# Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45698

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** April 18, 2019
- **Citation:** R45698

## Text

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm
Bill
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
April 18, 2019

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R45698

SUMMARY

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill, P.L. 115-334, Title II) included a
number of changes to agricultural conservation programs, including reauthorizing and amending
existing programs, directing existing program activities to specific resource concerns, shifting
funds within the title, and authorizing a budget-neutral level of funding.
Debate over the conservation title in the 2018 farm bill focused on a number of issues in the
different versions in the House- and Senate-passed bills (H.R. 2). These differences were
resolved in a House-Senate conference to create the enacted bill, which is a mix of both versions
that were passed by both chambers. The enacted bill reauthorizes and amends portions of most all
conservation programs; however, the general focus is on the larger programs, namely the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).

R45698
April 18, 2019
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural
Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
-redacted-@crs.loc.gov
For a copy of the full report,
please call 7-.... or visit
www.crs.gov.

Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding and are not subject to appropriation.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the conservation title of the 2018 farm bill makes up 7% of the bill’s
total projected mandatory spending over 10 years, which is $60 billion of the total $867 billion. The conservation title is
budget neutral over the 10-year baseline; however, the 2018 farm bill is projected to increase funding in the first five years
(+$555 million over FY2019-FY2023) and decrease funding in the last five years (-$561 million over FY2024-FY2028).
Generally, the 2018 farm bill reallocates mandatory funding within the conservation title among the larger programs.
The two largest working lands programs—EQIP and CSP—were reauthorized and amended under the enacted bill, but in
different ways. The House-passed bill would have repealed CSP and created a stewardship contract within EQIP, whereas the
Senate-passed bill would have reauthorized CSP and reduced program enrollment. The enacted bill creates a mix of both the
House- and Senate-passed bills by reauthorizing CSP and reducing program enrollment, as well as creating a new incentive
contract within EQIP. Funding for CSP is shifted away from an acreage limitation under prior law to limits based on funding.
EQIP is expanded and reauthorized with increased funding levels.
The largest land retirement program—CRP—is reauthorized and expanded by increasing the CRP enrollment limit in annual
increments from 24 million acres in FY2019 to 27 million by FY2023. To offset this increased enrollment level, the enacted
bill reduces payments to participants, including cost-share payments, annual rental payments, and incentive payments. The
2018 farm bill also reauthorized and amended the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Most of the
changes to ACEP focus on the agricultural land easements by providing additional flexibilities to ACEP-eligible entities and
authorize an increase in overall funding.
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) is reauthorized and amended by shifting the program away from
enrolling land through existing conservation programs to a standalone program with separate contracts and agreements.
Under the revised program, USDA is to continue to enter into agreements with eligible partners, and these partners are to
continue to define the scope and location of a project, provide a portion of the project cost, and work with eligible
landowners to enroll in RCPP contracts.
While the 2018 farm bill does not create new conservation programs, it does require that a number of existing programs
direct a dollar amount or percentage of a program’s funding to a resource-specific issue, initiative, or subprogram. Through
these directed policies Congress has established a level of support, or required investment, to be carried out through
implementation to target specific issues such as nutrient runoff or groundwater protection. The directed policy may also
reduce the implementing agency’s flexibility to allocate funding based on need, as well as reducing the amount available for
activities under the larger program that may not meet a resource-specific provision.
High commodity prices in years past, changing land rental rates, and new conservation technologies have led over time to a
shift in farm bill conservation policy away from programs that retire land from production (CRP) toward programs that
provide assistance to lands still in production (EQIP and CSP). Much of this shift occurred following the 2008 farm bill
(FY2009-FY2013) and continued under the 2014 farm bill (FY2014-FY2018) as the level of total mandatory program
funding for CRP was reduced relative to EQIP and CSP. Funding for easement programs (ACEP) also declined somewhat
under the 2014 farm bill, but is projected to level off under the 2018 farm bill. Partnership program (RCPP) funding has also
increased in recent farm bills, but remains relatively small compared to the other categories of programs.
Congressional Research Service

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Contents
Conservation Program Changes ...................................................................................................... 2
Land Retirement ........................................................................................................................ 2
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ............................................................................... 2
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) ...................................................... 4
Farmable Wetlands (FW) program...................................................................................... 4
CRP Grassland Contracts .................................................................................................... 4
Other CRP Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 5
Working Lands Programs .......................................................................................................... 5
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ........................................................... 6
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) ......................................................................... 6
Other EQIP and CSP Initiatives and Subprograms ............................................................. 7
Easement Programs ................................................................................................................... 8
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) ...................................................... 8
Other Conservation Programs and Provisions .......................................................................... 9
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) ........................................................ 9
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) ..................................................... 10
Conservation Compliance ................................................................................................. 10
Policy Issues That Shaped the Conservation Title......................................................................... 10
Directed Policies Within Existing Programs ............................................................................ 11
Budget and Baseline................................................................................................................ 12
Historical and Programmatic Shifts in Conservation Funding ................................................ 14
Environmental Regulation and Voluntary Conservation ......................................................... 16

Figures
Figure 1. Common Conservation Program Abbreviations .............................................................. 1
Figure 2. USDA Agricultural Conservation Program by Type ........................................................ 3
Figure 3. 2018 Farm Bill Conservation Title Score....................................................................... 14
Figure 4. Farm Bill Conservation Program Mandatory Spending, FY2002-F2029 ...................... 15

Tables
Table 1. Directed Policies in the 2018 Farm Bill ........................................................................... 11
Table 2. Budget Projections for the Conservation Title of the 2018 Farm Bill ............................. 13
Table A-1. Subtitle A—Wetland Conservation (Swampbuster) .................................................... 17
Table A-2. Subtitle B—Conservation Reserve Program ............................................................... 18
Table A-3. Subtitle C—Environmental Quality Incentives Program ............................................ 23
Table A-4. Subtitle C—Conservation Stewardship Program ........................................................ 27
Table A-5. Subtitle D—Other Conservation Programs ................................................................. 29
Table A-6. Subtitle E—Funding and Administration .................................................................... 32
Table A-7. Subtitle F—Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ......................................... 35

Congressional Research Service

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Table A-8. Subtitle G—Regional Conservation Partnership Program .......................................... 38
Table A-9. Subtitle H—Repeals and Technical Amendments ....................................................... 41

Appendixes
Appendix. Comparison of Conservation Provisions Enacted in the 2018 Farm Bill to
Prior Law .................................................................................................................................... 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 43

Congressional Research Service

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

ederal agricultural conservation assistance began in the 1930s with a focus on soil and
water issues associated with production and environmental concerns on the farm. During
the 1980s, agricultural conservation policies were broadened to include environmental
issues beyond soil and water concerns, especially issues related to production, such as erosion and
wetlands loss that had effects beyond the farm. Many of the current agricultural conservation
programs were enacted as part of the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill; P.L. 99-198,
Title XII). 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 challenges continue to emerge,
the basic federal approach has remained unchanged—voluntary farmer participation encouraged
by financial and technical assistance, education, and basic and applied research. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the suite of agricultural conservation programs
through two primary agencies—the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the
Farm Service Agency (FSA).

F

The conservation title of the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill;
P.L. 115-334, Title II)1 reauthorized and
amended many of the largest conservation
programs and created a number of new pilot
programs, carve-outs, and initiatives. The
House- and Senate-passed farm bills (H.R. 2)
each included a number of amendments to
existing conservation programs, many of
which did not overlap. This generally resulted
in the inclusion of a mix of amendments from
each chamber being in the enacted bill.2 The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects
that total mandatory spending for the title will
increase by $555 million during the first five
years of the 2018 farm bill (FY2019FY2023), compared to a continuation of
funding levels authorized in the Agricultural
Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill; P.L. 113-79).
Mandatory spending for the title over 10
years (FY2019-FY2028) is projected by CBO
to be reduced by $6 billion, relative to the
2014 farm bill authorized levels. Generally,
the bill reallocates funding within the
conservation title among the larger programs
and pays for increases in the short term with
reductions in the long term.3

Figure 1. Common Conservation
Program Abbreviations

Source: CRS.

1 Conference Report, H.Rept. 115-1072.
2 For a larger discussion of the entire 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45525, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334):

Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison.
3 For additional analysis of the 2018 farm bill budget, see CRS Report R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018
Farm Bill.

Congressional Research Service

1

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Conservation Program Changes
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized and amended all of the major USDA agricultural conservation
programs. Generally, farm bill conservation programs can be grouped into the following types
based on similarities: working lands, land retirement, easement, conservation compliance, and
partnership and grants (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a list of conservation programs). Most of
these programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding (i.e., they do not require an annual
appropriation), and include funding authorities that expire with most other farm bill programs at
the end of FY2023.
Other types of conservation programs—such as watershed programs, emergency programs, and
technical assistance—are authorized in legislation other than the farm bill. 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 2018 farm bill
made amendments to the program.
This section provides a general discussion of programmatic-specific amendments made to various
conservation programs and subprograms. For a detailed section-by-section analysis of
amendments in the 2018 farm bill, including statutory and U.S. Code citations, see Appendix.4
Unless otherwise noted, conservation programs discussed in this section are authorized to receive
mandatory funding through the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC).5 For additional analysis of conservation program funding, see the “Budget and Baseline”
section.

Land Retirement
Land retirement programs authorize USDA to make payments to private landowners to
voluntarily retire land from production for less-resource intensive uses. The primary land
retirement program is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP includes a number of
subprograms, many of which were codified or reauthorized in the 2018 farm bill. The farm bill
also authorizes a number of initiatives and pilot programs.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
CRP was originally authorized in the 1985 farm bill and has been reauthorized and amended a
number of times since. The program provides financial compensation for landowners, through an
annual rental rate, to voluntarily remove land from agricultural production for an extended period
(typically 10 to 15 years) to improve soil and water quality and wildlife habitat. CRP operates
under two types of enrollment—general and continuous. General enrollment provides an
opportunity for landowners to enroll in CRP through a nationwide competition during a specific
period of time. Continuous enrollment is designed to enroll the most environmentally desirable
land into CRP through specific conservation practices or resource needs. Unlike general
enrollment, under continuous enrollment, land is typically enrolled at any time and is not subject
to competitive bidding. Many of the 2018 farm bill amendments apply to continuous enrollment
contracts, including the creation of new pilot programs and amendments to existing subprograms.
A detailed analysis of amendments to CRP may be found in Table A-2.
4 Appendix is organized according to the subtitle structure within the 2018 farm bill’s conservation title (title II). This

report is not organized as such and therefore references to various subtitle tables may not appear sequentially.
5 For additional information on the CCC, see CRS Report R44606, The Commodity Credit Corporation: In Brief.

Congressional Research Service

2

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Figure 2. USDA Agricultural Conservation Program by Type
(under enacted 2018 farm bill)

Source: CRS.
Notes: Generally programs that are authorized under Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended,
are considered to be farm bill programs. Most nonfarm bill programs are authorized outside of farm bill
legislation. Amendments to these program may occur in farm bills, but their program authority and funding
authority is provided separate from omnibus farm bills.

Congressional debate over CRP in the 2018 farm bill centered on how to increase enrollment
limits, while not increasing overall cost. As such, the enacted bill incrementally increases the
enrollment cap while reducing various rental rates, cost-share payments, and incentive payments.
The 2018 farm bill increases the enrollment limit in annual increments from 24 million acres in

Congressional Research Service

3

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

FY2019 to 27 million acres in FY2023.6 This increase in enrollment is partly offset by reducing
rental rates for general contracts to 85% of the county average rental rate and to 90% of the
county average rental rate for continuous contracts. Cost-share payments are limited to the actual
cost of establishing the approved practices, including not more than 50% for seed mix costs. The
enacted bill also establishes minimum enrollment levels for continuous contracts (8.6 million
acres by FY2022) and grassland contracts (2 million acres by FY2021).

