrolled in CRP that
are likely to return to production upon contract
expiration. Ineligible lands include CRP acres
containing timber stands or CRP pasture established
to trees. USDA is required to determine the value of
easements and contracts by providing the lowest
amount of compensation based on a comparison of
the fair market value of the land, a geographic cap, or
an offer made by the landowner. Easements with
values less than $500,000 must be paid out over 1-30
years; easements with values greater than $500,000
are to be paid out over 5-30 years. Authorized to
conduct a Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program
(WREP) for agreements with states similar to CREP.
Priority is given to easements based on the value of
protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory birds
and other wildlife, while taking into consideration
costs and future agricultural and food needs. Eligible
land cannot have changed ownership in the previous
seven year period unless the new ownership was by
will, succession, foreclosure, or USDA is assured the
land was not acquired for the purpose of enrolling in
WRP. [16 U.S.C. 3837-3837f]
Retains much of the WRP easement requirements for land
eligibility, easement terms, compatible uses, easement
compensation, violation procedures, duties of USDA and the
owner, cost-share, restoration, and technical assistance
requirements. Reauthorizes a program similar to WREP,
referred to as the wetland enhancement option. No longer
allows for stand-alone cost-share restoration agreements;
only 30-year easements, permanent easements (or maximum
duration allowed under law), and 30-year contracts for Indian
Tribes, which may include restoration assistance. Reduces
the land ownership requirement to the preceding 24-month
period. Requires the establishment of an evaluation and
ranking criteria that maximizes the benefit of federal
investment. Retains priority for easements based on the value
of protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory birds and
other wildlife, but removes consideration for costs and future
agricultural and food needs. Makes the reserved grazing
rights pilot program permanent. Compensation provisions
are similar to WRP, but adds a requirement that 30-year
contract (Tribes only) and 30-year easement compensation
be between 50% and 75% of a permanent easement’s
compensation. Payment schedules are changed for easements
with values less than $500,000 to be paid out over not more
than 10 years and easements with values greater than
$500,000 to be paid out over 5-10 years. Restoration costshare is between 75%-100% for permanent easements and
between 50%-75% for 30-year contracts (Tribes only) and
30-year easements. Easement administration may be
delegated; however, the monitoring and enforcement
responsibilities may not. Amended Sec. 1265C [Sec.
2301(a)]
Administration
No directly comparable provision.
Congressional Research Service
Outlines administrative requirements for ACEP using
elements of WRP, FPP, and GRP. Land owned by the U.S.
(not held in trust for Indian tribes), state, or local
government is not eligible. The land may not be eligible if it
currently has a similar easement or protection already in
place or where the easement could be undermined by other
conditions (e.g., hazardous substance, rights of way, etc.).
Provides priority for expiring CRP acres to enter into (1)
agricultural land easements if they are grasslands that would
benefit from long-term easements, or (2) wetland easements,
if they are wetlands with the highest functions and value that
could return to production after leaving the CRP. Allows the
25
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
USDA to subordinate, exchange, modify, or terminate
easements. Requires ACEP participants to meet highly
erodible land and wetlands conservation (collectively known
as conservation compliance) requirements. Amended Sec.
1265D. [Sec. 2301(a)]
Technical Amendments
No directly comparable provision. Section 1244(f) of
the FSA, as amended limits CRP and WRP
enrollment to no more than 25% of a county’s total
cropland acreage. [16 U.S.C. 3844 et seq.]
Provides technical amendments for other sections. Excludes
shelterbelts, windbreak, and wet and saturated soils from the
25% county acreage cap. Amends acreage limitations to
include existing WRP acres in the 25% county acreage cap in
addition to CRP and the new wetland easements under
ACEP. [Sec. 2301(b)]
Funding
No directly comparable provision. Sec. 1241(a)(2)
and (a)(5) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes
mandatory funding to enroll WRP & GRP acres
respectively. Sec. 1241(a)(4) authorizes mandatory
FPP funding, rising from $97 million in FY2008 to
$200 million in FY2014. [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(2);
(a)(4); (a)(5)]
Authorizes mandatory ACEP funding: $400 million (FY2014);
$425 million (FY2015); $450 million (FY2016); $500 million
(FY2017); and $250 million (FY2018) Amended Sec.
