Selected Conservation Proposals for the Next Farm Bill

Congressional research reportSep 10, 2001

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL31131

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Selected Conservation Proposals

for the Next Farm Bill

September 10, 2001

Jeffrey A. Zinn

Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Selected Conservation Proposals

for the Next Farm Bill

Summary

Conservation is expected to be a major component of the next generation of farm

policy which the 107th Congress is formulating, according to leaders of the agriculture

committees in both Chambers and many others involved in agricultural policy. The

House Agriculture Committee reported its version of a new omnibus farm bill (H.R.

2646) on August 2, 2001, and it includes numerous conservation proposals. The

Senate Agriculture Committee is working to develop a bill in which conservation will

play a prominent role, according to Chairman Harkin.

Major questions being debated about conservation revolve around: (1) at what

level should overall funding be set; (2) how should funding be distributed among

existing and proposed new programs and activities; (3) should existing programs be

amended, and if so, how; (4) what, if any, new programs are needed; (5) how should

funding be divided between programs for land retirement and for working lands; and

(6) should Congress provide new or additional direction to the implementing

agencies? Answers to these questions have been offered in extensive testimony at

hearings, and are reflected in the policy options that Congress is considering.

This report compares, by program, conservation proposals in four bills with

current law. The presentation for each existing program includes a brief program

description, an overview of accomplishments, a summary of some of the issues that

have been identified, and a table or narrative comparing current law with proposals

in each bill. While these bills do not represent all of the bills with conservation

provisions that have been introduced, they reflect most of the range of policy

approaches currently being considered. The four bills are:

! H.R. 2646, the farm bill reported by the House Agriculture Committee (House

Report 107-191 parts I and II);

! H.R. 2375, a set of alternative conservation proposals introduced by

Representative Kind and favored by many environmentalists;

! S. 1267, a set of proposals introduced by Senator Crapo and generally favored

by the agriculture community; and

! S. 1326, a set of proposals introduced by Senator Lugar.

In addition, Chairman Harkin’s Conservation Security Act (S. 932/H.R. 1949),

which proposes a new “green payments” program, is briefly summarized in the crosscutting issues section of this report because he has indicated that it will be a part of

the Senate Agriculture Committee’s farm bill proposal. Since this bill does not

include proposals for any of the existing programs, it is not mentioned elsewhere in

this report.

This report will be updated as new bills are introduced or existing bills are

amended. Specifically, it will be updated when the Senate Agriculture Committee’s

farm bill legislation is introduced, and again when it is reported.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the Conservation Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Cross-Cutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

International Trade Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Funding for Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Demand for Conservation Programs and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Complexities in Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Expanding Conservation Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Agency Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Green Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conservation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conservation Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Farmland Protection Program (FPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Resource Conservation and Development Program(RC&D) . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Comparison of Proposed Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Watershed Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Comparison of Proposed Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Program Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Other Amendments to Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Grazing Lands Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Conservation Practice Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Evaluation and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Program Consolidation and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Program Extensions and Deletions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

The Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP) . . 36

New Program Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Grassland Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

WRP Enhancement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Corridor Demonstration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Farmland Stewardship Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Proposed CRP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 2. Comparison of Proposed Compliance Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 3. Comparison of Proposed EQIP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 4. Comparison of Proposed FPP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 5. Comparison of Proposed FIP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 6. Comparison of Proposed WRP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 7. Comparison of Proposed WHIP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 8. Comparison of Proposed Grasslands Reserve Program . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Selected Conservation Proposals

for the Next Farm Bill

Introduction

Leaders on both agriculture committees have stated that conservation will be an

important part of the next farm bill. House Agriculture Committee leaders have been pressing

to move the farm bill through the legislative process rapidly because of concerns that lower

projections of the budget surplus might affect future allocations to agriculture. The House

Agriculture Committee reported its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2646, H. Rept. 107-191,

pt. 1 and pt. 2) on August 2, 2001. The committee drew on conservation testimony offered

by many witnesses at numerous hearings. The process for gathering input has been much the

same in the Senate, but the committee has not yet completed a farm bill proposal. Progress

in the Senate may have been slowed by changes in party control, although conservation was

a focus of hearings both before and after the Democratic Party take-over.

Agricultural conservation has played an increasingly important role in farm policy during

the past two decades. This importance can be measured in many ways: the growing

proliferation of conservation programs and overall federal funding for conservation; the

willingness to use mandatory funding, which bypasses the annual appropriations process, for

most conservation spending; and the expansion of the conservation mission from programs

that largely focus on managing natural resources to enhance farm production to programs that

deal with off-farm impacts of farming practices and environmental topics that are new to

agricultural policy.

This changing role can be seen by comparing conservation elements of the most recent

three farm bills, enacted in 1985, 1990, and 1996. Prior to the 1985 farm bill, almost all

conservation programs supported either the goal of reducing soil erosion or the goal of

providing water at a rate and pattern that would enhance crop production. These programs

were designed to improve conditions on the farm and most did not address effects of

agricultural practices on resources or the environment beyond the farm fence line. The 1985

farm bill (P.L. 99-198) expanded conservation efforts by enacting the Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) and the three compliance programs (Conservation Compliance, Sodbuster,

and Swampbuster).1 Except for Swampbuster, these programs were all concerned with

reducing soil erosion, although the CRP included language that gave the Department of

Agriculture (USDA) the option of enrolling lands that provided off-farm environmental

benefits (an option that initially it choose to neglect).

The 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) added little to erosion control efforts. By 1990,

however, the Department had expanded the CRP to include other conservation objectives

in addition to reducing soil erosion and was starting to use an Environmental Benefits Index

(EBI) to compare bids by assigning values to each of these objectives. The 1990 farm bill

Descriptions of each program mentioned in this introductory section that is being actively

implemented appear later in the report.

CRS-2

endorsed the EBI and made other changes to the CRP. It also created new programs,

including the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Water Quality Incentives Program (a

cost sharing program), the Environmental Easement Program, and a new pesticides record

keeping program. It also called on USDA to create a new Office on Environmental Quality,

and amended the 1981 farmland protection program, as well as water quality research and

education programs. The overall conservation theme in this law was water, but it also greatly

expanded the conservation mission and authorized the use of easements.

The 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127) again expanded the conservation mission, adding

numerous programs. These included the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),

the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

(WHIP). In addition, the compliance programs were made more producer-friendly, and

perhaps of greatest interest to the agriculture community, the CRP was reauthorized. Other

provisions dealt with assigning responsibilities for air quality concerns in USDA to the

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and providing a new option combining

conservation and commodity payments. The overall conservation theme was wildlife and

habitat protection, but the most significant change may have been to make a majority of the

conservation funding mandatory using the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), which

excludes it from the annual appropriations process; previously, funding for all conservation

programs had been discretionary, and required an annual appropriation.

Thus far, the current farm bill debate has differed from the past three in at least two

major ways. First, the debate over this bill has been more about how much money will be

allocated to agriculture, and how much of that allocation will be assigned to conservation.

In earlier farm bills, funding was an important constraint because of federal budget deficits.

But it is now a larger driving force both because the FY2002 budget agreement allocated the

surplus projected at that time and gave a significant portion to agriculture over the next

decade, and because that surplus is now forecast to decline for the next few years. Second,

while the earlier farm bill debates centered on what new programs and policies are needed for

conservation, this debate thus far has given more attention to how to make existing programs

more effective either by providing more funding or by amending them. The House

Agriculture Committee emphasized this difference from earlier farm bill conservation titles

in a summary of its actions on conservation.

Overview of the Conservation Effort

USDA provides conservation assistance through many agencies, but primarily through

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

The programs are almost all voluntary, and participation is attracted by providing incentives

in the forms of financial assistance and technical assistance, and supported by education and

basic and applied research. In recent years, funding for all of these programs has averaged

more than $3 billion per year.

The overall conservation effort encompasses about 30 programs and activities, according

to USDA’s budget summary, but the total number depends on how one counts them and

which ones are included. If one views this overall effort as a piece of fabric, with each of the

woven threads representing a program or activity, then the fabric includes other threads as

well. They consist of:

CRS-3

! Very small programs, as measured by funding (the NRCS Snow Survey and Plant

Material Centers are examples);

! Scientific or technical support programs (the Soil Survey and the Natural Resources

Inventory are examples);

! Programs that are not being implemented (the Conservation Farm Option, the Natural

Resources Conservation Foundation, and the Flood Risk Reduction Program, all

enacted in the 1996 farm bill, are examples);

! Programs that are implemented only under unpredictable circumstances (the

Emergency Conservation Program and the Emergency Watershed Program are

examples);

! Activities that support many other programs (Conservation Technical Assistance and

the State Technical Committees are examples); and

! Programs that are agency or department initiatives rather than legislated mandates (the

National Conservation Buffer Initiative and the Unified National Strategy for Animal

Feeding Operations are examples).