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
CREP was originally created as a CRP initiative in 1997, but was not codified into statute as a
CRP subprogram until the 2018 farm bill. The provision in the 2018 farm bill is similar to the
original version of CREP in that it authorizes USDA to enter into agreements with states to target
designated project areas with continuous CRP enrollment contracts. Projects are designed to
address specific environmental objectives through targeted continuous, noncompetitive, CRP
enrollment that typically provides additional financial incentives beyond annual rental payments
and cost-share assistance.
The new language in the 2018 farm bill allows existing CREP agreements to remain in force, but
allows them to be modified if mutually agreed upon. CREP agreements are generally with states,
but the 2018 farm bill expands eligible partners to include nongovernmental organizations
(NGO). The enacted bill formalizes agreement requirements with partners, including matching
fund contributions (previously not less than 20% of the project cost) and possible waiver of such
contributions. The enacted bill requires the matching fund contribution to be a negotiated part of
the agreement, or not less than 30% if most of the funds are provided by an NGO. Payments from
an eligible partner may be in cash, in-kind, or through technical assistance. Additional
requirements for select cost-share payments, incentive payments, and maintenance payments are
also included. Specific requirements are included related to grazing, forested riparian buffers, and
drought and water conservation agreements.

Farmable Wetlands (FW) program
The FW program was created in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 farm
bill; P.L. 107-171) as a pilot within CRP to enroll farmable or prior converted wetlands into CRP
in exchange for additional financial incentives. The 2018 farm bill reauthorized FW program at
the current 750,000 acre enrollment limit.

CRP Grassland Contracts
The 2014 farm bill authorized grassland contracts under CRP, which enrolls grassland, rangeland,
and pastureland into 14 to 15 year CRP contracts. Only select grazing practices are allowed under
the contract in exchange for annual and cost-share payments. The 2018 farm bill reauthorizes the
contracts and increases the enrollment limit to not less than 2 million acres by FY2021 from the
previous limit of not more than 2 million acres. USDA may not use unenrolled grassland acres for
other types of CRP enrollment. The enacted bill also prioritizes the enrollment of expiring CRP
land, land at risk of development, or land of ecological significance.

6 CRP is authorized to spend such sums as necessary to enroll up to the maximum number of allowable acres. This

funding is mandatory and average close to $2 billion annually.

Congressional Research Service

4

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Other CRP Initiatives
CLEAR 30
The 2018 farm bill creates a new pilot program referred to as CLEAR 30, which enrolls expiring
CRP land into 30-year contracts devoted to practices that improve water quality. CLEAR refers to
the Clean Lakes, Estuaries, And Rivers initiative that is authorized to enroll land in continuous
contracts that would reduce sediment and nutrient loading, and harmful algal blooms. Under a
CLEAR 30 contract, the landowner must maintain the land in accordance with an approved plan
and adhere with the terms and conditions of the contract. Contract holders receive compensation
in thirty annual cash payments similar to those calculated under general CRP contracts. Technical
assistance is required for each contract and agreement. USDA must create the CRP plan for a
contract, but management, monitoring, and enforcement may be delegated to another federal
agency, state, or local government, or to a conservation organization.

Soil Health and Income Protection Pilot (SHIPP)
The 2018 farm bill also creates a new SHIPP pilot program under CRP to remove less productive
farm land from production in exchange for annual rental payments and to plant low-cost perennial
cover crops. Eligible land is limited to (1) land in states selected by the Secretary within the
prairie pothole region, (2) land that has a cropping history in the three years prior to enrollment,
but which was not enrolled in CRP during that time period, and (3) land that is considered to be
less productive than other land on the farm. No more than 15% of a farm may be enrolled in the
pilot and no more than 50,000 acres of the CRP may be used for the pilot. Under a SHIPP
contract, a participant would be required to plant a USDA-approved, low-cost, perennial,
conserving-use cover crop at the participant’s expense. In return the participant would receive an
annual rental payment that is 50% of the general CRP annual rental payment, or higher for
beginning, limited-resource, socially disadvantaged or veteran participants. Contracts are three to
five years in duration, but can be terminated early if considered necessary by USDA; or if the
participant agrees to pay back the annual rental payments. Harvesting, haying, and grazing are
allowed outside of the local nesting and brood-rearing period, subject to additional conditions.

Working Lands Programs
Working lands conservation programs 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 planning and technical assistance to
guide the decision on the most appropriate practices to apply, given the natural resource concerns
and land condition. 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.
The two main working lands programs are the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Combined, both programs account for more
than half of all conservation program funding. The 2018 farm bill amended both programs, but in
different ways and to different degrees. A detailed analysis of amendments to EQIP and CSP is
provided in Table A-3 and Table A-4, respectively.

Congressional Research Service

5

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP is reauthorized and expanded in the enacted bill. The program provides financial and
technical assistance to producers and private landowners to plan and install structural, vegetative,
and land management practices on eligible lands to alleviate natural resource problems. Eligible
producers enter into contracts with USDA to receive payment for implementing conservation
practices. Approved activities are carried out according to an EQIP plan approved by USDA and
developed with the producer that identifies the appropriate conservation practice(s) to address
identified resource concerns on the eligible land. The program is reauthorized through FY2023
with a graduating level of mandatory funding—$1.75 billion in FY2019 and FY2020; $1.8 billion
in FY2021; $1.85 billion in FY2022; and $2.025 billion in FY2023.
The new law includes a number of amendments to EQIP that focus on water quality and quantityrelated practices, soil health improvement, and wildlife habitat improvement. The law also
reduces the funding allocation for livestock-related practices from 60% to 50%, and increases the
allocation for wildlife-related practices from 5% to 10%.
One of the larger changes the 2018 farm bill makes to EQIP is that water conservation system
payments are expanded to include irrigation and drainage entities that were previously ineligible.
Eligible entities may be states, irrigation districts, groundwater management districts, acequias,
land-grant mercedes, or similar entities. Practices must be implemented on eligible land of the
producer, land adjacent to a producer’s eligible land, or land under the control of the eligible
entity. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and payment limits may be waived for eligible entities, but
USDA may impose additional payment and eligibility limits. Priority is given to applications that
reduce water use. It is unclear how this expansion in eligibility, compared with the previous
producer-only policy, may affect implementation of the program.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
CSP provides financial and technical assistance to producers to maintain and improve existing
conservation systems and to adopt additional conservation activities in a comprehensive manner
on a producer’s entire operation. CSP contracts must meet or exceed a stewardship threshold for
at least two priority resource concern at the time of application and meet or exceed at least one
additional priority resource concern by the end of the contract. The House-passed bill would have
repealed CSP and created a stewardship contract within EQIP, whereas the Senate-passed bill
would have reauthorized CSP and reduced program enrollment. The enacted 2018 farm bill
creates a mix of both the House- and Senate-passed bills with amendments. The enacted bill
reauthorizes CSP, but amends how the program limits future enrollment. The new law shifts CSP
from a program limited by acres (10 million acres annually under prior law; approximately $1.4
billion in FY2018) to one limited by total funding ($700 million in FY2019 in mandatory
funding, increasing to $1 billion in FY2023). CBO projects this change from prior law will
reduce the program by more than $12.4 billion total over ten years (see Table 2) for a total cost of
$5.1 billion. Reduced spending from this reduction offset increased mandatory spending in other
conservation programs (see Figure 3).
In addition to the amended funding structure of CSP, the enacted bill also made a number of
amendments to the program. CSP’s ranking criteria is amended to focus on an application’s
actual and expected increase of conservation benefits, and to add a cost competitive selection
criteria for similar applications. Contract renewal options are amended to require renewal
applicants to compete with new applications, whereas previously their acceptance was
guaranteed. Additionally, payments for adopting cover crops, grazing management, and

Congressional Research Service

6

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

comprehensive conservation plan development are amended to include higher and more
comprehensive payment options.

Other EQIP and CSP Initiatives and Subprograms
Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)
CIG is a subprogram under EQIP that awards competitive grants to state and local agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, tribes, and individuals to implement innovative conservation
techniques and practices. The 2018 farm bill expands project eligibility to include community
colleges, urban farming, and monitoring practices. A new on-farm conservation innovation trial is
authorized at $25 million annually from total EQIP funding. The new on-farm trial funds projects
through producers or eligible entities that test new or innovative conservation approaches, such as
those related to precision agriculture technologies, nutrient management, soil health, water
management, crop rotations, cover crops, irrigation systems, and other USDA approved
approaches.

EQIP Conservation Incentive Contract
The House-passed farm bill would have repealed CSP and created a stewardship contract within
EQIP. While the 2018 farm bill retained CSP and also authorized a new Conservation Incentive
Contract under EQIP. The new EQIP incentive contracts are limited to select priority resource
concerns within specific geographic regions. No more than three priority resource concerns may
be identified in each geographic region. EQIP incentive contracts extend for five to ten years and
provide annual payments to incentivize increased conservation stewardship and the adoption,
installation, management, and maintenance of conservation practices. In determining payment
amounts, USDA is required to consider the level and extent of the practice being adopted, the cost
of adoption, income forgone due to adoption, and compensation ensuring the longevity of the
practice.
The new EQIP incentive contracts exhibit some similarities with CSP contracts, including
addressing priority resource concerns; and providing annual payments for adopting, maintaining,
and improving practices. The EQIP incentive contracts also include notable differences from CSP,
including a no stewardship threshold for entry;7 no comprehensive requirement for addressing
resource concerns; no whole-farm enrollment; and no limit on payments. Pending implementation
of EQIP incentive contracts, it is unclear what impact they may have on CSP enrollment or on
general EQIP contracts.

CSP Grassland Conservation Initiative
Amendments under the commodities title (Title I) of the 2018 farm bill changed how base acres
are used to calculate eligibility for certain commodity support programs.8 Base acres not planted
to a commodity program-eligible crop within the last ten years are ineligible for select commodity
support programs. Under the 2018 farm bill, these acres are now eligible for a one-time
enrollment into a new Grassland Conservation Initiative under CSP.

7 Under CSP, participants must meet or exceed a stewardship threshold for at least two priority resource concern at the

time of application and meet or exceed at least one additional priority resource concern by the end of the contract.
8 Base acres are historical program acres used to determine eligibility for certain farm bill commodity support
programs. For additional information on farm commodity programs, see CRS Report R45525, The 2018 Farm Bill
(P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison.

Congressional Research Service

7

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

While the new grassland initiative is within CSP, it has separate requirements from other CSP
contracts. Unlike CSP, the grassland initiative would not require whole-farm enrollment. The
initiative has no required stewardship threshold for entry, requiring the participant to only meet or
exceed one priority resource concern by the end of the contract. Whereas CSP contracts must
meet or exceed a stewardship threshold for at least two priority resource concern at the time of
application and meet or exceed at least one additional priority resource concern by the end of the
contracts. Grassland initiative contracts are short term—five years with no renewal or
reenrollment option, and a participant may terminate the contract without penalty at any time.
Payments under the initiative are not subject to the CSP payment limit, but cannot provide more
than $18 per acre.