1241(a)(2). [Sec. 2601(a)]
Source: CRS.
Table A-5. Subtitle E—Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
No directly comparable provision. Includes elements of
the establishment and purposes section of the
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP, Sec.
1240I)), the Chesapeake Bay Watershed program (Sec.
1240Q), the Cooperative Conservation Partnership
Initiative (CCPI, Sec. 1243) and the Great Lakes basin
program for soil erosion and sediment control (Sec.
1240P) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as
amended. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-9; 3839bb-4; 3843;
3839bb-3]
Establishes the Regional Conservation Partnership
Program (RCPP). Combines the purposes of AWEP, the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed program, CCPI, and the
Great Lakes basin program to further conservation,
restoration, and sustainability on a regional or watershed
scale, and encourage partners to cooperate with
producers in meeting or avoiding regulatory
requirements and implementing projects. Amended Sec.
1271 [Sec. 2401]
Purpose
Definition
No directly comparable provision. Includes elements of
the four consolidated programs.
Congressional Research Service
Defines the following:
•
covered program—includes ACEP, EQIP, CSP,
and HFRP
•
eligible activities—activities for water quality and
quantity improvement, drought mitigation, flood
prevention, water retention, air quality
improvement, habitat conservation, erosion control
and sediment reduction, forest restoration and
others defined by USDA.
•
eligible land—cropland, grassland, rangeland,
pastureland, nonindustrial private forest land, and
other incidental land.
•
eligible partner—producer organizations, state or
26
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
local governments, Indian tribes, farmer
cooperatives, water districts, municipal water or
waste treatment entity, institutes of higher
education, and other nongovernmental entity or
organizations with a history of working with
producers on conservation projects.
•
partnership agreement—a regional conservation
partnership agreement between an eligible partner
and USDA.
Amended Sec. 1271A [Sec. 2401]
Regional Conservation Partnership
No directly comparable provision. Includes elements of
the consolidated programs, primarily AWEP and CCPI.
Authorizes competitive partnership agreements for a
period not to exceed five years with a possible one-year
extension. Describes the duties of partners as defining
the scope of projects, conducting outreach, acting on
behalf of producers to apply for assistance, leveraging
financial and technical assistance, conducting assessments,
and reporting results. Partners must provide a
“significant portion” of the overall cost of the project.
Applications are competitive and the selection criteria
are publically available. Priority is given to applications
that: assist producers meeting or avoiding the need for
regulation; include a large percentage of producers in the
project area; provide significant resource leverage;
applies a high percentage of conservation to priorities or
initiative; or provide innovative conservation methods
and delivery. Amended Sec. 1271B [Sec. 2401(a)]
Assistance to Producers
No directly comparable provision. Includes elements of
the consolidated programs, primarily AWEP and CCPI.
Congressional Research Service
Directs USDA to enter into contracts to provide
technical and financial assistance to producers
participating in projects with eligible partners, or
producers within a project area or critical conservation
area not working through an eligible partner. Program
rules, requirements, and payments are to be consistent
with the covered programs (ACEP, EQIP, & CSP).
Provides USDA the authority to adjust the rules of a
covered program, including operational guidance and
requirements in order to simplify the application and
evaluation process. Prohibits the adjustment of statutory
requirements for a covered program, including appeals,
payment limits, conservation compliance, and prior
irrigation history. Authorizes no more than 20
alternative funding arrangements with multi-state water
agencies or authorities. Five year payments may be made
for conversion to dryland farming and nutrient
management. AGI limits may be waived to fulfill the
objectives of the program. Amended Sec. 1271C [Sec.
2401(a)]
27
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
No directly comparable provision. Sec. 1240I(j) of the
FSA, as amended, authorizes mandatory AWEP funds of
$73 million in FY2009 and FY2010, $74 million in
FY2011, and $60 million each fiscal year thereafter.