This report discusses only those programs that are being addressed in one or more of the

four farm bill proposals being compared; if none of these bills would amend a program, it is

not included. If only one bill would amend a program, it is presented in narrative, and if more

than one bill would amend it, the proposals are presented in a table. However, some of these

other threads are very important to the overall conservation effort.

Cross-Cutting Issues

Certain topics are being raised in discussions of agricultural conservation activities that

transcend individual conservation programs. Some of these topics have been raised recently,

while others have been discussed for many years. Some of these topics are being raised by

those who believe that lack of attention to them is increasingly constraining the conservation

effort. The topics are discussed below rather than being repeated for each program. They

include: compatibility with international trade obligations; funding for conservation; demand

for conservation programs and services; complexities in program administration; effects of

the expanding conservation mission; agency staffing; and green payments as an alternative

approach.

International Trade Obligations

The multilateral Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) poses a constraint

on U.S. farm assistance by limiting, to no more than $19.1 billion per year, the cost of

domestic farm supports most likely to distort production and trade. (Other countries have

their own, different limits.) The URAA spells out rules for determining whether a policy is

market-distorting and thus must be counted toward the $19.1 billion limit, or whether it can

be considered exempt from the annual spending calculation. The United States and other

countries use these guidelines to make the cost calculations, which in turn are reported on an

annual basis to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Conservation and environmental programs are viewed as less likely to distort production

and trade than some other types of government support for production agriculture. Thus,

they may not have to be counted toward the $19.1 billion limit. Some environmental

organizations have seized upon this argument to build support for moving money from

CRS-4

commodity price support into conservation and environmental activities. However, the

URAA does contain stipulations that must be met in order for a conservation or

environmental program to be exempt.

One stipulation is that payments under environmental programs must be based on

eligibility determined “as part of a clearly-defined government or conservation program and

dependent on the fulfillment of specific conditions under the government program, including

conditions related to production methods or inputs.” Also, the amount of the payment “shall

be limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the government

program.” Most of the conservation programs, including the EQIP, WRP, FPP, and

Conservation Technical Assistance programs, have been reported as exempt by the

Administration under this stipulation.

The second stipulation is that structural adjustment assistance provided through resource

retirement programs could be exempted, so long as: (a) payment eligibility is “determined by

reference to clearly defined criteria...designed to remove land or other resources, including

livestock, from marketable agricultural production”; (b) payments on retired land are for a

minimum of 3 years (livestock must be permanently disposed of); (c) payments cannot

“require or specify any alternative use for such land or other resources which involves the

production of marketable agricultural products”; and (d) payments cannot be related to either

the type or quantity of production or to prices applying to production undertaken using the

land or other resources remaining in production.2 The CRP has been reported as exempt by

the Administration under this stipulation.

Funding for Conservation

Total federal funding for conservation has almost tripled over the past 15 years.

According to data compiled by USDA, funding for all conservation activities in five spending

categories totaled just over $1 billion in FY1985, and had grown to as much as $3.6 billion

in FY1998.3 Almost all that growth has been in rental and easement programs, one of five

categories, which had its funding increased from $8 million to more than $1.8 billion over this

time period. Actual funding for three of the other four categories – technical assistance, cost

sharing, and data and research – grew by 50% to almost 100% over this time period, while

funding for public works programs has risen and fallen from year to year, but shown little

discernable growth. These funding trends have caused a recurring shortfall in the resources

needed to operate the suite of conservation programs, according to NRCS representatives.

For example, funding for technical assistance needed to support the rental and easement

programs has required supplemental appropriations in recent years, and a lack of funding in

1998 caused NRCS to temporarily suspend support for CRP signups.

URAA, Annex 2: Domestic Support: the Basis for Exemption from the Reduction

Commitments. For more information see CRS Report RL30612, Farm Support Programs

and World Trade Commitments.

The budget data is taken from tables prepared by USDA’s Office of Budget and Program

Analysis, which places all conservation programs and activities in five categories: (1)

technical assistance, education, and administration; (2) cost-sharing; (3) public works

programs; (4) rental and easement payments; and (5) data and research.

CRS-5

Demand for Conservation Programs and Services

Demand for most conservation programs has greatly exceeded available funds in recent

years. In response to an inquiry from Senator Harkin at a conservation hearing earlier this

year, NRCS supplied data from recent years for several conservation programs that showed

the extent of this disparity. For example, these data show that the EQIP program spent $597

million to implement almost 277,000 applications between FY1997 and FY2000, leaving

unserved almost 197,000 applications that would have cost $1.378 billion. (The data do not

indicate how many of the unserved applications might have been rejected.)

Changes in emphasis or activities most likely would not fully address this problem. If

NRCS were asked to commit more resources to one program, it would likely mean less could

be accomplished in other programs. NRCS has developed a workload analysis system in

recent years to track how staff distribute their time among the activities of the agency. This

system has been used to forecast how long it might take to meet anticipated demands in the

future, given current work demands, such as providing the technical assistance that producers

are likely to need to meet new water quality requirements on farms with larger animal

populations.

Complexities in Program Administration

Some landowners have complained that complicated enrollment procedures and

inconsistent or difficult administrative procedures have dampened their interest in

participating in conservation programs. There are differing opinions as to whether these

complications are excessive, whether the problems are overstated, and whether the current

procedures actually drive away potential participants. However, there has been no

comprehensive examination of these complaints, and thus, it is impossible to determine

whether they add up to significant problems, or represent isolated incidents in programs that

have thousands of participants. Suggested solutions usually center on combining or

coordinating program delivery, and USDA has made some administrative adjustments.

Expanding Conservation Mission

The conservation mission has grown a great deal since 1985, and it now consists of many

more subjects which are addressed through new, mostly small, programs. It has expanded

from a focus on managing lands that are producing food and fiber to include land retirement,

and from a focus on on-farm challenges to include environmental concerns that arise beyond

the fence line because of farming activities. Expansion of the mission since 1985 has required

USDA agencies, especially NRCS, to add significant capability in wetland science, water

quality, biology, archeology, and animal agriculture, among other topics. It has also meant

that many additional producers participate in these programs, especially the compliance

programs enacted in 1985, placing further demands on USDA agencies. The laws creating

these programs require little coordination. Most of the programs are implemented at the scale

of individual property owners, and the sheer number of programs may contribute to the

frustrations noted above. Staff at the field level are now dealing with far more landowners.

This, it is contended, has lessened their ability to work one-on-one with each interested

person, which had been a hallmark of the conservation effort.

CRS-6

Agency Staffing

While the mission of conservation has expanded rapidly, the human resources at USDA,

especially the NRCS, have not expanded. Rather, at NRCS, the total agency capacity has

shrunk from more than 13,600 staff years in FY1985 to less than 11,500 in FY2000.

Moreover, many of the specialists who have been hired to provide the new expertises that the

expanded mission requires have not followed the traditional career path in NRCS, which

starts in a district office working directly with individual landowners. Employees who lack

that experience are less knowledgeable about how conservation is provided to landowners.

Another important effect of limited staffing in NRCS (and other agencies administering

conservation programs) is that they have been able to devote few resources to evaluating

program accomplishments in recent years, thus limiting the amount of information about the

accomplishments and limitations of these programs. These constraints have been partially

offset by two other trends. First, states and localities are committing additional resources for

conservation; funding from these sources for conservation districts has grown from about

$275 million in FY1986 to more than $1 billion in FY2000, according to NRCS. Second, the

expanded use of computers has been credited with contributing to increased efficiencies for

many activities during the past few years.

Green Payments

The concept of green payments – paying producers to perform environmental services

or provide environmental benefits from their production activities – is receiving wide spread

attention as a major new direction for conservation in this farm bill.4 Some existing programs,

such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP), meet this general definition, but supporters of the green payment concept

describe at least two major differences from any current programs. One difference is that,

with the exception EQIP, all existing green payment programs pay producers to perform these

services by retiring land from production. Proponents of green payments are seeking a

program that pays producers to provide services on land that remains in production. Second,

with the exception of CRP, all these programs have limited funding. Proponents of green

payments are seeking a program with much larger total funding that can be used by many

producers.