Easement Programs
Easement programs impose a permanent land-use restriction that is voluntarily placed on the land
in exchange for a government payment. The primary conservation easement program is the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, which provides financial and technical assistance
through two types of easements (1) agricultural land easements (ALE) that limit nonagricultural
uses on productive farm or grass lands, and (2) wetland reserve easements (WRE) that protect and
restore wetlands. The other conservation easement program—the Healthy Forests Reserve
Program (HFRP)—was reauthorized in the forestry title (Title VIII) of the 2018 farm bill and is
not covered in this report.9

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
The 2018 farm bill reauthorizes and amends ACEP. Most of the changes made to ACEP in the
2018 farm bill focus on the ALE. Under ALE, USDA enters into partnership agreements with
eligible entities to purchase agricultural land easements from willing landowners to protect the
agricultural use and conservation values of the land. The enacted bill provides additional
flexibilities to ACEP-eligible entities, including the eligibility of “buy-protect-sell” transactions
in which an eligible entity purchases land prior to the acquisition of an ALE, agrees to hold an
ALE on the land, and then transfer the land within a select time period to a farmer or rancher. The
bill also amends the nonfederal cost share requirements by removing the requirement that an
eligible entity’s contribution be equal to the federal share, or at least 50% of the federal share if
the entity includes contributions from the private landowner. The nonfederal portion contributed
by the eligible entity may include cash, a landowner’s donation, costs associated with the
easement, or other costs as determined by USDA. Other flexibilities provided eligible entities
include the consideration of geographical differences, terms and conditions of easements, and
certification criteria of eligible entities. Several amendments reduce the roll of USDA in the
administration of ALE, including amendments to the certification of eligible entities, the right of
easement enforcement, and planning requirements. For a detailed analysis of amendments to
ACEP see Table A-7.
By comparison, the 2018 farm bill made fewer changes to WRE. Most of the amendments to
WRE center on compatible use and vegetative cover requirements. Compatible use authorization
is expanded to include consultation with the state technical committee, consideration of land
management requirements, and improving the functions and values of the easement.
Requirements for a WRE plan were amended to allow for the establishment or restoration of an
9 HFRP is administered by NRCS, similar to other conservation easement programs, but authorized in the forestry title.

For additional information about amendments to HFRP, see the Forestry section of CRS Report R45525, The 2018
Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison.

Congressional Research Service

8

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

alternative vegetative community that is hydraulically appropriate on the entirety of the WRE if it
would benefit wildlife or meet local resource needs.
In other amendments to ACEP, Congress specified new directions regarding USDA’s handling of
the subordination, exchange, modification, or termination of any ACEP easement. The enacted
farm bill increases mandatory funding for ACEP from the FY2018 authorized level to $450
million annually for FY2019 through FY2023.10

Other Conservation Programs and Provisions
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
The 2014 farm bill created RCPP from four repealed programs. The 2018 farm bill reauthorized
RCPP and made a number of amendments to the program (see Table A-8 for a detailed analysis
of RCPP amendments). Prior the 2018 farm bill, RCPP utilized 7% of existing conservation
programs (referred to as covered programs11) through RCPP projects that were defined by eligible
partners. Eligible partners would define the project’s area, goals, and resource concerns to be
addressed through the use of covered programs. Partners would enter into project agreements
with USDA, in which they would provide a “significant portion” of the overall cost of the project.
USDA issued no regulations for RCPP and instead utilized funding notices and operated it with
the regulations of the covered programs.
Amendments enacted in the 2018 farm bill shift RCPP away from using contracts from covered
programs to establishing RCPP as a stand-alone program with its own contracts. Prior to the 2018
farm bill, USDA would enter into agreements with a partner on a project that would target
covered program contracts in an agreed upon area for a defined resource goal. The actual contract
with the farmer or rancher, however, would be an EQIP, CSP, ACEP, or HFRP contract. The
enacted bill no longer uses this framework; instead it requires USDA to use a contract specific to
RCPP that will fund eligible activities similar to those available under covered programs, but not
using the funds of those programs. The list of covered programs is also expanded under the bill to
include EQIP, ACEP, CSP, HFRP, CRP, and Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
(WFPO).12
The 2018 farm bill maintains RCPP’s broad partner-focused goal of creating opportunities to
leverage federal conservation funding for partner-defined projects. Additionally, the revised
program provides additional flexibilities to partners, including the make-up of a partner’s project
contribution, guidance and reporting requirements, agreement renewals, and in the application
process.
Mandatory funding for the program is increased to $300 million annually for FY2019 through
FY2023 from $100 million annually under prior law. However, RCPP no longer receives a
percentage of funding from covered programs, which could change the overall scale of RCPP
depending on how this change is implemented. The allocation of funding is also amended to

10 The 2014 farm bill authorized $400 million in FY2014, $425 million in FY2015, $450 million in FY2016, $500

million in FY2017, and $250 million in FY2018.
11 Covered programs included EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and HFRP.
12 Despite the inclusion of CRP and WFPO, CREP and Watershed Rehabilitation—subprograms of CRP and WFPO,
respectively—are specifically excluded.

Congressional Research Service

9

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

provide 50% to state and multi-state projects and 50% to projects in critical conservation areas
(CCA) as selected by USDA.13

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)
The WFPO program provides technical and financial assistance to state and local organizations to
plan and install measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage and to conserve,
develop, and utilize land and water resources.14 Project costs are shared with local partners.
Smaller projects may be authorized by the Chief of the NRCS, whereas larger projects must be
approved by Congress. The 2018 farm bill made few amendments to WFPO, the most substantial
being the authorization of permanent mandatory funding of $50 million annually. Historically, the
program received discretionary funding through the annual appropriations process—most
recently $150 million in FY2018.15

Conservation Compliance
Two farm bill provisions require that in exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer
agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert
wetlands to crop production. These provisions were originally authorized in the 1985 farm bill as
highly erodible land conservation (Sodbuster) and wetland conservation (Swampbuster). They are
collectively referred to as conservation compliance.16 The 2018 farm bill amends wetland
conservation provisions to specify that (1) benefits cannot be denied if an exemption applies and
(2) affected landowners must have the opportunity to be present during an on-site inspection. The
enacted bill also authorizes annual discretionary appropriations for wetland mitigation banking.
For a detailed analysis of amendments to the wetland conservation provisions, see Table A-1.
A third type of compliance requirement introduced in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (2008 farm bill; P.L. 110-246) addressed crop production on native sod (Sodsaver). While
Sodsaver is not included in the conservation title of the farm bill, it operates in a manner similar
to conservation compliance requirements in that benefits are reduced if production occurs on
native sod.17

Policy Issues That Shaped the Conservation Title
Beginning with the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (1981 farm bill; P.L. 97-98), agricultural
conservation has been a stand-alone title in all farm bills. The breadth of the conservation title has
grown with each passing omnibus farm bill. Debate over the 2018 farm bill focused on the
differences within the conservation title of the House- and Senate-passed bills (H.R. 2). The
conference agreement resolved these differences to create a final version of the title in the enacted
law that represents a mix of proposals from the two versions. Overarching themes of the
13 Current CCAs include Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Great Lakes Region, Mississippi River Basin, Colorado River

Basin, Longleaf Pine Range, Columbia River Basin, Prairie Grasslands Region, and California Bay Delta.
14 The WFPO program consists of projects built under two authorities—the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534). For additional information on WFPO, see
CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.
15 For additional information, see CRS Report R45406, FY2018 and FY2019 Appropriations for Agricultural
Conservation.
16 For additional information, see CRS Report R42459, Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy.
17 For additional information, see CRS Report R45525, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side-by-Side
Comparison.

Congressional Research Service

10

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

conservation title include (1) targeting of funds or acres in existing programs, (2) a shifting of
funds among the different types of conservation programs, including a continued emphasis on
working lands programs, and (3) provisions that address environmental regulations through
voluntary conservation measures.

Directed Policies Within Existing Programs
The 2014 farm bill focused on simplifying and consolidating programs within the conservation
title. Conversely, the 2018 farm bill does not create new programs, but it does require that a
number of existing programs direct a specific level of funding or acres, or percentage of a
program’s funding, to a resource- or interest-specific issue, initiative, or subprogram. Table 1
highlights some of the directed policies created by the 2018 farm bill and compares them with
prior law. Some of these policies existed prior to the 2018 farm bill, but did not include a
specified funding or acreage level. Through these directed policies Congress has specified a level
of support or required investment that USDA is to achieve through program implementation. One
potential consequence of these directed policies may be reduced flexibility of the implementing
agency to allocate funding based on need, as well as reduced total funds or acres available for
activities of the larger program that may not meet a resource-specific provision. Most of the
conservation programs in the 2018 farm bill are authorized to receive mandatory funding, so
these directed policies also have funding, unless Congress subsequently directs otherwise.
Table 1. Directed Policies in the 2018 Farm Bill
Grouped by Program
Provision

Prior Law (U.S. Code citation)

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (section)

Conservation Reserve Program
Grassland
Contracts

No more than 2 million acres of total CRP
enrollment (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)(2)(A)).

No less than 2 million acres of total CRP
enrollment by FY2021. Prohibits uses of these
acres for other CRP contracts (§2201(c)(2)).

CLEAR initiative

NA

40% of continuous enrollment contracts
(§2201(c)(3)).

Continuous
enrollment

None

No less than 8.6 million acres of total CRP
enrollment by FY2022 (§2201(c)(3)).

FWP

No more than 750,000 acres of total CRP
enrollment (16 U.S.C. 3831b(c)(1)).

No more than 750,000 acres of total CRP
enrollment (§2203).

SHIPP program

NA

No more than 50,000 acres of total CRP
enrollment (§2204).

Environmental Quality Incentives Program
EQIP livestock
practices

At least 60% of total EQIP funds to be used
for payments related to livestock practices
(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(f)(1)).

At least 50% of total EQIP funds to be used for
payments related to livestock practices
(§2304(c)).

EQIP wildlife
practices

At least 5% of total EQIP funds to be used
for payments to benefit wildlife habitat (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2(f)(2)).

At least 10% of total EQIP funds to be used for
payments to benefit wildlife habitat (§2304(c)).

EQIP air quality

Requires $25 million of EQIP funds
annually be used to address air quality
concerns (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-8(b)).

Requires $37 million of EQIP funds annually be
used to address air quality concerns (§2307(2)).

CIG on-farm
trials

NA

Requires $25 million annually be used for an onfarm conservation innovation trial (§2307(c))

Congressional Research Service

11

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Provision

Prior Law (U.S. Code citation)

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (section)

Other Programs
ECP

None

Require 25% of available discretionary funding
be set aside until April 1st to repair and replace
fencing (§2403(e)(6)).

VPAHIP

None

Requires $3 million of total funding provided be
used to encourage public access on land
covered by WRE under ACEP (§2406(4)).

Source water
protection

NA

Requires 10% of all farm bill conservation
program’s funding each fiscal year (except CRP)
be used to encourage conservation practices
related to water quality and quantity that
protect source waters for drinking (§2503(d)).

RCPP

Requires USDA to reserve 7% of EQIP,
CSP, ACEP, and HFRP funds and acres for
RCPP projects. (16 U.S.C. 3877d(c))

None.

Source: CRS based on provisions in P.L. 115-334.
Notes: NA indicates ‘not applicable’ because the provision did not exist under prior law. None indicates that
while the program or provision was, or is, in existence that no carve-out of funding was, or is, required in law.
For additional discussion on programs and provision in the table see the “Conservation Program Changes”
section as well as Appendix.