Authorizes $100 million annually for FY2014-FY2018 to
remain available until expended. Similar to CCPI, the
program utilizes a percentage of other conservation
program funding. Annually reserves 7% of covered
program funds and acres until April 1each year, after
which time uncommitted funds are returned to the
covered program. Allocates 25% for a state competition,
40% for a national competition, and 35% for critical
conservation areas. Retains the AWEP and CCPI
restriction on paying no administrative expenses of
eligible partners. Amended Sec. 1271D [Sec. 2401]
Funding
Sec. 1240Q(h) authorizes Chesapeake Bay Watershed
program funds of $23 million in FY2009, $43 million in
FY2010, $72 million in FY2011, and $50 million in
FY2012.
Sec. 1243(i) authorizes CCPI to use 6% of covered
program for a state (90%) and national (10%)
competition.
Sec. 1240P(d) authorizes appropriations of $5 million
annually for the Great Lakes basin program. [16 U.S.C.
3839aa-9(j); 3838bb-4(h); 3843(i); 3839bb-3(d)]
Administration
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA to make information on selected
projects publicly available. Requires a report to Congress
on December 31, 2014 (and every two years thereafter)
on the status of projects funded. Amended Sec. 1271E
[Sec. 2401(a)]
Critical Conservation Areas
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA to use 35% of the funds and acres
available for partnership agreements in no more than
eight critical conservation areas that expire after five
years, subject to redesignation. Areas are selected based
on: multi-state areas with significant agricultural
production; existing agreement or plan in place; water
quality concerns; water quantity concerns; or subject to
regulatory requirements. Partner agreements and
producer contracts are administered according to the
applicable covered program and, where possible,
complement existing water quality and quantity
strategies. Allows the use of authorities granted under
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
program in critical conservation areas. Amended Sec.
1271F [Sec. 2401(a)]
Source: CRS.
Table A-6. Subtitle F—Other Conservation Programs
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1240M(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as
amended, authorizes the Conservation of Private Grazing
Land Program. Authorizes appropriations of $60 million
annually through FY2013. [16 U.S.C, 3839bb(e)]
Extends authorization of appropriations at $60 million
annually through FY2018. [Sec. 2501]
Sec. 1240O(b) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program. Authorizes
appropriations of $20 million annually through FY2013.
[16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2(b)]
Extends annual authorization of appropriations ($20
million) through FY2018 and authorizes a one-time $5
million in mandatory funding from the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) to remain available until
expended. [Sec. 2502]
Congressional Research Service
28
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1240R of the FSA, as amended authorizes state
grants through a Voluntary Public Access and Habitat
Incentive Program to encourage landowners to provide
public access for wildlife-dependent recreation. Sets
application contents and award priorities providing $50
million in mandatory funds for the period for FY2013.
[16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5]
Reduces and extends authorization of $40 million in
mandatory funding for the period of FY2014-FY2018.
Requires USDA to submit a report to Congress no later
than two years after enactment on the effectiveness of
the program. [Sec. 2503]
Sec. 1252 of FSA, as amended, authorizes an Agriculture
Conservation Experienced Service Program (ACES), such that
USDA can enter into agreements with organizations to
provide technical assistance (excludes administrative
tasks) using qualified individuals 55 years or older.
Funding from CRP, GRP, WRP, and CSP may not be used
to carry out the ACES program. [16 U.S.C. 3851]
Allows funding for each conservation program in the
Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, except CRP, to
be used to carry out the ACES program. [Sec. 2504]
Sec. 14(h)(2)(E) of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (P.L. 106-472), as amended, authorizes up
to $85 million annually in discretionary funding for the
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program for FY2008FY2013 and $100 million in mandatory funding for
FY2009 to remain available until expended. [16 U.S.C.