One bill that would meet these two qualifications is S. 932/H.R. 1949, the Conservation

Security Act (CSA), which was developed and sponsored by Chairman Harkin. (It is

discussed here since the bill would not amend any existing conservation programs.) Senator

Harkin has stated that he hopes to make this proposal a key element in the Senate version of

a farm bill conservation title. The CSA was developed over more than 2 years and working

with an extremely wide range of interests. It would establish 3 tiers of conservation practices,

and provide mandatory payments through the CCC for each tier. All farmers would be

eligible to participate if they submit a plan that is approved and enter into a contract for all

land that is part of the agricultural operation. Ineligible lands would include full fields

enrolled in the CRP, land enrolled in the WRP, and land brought into production after the

For an overview of the concept of green payments, and how it fits within the array of

current conservation programs, see a recent Economic Reserve Service report, AgriEnvironmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape,

Agricultural Economic Report 794, January 2001.

CRS-7

date of enactment. Contracts would be renewable, and could be adjusted for inflation. The

program would provide payments, technical assistance, education, and outreach to

participants. It would also include evaluation and monitoring components. The legislation

does not set any limit on the total to be spent, either annually or over the life of the program.

This legislation would be placed in current farm legislation in a way that would allow program

efforts to be concentrated in priority areas set by the Secretary. The tiers, and payment levels

are described below:

! Tier 1 practices would include numerous listed management activities, such as nutrient

or water quality management, that would be specified in a 5 year contract and apply

to either part of or the entire agricultural operation. Participants would receive an

advance payment of the greater of $1,000 or 20% of the contract value and annual

payments of up to $20,000 for the life of the contract.

! Tier 2 practices would include all tier 1 practices plus one or more of the following:

resource conserving crop rotations; controlled rotational grazing; land conversion;

partial field conservation practices; prairie; habitat; or wetland protection and

restoration; and agroforestry practices. Practices would be specified in a contract of

5 to 10 years that would address priority resource concerns on the total agricultural

operation. Participants would receive an advance payment of the greater of $2,000 or

20% of the contract value and annual payments of up to $35,000 for the life of the

contract.

! Tier 3 practices would include all tiers 1 and 2 practices and any others needed to

address all the resource concerns on the entire agricultural operation that are needed

to address the long term sustainability of the resource base. Practices would be

specified in a contract of 5 to 10 years that address priority resource concerns on the

total agricultural operation. Participants would receive an advance payment of the

greater of $3,000 or 20% of the contract value and annual payments of up to $50,000

for the life of the contract.

Conservation Programs

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Program Description. The CRP was enacted in the 1985 farm bill, and most

recently amended in the 1996 farm bill.5 It is administered by the FSA and funded as a

mandatory program through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The current

program goal is to retire up to 36.4 million acres of environmentally sensitive and highly

erodible crop land (and some marginal pasture lands) under multi year contracts. At the start

of FY2001, FSA reported that 31.4 million acres were enrolled.6 Almost all of the contracts

are for 10 years. Enrollment is limited to 25% of the crop land in a county, a ceiling that has

been reached by about 135 counties concentrated in states with the most overall enrollment.

The CRP is placed in subchapter B of Chapter 1 (Environmental Conservation Acreage

Reserve Program), and is in §1231-§1236 of the 1985 farm bill (16 U.S.C. 3831-3836).

Enrolled lands are concentrated in the High Plains. States with the most enrolled land at the

start of FY2001 included Texas (4.1 million acres (an area a little smaller than New Jersey)),

Montana (3.5 million acres), and North Dakota (3.3 million acres). Kansas and Colorado

both have more than 2 million acres enrolled.

CRS-8

CRP is the most expensive conservation program, having totaled about half of all spending

on conservation in recent years. In addition to the conservation benefits, other benefits that

have been attributed to it include helping to stabilize land prices, enhancing farmer income,

and reducing excess production.

CRP enrolls lands through several mechanisms. A large majority of the total entered the

program through open enrollment, which has usually been offered once a year, during

specified time periods using a nationwide competitive bidding process.7 For open enrollment,

the FSA compares all the bids using an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI), which awards

points under seven factors for each bid. The EBI awards points for wildlife (up to 100

points), water quality (up to 100), erosion control (up to 100), enduring benefits beyond the

life of the contract (up to 50), air quality (up to 35 points), located in priority areas (up to

25), and cost (points determined at each signup). FSA has adjusted the index from signup to

signup. Enrolled land is usually an entire field or larger.

Much of the land that is enrolled is under a second contract, since most of the initial

contracts were signed in the late 1980s and ended in the late 1990s. Landowners who wish

to reenroll their land get no priority over other bidders, although they do get some points in

the EBI if they need no financial assistance to establish the required conservation plantings.

(If they were in the program, these plantings should already be in place.)

Farmers can enter the program through three alternatives to open enrollment. First, FSA

took administrative action in 1997 to allow enrollment at any time, called continuous

enrollment, for smaller parcels of lands within fields that provide especially high

environmental benefits, such as riparian buffers (narrow strips of vegetated land adjacent to

water bodies), grassed waterways, or shelter belts. Incentive payments were added in April

2000 to attract participation. Second, FSA implemented the Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program (CREP) in 1997 to allow states to contribute at least 20% of the cost,

to enroll up to 100,000 acres in areas that states designate as especially high priorities.

USDA has approved 16 state CREPs, and several other proposals are pending. Third,

provisions in the FY2001 agriculture appropriations legislation (P.L. 106-387) require the

Department to implement a program to enroll 500,000 acres of wetlands and buffers in 6

upper Midwestern states. The Department announced in 1997 that it was holding back 4

million acres to enroll under these options, making the effective ceiling under open enrollment

32.4 million acres.

Almost 1.6 million acres have been enrolled under these three alternatives through July

2001, including almost 190,000 acres in the 16 approved CREPs. The conservation practice

installed under these alternatives that has received the most attention is buffer strips, since

NRCS started a “buffer initiative” in 1997 to enroll 2 million miles of riparian buffers and

filter strips by 2002; it estimates that more than 600,000 miles have been enrolled. Enrollment

under the farmable wetlands pilot program just started, and no results are available.

There was no open enrollment in FY2001, and the Department allowed expiring CRP

contracts to be extended for one year. FSA may have adopted this approach both because

very few contracts end in FY2001 and because the Department plans to enroll much of the

acreage that remains under that ceiling using other mechanisms.

CRS-9

Program Accomplishments. The most recent open enrollment, completed in

February 2000, accepted 2.5 million acres of the 3.5 million acres that were offered. Program

benefits, measured in either the type of land being enrolled or the practices to be installed, are

documented by FSA at the time of enrollment. These data also measure what the additions

(and expiring contracts) mean for cumulative conservation benefits. For example, FSA

identified the following benefits from the February 2000 enrollment: almost 1.3 million acres

of highly erodible land; almost 275,000 acres to be planted to trees; over 150,000 acres of

wetlands and protective upland areas; and almost 123,000 acres to be restored to rare and

declining habitat.

The minimum acceptable EBI for this enrollment was 246, which was nearly identical

to the previous two open signups. If the cost factor is subtracted from the EBI, the total

value of the other 6 factors has continued to rise with each enrollment, indicating that the

program’s environmental benefits are growing. The benefits of enrolling land under the three

alternative methods, which do not use the EBI, has not been documented by FSA. Also,

FSA does not monitor what the program actually accomplishes while the land is enrolled, so

there are little hard data beyond the general conclusion that resource conditions have

benefitted from this program, and these benefits can be significant.8 Also, there is little

information on what happens to land or resources after the contract ends. The results are

probably mixed, as some land is returned to production, some land is reenrolled, and some

land lies idle.

Issues. Issues have been raised about adjusting the overall objectives of the program,

the adequacy of the current level of erosion control, retaining long-term benefits from the

program, the net amount of crop land that is in production, the cost of the program, the

enrollment ceiling, and options to open enrollment.

Overall Objectives. The CRP measures multiple environmental objectives for each

bid using the EBI. Whether these are appropriate objectives and how to weigh each of them

generates debate. There are questions about whether the “correct” land is being enrolled and

about the geographic distribution of the enrolled land. Any change in the EBI would lead to

a different mix of land being enrolled. Questions include: should any of the current 7 EBI

factors be dropped, or others added; should the weighting of any of these factors be changed;

and should more land under the ceiling be set aside to be enrolled under the alternative

methods, such as CREPs?