Budget and Baseline
Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding. According to
CBO, the conservation title makes up 7% of the total projected 2018 farm bill spending over 10
years, which is $60 billion of the total $867 billion (see Table 2 and Figure 3).18 Historically,
funding for the conservation title has experienced both increases and decreases within farm bills.
The 2018 farm bill conservation title is budget neutral over the 10-year baseline; however, it is
projected to increase funding in the first five years (+$555 million over FY2019-FY2023) and
decrease funding in the last five years (-$561 million over FY2024-FY2028).19 While most titles
received an increase in authorized mandatory funding over the projected 10-year baseline, three
titles, including conservation, did not.20
Conservation Baseline & Score
Most conservation programs receive an authorization (budget authority) for mandatory funding in omnibus farm
bills. Generally, the bill authorizes and pays for the mandatory funding (expressed as outlays) with a multiyear
budget estimate when the law is enacted. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determines the official
cost/savings estimate when bills are considered based on long-standing budget laws and rules.21

18 CRS Report R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill.
19 CBO, “Baseline Projections for Selected Programs,” April 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/baseline-

projections-selected-programs. The CBO baseline is an estimated projection at a particular point in time of what future
federal spending on mandatory programs would be under current law. The CBO score is an estimate of the cost impact
of a change in law in relation to the baseline. A neutral score implies that spending does not increase or decrease over
the baseline amount.
20 The other two titles reduced in the 2018 farm bill were Rural Development (-$2.5 billion) and Crop Insurance (-$104
million), over the 10-year baseline.
21 For more information, see CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.

Congressional Research Service

12

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

The budgetary impact of mandatory spending proposals is measured relative to an assumption that certain
programs continue beyond the end of the farm bill. The benchmark is the CBO baseline—a projection at a
particular point in time of future federal spending on mandatory programs under current law. The baseline
provides funding for reauthorization, reallocation to other programs, or offsets for deficit reduction. Generally,
most large conservation programs, such as CRP and EQIP, are assumed to continue in the baseline as if there
were no change in policy and it did not expire. However, some of the smaller conservation programs are not
assumed to continue beyond the end of a farm bill, such as VPAHIP.
The baseline used to develop the 2018 farm bill was the CBO baseline that was released in April 2018.22 It
projected that if the 2014 farm bill were extended, farm bill conservation programs would cost $60 billion over
the next 10 years (FY2019-FY2028). Most of that amount, 93%, was in three programs—EQIP, CSP, and CRP.
When a new bill is proposed that would affect mandatory spending, CBO estimates the score (cost impact) in
relation to the baseline. Changes that increase spending relative to the baseline have a positive score; those that
decrease spending relative to the baseline have a negative score. Budget enforcement rules use these baselines and
scores to follow various budget rules. When a new law is passed, the projected cost at enactment equals the
baseline plus the score. This sum becomes the foundation of the new law, and may be compared to future CBO
baselines as an indicator of how actual spending transpires as the law is implemented and market conditions
change.

Table 2. Budget Projections for the Conservation Title of the 2018 Farm Bill
(outlays in millions of dollars, five- and ten-year totals)
Five years (FY2019-FY2023)

Ten years (FY2019-FY2028)

April 2018
CBO
baseline

Score of
P.L. 115334

Projected
cost at
enactment

April 2018
CBO
baseline

Score of
P.L. 115334

Projected
cost at
enactment

CRP (2201)

10,507

-189

10,318

22,085

0

22,085

CSP (2301)a

8,764b

-3669

5,095

17,729b

-12,426

5,303

EQIP (2302) & CSP (2308)a

7,968c

2660

10,628

16,697c

8,451

25,148

Watershed pgms. (2401)d

0

95

95

0

317

317

GSWP (2405)

0

5

5

0

5

5

VPAHIP

0

50

50

0

50

50

Feral Swine (2408)

0

75

75

0

75

75

ACEP (2601)

1,347

786

2,133

2,597

1,779

4,376

RCPP (2701)

578

742

1,320

1,078

1,742

2,820

Othere

-485

NA

-485

-497

NA

-497

28,679

555

29,234

59,689

-6

59,682

Program (Section
Number)

Conservation Title Total

Source: CRS. Compiled from CBO, “Baseline Projections,” April 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/
baseline-projections-selected-programs, and at the title level in the table notes in CBO, “Cost Estimates for H.R.
2,” https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54284, July 24, 2018.; and CBO cost estimate of the conference agreement
for H.R. 2, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54880, Dec. 11, 2018.
a. The CBO Score of the 2018 farm bill includes two entries for CSP; one for the CSP contracts entered into
before enactment (under §2301) and those entered into after enactment (combined with EQIP; §2308).
b. The baseline for CSP in this table is reflected on the same line as the standalone CSP score (§2301) and not
with the combined EQIP & CSP line (§2308).
22 CBO, “Baseline Projections for Selected Programs,” April 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/baseline-

projections-selected-programs, and at the title level in the table notes in CBO, “Cost Estimates for H.R. 2 as passed by
the House of Representatives and as passed by the Senate,” https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54284, July 24, 2018.

Congressional Research Service

13

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

c.
d.

e.

The baseline for the combined EQIP and CSP score (§§2302 and 2308, respectively) only reflects the EQIP
baseline. See table note a, above, for additional explanation.
New, permanent, mandatory funding is authorized under section 2401 for the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended. This section can fund multiple watershed
programs, including WFPO and Watershed Rehabilitation.
The April 2018 CBO baseline includes other small programs (e.g., AMA) and adjustments (e.g.,
sequestration) which are combined as Other in this table. These provisions did not affect the score of the
2018 farm bill and are not discussed in this report.

Figure 3. 2018 Farm Bill Conservation Title Score
(by program, dollars in millions)

Source: CRS using CBO cost estimate of the conference agreement for H.R. 2, https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/54880, Dec. 11, 2018.
Notes: The chart includes the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP),
and Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Other includes funding for Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Operations (§2401), Grassroots Source Water Protection (§2405), Voluntary Public Access
and Habitat Incentive Program (§2406), and Feral swine eradication and control pilot program (§2408). The CBO
Score of the 2018 farm bill includes two entries for CSP; one for the CSP contracts entered into before
enactment (under §2301) and those entered into after enactment (combined with EQIP; §2308).

Historical and Programmatic Shifts in Conservation Funding
The bulk of mandatory spending for conservation is authorized for working lands and land
retirement activities. While recent farm bills have increased funding for easement and partnership
programs, they remain relatively small compared to three main programs—EQIP, CSP, and CRP

Congressional Research Service

14

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

(see Table 2 and Figure 4). The 2018 farm bill conservation title is considered budget neutral
over the ten-year baseline and generally reallocates funding among the larger existing programs.
Over time, periods of high commodity prices, changing land rental rates, and new conservation
technologies have led to a shift in farm bill conservation policy away from land retirement and
toward an increased focus on working lands programs. Much of this shift occurred following the
2008 farm bill and continued in the 2014 farm bill as the level of total mandatory program
funding for land retirement programs declined relative to working lands programs (see Figure 4).
Increasingly, the separation between land retirement programs and working lands programs has
become blurred by an increase in compatible use allowances for grazing and pasture use under
land retirement programs. Most conservation and wildlife organizations support both land
retirement and working lands programs; however, the appropriate “mix” continues to be a subject
of debate.
Figure 4. Farm Bill Conservation Program Mandatory Spending, FY2002-F2029
Outlays in millions of dollars

Source: CRS using CBO baseline data, FY2001-FY2019.
Notes: FY2002 through FY2018 include actual spending levels. FY2019 through FY2029 are projected spending
levels. Chart does not include sequestration or savings from repealed programs. Working lands include the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural
Management Assistance (AMA), and earlier programs; land retirement includes the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) and subprograms; easement includes the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
and earlier programs; and other includes the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and other
programs.

Additionally, some conservation program supporters are divided over the relative benefits of
shorter-term land retirement programs (CRP) versus longer-term easement programs (ACEP).

Congressional Research Service

15

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Unlike land retirement programs, easement programs impose a permanent or longer-term landuse restriction that the land owner voluntarily places 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 and land preservation benefits. Supporters of short-term land
retirement programs cite the increased flexibility and broader participation compared with
permanent or long-term easement programs. The 2018 farm bill did not amend the duration of
ACEP easements, but did create two new subprograms under CRP that would provide additional
options for longer-term CRP contracts (30 years under CLEAR30) and shorter-term CRP
contracts (3-5 years under SHIPP).23
In recent years, Congress has placed greater emphasis on programs that partner with state and
local communities to target conservation funding to local resource concerns. These partnership
programs leverage private funding with federal funding to multiply the level of assistance in a
selected area. The 2014 farm bill repealed a number of these partnership programs and replaced
them with RCPP. The 2018 farm bill amends and expands the number of partnering opportunities
under RCPP, CREP, and CIG. However, based on available funding, these programs remain
relatively small compared to others in the conservation title.

Environmental Regulation and Voluntary Conservation
USDA has cited voluntary conservation practices as a way to address environmental concerns and
potentially reduce the need for traditional regulatory programs.24 A number of provisions in the
conservation title speak to the relationship between voluntary conservation measures and
environmental regulation. One such provision is regulatory certainty. Regulatory certainty refers
to using voluntary measures to address a specific resource concern in exchange for the “certainty”
that additional measures will not be required under future regulations.25 A new regulatory
certainty section in the 2018 farm bill (§2503(f)) authorizes USDA to provide technical assistance
under the farm bill conservation programs to support regulatory assurances for producers and
landowners, under select conditions.
The 2018 farm bill also makes existing regulatory certainty measures permanent, including the
Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative, which was created in 2012 as a partnership between NRCS
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Under this partnership agreement, private
landowners who voluntarily make wildlife habitat improvements on their land through NRCS
conservation programs, and agree to maintain them for 15-30 years, receive in return a level of
certainty they will be exempted from potential future regulatory actions related to at-risk species
under the Endangered Species Act.26 The 2018 farm bill makes this partnership agreement
permanent and allows for the initiative to be expanded to include CRP.
Another environmental regulatory-related provision in the enacted 2018 farm bill (§2410) is a
sense of Congress statement encouraging watershed-level partnerships between nonpoint sources
and regulated point sources to advance the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.).
23 These subprograms are discussed further in Table A-2 and the “Other CRP Initiatives” section.
24 See for example, USDA, “EPA, USDA Encourage Use of Market-based and Other Collaborative Approaches to

Address Excess Nutrients,” press release, December 4, 2018, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/12/04/
epa-usda-encourage-use-market-based-and-other-collaborative.
25 Regulatory certainty is also referred to as regulatory assurance, regulatory predictability, or safe harbor protection.
26 USDA, NRCS, “NRCS and FWS Reach Historic Agreement to Extend Wildlife Conservation Efforts on Working
Agricultural Lands,” press release, September 17, 2012, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/me/home/?
cid=stelprdb1048842.

Congressional Research Service

16

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Appendix. Comparison of Conservation Provisions
Enacted in the 2018 Farm Bill to Prior Law
This appendix includes a series of tables, arranged by subtitle, included in Title II of the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334). U.S. Code citations are included in
brackets in the “Prior Law” column. Corresponding section numbers in the 2018 farm bill are
included in brackets in the “Enacted 2018 Farm Bill” column. Funding for most Title II programs
is covered in the “Funding and Administration” subtitle (Subtitle E, see Table A-6). Where
appropriate, funding levels are repeated within a program’s corresponding subtitle table. Tables
are generally organized by section number of the 2018 farm bill, except where it is appropriate to
cross-references relevant amendments to provide a complete picture of the program.
Table A-1. Subtitle A—Wetland Conservation (Swampbuster)
Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2101—Wetland Conversion
The wetland conservation or “swampbuster” provision
denies various USDA program benefits to producers
who plant program crops on wetlands converted after
December 23, 1985, or who convert wetlands, making
agricultural commodity production possible, after
November 28, 1990. 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. Exemptions for compliance
violators may be granted following a review. (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.)