1012(h)(2)(E)]
Extends authorization of appropriations through FY2018
and authorizes $250 million in mandatory funding for
FY2014 to remain available until expended. [Sec. 2505]
Sec. 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95334), as amended, authorizes USDA to assists sponsors,
landowners, and operators in implementing emergency
recovery measures for runoff retardation and erosion
prevention to relieve imminent hazards to life and
property created by a natural disaster under the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program. This may include
the purchase of floodplain easements. [16 U.S.C.2203]
Authorizes USDA to modify and terminate floodplain
easements provided the current landowner agrees, and
the modification or termination addresses a compelling
public need for which there is no practical alternative,
and is in the public interest. [Sec. 2506]
Sec. 2507 of the Food, Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (P.L. 107-171, 2002 farm bill), as amended,
authorizes USDA to transfer $175 million of CCC funds
to the Bureau of Reclamation to provide water for atrisk desert terminal lakes. [43 U.S.C. 2211]
Deletes current section and replaces with new section
that adds definitions for eligible land, program, and
terminal lake. Also adds a new voluntary land purchase
grant program with authorization to receive $25 million
through appropriations to remain available until
expended. Retains provisions for voluntary water
purchases for desert terminal lakes, including the transfer
of $150 million of CCC funds to the Bureau of
Reclamation. [Sec. 2507]
USDA is authorized and directed to develop in
cooperation with and participation by the public through
conservation districts, state and national organizations
and agencies, and other appropriate means, a national Soil
and Water Conservation Program to be used as a guide in
carrying out the activities of USDA which assist
landowners and land users, at their request, in furthering
soil and water conservation on the private and nonfederal lands of the nation. [16 U.S.C. 2005]
Adds Indian tribes as being eligible to cooperate with and
participate in the Soil and Water Conservation Program.
[Sec. 2508]
Source: CRS.
Congressional Research Service
29
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Table A-7. Subtitle G—Funding and Administration
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as
amended, authorizes the use of funds (mandatory),
facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) to carry out conservation programs
between FY2002 through FY2012 (through FY2014 and
FY2015 for select programs). [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)]
Deletes current section and replaces with new section
that extends the CCC authority between FY2014 and
FY2018. Specific funding levels for programs are outlined
below. [Sec. 2601(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(1) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes CCC
(mandatory funding) to carry out CRP for FY2002FY2012. Specifically authorizes $100 million for thinning
activities and $25 million for transition contracts
between FY2009-FY2012. Total funding for CRP is
limited by enrolled acres, not total dollars. See Table A1. [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(1)]
Reauthorizes the authority for CCC to carry out CRP
between FY2014 and FY2018. Specifically authorizes $10
million for thinning incentive payments and $33 million
for transition contracts. [Sec. 2601(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(2) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
CCC (mandatory funding) to carry out WRP for
FY2002-FY2012. Total funding for WRP is limited by
enrolled acres, not total dollars. [16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(2)]
Removes the WRP authority and replaces with an
authorization for ACEP: $400 million (FY2014); $425
million (FY2015); $450 million (FY2016); $500 million
(FY2017); and $250 million (FY2018). See Table A-4.
[Sec. 2601(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(3) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
CCC (mandatory funding) to carry out CSP for FY2002FY2014. Total funding for CSP is limited by enrolled
acres, not total dollars. Allows Conservation Security
Program contracts (enrolled prior to FY2009) to be paid
with mandatory funding. [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(3)]
Reauthorizes the authority for CCC to carry out CSP
between FY2014 and FY2018. [Sec. 2601(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(4) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
CCC to carry out FPP for FY2002-FY2014: $97 million
(FY2008); $121 million (FY2009); $150 million (FY2010);
$175 million (FY2011); and $200 million (FY2012FY2014). [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(4)]
Removes the FPP authority and replaces with an
authorization for ACEP: $400 million (FY2014); $425
million (FY2015); $450 million (FY2016); $500 million
(FY2017); and $250 million (FY2018). See Table A-4.
[Sec. 2601(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(5) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
CCC (mandatory funding) to carry out GRP for FY2002FY2012. Total funding for GRP is limited by enrolled
acres, not total dollars. [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(5)]
Removes the GRP authority and replaces with an
authorization for ACEP: $400 million (FY2014); $425
million (FY2015); $450 million (FY2016); $500 million
(FY2017); and $250 million (FY2018). See Table A-4.
[Sec. 2601(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(6) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
CCC (mandatory funding) to carry out EQIP for FY2002FY2015: $1.2 billion (FY2008); $1.337 billion (FY2009);
$1.45 billion (FY2010); $1.588 billion (FY2011); $1.75
billion (FY2012-FY2014); and $1.622 billion (FY2015).