Erosion Control. A well-documented benefit of the CRP has been erosion reduction.

As noted above, erosion rates have dropped by 1 billion tons per year since the CRP (and

conservation compliance programs) were implemented. However, the erosion rate has

leveled off at 2.2 billion tons for the past several years, and, over the long term, this rate still

exceeds the rate at which soil productivity can be maintained in some areas. It is unclear

whether this lower rate is a sufficient reduction to maintain a long-term production capability.

Questions include: what is a desirable goal for a national level; if the current level is above

The one exception, where good data are available, is reduction in soil erosion rates. NRCS

collects these data in its Natural Resource Inventory, and it shows that overall soil erosion has

dropped from 3.2 billion tons per year before CRP (and the compliance programs) were

enacted to 2.2 billion tons per year in 1997.

CRS-10

that, what policy changes are needed to further lower the overall rate and what role should

the CRP play in these policies; and at what scale – field, farm, county, state, or national –

should additional erosion reduction needs be addressed?

Long-Term Benefits. Environmental values are protected while land is enrolled in

the CRP. However, the enduring nature of this protection has been questioned by the General

Accounting Office (GAO) and others since landowners are under no obligation to protect

these values after the payments stop, except that conservation compliance requires that highly

erodible lands returned to production must follow an approved conservation plan within 2

years of leaving the CRP. Under current policies, the only way to ensure that these benefits

will be retained is to reenroll the land the year that the contract expires. Questions include:

what portion of the land that was in the CRP is being returned to production; what

environmental and other benefits are being lost on land that is returned to production; should

other mechanisms to protect some of these benefits be considered and under what

circumstances; and can long-term or permanent easements play a role in protecting them?

Actual Acreage Reduction. There are reports that CRP is not completely

successful at reducing crop acreage (and therefore production). Some enrolled acres have

been replaced by other land that is brought into production. This “slippage”, while widely

reported, has never been documented. Questions include: exactly how widespread is

slippage; does it occur more in some regions or for some crops than others; and are there

either more severe environmental problems or a different mix of problems from the new crop

lands than from lands enrolled in the CRP?

Cost. The CRP is the most expensive conservation program. The farm community

supports it, in part, because of the amount of money it transfers to farmers for providing

environmental benefits. Questions include: is the CRP sustainable indefinitely at the

enrollment size and annual costs of today; are there less expensive alternatives to multi-year

rental agreements that could provide similar or more enduring environmental benefits; and are

there ways to retain the benefits created after contracts expire?

Total Enrollment Levels. The current enrollment ceiling of 36.4 million acres was

the peak actual enrollment (in 1993). It was not selected based on an assessment of demand

or need. Many witnesses at farm bill hearings called for expanding the scope of the program,

citing that demand has exceeded available space in recent general enrollments, that chronic

low commodity prices could be addressed at the margin by taking more land out of

production, that CRP could help additional landowners address environmental problems, that

the program could provide additional benefits, and that it could address emerging

environmental challenges. Questions include: what would be the cost of increasing the size

of the program; how might enrollment patterns change with a larger program and how might

altered patterns affect commodity production: how might these changes affect environmental

benefits; and could the program be enlarged by moving one or more of the alternative

enrollment options outside the overall enrollment ceiling?

Options to Open Enrollment. Many of the same issues apply to the three

alternative enrollment options. Participation rates have been uneven, suggesting that these

options are being more aggressively marketed in some states. Overall, less land has been

enrolled than supporters had hoped for. Also, the involvement of states in the CREP raises

additional questions about coordination. Questions include: Has the Department offered

enough incentives to attract desired enrollment levels; can some states have multiple CREPs

CRS-11

before all states that want them have one CREP; should states be allowed to enroll more then

100,000 acres in a CREP under some circumstances; is the current state requirement for

CREPs appropriate; and for the continuous enrollment, does the location of participation land

matter?

CRS-12

Table 1. Comparison of Proposed CRP Provisions

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Period of

Authorization

and

Purposes

§1231(a) authorizes program

through FY2002, and the

purposes are to conserve and

improve soil and water

resources.

§231(a) authorizes program

through FY2011; §231(b)

adds wildlife resources to the

program purposes.

§304(a) authorizes the program through

FY2008.

§201 authorizes the

program through FY2011.

§102(a) authorizes the

program through

FY2011.

Enrollment

Ceiling

and

Limits

§1231(d) authorizes

enrollment ceiling at 36.4

million acres. §1243(b)

describes the county

enrollment limit for CRP.

§232(b) raises ceiling to 39.2

million acres. §265(a) gives

the Sec. flexibility to exceed

the enrollment limit when it

would not adversely affect the

local economy.

§304(a) raises ceiling to 45 million acres.

§203 raises ceiling to 40

million acres.

No provisions.

Enrollment

Subcategories

§1231(h), enacted in §1102 of

the FY2001 Agriculture

Appropriations (P.L. 106387), creates a 500,000 acre

wetland pilot program.

§1231(e) establishes the length

of contracts.

§232(d) adds a new §1231(i)

that requires balance between

soil erosion, water quality,

and wildlife habitat when

reviewing bids, with

implementing regulations to

be issued within 180 days of

enactment.

§304 (b) adds language to §1231(d) to

enroll 9 million acres of environmentally

sensitive lands, including 5 million acres

of buffers. §304(c) amends §1231(e) to

use permanent easements to enroll up to 3

million acres (including 1 million acres in

isolated wetlands), and encourages using

qualified state and local government and

non profits. Makes fruits, vegetables, sod

and specialty crops eligible for CREP and

continuous enrollment programs.

§203 requires 2.5 million

acres be enrolled in

conservation buffers and

1.1 million acres be

enrolled through the

CREP. §204 adds a new

subsection allowing the

Sec. to automatically

extend contracts for land

planted to hardwood trees

for up to 10 years.

§102(b) requires that at

least 4 million acres be

enrolled in conservation

buffers or in a CREP.

§102 (c) same as §204 of

S. 1267, except that

contracts would be

extended for 15 years

with the rental payment

reduced by 50% during

the extension period.

Priority

Areas

§1231(f) discusses

conservation priority areas.

§232 deletes the priority area

language, and makes all land

already enrolled eligible to

reenroll. H. Rept. 107-191

states the Sec. is to focus on

priority issues rather than

geographic (priority) areas.

No provisions.

Eligible

Lands

§1231(b) defines eligible

lands. §1231(b)(3) makes

certain marginal pastureland

planted to trees eligible.

§ 232(a) makes land that

would contribute to water

conservation eligible, and

clarifies that marginal

pastureland must contribute

to improving water quality to

be eligible.

§304(d) amends §1231(b)(3) to make

pasture, range, and hay land eligible that

must be restored to wetland and managed

to prohibit livestock access; authorizes

enrollment of up to an additional 3 million

acres of grassland and range land under 5

specified criteria.

§202 replaces “cropland”

with “land”.

No provisions.

CRS-13

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

Duties of

Owners

and

Operators

§1232(a) (7) sets limits on

commercial uses of lands in

the CRP §1232(c) sets a goal

of planting 1/8 of the land

enrolled each year to trees or

habitat. §1232(d) allows alleycropping.

§233 amends §1232(a) to

allow certain economic uses

of enrolled lands (with

adjusted payments), and

retains cover crops on lands

entering the CRP. It deletes

subsections c and d.

Duties of

the

Secretary

§1233(3) requires the Sec. to

provide technical assistance.

Payments

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

No provisions.

§205 replaces existing

grazing limits in

§1232(a)(7)(A) to allow

haying and grazing while

protecting the quality of

the cover.

§102(d) permits haying

and grazing to maintain

buffers and land enrolled

under a CREP.

§234 deletes §1233(3).

§265(e) allows producers to

use approved third parties

rather than NRCS staff for

technical assistance.

No provisions.

§1234(c)(3) requires the Sec.

to consider different criteria in

various regions when

accepting bids.

§ 235 deletes §1234(c)(3).

§304(e) adds subsections to allow

continuous enrollment of small wetlands,

buffer strips, contour buffer strips, and

irrigated lands at their adjusted values.

§304(f) exempts the continuous enrollment

and CREP from the CRP payment limit.

No provisions.

Contracts

§1235(a) establishes eligibility

for land acquired within a year

of entering into a contract.

§236 allows only land that

was acquired by will or

foreclosure within the past

year to be eligible, and adds a

new subsection (f) requiring

the crop base be restored.