Requires that a producer cannot be denied program
benefits if an exemption applies to that producer.
(§2101)

Section 2102—Wetland conservation
The Secretary is required to conduct an on-site visit
before program benefits may be withheld for
noncompliance. (16 U.S.C. 3821(c))

Requires that the on-site inspection be conducted in
the presence of the affected person, except when a
reasonable effort was made to include the affected
person. (§2102)

Section 2103—Mitigation banking
One option violators of wetland conservation have to
mitigate the violation is through wetland mitigation
banking. Wetland mitigation banking is a type of
wetlands mitigation whereby a wetland is created,
enhanced, or restored, and “credit” for those efforts is
sold to others as compensation for the loss of impacted
wetlands elsewhere. The 2014 farm bill created a
permanent wetland mitigation banking program
exclusively for farmers to comply with swampbuster.
The program has a onetime authorization for $10
million in mandatory funding. (16 U.S.C. 3822(k))

Authorizes the appropriation of $5 million annually for
FY2019 through FY2023. (§2103)

Source: CRS.

Congressional Research Service

17

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Table A-2. Subtitle B—Conservation Reserve Program
Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2201—Conservation Reserve
Authority. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is
authorized through FY2018 to provide annual rental
payments to producers to replace crops on highly
erodible and environmentally sensitive land with longterm resource conserving plantings. (16 U.S.C.
3831(a))

Reauthorizes CRP through FY2023. (§2201(a))

Eligible land. Highly erodible land is considered
eligible for enrollment in CRP if (1) left untreated could
substantially reduce the land’s future agricultural
production capability or (2) it cannot be farmed in
accordance with a conservation plan; and has a
cropping history or was considered to be planted for
four of the six years preceding February 7, 2014
(except for land previously enrolled in CRP). Eligible
land also includes marginal pastureland, grasslands,
cropland, and land devoted to buffer or filterstrips. (16
U.S.C. 3831(b))

Extends the six-year cropping history to include land
planted for four of the six years preceding enactment of
the bill. Adds land that would have a positive impact on
water quality if devoted to water quality practices.
Amends land established to new buffer practices to
include salt tolerant vegetation or practices that benefit
wellhead protection areas. Adds other expired CRP
land. (§2201(b))

Maximum enrollment. CRP is authorized to enroll
up 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. (16 U.S.C.
3831(d)(1))

Incrementally increases enrollment limits from 24
million acres in FY2019, to 24.5 million acres in
FY2020, 25 million acres in FY2021, 25.5 million acres
in FY2022, and 27 million acres in FY2023.
(§2201(c)(1))

Grasslands enrollment. CRP grassland enrollment is
capped at 2 million acres total for FY2014-FY2018.
Priority is given to expiring CRP contracts and
enrollment is continuous. (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)(2))

Requires a minimum CRP grassland enrollment of 2
million acres by the end of FY2021. Incrementally
increases the minimum enrollment of grassland acres
from 1 million acres in FY2019, 1.5 million acres in
FY2020, and 2 million acres in FY2021 through FY2023.
Allows CRP grassland enrollment to prioritize expiring
CRP land, land at risk of development, or land of
ecological significance. Enrollment is required on an
annual basis. Includes a limit on using unenrolled
grassland acres for other types of CRP enrollment.
(§2201(c)(2))

No comparable provision.

Clean Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers (CLEAR)
initiative. Creates a new water quality incentive that
gives priority under continuous enrollment to land that
would reduce sediment and nutrient loading, and
harmful algal blooms. Requires 40% of continuous
enrollment contracts to be used to enroll land that
would have a positive impact on water quality if
devoted to water quality practices (not including
grassland contracts). Includes monthly report
requirements. (§2201(c)(3))

Congressional Research Service

18

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

No comparable provision. CRP acres are enrolled
based on the relative environmental benefits of the land
offered.

Minimum enrollment by state. Requires USDA to
annually allocate 60% of the available number of CRP
acres to states based on historical enrollment.
Enrollment rates must consider the average number of
acres enrolled in each state during FY2007 through
FY2016, the average number of acres enrolled in CRP
during FY2007 through FY2016, and the acres available
for enrollment for FY2019 through FY2023. Also
requires that at least one noncontinuous sign-up be
held every year. (§2201(c)(3))

No comparable provision. There are two types of
enrollment into CRP: general sign-up and continuous
sign-up. A general sign-up is a specific period of time
during which USDA accepts offers and competitively
enrolls acres. Land offered under continuous sign-up
may be enrolled at any time and is not subject to
competitive bidding. CRP grassland offers are accepted
on a continuous basis with periodic ranking periods. All
sign-ups are subject to available acres within the
authorized limits. (7 C.F.R. 1410.30)

Continuous enrollment procedures. Requires CRP
enrollment to be continuous for marginal pastureland,
land that would have a positive impact on water quality
if enrolled, select cropland, and Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP) contracts. Adds
minimum enrollment targets for these continuous
contracts of not fewer than 8 million acres by FY2019,
8.25 million acres by FY2020, 8.5 million acres by
FY2021, and 8.6 million of acres by FY2022 and
FY2023. (§2201(c)(3))

Reenrollment of expired land. All expiring CRP
land is eligible for reenrollment in the program. (16
U.S.C. 3831(h))

Limits reenrollment for land devoted to hardwood
trees to only one reenrollment, unless the land includes
riparian forested buffers, forested wetlands, and
shelterbelts. (§2201(d))

Section 2202—Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
No directly comparable provision. The Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a subprogram
of CRP in which USDA enters into agreements with
states to target select areas and resource concerns in
exchange for continuous CRP sign-ups and higher
payments for enrollment. CREP was administratively
established in 1997 and is regulated at 7 C.F.R.
1410.50.

Adds a new provision codifying CREP as a permanent
subprogram under CRP. Provisions are similar to the
existing CREP. Limits eligible partners to a state,
political subdivision of a state, Indian tribe, and
nongovernmental organization. Allows USDA to enter
into agreements with eligible entities to carry out
CREP. Existing CREP agreements remain in force, but
may be modified. Agreement requirements are further
defined, including matching fund contributions and
possible temporary waiver of matching funds. Payments
from an eligible partner may be in cash, in-kind, or
through technical assistance. Includes additional
requirements for select cost-share payments, incentive
payments, and maintenance payments. Includes drought
and water conservation agreements that may enroll
land critical to the purpose of the agreement, permit
dryland farming, and ensure regionally consistent
payment rates. Status reports are required 180 days
after the end of each fiscal year following enactment.
(§2202)

Section 2203—Farmable Wetland Program
The Farmable Wetland Program (FW) is a subprogram
under CRP authorized through FY2018 to enroll up to
750,000 acres of wetland and buffer acreage in CRP.
USDA may, after a review, increase the number of
acres enrolled in FW by 200,000 additional acres. (16
U.S.C. 3831b(a)-(c))

Congressional Research Service

Reauthorizes FW through FY2023. Makes clarifying
amendments. (§2203)

19

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2204—Pilot Programs
No comparable provision.

Creates a new pilot program referred to as CLEAR
30, that enrolls expiring CRP land into 30-year
contracts (see the CLEAR initiative in §2201(c)(3)).
Enrollment is restricted by the overall CRP enrollment
limit. Under a CLEAR 30 contract the landowner must
maintain the land in accordance with an approved plan
and the terms and conditions of the contract, including
the temporary suspension of base acres (used to
calculate farm program payments). Terms and
conditions are outlined for use and for prohibited
activities. Compensation is made in thirty annual cash
payments similar to those calculated under general
CRP. Technical assistance is required for each contract
and agreement. USDA must create the CRP plan for a
contract, but management, monitoring, and
enforcement may be delegated to another federal,
state, or local government, or conservation
organization. (§2204)

No comparable provision.

Creates a Soil Health and Income Protection
Pilot (SHIPP) program under CRP to remove less
productive farm land from production in exchange for
annual rental payments and to plant low-cost perennial
cover crops. Eligible land is limited to states selected in
the prairie pothole region, was cropped but not
enrolled in CRP in the previous three crop years, and is
considered to be the least productive on the farm.
Limits enrollment to no more than 15% of a farm and
no more than 50,000 acres of total CRP. Participants
are required to plant a USDA-approved, low-cost
perennial conservation use cover crop at their own
expense in return for an annual rental payment of 50%
of the CRP rental rate. Higher annual rental rates of
75%, and cost-share assistance is available for beginning,
small, socially disadvantaged, young, or veteran farmers
and ranchers. Contracts are limited to 3-5 years, but
can terminate early under certain conditions.
Harvesting, haying, and grazing are allowed outside of
the local nesting periods and subject to additional
conditions. Requires annual reports to Congress.
(§2204)

Section 2205—Duties of owners and operators
In exchange for payments under CRP, owners and
operators agree to a number of requirements and
restrictions on the land under contract. These
requirements are outlined in the CRP contract and
conservation plan. (16 U.S.C. 3832)

Congressional Research Service

Adds a requirement for hardwood and other trees,
excluding windbreaks and shelterbelts, to carry out
thinning and forest management practices. (§2205)

20

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2206—Duties of the Secretary
In return for a CRP contract, landowners are
compensated for a percentage of the cost (cost-share)
of carrying out conservation measures within the
contract and an annual rental payment for 1) the
conversion of highly erodible land and other agricultural
land to less intensive uses, 2) permanent retirement of
base history, and 3) development and management of
grasslands. (16 U.S.C. 3833(a))

Adds the cost of fencing and water distribution
practices to the list of possible cost-share assistance.
Amends annual rental payments by adding marginal
pastureland to the list of land converted to less
intensive uses, and removes payments to permanently
retire base history. (§2206(a))

Specified permitted activities. Certain specified
activities (e.g., harvesting, grazing, or other commercial
uses of the forage) are permitted on CRP land under
select conditions. These activities are allowed without a
reduction in the annual rental rate when in response to
drought, flooding, or other emergency. Managed
harvesting is allowed if it is consistent with soil
conservation, water quality, and wildlife habitat
(including primary nesting seasons) and in exchange for
not less than a 25% reduction in annual rental rates for
acres covered by the activity. Managed harvesting may
occur at least every five years but not more than once
every three years. Routine grazing is also permitted in
exchange for not less than a 25% reduction in annual
rental rate, subject to nesting season restrictions,
vegetation management requirements and stocking
rates, and routine grazing is limited to not more than
once every two years (taking into consideration
regional differences). (16 U.S.C. 3833(b))

Requires USDA to coordinate with state technical
committees on the permitted uses of CRP land for
certain activities or commercial uses. Permitted
activities would not have a reduction in rental rate for
emergency uses, mid-contract management practices,
select uses of vegetative buffers, and grazing by
beginning farmers or ranchers. A 25% reduction in
annual rental rates may be approved for limited grazing
and haying activities, and wind turbine installation
subject to select limitations. Adds a new provision
allowing USDA to determine years in which harvesting
and grazing shall not be permitted if it would cause
long-term damage to vegetative cover on that land.
State Acres for wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) program
and CREP acres may be grazed if permitted under the
related agreement. (§2206(b))

No comparable provision.