[16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(6)]
Reauthorizes the authority for CCC to carry out EQIP
between FY2014-FY2018: $1.35 billion (FY2014); $1.6
billion (FY2015); $1.65 billion (FY2016-FY2017); and
$1.75 billion (FY2018). [Sec. 2601(a)]
Sec. 1241(a)(7) of the FSA, as amended, authorizes the
CCC to carry out WHIP for FY2002-FY2014: $15
million (FY2002); $30 million (FY2003); $60 million
(FY2004); and $85 million (FY2005-FY2014). [16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(7)]
Removes WHIP authority. Requires a minimum of 5% of
annual EQIP funds go to payments benefiting wildlife
habitat through FY2018. See Table A-3. [Sec.
2203(4)]
No comparable provision.
Allows mandatory funding made available for CRP, ACEP,
CSP, and EQIP to remain available until expended. [Sec.
2601(b)]
Program Funding
Congressional Research Service
30
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1241(c) of the FSA, as amended, allows CCC funds
for conservation programs to also be used for technical
assistance. [16 U.S.C. 3841(b)]
Allows CCC (mandatory) funds for conservation
programs to also be used for technical assistance, with
the exception of CRP, which is at the discretion of
USDA.
Use of Program Funds
Requires USDA to give priority to producers who
request technical assistance to comply with highly
erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland
conservation (swampbuster) for the first time because of
the changes made under Sec. 2611 (ties crop insurance
subsidies to compliance requirements, discussed further
below). Requires a report to Congress in 270 days after
enactment on the impact conservation compliance has
on specialty crop growers.
Requires a report to Congress by December 31, 2013
(and each subsequent year), detailing the amount of
technical assistance requested and apportioned for each
conservation program.
Requires an annual report to Congress on November 1
each year describing how conservation compliance is
being addressed in a timely manner, total requests
completed, incomplete determinations on record, and
requests older than a year. [Sec. 2602]
Sec. 1241(d) of the FSA, as amended, requires that each
state receives an aggregated minimum of $15 million
annually from certain mandatory conservation programs
in order to promote regional equity. [16 U.S.C.
3841(d)]
Eliminates the $15 million annual minimum and allows
states in the first quarter of the fiscal year to establish
that they can use a total of 0.6% of certain conservation
funds. If established, those states may receive 0.6% of
funds. [Sec. 2603]
Sec. 1241(g) of the FSA, as amended, establishes an
annual set-aside in EQIP and CSP from FY2009-FY2013;
5% to beginning farmers or ranchers and 5% to socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. [16 U.S.C.
3841(g)]
Reauthorizes the EQIP and CSP set-aside through
FY2018. Provides preference for veteran farmers or
ranchers eligible under the provision. [Sec. 2604]
Sec. 1241(h) of the FSA, as amended, establishes
reporting requirements for program enrollments and
assistance under WRP, FPP, GRP, EQIP, AWEP, CSP, and
adjusted gross income waivers. [16 U.S.C. 3841(h)]
Amends reporting requirements to reflect the repeal of
WRP, FPP, GRP, and AWEP and the addition of ACEP
and RCPP. Adds reporting requirements for CSP
payments and waivers granted to grasslands under ACEP.
[Sec. 2605]
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 1244 of the FSA, as amended, outlines administrative
requirements for conservation programs including
incentives for certain farmers or ranchers, privacy
information, conservation plans, acreage limitations, and
applications, among others. [16 U.S.C. 3844]
Adds veteran farmers and ranchers to the list of eligible
persons authorized to receive incentives. Makes
conforming amendments to reflect the new ACEP
program. Encourages streamlining and technology use to
enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Clarifies that
conservation payments are in addition to and not
included in any payment limit caps. Allows for flexible
funding arrangements for Indian Tribes and includes EQIP
and CSP as applicable programs. [Sec. 2606]
Sec. 1261(b) of the FSA, as amended, requires USDA to
develop standard committee operating procedures for
State Technical Committees. [16 U.S.C. 3861(b)]
Amends provision to allow USDA to review and update
standards as necessary. [Sec. 2607]
Congressional Research Service
31
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 2904 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008, (P.L. 110-246, 2008 farm bill) requires USDA, in
consultation with CCC, to issue rules and regulations
implementing Title II provisions within 90 days. Waives
certain rulemaking requirements.