No provisions.

Funding

and

Administration

§1241(a) provides mandatory

§265(a) deletes the exception

funding through the CCC.

for when producers are

§1243(b)(2) allows the Sec. to

having trouble meeting

waive the enrollment ceiling if

compliance requirements.

it would not adversely affect

the local economy or

producers are having problems

implementing compliance

plans.

Note: Sec. is Secretary of Agriculture.

No provisions.

§102(e) provides funding

from the CCC through

FY2011, and uses CCC

funds to pay for technical

assistance.

CRS-14

Conservation Compliance

Program Description. The three compliance programs – Conservation Compliance,

Sodbuster, and Swampbuster – were enacted in the 1985 farm bill and are administered by

NRCS.9 These three programs remove producer access to certain federal farm program

benefits to producers who, respectively, (1) farm highly erodible lands without following a

conservation plan, (2) bring highly erodible land into production without following a

conservation plan, and (3) alter wetlands to produce crops. Under the 1985 law, producers

risked losing eligibility to most major farm programs on all they land they cultivated,

including: price and income support and related programs; farm storage facility loans; crop

insurance; disaster payments; storage payments; and any farm loan that would contribute to

erosion on highly erodible land. Amendments in 1990 and 1996 relaxed the reach and impact

of the compliance programs in many ways, including allowing graduated penalties and “good

faith” exemptions, deleting crop insurance from the benefits lost, and allowing selfcertification.

When first enacted, the compliance requirements generated widespread anxiety in the

farm community, both because these programs were a new approach to meeting conservation

goals and because no one knew how aggressively they might be implemented. Perhaps the

two largest implementation issues were the need to make wetland determinations at

approximately 4 million sites, and the need to develop compliance plans for about 140 million

acres classified as highly erodible by 1990. Both issues created a large increase in workload

for NRCS staff. But today, many of the past fears and problems seem to have dissipated.

Very few compliance and swampbuster violations result in loss of benefits. Supporters of

traditional agriculture say this reflects nearly universal compliance in the farm community,

while critics, primarily from the environmental community, wonder whether lax or limited

enforcement is responsible for the high success rate.

Program Accomplishments. Program accomplishments have been measured in

terms of reduction in soil erosion and identification of wetland acres. Soil erosion had

declined because of compliance, from almost 17 tons per acre per year to less than 6 tons on

sampled tracts in the mid 1990s. Wetlands have benefitted from delineation and from the

disincentives. The National Resources Inventory shows that the rate of wetlands conversions

on agricultural lands has declined significantly, but this data set does not document the

number of acres that might have been brought into production, but was not because of this

disincentive.10 Wetland protection interests seem more focused on possible changes to the

Wetland Reserve Program, discussed below, in this farm bill debate.

Issues. The reach of the compliance programs remains the main issue. Producers and

farm groups continue to worry about the potential for these programs to have a greater effect

on producers that would alter some production practices and result in either higher

production costs or less revenue, while some environmental interests would like to see that

reach extended, especially for wetlands protection. Questions include: Do producers need

The compliance programs are placed in subtitle B and C of Title XII, and are in §1211§1224 of the 1985 farm bill (16 U.S.C. 3811-3824).

The Natural Resources Inventory, conduced every five years by NRCS, is a statisticallyreliable inventory of conditions and trends of natural resources on non-federal lands

CRS-15

greater flexibility than the law currently provides; does a recent Supreme Court ruling that

eliminates the Clean Water Act’s regulatory program for wetlands under §404 of that Act for

isolated wetlands suggest any changes for swampbuster; and should crop insurance be

returned to the list of program benefits that could be lost by a producer who is out of

compliance?11

Table 2. Comparison of Proposed Compliance Provisions

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

S. 1267

Loss of

Eligibility

for

Payments

§1221(b) gives the Sec.

authority to determine

which loans and payments

violators will be ineligible

to receive.

§211 makes swampbusters

ineligible for specified loans

and payments only in the year

in which the violation occurs.

No provisions.

Program

Administration

§1242(a) requires the Sec.

to use local, county and

state conservation

committees when

implementing compliance.

§264 transfers primary

responsibility for

administering compliance

programs from NRCS to FSA.

No provisions.

Technical

Assistance

§1213(e) requires the Sec.

to provide technical

assistance to producers who

are subject to compliance.

§265(d) allows producers to

use approved third parties

rather than NRCS staff to

provide technical assistance.

No provisions.

§1004(a) makes

§1222(a) addresses

technical amendments

delineation of wetlands by

amending §1222(a),

the Sec. §1222(h)(2) sets

§1222(h)(2), §1222(j).

the period for compliance

for a good faith exemption.

§1222(j) makes NRCS

responsible for technical

determinations.

Notes: H.R. 2375 contains no amendments to the compliance provisions.

Sec. is Secretary of Agriculture.

Technical

Amendments

S. 1326

§205 makes

the same set of

technical

amendments.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

Program Description. EQIP, enacted in the 1996 farm bill and administered by

NRCS, provides cost-sharing, technical and educational assistance to producers under

agreements lasting between 5 and 10 years.12 Funding is authorized as mandatory spending

at $200 million annually, and provided through the CCC. Participants can receive up to

$10,000 per year and $50,000 for the total contract. EQIP funds are to provide the greatest

possible environmental benefits for the funds spent. EQIP replaced four programs –

Agricultural Conservation Program, Great Plains Conservation Program, Water Quality

The Supreme Court case is Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 99-1178).

EQIP was enacted in 1996 as Chapter 4 of the 1985 farm bill, and is found in §1240§1240H (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3839aa-8).

CRS-16

Incentives Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program – that were

repealed in the same bill.

EQIP made several significant changes in conservation policy. It is the first conservation

program to concentrate funds in priority areas in each state, where potential environmental

benefits would be greatest. NRCS policy has been that 65% of the funds be spent in priority

areas. Priority areas are identified in each state by the NRCS State Conservationist, working

with the State Technical Committee, then approved at headquarters. A second policy change

is EQIP is the first conservation program with funding directed specifically to livestockrelated issues. Half the funds are to be used to address these issues. Third, it is the first

conservation program to limit participation by any measure of farm size; livestock producers

cannot access EQIP funds to pay for constructing waste management facilities if they have

more than 1,000 animal units.

In recent years, Congress has limited EQIP spending to $174 million. However, §105

of the omnibus appropriations for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) provided an additional $26 million,

raising the total to $200 million. Even full funding for this program would not come close

to meeting demand levels; in FY1999, for example, NRCS received almost 52,000

applications totaling $386 million, but only was able to fund almost 19,000 of those

applications. In response to this demand, the Clinton Administration had sought higher

funding levels, but never submitted legislation needed to raise the authorized ceiling.

Program Accomplishments. EQIP funds are distributed primarily as cost-sharing

payments to producers. In FY1999, for example, of the $174 million distributed, $137 million

was spent for cost sharing, $33 million was spent for technical assistance, and $4 million was

spent for educational assistance. Program accomplishments vary widely by state, depending

on the physical conditions and needs in priority areas.

The Economic Research Service recently looked at how EQIP funds have been spent.

It identified five categories of practices that are being funded: crop-related nutrient

management, livestock-related nutrient management, soil erosion and land protection, water

resources management, and other resource concerns. It found that the largest amount, 39%,

was being spent on water resource management practices, which range from more efficient

irrigation systems to livestock drinking troughs. It also found that while 58% of the total has

been spent on livestock-related activities, only 20% has been spent specifically on livestock

nutrient waste management. It found that the geographic distribution of funds had been fairly

even among 9 regions; with the largest portion, 14.3%, going to the Prairie Gateway

(southern plains) and the smallest portion, 8.1%, going to the Northern Great Plains

Issues. Issues have been raised about relationships between this new program and the

four programs that it replaced, how to address the high level of demand to participate, and

limiting participation for farms that meet certain characteristics.

EQIP and the Programs It Replaced. Several issues revolve around the general

question of whether EQIP is meant as a replacement for 4 repealed programs or is intended

to be a more significant break with the past. For example, some have suggested a return to

some of the characteristics of one of these programs, the Agricultural Conservation Program

(ACP), which provided smaller amounts of funding but to many more participants each year

to apply a different mix of practices, and on an annual rather than multi year cycle. Some also

have called for EQIP to be implemented using the same basic pattern of distributing funds,

CRS-17

by state, that was used under the four terminated programs. Still others take the alternative

view that EQIP spending patterns are too similar to the repealed programs and do not follow

the pattern of the most significant conservation needs. Questions include: after several years

of implementation, to what degree do EQIP funding patterns continue to replicate the

funding distribution by state of the four programs that it replaced; has the decline in the

number who can participate in any year (because more funding is available under each

contract) affected support for this program (compared with the ACP); and should the

program be altered to increase the environmental benefits provided outside priority areas,

where spending is currently concentrated in each state?