Adds a new provision providing that when a natural
disaster or adverse weather event has the same effect
as a management practice required under a
conservation plan, USDA cannot require a similar
management practice if the natural disaster or adverse
weather event achieved the same effect. (§2206(c))

Section 2207—Payments
Cost-share payments. Land enrolled in CRP is
eligible to receive cost-share assistance for practices
implemented. Cost-share payments are limited to 50%
of the actual or average cost of establishing the practice
and no more than 100% of the total cost. Hardwood
trees, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wildlife corridors
are eligible for additional cost-share payments. Owners
are ineligible from receiving cost-share payments if
assistance is provided under other federal programs
(16 U.S.C. 3834(b))

Limits cost-share payments to the actual cost of
establishing the practice. Cost-share for seed is limited
to 50% of the actual seed mixture cost. No cost-share
is available for contract management activities. Adds an
exception to ineligibility for cost-share for CREP
contracts. Adds a 50% limit on practice incentives for
continuous enrollment practices. (§2207(a))

Incentive payments. Incentive payments are allowed
for up to 150% of the total cost of thinning and other
practices to promote forest management or enhance
wildlife habitat. (16 U.S.C. 3834(c))

Reduces incentive payments to not more than 100% of
the total cost of thinning and other practices to
promote forest management or enhance wildlife
habitat. (§2207(b))

Annual rental payments. Land enrolled in CRP is
eligible to receive an annual rental payment. In
determining the amount to be paid, the Secretary has
discretion in determining the amount necessary to
encourage enrollment. (16 U.S.C. 3834(d)(1))

Adds a requirement that when determining the amount
of annual rental payments the Secretary must consider
the impact on the local farmland rental market and
other factors as determined by the Secretary.
(§2207(c)(1))

Congressional Research Service

21

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

CRP enrollment is conducted through the submission
of bids by owners and operators of eligible land. Annual
rental payments under CRP contracts are determined
by the Secretary in accordance with the rental rate
criteria (see below). (16 U.S.C. 3834(d)(2))

Reduces annual rental payments based on enrollment
type. General enrollment contracts and continuous
enrollment contracts are limited to not more than 85%
and 90% of the average county rental rate, respectively.
The reduction may be waived for CREP contracts.
Adds a sign-up incentive for continuous enrollment of
32.5% of the first annual rental payment. (§2207(c)(2))

Enrollment of hardwood tree acres are to be
considered on a continuous basis. (16 U.S.C.
3834(d)(4))

Deletes provision. (§2207(c)(3))

Rental rates. CRP rental rates are based on soil
productivity and the county average rental rate. USDA
may use the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s
(NASS) survey estimates relating to dryland cash rental
rates when determining annual rental rates. NASS is
required to conduct a survey no less than once a year
on county average market dryland and irrigated cash
rental rates. (16 U.S.C. 3834(d)(5))

Requires NASS to conduct a county average rental rate
survey annually and publish the survey estimate not
later than September 15 each year. Adds a requirement
that USDA post the current and previous soil rental
rates for each county online. Requires the Secretary to
use the NASS survey estimates relating to dryland
rental rates when determining annual rental rates.
Creates a new provision allowing FSA state committees
and CREP partners to propose alternative soil rental
rates with acceptable documentation and with
notification to congressional authorizing committees.
The county average soil rental rate is limited to 85% of
the estimated rental rate for general enrollment or 90%
of the estimated rental rate for continuous enrollment.
(§2207(c)(5))

Limits on rental payments. The total amount of
rental payments received directly or indirectly may not
exceed $50,000. Additional payments received under a
CREP contract is not subject to the payment limit.
USDA is allowed to enter into CREP agreements with
states. (16 U.S.C. 3834(g))

Maintains the $50,000 rental payment limit. Authorizes
USDA to waive payment limits and adjusted gross
income (AGI) requirements for rural water district or
association land enrolled for the purpose of protecting
a wellhead. Deletes reference to CREP agreements.
(§2207(d))

Section 2208—Contracts
Transition Incentives Program. The transition
option under CRP facilitates the transfer of CRP acres
from a retiring owner to a beginning/socially
disadvantaged/veteran producer to return land to
production, and it allows the new owner to begin land
improvements or start the organic certification process
one year before the CRP contract expires. In exchange,
the retiring owner receives up to two additional years
of annual CRP rental payments following the expiration
of the CRP contract. (16 U.S.C. 3835(f))

Amends the program to authorize the transfer of land
from any CRP contract holder (not limited to retiring
or retired farmer or rancher) to a beginning/socially
disadvantaged/veteran producer. Extends the time
available for the new owner to begin land
improvements or start the organic certifications
contract from one year to two years before the CRP
contract expires. Amends participation requirements to
allow short-term leases (less than 5 years) with an
option to purchase. In addition, gives land enrollment
priority into EQIP, CSP, and ACEP. Allows the new
owners to reenroll a portion of the land into select
practices under a continuous contracts. (§2208(a))

End of contract. Landowners may enroll in CSP and
conduct activities required under CSP in the final year
of the CRP contract without violating the terms of the
contract. (16 U.S.C. 3835(g))

Amends the provision to allow for enrollment in EQIP
or CSP and conduct EQIP or CSP practices in the final
year of the CRP contract without violating the terms of
the contract. Adds that landowners may begin the
organic certification process three years prior to the
end of a contract without violating the terms of the
contract. (§2208(b))

Congressional Research Service

22

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2209—Eligible Land; State Law Requirements
Land is considered ineligible for CRP if the landowner
has received written notice that the land is required to
have a resource concern or environmental protection
measure or practices in place in accordance with tribal,
state, or other local law, ordinances, or other
regulation. (7 C.F.R. 1410.6(d)(4))

Requires USDA to amend CREP regulations prohibiting
enrollment of land with existing protection measures if
FSA, in consultation with the state technical committee,
considers the enrollment to be in the best interest of
the program. (§2209)

Section 2501—Funding Authorization
CRP Funding. Authorizes a total of $10 million for
thinning activities and a total of $33 million for
transition contracts for FY2014-FY2018. Total funding
for CRP is limited by enrolled acres, not total dollars.
(16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(1))

Increases forest management thinning payments to a
total of $12 million for FY2019-FY2023. Increases
funding for transition contracts to a total of $50 million
and limits technical assistance to $5 million total. Total
funding for CRP continues to be limited by enrolled
acres, not total dollars. See Table A-6 for full funding
authority. (§2501(a)(2))

Source: CRS.

Table A-3. Subtitle C—Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2301—Repeal of conservation programs
No comparable provision.

Moves CSP under the EQIP chapter and makes
conforming amendments. (§§2301(a), (b), & (d)) See
Table A-4 for amendments related to CSP.

Section 2302—Purposes of Environmental Quality Incentives Program
The purpose of the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is to promote production and
environmental quality as compatible goals, and optimize
environmental benefits by assisting producers with (1)
compliance with regulatory requirements; (2) avoiding
the need for regulation; (3) installing and maintaining
conservation practices; and (4) making cost-effective
changes to current production systems. (16 U.S.C.
3839aa)

Congressional Research Service

Amends the 4th purpose area to address identified,
new, or expected resource concerns associated with
changes to production systems. Adds nutrient
management for crop production, adaptation and
mitigation against weather volatility, and drought
resiliency to the list of possible resource concerns that
may be addressed under EQIP. (§2302)

23

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2303—Definitions under Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Five terms are defined under EQIP: eligible land, organic
system plan, payment, practice, and program.
Eligible land is defined as land that produces
commodities, livestock, or forestry-related products,
including cropland, grassland, rangeland, pastureland,
nonindustrial private forest land, and other agricultural
land as determined by the Secretary.
Practice is defined as one or more improvements (e.g.,
structural, land management, or vegetative practice;
forest management; and other practices defined by
USDA) or conservation activities (e.g., comprehensive
nutrient management plans and other plans as
determined by USDA). (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-1)
Under CSP, priority resource concern is defined as a
resource concern that is identified at the national, state,
or local level as a priority, is significant in a state or
region, and could be addressed successfully under the
program. Stewardship threshold is defined as a level of
management required to conserve or improve the
quality and condition of a natural resource. (16 U.S.C.
3838d(5) and (7))

Adds a definition for conservation planning assessment
which may be developed by a non-USDA entity and
incorporated into the required EQIP plan.
Amends the definition of eligible land to include
environmentally sensitive areas, and identified or
expected resource concerns related to agricultural
production.
Adds definitions for incentive practice and priority
resource concern similar to the stewardship threshold and
priority resource concern definitions under CSP.
Amends the definition of practice to include soil tests
and soil remediation practices. Adds resourceconserving crop rotation planning, soil health planning,
conservation planning assessments, and precision
conservation planning to the list of eligible conservation
activity plans.
Adds a definition for soil remediation as a scientifically
based practice that addresses soil contaminants and
sustainability.
Adds a definition for soil testing as an evaluation of soil
health. (§2303)

Section 2304—Establishment and Administration of Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Establishment. EQIP is authorized through FY2019.
(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(a))

Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2023. (§2304(a))

Advanced payments. EQIP contracts are paid upon
the completion of the approved conservation practice.
USDA is authorized, however, to make up to 50% of
the cost of the practice available in advance for a
limited resource, socially disadvantaged, veteran, or
beginning farmer or rancher. Advanced funds must be
used to purchase materials within 90-days or the funds
must be returned. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(d)(4)(B))

At the election of the producer, advanced payments are
increased to at least 50% of the total practice cost.
Adds a required notification and documentation clause.
(§2304(b)(1))

No comparable provision.

High priority practices. Allows states the option, in
consultation with the state technical committee, to
identify no more than ten high-priority practices that
will be eligible for up to 90% of the practice cost.
Practices must address nutrients in ground and surface
water, conservation of water, identified wildlife habitat,
or watershed-specific resource concerns.
(§2304(b)(2))

Funding allocation. Requires that 60% of payments
go to practices related to livestock production and that
at least 5% of annual funds go to payments benefiting
wildlife habitat through FY2018. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa2(f))

Reauthorizes and reduces the carve-out for livestock
related practices to 50% through FY2023 and clarifies
that grazing management practices are included.
Reauthorizes and increases the wildlife habitat payment
minimum to 10% through FY2023. (§2304(c))

Wildlife habitat incentives program. Subprogram
under EQIP that provides payments for conservation
practices that benefit wildlife habitat. (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-2(g))

Limits wildlife contracts to ten years. Also adds specific
requirements for seasonal wetland habitat practices.
(§2304(d))

Congressional Research Service

24

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Water conservation. EQIP may fund irrigation
efficiency practices. Priority is given for applications
that reduce water use on the operation or those in
which the producer agrees not to use the water savings
to bring new land into irrigation. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa2(h))

Authorizes USDA to make EQIP payments to
producers or selected eligible entities for water
conservation or irrigation efficiency practices. Eligible
entities may be a state, irrigation district, groundwater
management district, acequia, land-grant mercedes, or
similar entity. Practices must be implemented on
eligible land of the producer, land adjacent to a
producer’s eligible land, or land under the control of
the eligible entity. USDA may waive AGI and payment
limits for eligible entities and impose additional limits.
Priority is given to applications that reduce water use.
(§2304(e))

Organic payment limits. Payments for conservation
practices related to organic production are limited to a
total of $20,000 per year or $80,000 during any 6-year
period. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(i))

Amends the payment limit to a total of $140,000 from
FY2019 through FY2023. (§2304(f))