Amends and adds the 2008 farm bill regulations provision
to a new Sec. 1246 of the FSA. Allows interim final rules
to be effective upon issuance and waives the Paperwork
Reduction Act requirements (44 U.S.C. 35). [Sec.
2608]
Compliance Requirements and Reports
Sec. 1222 of the FSA, as amended, allows USDA to
exempt persons from ineligibility under wetland
compliance (swampbuster) if certain factors exist,
including: there is a minimal effect; the values, functions,
and acreage are mitigated; conversion occurred after
December 23, 1985, but before November 28, 1990, and
are mitigated; or the action is authorized by a Clean
Water Act section 404 permit (33 U.S.C. 1344). Sec.
1222(k) of the FSA, as amended, allowed USDA to
operate a pilot program for mitigation banking. [16
U.S.C. 3822]
Adds language that amends Sec. 1222(k) of the FSA,
authorizing USDA to expand and make permanent the
wetland mitigation banking pilot program. Provides $10
million mandatory funding to remain available until
expended. Allows access to existing mitigation banks.
[Sec. 2609]
No comparable provision.
Requires a report to Congress 90 days after enactment
reviewing the activities that apply to the lesser prairiechicken under: CRP; EQIP; the Lesser Prairie-Chicken
Initiative; the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies Candidate Conservation Agreement with
Assurances for Oil and Gas; and the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Lesser PrairieChicken Range-Wide Conservation Plan. [Sec. 2610]
Sec. 1211 of the FSA, as amended, requires that in
exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer
agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on
highly erodible land (referred to as HEL compliance).
Examples of affected benefit include commodity support
programs (e.g., Title I farm bill programs), conservation
programs, disaster payments, and operating loans. [16
U.S.C. 3811]
Adds the federally funded portion of crop insurance
premiums to the list of program benefits that could be
lost if a producer is found to produce an agricultural
commodity on highly erodible land without an approved
conservation plan or qualifying exemption. [Sec.
2611(a)(1)]
Sec. 1212 of the FSA, as amended, allows producers to
cultivate crops on highly erodible land and remain eligible
for program benefits if the landowner agrees to cultivate
the land using an approved conservation plan or qualifies
for an exemption. [16 U.S.C. 3812]
Provides a separate provision for crop insurance benefits.
A person subject to compliance for the first time
because of these amendments is given five reinsurance
years to develop and comply with an approved
conservation plan to remain eligible for payments. A
person who would have been determined in violation
had they continued participation in programs requiring
compliance after enactment of this bill and are still in
violation must be granted two reinsurance years to
develop and comply with an approved conservation plan.
A person found in violation during a crop year shall be
ineligible for crop insurance payment. This applies to
reinsurance years subsequent to the date of the final
determination of a violation and does not apply to the
existing reinsurance year or any reinsurance year prior
to the date of the final determination. [ [Sec.
2611(a)(2)]
Sec. 1213 of the FSA, as amended, outlines the
requirements for development and implementation of
conservation plans for conservation compliance. [16
U.S.C. 3812a]
Requires that when determining crop insurance premium
assistance, USDA must allow self-certification of
compliance and act in a timely manner to evaluate such
certifications, as well as avoid duplication or unnecessary
paperwork. [Sec. 2611(a)(3)]
Congressional Research Service
32
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1221 et seq. of the FSA, as amended, requires that in
exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer
agrees not to convert wetlands to crop production. The
provision, known as Swampbuster, affects 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. Examples of affected benefits
include commodity support programs (e.g., Title I farm
bill programs), conservation programs, disaster
payments, and operating loans. [16 U.S.C. 3821 et
seq.]