Meeting Participation Demands. EQIP is different from the programs that it

replaced in several respects. As the first conservation program to assist farmers who want

to address livestock issues, it has greatly increased the pool of possible participants,

introducing more competition for funding to traditional recipients of cost-sharing

conservation funds. Producers who are located outside priority areas are also finding it more

difficult to participate. These changes, made when EQIP was created in 1996, are among the

reasons why demand for the program greatly exceeds available funds. Questions include:

should the overall funding level for the program be increased; should funding levels be raised

to a level that would allow a similar number of producers to participate in this program as had

participated in the ACP (more than 125,000 producers received ACP funding in FY1994, the

last year that funding approached $200 million); should the average size of priorities areas be

changed to increase the effectiveness of projects; and should the maximum length or total

funding level for a contract be altered?

Limiting Participation of Larger Farms. EQIP is the first conservation program

that limited participation based on farm size, in this instance to pay for the construction of

animal waste management facilities. This change proved particularly contentious. Lawmakers

left it to the Department to define large operations through the rule-making process. It

defined them by number of animals – 1,000 beef cattle, 800 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, or 20,000

chickens. Some farm groups opposed this change, while others, particularly small farm

advocates, contended that USDA set the threshold too high. Questions include: should this

(or other) conservation programs be available to only a portion of all producers; should large

farms be expected to pay for certain conservation practices that may be required by federal

or state law or permit requirements as part of their farm operations without federal assistance;

and should EQIP funds be made available to large operations to develop animal waste

management facilities under certain circumstances?

CRS-18

Table 3. Comparison of Proposed EQIP Provisions

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Program

Purposes

§1240 identifies the 4

programs that EQIP replaces,

and specifies that the program

maximize environmental

benefits per dollar spent while

meeting 4 purposes.

§251deletes reference to the 4

programs that were replaced, and

replaces a purpose of responding

to environmental threats with a

purpose of providing

environmental benefits.

No provisions.

§501 adds “air” to the

purposes of the program.

§101 specifies 6 purposes of

EQIP.

Definitions

§1240(A) defines 5 terms;

“eligible land”, “land

management practice”,

“livestock, producer”, and

“structural practice”.

§252 adds non-industrial private

forest land to “eligible land”, and

replaces the notion of posing an

environmental threat with the

notion of providing environmental

benefits in that definition;

“producer” is expanded to include

non-industrial private forestry;

and permanent wildlife habitat is

deleted from “structural practice”.

No provisions.

§501 adds “air” to all

definitions that identify soil.

§101 includes definitions of

“comprehensive nutrient

management”, “eligible lands”,

“land management practices”,

“livestock”, “maximum

environmental benefits per dollar

expended”, “practice”,

“producer”, and “structural

practice”. The definitions of

eligible lands and livestock are

unchanged.

Admini

s-tration

Program

§1240B authorizes EQIP

through 2002; authorizes

contracts of 5 to 10 years;

provides cost-share of not

more than 75% for structural

practices; prohibits cost

sharing to large livestock

operations to construct animal

waste management facilities;

funding, not to exceed

projected costs, is provided

for technical assistance; types

of private sources to provide

technical assistance are listed.

§253 authorizes EQIP through

FY2011; authorizes contracts of 1

to 10 years; repeals requirement

that structural practices be

selected based on the maximum

environmental benefits per dollar

spent; deletes limitation on

payments to large livestock

operations to construct animal

waste management facilities; adds

a new subsection to make

incentive payments at an amount

and rate to encourage multiple

land management practices; and

emphasizes payments for practices

that address “residue, nutrient,

pest, invasive species, and air

quality management.”

§201(g) amends the nonfederal assistance subsection

to add drinking water utilities

as a source of assistance, and

to allow these sources to

provide cost-share payments

and incentives in addition to

technical assistance. §201(i)

allows the Sec. to consider the

degree to which producers

would reduce or limit the use

of antibiotics when providing

funds to livestock operations.

§502 authorizes EQIP

through FY2011. §503

authorizes contracts of 1 to 10

years. §504 requires all cost

share payments to be 75% of

the cost for installing

structural practices. §505

repeals limitation on

payments to large livestock

operations to construct certain

facilities; §506 limits

technical assistance to 25% of

total funding annually. §507

expands types of private

sources for technical

assistance to include “other

technical advisors (approved

by the Sec.)”

§101 authorizes EQIP through

FY2011; adds comprehensive

nutrient management planning to

the list of eligible practices;

authorizes contracts of 3 to 10

years (except that nutrient

management practices can be

less than 3 years); repeals

limitation on payments to large

livestock operations to construct

certain facilities; requires the

Sec. to develop approval and

evaluation processes; allows the

Sec. to designate special projects

to address specific issues; allows

other approved sources to

provide technical assistance;

describes how bids are to be

evaluated; allows cost share of up

to 90% under limited

circumstances.

CRS-19

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Evaluation of

offers

§1240C requires Sec. to give

higher priority to assistance

in priority areas, maximize

environmental benefits per

dollar spent, or are in

watersheds, regions, or

conservation priority areas

where states or localities are

active partners.

§254 replaces these provisions

with general language about

aiding farmers to comply with

environmental laws and

encourage conservation, and

maximizing the benefits of using

manure.

§201(f) adds a new subsection

that requires the Sec. to

establish a ranking process

and benefits index, giving

extra credit to small and

disadvantaged farmers, and to

producers who have practiced

conservation. §201(h) adds

factors that should be

considered in addition to

priority areas.

§508 replaces priority area

provision with a requirement

to assist in meeting federal

and state environmental laws,

including nonpoint pollution

requirements; and deletes

“conservation priority areas”

where states and localities are

active partners.

§101 requires the Sec. to give

higher priority to: maximize

environmental benefits per dollar

spent; address specified national

conservation priorities; problems

in priority areas; or in special

projects initiated by a new

§1240B(g).

Duties of

Produers

§1240D lists 5 duties; one is a

prohibition against practices

that counter the purposes of

EQIP.

§255 deletes the prohibition on

practices that counter the purposes

of EQIP.

No provisions.

Program

Plan

§1240E lists the general

contents of plans producers

are required to submit to the

Sec. to participate.

§256 replaces mention of

management and structural

practices with providing greater

environmental benefits.

No provisions.

Sec.

Duties

§1240F assigns 5 duties to the

Sec.

§258 deletes 2 of these duties

which provide technical

assistance.

No provisions.

§101 deletes the duty of

providing an eligibility

assessment.

Payment

Limits

and

Timing

§1240G(a) limits payments to

$10,000 annually and

$50,000 per contract.

§1240G(b) specifies when the

annual limit can be exceeded.

§1240G(c) delays federal

expenditures until the year

after the contract has been

signed.

§258 limits payments to $50,000

annually and $200,000 per

contract; deletes language

allowing annual limits to be

exceeded to provide maximum

environmental benefit per dollar

spent, and repeals §1240G(c).

§201(d) allows the annual

limit to be exceeded to,

prohibits funding to livestock

producers who must comply

with Clean Water Act permit

requirements, and repeals

§1240G(c).

§509 limits payments to

$30,000 annually and

$150,000 per contract. §510

repeals §1240G(c).

§101 limits payments to $50,000

annually and $150,000 per

contract, allows the Sec. to adjust

these limits under 2 specified

conditions, and repeals

§1240G(c).

CRS-20

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Other

Provisions

No provisions.

§259 adds a new §1240(H) that

provides $60 million annually

through FY2011 for cost share

payments and low interest loans to

encourage groundwater

conservation.

§201(c) adds a new

subsection for multiyear

watershed management

contracts to protect public

drinking water supplies and

provides $1 billion, with

annual payments to individual

recipients limited to $50,000.

No provisions.

§101 adds a new §1240H that

provides $100 million annually

for competitive innovative grants

(e.g. market based pollution

credit trading); federal share is

less than 50%; funds unobligated

by June 1 each year can be spent

on other EQIP purposes.