No directly comparable provision.
Under CSP, contracts (five years in length with the
option of renewal) are based on meeting or exceeding
a stewardship threshold on the entire agricultural
operation. Participants must meet 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. CSP provides two possible
payments: (1) an annual payment for installing new
conservation activities and maintaining existing activities
and (2) a supplemental payment for adopting a
resource-conserving crop rotation. Enrollment is
offered through a continuous sign-up and applications
are accepted year-round. CSP payments are limited to
not more than $200,000 total between FY2014 and
FY2018. (16 U.S.C. 3838d-3838g)

Establishes a new Conservation Incentive Contract
under EQIP. Limits application of the contracts to
identified priority resource concerns within select
geographic regions. No more than three priority
resource concerns are identified in each state. Priority
is provided for applications that address eligible priority
resource concerns and are grouped by similar
operations. Contract terms extend from five to 10
years and provide annual payments to incentivize
increased conservation stewardship and the adoption,
installation, management, and maintenance of
conservation practices. In determining payment
amounts, USDA must consider the level and extent of
the practice, cost, income forgone, and longevity of the
practice. Annual payments must be made at the
beginning of each fiscal year and practice payments
soon after implementation of the practice. Does not
include payment limits or a specific percentage of EQIP
funds to be used for incentive contracts. (§2304(g))

Section 2305—Environmental Quality Incentives Program Plan
All EQIP contracts require an approved plan of
operations. For confined livestock feeding operations,
the plan provides for the development and
implementation of a comprehensive nutrient
management plan (CNMP). (16 U.S.C. 3839aa5(a)(3))

Amends the EQIP plan of operation for confined
livestock feeding operations to develop and progressively
implement a CNMP. (§2305)

Section 2306—Limitation on Payments Under Environmental Quality Incentives Program
An EQIP participant’s payments are limit to an
aggregate of $450,000 for FY2014-FY2018. (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-7)

Congressional Research Service

Extends the EQIP aggregate payment limit of $450,000
for FY2019-FY2023. Exempts new Conservation
Incentive Contracts from the EQIP payment limit.
(§2306)

25

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2307—Conservation Innovation Grants and Payments
Conservation Innovation Grants and Payments (CIG) is
a competitive grant program within EQIP. Grants are
provided to governmental and nongovernmental
organizations, on a matching basis, to implement
innovative conservation projects. Projects must include
EQIP producers, leverage federal funds, provide
technology transfer, increase participation by specialty
crop producers, facilitate on-farm research, and pilot
the testing of new technologies and practices. (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-8(a))

Adds community colleges carrying out demonstration
projects to the list of eligible EQIP producers that may
be included in a project. Expands the list of projects to
include urban agriculture and edge-of-field monitoring.
(§2307(a))

Requires that $25 million of EQIP funds annually
(through FY2018) be used to address air quality
concerns. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-8(b))

Reauthorizes and increases the air quality funding
carve-out to $37 million annually through FY2023.
(§2307(2))

No comparable provision.

Requires up to $25 million annually of EQIP funds for
FY2019-FY2023 be used for an on-farm
conservation innovation trial to test new or
innovative conservation approaches either directly with
producers or with eligible entities. Agreements (3 or
more years in duration) may be entered into with
eligible entities. AGI limits must be applied to
participating producers and eligible entities must
provide USDA with annual reports on payments made
to participants. No funds may be used for
administrative expenses for eligible entities. USDA
must provide technical assistance to producers and
eligible entities. Requires a soil health
demonstration trial to be carried out under the onfarm conservation trial that provides financial assistance
for soil health and carbon-related practices. A report to
Congress is required. (§2307(c))

CIG Report. A report to Congress is required no
later than December 31, 2014, and every two years
thereafter, regarding CIG funding, project results, and
technology transfer efforts. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-8(c))

Adds a requirement that USDA use the required CIG
reports to establish and maintain a public conservation
practice database. Adds the soil health demonstration
trial report to the list of reports required. (§2307(c))

Section 2501—Funding Authorization
EQIP Funding. Authorizes $1.35 billion in FY2014,
$1.6 billion in FY2015, $1.65 billion in each FY2016 and
FY2017, and $1.75 billion in each FY2018 and FY2019.
(16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(5))

Reauthorizes the authority for the CCC to fund EQIP,
including: $1.75 billion in FY2019 and FY2020, $1.8
billion in FY2021, $1.85 billion in FY2022, and $2.025
billion in FY2023. See Table A-6 for full funding
authority. (§2501(a)(4))

Source: CRS.

Congressional Research Service

26

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Table A-4. Subtitle C—Conservation Stewardship Program
Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2301—Repeal of conservation programs
No comparable provision.

Moves the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
under the EQIP chapter and makes conforming
amendments. (§§2301(a), (b) & (d))

No comparable provision.

Terminates CSP as in effect on the day before
enactment. Provides transition provisions allowing
current contracts to remain in effect until completion
and eligible for an extension in the fifth year of the
original contract. Existing contracts may not be
renewed unless certain conditions are met. Specific
provisions are provided for RCPP agreements that
include CSP acreage. CCC funding is to be made
available to carry out current contracts.
(§§2301(c)(2)-(c)(5))

Section 2308—Conservation Stewardship Program
Definitions. Seven terms are defined under CSP:
agricultural operation, conservation activities, conservation
stewardship plan, eligible land, priority resource concern,
program, and stewardship threshold.
Conservation activities are defined as a conservation
systems, practices, or management measures that can
include structural, vegetative, and land management
measures as well as planning.
Stewardship threshold is defined as a level of
management required to conserve or improve the
quality and condition of a natural resource. (16 U.S.C.
3838d(2) and (7))

Amends the definition of conservation activities to include
comprehensive conservation plans, soil health planning
to increase soil organic matter, and activities that will
adapt or mitigate against increasing weather volatility.
Amends the definition of stewardship threshold to
include measurable resource improvements through
the use of tools, models, criteria, data, and other
methods. (§2308(a))

Establishment and exclusions. The purpose of CSP
is to encourage producers to address priority resource
concerns in a comprehensive manner by undertaking
additional conservation activities and improving,
maintaining, and managing existing conservation
activities. CSP is authorized through FY2023. Eligible
land may not be enrolled in other retirement or
easement conservation programs (e.g., CRP and ACEP)
and must have a cropping history (4 of the 6 years
preceding February 7, 2014). (16 U.S.C. 3838e)

Extends the program authorization through FY2023.
Extends the cropping history requirement to 4 of the 6
years preceding the date of enactment. (§2308(b))

Ranking of applications. Applications are ranked
based on the (1) level of conservation treatment at the
time of application, (2) degree of proposed increased
conservation performance, (3) number of proposed
priority resource concerns to be treated, (4) extent of
other priority resource concerns that will be
addressed, (5) cost effectiveness of the offer, and (6)
effect of priority resource concerns when transitioning
from CRP to agricultural production. (16 U.S.C.
3838f(b)(1))

Amends the application ranking criteria to include (1)
the conservation benefits on all applicable priority
resource concerns at the time of application, (2) the
degree of proposed increased conservation benefits,
and (3) other consistent criteria, as determined by the
Secretary. Requires that similarly ranked applications be
determined based on the cost-effectiveness of the offer.
(§2308(c)(1))

After a producer is determined eligible for CSP and the
contract offer ranks high enough under the evaluation
criteria, then a conservation stewardship contract is
offered to enroll the eligible land into CSP. (16 U.S.C.
3838f(c))

Amends contracting language to include contract
renewals as eligible for enrollment. (§2308(c)(2))

Congressional Research Service

27

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Contract renewal. CSP contracts may be renewed
for an additional 5 years if the producer is in
compliance with the initial contract and agrees, at a
minimum, to meet or exceed the stewardship
threshold for at least two additional priority resource
concerns, or exceed the stewardship threshold of two
existing priority resource concerns. (16 U.S.C.
3838f(e))

Contract renewals may be offered in the first half of
the fifth year if the producer is in compliance with the
existing contract; adopts new and improved
conservation activities for the additional 5-year period;
and agrees to meet the stewardship threshold for at
least two additional priority resource concerns, or to
adopt or improve activities that could achieve higher
levels of performance on not less than two existing
priority resource concerns. (§2308(c)(4))

Acreage enrollment limitation. Total acreage
enrollment is limited to 10 million acres annually from
February 7, 2014 through September 30, 2028.
Requires a national average rate of $18 per acre (to
include all costs). (16 U.S.C. 3838g(c))

Deletes acreage limitation and national average
payment rate. Makes conforming amendments limiting
the program to a funding amount rather than to an
acreage total. (§§2308(d)(1)-(d)(3))

No comparable provision.

Cover crop payments. Requires that payments for
cover crop activities be at least 125% of the annual
payment rate. (§2308(d)(4))

Crop rotation payments. Additional payments are
authorized for the adoption of resource-conserving
crop rotations. Resource-conserving crop rotation is
defined and the rotation is required to provide a
conservation and production benefit. (16 U.S.C.
3838g(e))

Authorizes additional payments for resourceconserving crop rotations and advanced grazing
management. Defines advanced grazing management and
management-intensive rotational grazing. Requires that
payments for these additional payments be at least
150% of the annual payment rate. (§2308(d)(5))

No comparable provision.

Comprehensive conservation plans. Adds a new
provision authorizing a one-time payment for the
development of a comprehensive conservation plan.
Payments are determined based on the number of
priority resource concerns to be addressed and the
number of land use types included in the plan.
(§2308(d)(6))

Payment limit. CSP payments are limited to a total of
$200,000 for all contracts entered into by a participant
from FY2014 through FY2023. (16 U.S.C. 3838g(f))

Extends the payment limit aggregate of $200,000 for all
CSP contracts entered into by a participant from
FY2019 through FY2023. (§2308(d)(7))

Organic certification. USDA is required to establish
transparent means by which CSP participants may
initiate organic certification under the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.). (16
U.S.C. 3838g(h))

Requires USDA to allocate CSP funding to states to
support organic transition and production. Allocations
must be based on the number of organic operations
and organic acres within a state. (§2308(d)(8))

No comparable provision.

CSP and EQIP coordination. Requires that USDA
streamline and coordinate CSP and EQIP. Requires
USDA to manage CSP to enhance soil health. Requires
annual reports on the program. (§2308(d)(9))

Congressional Research Service

28

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2309—Grassland Conservation Initiative
No comparable provision.

Grassland Conservation Initiative. Creates a new
grassland conservation contract under CSP. Beginning
in FY2019, USDA must offer a onetime sign-up for
eligible land. Under a contract, the producer must meet
or exceed the stewardship threshold for at least one
priority resource concern. Contracts are limited to 5
years, with no renewal, but a producer can terminate a
contract at any time with no repayment penalty.
Payments are limited to $18 per acre and are not
subject to the CSP payment limit. Land retains its base
acre history while enrolled, but payments may not
exceed the number of base acres on a farm. (§2309)

Section 2501—Funding Authorization
CSP Funding. Total funding for CSP is limited by
enrolled acres, not total dollars for FY2014-FY2018.
(16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(4))

Authorizes CSP to enroll contracts limited by funding
rather than acres. Authorizes the CCC to fund CSP,
including $700 million in FY2019, $725 million in
FY2020, $750 million in FY2021, $800 million in
FY2022, and $1 billion in FY2023. (§2501(a)(4))
Authorizes the CCC to carry out CSP contracts
enrolled prior to enactment using such sums as
necessary. (§2501(a)(5))
See Table A-6 for full funding authority.

Source: CRS.