Adds the federally funded portion of crop insurance
premiums to the list of program benefits that could be
lost if a producer is found to have converted a wetland
to crop production. Persons in violation who meet select
criteria have a varying amount of time (one to two
reinsurance years) to initiate a conservation plan to
remedy a violation and remain eligible. Requires an
annual report on ineligibility determinations. All persons
applying for the federally funded portion of crop
insurance in the first full reinsurance year after
enactment must certify their compliance with the
wetlands compliance provision. USDA must evaluate the
certifications in a timely manner. A person found in
violation is only declared ineligible following final
determination and may not be retroactive. The timing of
a violation affects eligibility. Only USDA is responsible for
the enforcement of compliance. [Sec. 2611(b)(2)]
Source: CRS.
Notes: Authorized funding levels for various programs are provided in individual program tables as well as this
table.
Table A-8. Subtitle H—Program Repeals,Transition Provisions, and Technical
Amendments
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1230 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as
amended, authorizes and establishes the comprehensive
conservation enhancement program between FY1996FY2002. [16 U.S.C. 3830]
Repeals the comprehensive conservation enhancement
program. [Sec. 2701]
Sec. 1231A of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the emergency forestry conservation reserve
program within CRP for areas suffering damage during
the CY2005 hurricanes. [16 U.S.C. 3831a]
Repeals the emergency forestry conservation reserve
program with transition provisions for current contracts
to receive CRP funding until expiration. [Sec. 2702]
Sec. 1237-1237F of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). [16
U.S.C. 3837-3837f]
Repeals WRP with transition provisions for current
contracts and easements to receive CCC funding until
expiration. ACEP funding may also be used. [Sec. 2703]
Sec. 1238H-1238J of the FSA, as amended, authorizes
and establishes the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
and the Farm Viability Program. [16 U.S.C. 3838h3838j]
Repeals FPP with transition provisions for current
agreements and easements to receive CCC funding until
expiration. ACEP funding may also be used once prior
year funding is exhausted. Also repeals the Farm Viability
Program. [Sec. 2704]
Sec. 1238N-1238P of the FSA, as amended, authorizes
and establishes the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP).
[16 U.S.C. 3838n-3838p]
Repeals GRP with transition provisions for current
contracts, agreements, and easements to receive CCC
funding until expiration. ACEP funding may also be used.
[Sec. 2705]
Sec. 1240I of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
(AWEP) within EQIP. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-9]
Repeals AWEP with transition provisions for current
contracts and agreements to receive CCC funding until
expiration. RCPP funding may also be used once prior
year funding is exhausted. [Sec. 2706]
Program Repeals
Congressional Research Service
33
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1240N of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP). [16 U.S.C. 3839bb-1]
Repeals WHIP with transition provisions for current
contracts to receive CCC funding until expiration. EQIP
funding may also be used once prior year funding is
exhausted. [Sec. 2707]
Sec. 1240P of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control. [16 U.S.C. 3839bb-3]
Repeals the Great Lakes basin program. [Sec. 2708]
Sec. 1240Q of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the Chesapeake Bay Watershed program. [16
U.S.C. 3839bb-4]
Repeals the Chesapeake Bay Watershed program with
transition provisions for current contracts, agreements,
and easements entered into under the program to
receive CCC funding until expiration. RCPP funding may
also be used. [Sec. 2709]
Sec. 1243 of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the Cooperative Conservation Partnership
Initiative (CCPI). [16 U.S.C. 3843]
Repeals CCPI with transition provisions for current
contracts and agreements to receive CCC funding until
expiration. RCPP funding may also be used once prior
year funding is exhausted. [Sec. 2710]
Sec. 1239-1239D of the FSA, as amended, authorizes and
establishes the environmental easement program
between CY1991-CY1995. [16 U.S.C. 3839-3839d]
Repeals the environmental easement program. [Sec.
2711]
Transition Provision
No comparable provision.
Adds a new section to address the multiple effective
dates within Title II. Grants USDA 270 days after
enactment to continue using existing regulations to
implement new and amended programs in the absence of
new regulations. [Sec. 2712]
No comparable provision.
Provides technical amendments and spelling corrections.
[Sec. 2713]
Source: CRS.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
34
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 names, 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.