Funding

and

Admini

s-tration

§1241(b) provides $200

million annually from the

CCC for EQIP, with 50% of

the total going to practices

related to livestock

production. §1242 defines

coordination among agencies.

§262 provides $200 million for

FY2001, and $1.2 billion annually

for FY2002 through FY2011 from

the CCC. §264 amends §1242(a)

to make the FSA the principle

agency implementing EQIP.

§265(e) allows producers to obtain

technical assistance from

approved third parties as well as

NRCS.

§201(a) provides $130

million for FY2002 and $1

billion annually for FY2003

through FY2008 from the

CCC. §201(b) replaces the

livestock requirement, and

provides at least 20% of the

funding for managed grazing

systems, at least 10% for

innovative manure

management systems, at least

20% for water conservation

through increased irrigation

efficiencies (with half of that

going to improve fisheries

habitat), and at least 10% to

practices that reduce pesticide

use. §201(c) also addresses

planning requirements, the

role of watershed councils,

monitoring, privacy

protection, interagency

coordination, and authorizes

10 pilot projects in

conjunction with drinking

water utilities.

§511 provides $615 million

annually through FY2011

from the CCC, and requires

that at least $15 million of

that amount be spent on

salinity control measures in

the Colorado River basin.

§101 provides $650 million in

FY2003, $1 billion in FY2004,

and $1.5 billion annually in

FY2005-FY2011 from the CCC.

§101 requires that 5% of funding

each year be dedicated to special

projects.

CRS-21

Farmland Protection Program (FPP)

Program Description. The FPP, enacted in the 1996 farm bill, provided a total of

$35 million through FY2002 in mandatory spending from the CCC to state and local

governments to purchase conservation easements on productive soils that are “subject to a

pending offer from a state or local government.”13 NRCS, the administering agency, allocated

the authorized amount by the end of FY1998.

Congress appropriated additional funds for FY2001 when §211(a) of the crop insurance

reform legislation (P.L. 106-224) provided an additional $10 million and made certain nonprofit organizations (NGOs) eligible to receive funds. Section 107 of the final omnibus

appropriations for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) made the FPP eligible for a portion of an

additional $40 million that §211(b) of P.L. 106-224 had provided for certain conservation

cost-sharing activities. The Department decided to allocate $7.5 million of this amount to the

FPP, so it received a total of $17.5 million for FY2001. NRCS determined that NGOs could

apply for grants only from the $10 million provided in the crop insurance reform legislation.

As in earlier years, requests for those funds greatly exceeded the available amount.

Program Accomplishments. The $35 million authorized in the 1996 farm bill was

obligated by the end of FY1998 to acquire easements on more than 127,000 acres in 19

states. (The law called for easements to be acquired on 170,000 to 340,000 acres, but the

money was fully allocated before the minimum acreage was reached.) The process to actually

complete the process of placing an easement on land can be lengthy, and by the end of

FY1998, the last report on the program showed that this process had been completed on less

than 40,000 acres. NRCS states that every federal dollar has been matched by an average of

$6 from other participants.

Issues. Issues have been raised about the disparity between the high level of interest

in the program and the available funding, implications for expanding eligibility, and what lands

are actually protected with these funds.

Interest in Participation. Demand for funding has greatly exceeded the amount

available. NRCS reported in March, 2001, that it had a backlog of 747 offers involving

almost 160,000 acres that would require about $165 million. Most participating states

(including participating localities in those states) received at least $1.5 million, but only two

states received more than $3 million in federal funds; California ($3.4 million) and

Pennsylvania ($3.27 million). Press reports indicate that interest in protecting farmland (and

other “desirable lands”) continues to spread. Questions include: how much federal funding

would be appropriate; what limits (if any) should be placed on protection efforts when federal

funds are involved; should the pending offer requirement be retained; and should this program

be integrated with other long-term land retirement and resource protection programs both

within and outside of USDA?

Eligibility. The changes to the FFP enacted in the crop insurance reform legislation

that expanded eligibility is a departure from past practices because it allows private and public

entities to compete directly for federal grant funds. It is not clear whether either private or

public entities will have any inherent advantages over the other. Questions include: how

The FPP is in §388 of the 1996 farm bill (16 U.S.C. 3830).

CRS-22

might the program be changed to accommodate eligible private entities, if at all; how will

public entities react if their funding is reduced to support these new participants; and will

these new participants alter the geographic distribution of program spending funds by either

including some new states or increasing activity in some states that already participate (and

decreasing activity in others)?

Distribution of Funds. Data indicate that NRCS awards most eligible states similar

amounts. Should states equity guide future distributions, or should other considerations carry

more weight, such as the quality and accomplishments of the grant applicants to date, the

relative intensity of the conversion pressure on the parcels where offers are pending, or the

relative productivity or uniqueness of the land that would be protected? The requests for

proposal provide little detail on how NRCS makes these decisions. Questions center on: how

does NRCS decide the relative cost effectiveness of each request; should the money continue

to be distributed relatively evenly among eligible states; and could the target of 170,000 acres

have been reached if funds had been distributed differently?

Table 4. Comparison of Proposed FPP Provisions

Topic

Current Law

H.R.

2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Funding

Level

§388(c) provides up to a

total of $35 million

from the CCC by

FY2002.

§272(b)

provides

$50 million

annually

through

FY2011

from the

CCC.

§101provides up to $500 million

annually through FY2008 from

the CCC; limits technical

assistance to no more than 10%

of the total; and limits the federal

share to less than 50% of the

total cost.

§901

provides

$100 million

annually

from FY2003

through

FY2011 from

the CCC.

§104

provides $65

million

annually

from FY2003

through

FY2011 from

the CCC.

Types of

Easements

§388(a) allows purchase

of conservation

easements (an undefined

term).

provisions.

§101 allows purchase of

permanent conservation

easements, or conservation

easement or other interests when

the land is subject to a pending

offer from state or local

government.

provisions.

Eligible

Land

§388(a) makes between

170,000 acres and

340,000 acres eligible if

the soil is prime, unique

or productive, and an

offer is pending from a

state or local

government to limit non

agricultural uses.

§272(a)

makes

historic and

archaeologi

cal sites

eligible.

§101 makes land eligible if it is

used for farming, ranching, and

forestry.

provisions.

§104

includes crop

land,

rangeland,

grassland,

and private

forest land.

Conservation

Planning

§388(b) requires a

conservation plan if the

land is highly erodible;

the Sec. can require

conversion of the land to

a less intensive use in

the plan.

provisions.

Restates current law.

provisions.

§104 adds a

new

subsection

that prohibits

degradation

of the

environment.

CRS-23

Topic

Current Law

H.R.

2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Eligible

Participants

§388(a) makes eligible

any state or local agency

that has made an offer

to purchase a

conservation easement.

provisions.

§104 also makes eligible any

recognized Indian tribe and nonprofits that meet certain

qualifications.

provisions.

§104 same as

provisions in

H.R. 2375.

Comparing Bids

No provisions.

provisions.

§104 requires Sec. to consider

how strongly states are

discouraging conversion to urban

uses when comparing bids.

provisions.

Enforcing

Easements

No provisions.

provisions.

§104 requires states to certify

that easements are in a form that

can be enforced.

provisions.

New

Program

Options

No provisions.

provisions.

§104 provides up to $10 million

from the CCC for a new program

option for producers who agree

to forego development for 5 to 10

years.

provisions.

Note: Sec. is the Secretary of Agriculture.

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)

Program Description. FIP, administered by NRCS, provides technical and costsharing assistance to forest land owners to help them install practices, such as tree planting

and timber stand improvements on non-industrial private forest lands.14 Landowners eligible

to receive cost-sharing assistance must meet a number of qualifications, including owning no

more than 1,000 acres of eligible forest land (this requirement can be waived by NRCS up to

an absolute maximum of 5,000 acres), being able to produce at least 50 cubic feet of wood

per year, and be both a private landowner and a manufacturer of forest products on a parttime basis rather than as a primary source of income. FIP is offered in designated counties

where a Forest Service survey indicates that the total private timber acreage has the potential

to supply sufficient wood to support production of timber products. The Forest Service

administers several very similar programs.15

Program Accomplishments. Over the past decade, outlays and participation in the

program have both been declining. In FY1989, this program spent more than $10 million to

assist more than 5,000 participants. By FY1999, outlays had dropped to $5.6 million, while

participation remained about the same. (It had fallen to a low of 3,124 in FY1996.) The

acreage trends are similar. In FY1989, trees were planted on more than 164,000 acres,

timber stand improvements were made on more than 30,000 acres, and sites were prepared

FIP was authorized in §4 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and

reauthorized through FY2002 in the 1996 farm bill. (16 U.S.C. 2103)

FIP is one of a suite of closely related state and community forestry programs. All these

programs except FIP are administered by the Forest Service. For more information on these

programs, see CRS Report RL31065, Forestry Assistance Programs.