Table A-5. Subtitle D—Other Conservation Programs
Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2401—Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (Watershed Operations)
Watershed Operations program provides technical and
financial assistance to states and local organizations to
plan and install watershed projects. Such sums as
necessary are authorized to be appropriated for the
program. No watershed project may exceed 250,000
acres, and no structure may exceed more than 12,500
acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity, or 25,000
acre-feet of total capacity. Assistance is provided
according to an approved watershed plan. (16 U.S.C.
1001 et seq.)

Waives the watershed planning requirements when
considered unnecessary or duplicative. (§2401(a))

No comparable provision.

Adds a new section permanently authorizing $50
million annually in mandatory funding beginning in
FY2019. (§2401(c))

Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
Authorized to receive appropriations of up to $85
million annually for FY2008-FY2018 and $250 million in
mandatory funding for FY2014 to remain available until
expended. (16 U.S.C. 1012(h)(2)(E))

Extends annual authorization of appropriations of $85
million annually through FY2023. (§2401(b))

Congressional Research Service

29

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2402—Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA)
The RCA provides USDA with broad natural resource
strategic assessment and planning authority. USDA is
required to conduct a nationwide appraisal of soil,
water, and related resources. USDA is also required to
develop a national conservation program to guide the
department’s administration of conservation activities.
Appraisals and program statements are due to
Congress on a fixed schedule. (16 U.S.C. 2001 et
seq.)

Amends the RCA to require USDA to conduct a
comprehensive appraisal of soil, water, and related
natural resources (completed by year-end 2022). Also
requires USDA to complete the soil and water
conservation program update (completed by year-end
2023), to guide the future of USDA conservation
activities. (§2402)

Section 2403—Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)
ECP provides emergency funding and technical
assistance to producers to rehabilitate farmland
damaged by natural disasters. (16 U.S.C. 2201)
Payments are made to individual producers based on a
share of the cost of completing the practice. This can
be up to 75% of the cost, or up to 90% of the cost if
the producer is considered to be a limited-resources
producer. Total payments may not exceed 50% of the
agricultural value of the affected land. Payments are
made following completion and inspection of the
practice. (7 C.F.R. 701.126)

Adds a reference to wildfires to a list of natural
disasters. Adds a new provision allowing producers the
option of accepting a reduced payment for repairing or
replacing fence rather than receiving a higher payment
following the completion and inspection of the practice.
Advanced payments for fence cannot exceed 25% of
the total payment (based on cost) and must be
expended after 60 days or be returned. Adds a new
section similar to existing regulations limiting the costshare to 75% of the total allowable cost, or up to 90%
of the total allowable cost if the producer is considered
limited resource, socially disadvantaged, or beginning
farmer or rancher. Requires that total payments for a
single event may not exceed 50% the agricultural value
of the affected land. (§§2403(a)&(b))

No comparable provision.

Adds an ECP payment limitation of $500,000 for
agricultural producers. (§2403(c))

Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)
program. 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 natural disasters. EWP is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as necessary, to remain
available until expended. Facilities, services and
authorities of the CCC may be used when funding is
specifically appropriated. (16 U.S.C. 2204)

Amends funding authority to include a set-aside of 25%
of all available funding to repair and replace fencing.
(§§2403(d)&(e))

Section 2404—Conservation of Private Grazing Land Program
Authorizes appropriations of $60 million annually
through FY2018. (16 U.S.C. 3839bb(e))

Extends authorization of appropriations at $60 million
annually through FY2023. Adds a provision requiring
education and outreach through partnership with landgrant colleges and universities and nongovernmental
organizations. (§2404)

Section 2405—Grassroots Source Water Protection Program (GSWP)
Authorizes appropriations of $20 million annually
through FY2018 and a one-time authorization for $5
million in mandatory funding to remain available until
expended. (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2(b))

Congressional Research Service

Extends authorization of appropriations at $20 million
annually through FY2023 and authorizes an additional
$5 million in mandatory funding in FY2019 to remain
available until expended. (§2405)

30

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2406—Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPAHIP)
VPAHIP provides grants to states and tribal
governments to encourage private landowners to
voluntarily make land available for public access hunting
and fishing programs. Priority is given to grants that
maximize participation; include appropriate wildlife
habitat; improve habitat efforts on CREP acres; use
additional funding to carry out the program; and make
the land publically available. (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5(c))

Amends the priority for funding under the program to
include wildlife habitat improvement efforts on CREP
acres and wetland reserve easements under ACEP.
(§2406(3))

Authorizes $50 million in mandatory funds for FY2009FY2012 and $40 million in mandatory funds for
FY2014-2018. (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5(f))

Authorizes $50 million in mandatory funding for
FY2019-FY2023. Adds a $3 million set-aside to
encourage public access on land covered by wetland
reserve easements under ACEP. (§2406(4))

Section 2407—Wildlife Management
No comparable provision. Under the Working Lands
for Wildlife Initiative, USDA NRCS and the
Department of the Interior (DOI) U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), through a partnership agreement,
provide voluntary targeted financial and technical
assistance for wildlife habitat improvement on private
land in exchange for regulatory predictability regarding
the Endangered Species Act.

Codifies the Working Lands for Wildlife initiative as in
effect on the day before enactment. Authorizes
development of a similar agreement between FWS and
FSA. The period of regulatory predictability may be
extended if agreed to. (§2407)

Section 2408—Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program
No directly comparable provision.
National Feral Swine Damage Management
Program. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) administers the program to manage
damage caused by feral swine in the United States.
APHIS works with states, tribes, federal agencies,
universities, organizations, and public landowners and
coordinates with Mexico and Canada on feral swine
disease monitoring and control activities.
Feral Swine Initiative. Administered by NRCS in
select states through EQIP. The initiative offers
conservation technical assistance planning and
management practice implementation to affected
landowners.

Creates a new Feral Swine Eradication and
Control Pilot Program. USDA is required to study
the extent of damage from feral swine, develop
eradication and control measures and restoration
methods, and provide cost-share funding to agricultural
producers in established pilot areas. NRCS and APHIS
must coordinate the pilot through NRCS state
technical committees. Cost-share assistance is limited
to 75% of the cost of eradication and control measures
or restoration. Authorizes $75 million in mandatory
funding for the period FY2019-FY2023. Requires
funding to be split equally between NRCS and APHIS
with no more than 10% for administrative expenses.
(§2408)

Section 2409—Report on Small Wetlands
No comparable provision.

Requires NRCS to submit a report to Congress
describing the number of wetlands measuring less than
one acre in size in North Dakota, South Dakota,
Minnesota, and Iowa identified during FY2014 through
FY2018. All wetlands included in the report must be
described in 1/10 of an acre increments and be based
on available science. (§2409)

Section 2410—Sense of Congress Relating to Increased Watershed-Based Collaboration
No comparable provision.

Congressional Research Service

Adds a sense of Congress statement encouraging
partnerships at the watershed level between nonpoint
sources and regulated point sources to advance the
goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Clean Water Act). (§2410)

31

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Source: CRS.

Table A-6. Subtitle E—Funding and Administration
Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Section 2501—Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
Authorizes the use of funds (mandatory), facilities, and
authorities of the CCC to carry out conservation
programs for FY2014-FY2018, and through FY2019 for
EQIP. (16 U.S.C. 3841(a))

Extends the CCC authority though FY2023. Specific
funding levels for programs are outlined below.
(§2501(a)(1))

CRP funding. Authorizes a total of $10 million for
thinning activities and a total of $33 million for
transition contracts for FY2014-FY2018. Total funding
for CRP is limited by enrolled acres, not total dollars.
See Table A-2 for acre limits. (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(1))

Increases forest management thinning payments to a
total of $12 million for FY2019-FY2023. Increases
funding for transition contracts to a total of $50 million
and limits technical assistance to $5 million total. Total
funding for CRP continues to be limited by enrolled
acres, not total dollars. See Table A-2 for acre limits.
(§2501(a)(2))

ACEP funding. Authorizes $400 million in FY2014,
$425 million in FY2015, $450 million in FY2016, $500
million in FY2017, and $250 million in FY2018. (16
U.S.C. 3841(a)(2))

Increases ACEP funding to $450 million annually for
FY2019-FY2023. (§2501(a)(3))

Conservation Security Program funding.
Authorizes funding for contracts (enrolled prior to
FY2009) with such sums as necessary. (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(3))

Deletes provision. (§2501(a)(4))

CSP funding. Total funding for CSP is limited by
enrolled acres, not total dollars for FY2014-FY2018.
See Table A-4 for acre limits. (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(4))

Authorizes CSP to enroll contracts limited by funding
rather than acres. Authorizes mandatory funding
includes: $700 million in FY2019, $725 million in
FY2020, $750 million in FY2021, $800 million in
FY2022, and $1 billion in FY2023. (§2501(a)(4))
Authorizes the CCC to carry out CSP contracts
enrolled prior to enactment using such sums as
necessary. (§2501(a)(5))

EQIP funding. Authorizes $1.35 billion in FY2014,
$1.6 billion in FY2015, $1.65 billion in each FY2016 and
FY2017, and $1.75 billion in each FY2018 and FY2019.
(16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(5))

Reauthorizes the authority for the CCC to fund EQIP:
$1.75 billion in FY2019 and FY2020, $1.8 billion in
FY2021, $1.85 billion in FY2022, and $2.025 billion in
FY2023. (§2501(a)(4))

Availability of funds. Mandatory funding made
available for CRP, ACEP, CSP, and EQIP for FY2014
through FY2018 (FY2019 for EQIP) are authorized to
remain available until expended. (16 U.S.C. 3841(b))

Reauthorizes mandatory funding made available for
CRP, ACEP, CSP, and EQIP for FY2019 through
FY2023 to remain available until expended. (§2501(b))

Report on program enrollments and assistance.
Reports are required for program enrollments and
assistance under conservation programs, including
significant payments, waivers, and exceptions. (16
U.S.C. 3841(i))

Reauthorizes reporting requirements through FY2023,
and adds reports on annual and cumulative enrollment
statistics. (§2501(c))

Allocations. Requires USDA to review all
conservation program allocation formulas no later than
January 1, 2012. Updates are required to reflect the
cost of carrying out the programs. (16 U.S.C.
3841(g))

Amends the allocation review requiring, within one
year following enactment of the bill, annual allocation
formulas to account for local data and input. Adds
requirements for USDA to consider when updating
allocation formulas. (§2501(d))

Congressional Research Service

32

Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill

Prior Law

Enacted 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Assistance to certain farmers or ranchers for
conservation access. Establishes an annual set-aside
in EQIP and CSP from FY2014 through FY2018 of 5%
to beginning farmers or ranchers and 5% to socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. Unobligated funds
for EQIP and unobligated acres for CSP under this
provision may be repooled and obligated in accordance
with the respective program. Preference is provided for
veteran farmers or ranchers eligible under the
provision. (16 U.S.C. 3841(h))

Reauthorizes the EQIP and CSP set-asides through
FY2023. Makes technical amendments regarding the
repooling of CSP funds and preference for veteran
farmers or ranchers. (§2501(e))

No comparable provision.

Conservation standards. Establishes NRCS as the
lead agency for developing technical standards and
requirements for farm bill conservation programs.
Requires FSA to use standards consistent with NRCS.
(§2501(f))

Section 2502—Delivery of Technical Assistance
Delivery of technical assistance. All producers
participating in conservation programs must be
provided technical assistance either by USDA or
through an approved third party. (16 U.S.C. 3842(a))

Adds a definition of third-party provider as a commercial
entity, nonprofit entity, state or local government, or
federal agency that has ex

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45698. Public record. Not legal advice.