CRS-24

for natural regeneration on more than 3,600 acres. By contrast, in FY1999, trees were

planted on more than 82,000 acres, timber stands improvements were made on almost 20,000

acres, and sites were prepared for natural regeneration on about 4,500 acres.

Issues. In recent budget submissions, the earlier Bush and Clinton Administrations

recommended that the program be terminated, and that these efforts be continued through

several similar Forest Service programs. Congress has repeatedly disagreed. Questions

include: should some of the closely related forest programs be combined; should they all be

administered by the Forest Service; does FIP duplicate programs offered by the Forest

Service; are some landowners who participate in this program ineligible for other similar

forestry programs; are some land owners more likely to participate in a NRCS program than

in a Forest Service program; and how has participation been distributed around the country?

Table 5. Comparison of Proposed FIP Provisions

Topic

Current Law

Funding

Level

§4(j) authorizes such

funds as necessary,

including funds for

technical assistance,

through FY2002.

H.R. 2646

§801 repeals the FIP (§4) and the

Stewardship Incentive Program (§6).

§802 replaces them with a new Forest

Land Enhancement Act, funded with

$150 million by FY2011 from the

CCC.

S. 1326

§204(e)(2)

reauthorizes FIP

through FY2011.

No provisions.

§802 would provide cost sharing

assistance of up to 75% to implement

practices in an approved plan over a

period of at least 10 years to help

landowners more actively establish,

restore, manage, maintain, or enhance

nonindustrial private forest lands. The

Sec. would be required to coordinate

with state foresters and State Forest

Stewardship Coordinating Committees.

Notes: H.R. 2375 and S. 1276 would not amend FIP, and would therefore allow it to expire at the end of

FY2002.

FIP is one of several closely related programs created by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of

1978. While the forestry proposals in these bills are not limited to FIP alone, the other forestry programs, all

administered by the Forest Service in USDA, are beyond the scope of this paper and not discussed further.

Uses of

Funding

§4(f) limits cost sharing to

no more than 75% of the

landowner’s actual costs.

Resource Conservation and Development Program(RC&D)

Program Description. The RC&D, administered by NRCS, provides funds to

approved RC&D councils, which encompass multi-county areas, to help them plan and

implement programs for resource conservation and development in rural areas.16 Each area

is coordinated by a Council, which is locally organized, sponsored, and directed. Councils

typically have several sponsors, including county governments, conservation districts, state

agencies, and cooperating private organizations. NRCS provides administrative leadership

The RC&D Program was enacted in §102 of the 1962 Food and Agricultural Act, revised

in §1528-1538 of the 1981 Agriculture and Food Act, and reauthorized through FY2002 in

the 1996 farm bill (16 U.S.C. 3453-3461).

CRS-25

for each Council, and other sources, including agencies in USDA, provide other forms of

assistance.

The program is authorized to designate up to 450 areas. Currently, there are 348

RC&Ds encompassing counties in all 50 states. The newest 33 councils were designated in

December 2000, and additional applications await secretarial action. Appropriations for this

program have been slowly rising, from more than $27 million a decade ago to about $35

million in recent years. For FY2001, funding was $42 million, the highest level yet and more

than either appropriations committee had initially approved.

Program Accomplishments. Accomplishments of councils are highly varied,

reflecting local physical conditions and economic and environmental needs. NRCS attributes

almost 50,000 projects to the RC&D councils. In planning and implementing these projects,

councils draw on technical assistance from NRCS and financial assistance from other sources.

Projects initiated by councils address natural resource improvements, community

improvement, forestry, education, economic development, water supply and quality,

recreation and tourism, marketing and merchandising, fish and wildlife, and waste and waste

utilization. For each of these topics, NRCS measures accomplishments. For example, efforts

to improve natural resources have resulted in improvements to 500,000 acres of wildlife

habitat, 510,000 acres of lakes, and 1,500 miles of streams.

Issues. More than two thirds of all counties and 75% of the land area are now in a

designated RC&D area. Current law authorizes up to 450 areas. Some accomplishments

appear to be primarily related to increasing cooperation and coordination or being more

efficient. Other accomplishments relate to implementing changes that lead directly to

improved resource conditions on the ground. Questions include: should a program goal be

to eventually have every county in the country participating; should this program be funded

at a higher level that would provide additional assistance to all Councils; and should Councils

be required to be self-sustaining, by withdrawing NRCS support after they complete work

plans?

Comparison of Proposed Provisions. Current law, as amended in §1528

through §1538 of the 1981 farm bill (P.L. 97-98), is described above. Two of the bills, H.R.

2646 and S. 1267, would make numerous technical amendments, which would not affect the

basic direction or goals of the program. The amendments appear to have the same general

effects, although they are drafted in different ways. In H.R. 2646, §273 would amend the

RC&D by making the authorization permanent. It also would make changes to the RC&D

legislation by amending several definitions and making Indian tribes eligible to participate.

H.R. 2375 does not amend the RC&D legislation (and it would therefore expire at the end

of FY2002). In S. 1267, §601 would make most of the same changes as §273 of H.R. 2646.

In S. 1326, §204(d), would extend the program authorization through FY2011.

Watershed Program

Program Description. The purposes of the Watershed Program, administered by

NRCS, include preventing erosion, flood, and sediment damages, and furthering conservation

CRS-26

and use of both water and land in watersheds where projects are authorized.17 Projects may

also include the development of recreation facilities and improvement to fish and wildlife

habitat. This program is commonly referred to as the small watershed program because a

large majority of the projects have been built under the authorities of the Watershed

Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, or P.L.-566 (enacted in the 83rd Congress),

which set maximum size limits. Each project has one or more local sponsors. An emerging

concern has been the need to rehabilitate the oldest dams and structures that are reaching or

exceeding their design life.

Congress could address many different aspects of the watershed program in the farm bill,

but the four bills being compared only address funding of the rehabilitation program.

Congress first addressed the rehabilitation question by authorizing $8 million for a pilot

rehabilitation program in four states: Ohio, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Wisconsin. Then

it authorized a general rehabilitation program in P.L. 106-472, the Grain Standards and

Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000, which provides up to $90 million for rehabilitation

through FY2005. Local sponsors must cover 35% of the rehabilitation costs. NRCS is to

develop a system to prioritize rehabilitation projects. It recently estimated that more than

2,000 dams need to be rehabilitated at a total estimated cost of more than $540 million.

Program Accomplishments. The Watershed Program has been a major

conservation activity; a total of 1,641 projects have been approved, and more than 10,000

flood control structures have been built. The total project costs have been $14 billion (1997

dollars), including more than $8.5 billion of federal funds. The total area encompassed by

all projects is more than 110 million acres.18 NRCS estimates that these projects provide

more than $1 billion in benefits to agriculture and others annually. These benefits center on

flood control, but they also include water management, municipal and industrial water supply,

recreation, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, water quality improvement, and land

conservation. This program has been funded at higher levels during some economic

downturns to stimulate rural economies by providing employment.

Issues. How should the rehabilitation program address changes in the needs and

purposes of watershed projects since the first projects were constructed more than 50 years

ago? Flood control is still needed in some situations, but other purposes have grown more

important, many of them dealing with aspects of the environment, such as protection of

wetlands, were not recognized when this program started. These changes are addressed in

new projects but may not be fully recognized as older projects are rehabilitated. The

rehabilitation process will expand as more structures deteriorate or age. Questions include:

should other purposes receive more attention in relation to flood control; should rehabilitation

The Watershed Program was first authorized under Public Law 534 in 1944 for flood

control in 11 specified watersheds, and then generically in 1954 for all small watersheds under

Public Law 566. Some relatively minor amendments were made in §1461-§1464 of the 1990

farm bill. Rehabilitation activities were first authorized in a 4 state pilot program in Title II

of the FY2001 agriculture appropriations (P.L. 106-387); then authorized for all states in

§313 of P.L. 106-472, the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000.

The initial 11 watershed projects were authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1944, or P.L.

534 (enacted in the 78th Congress). They are larger and encompass almost one third of the

110 million acre total.

CRS-27

be limited to addressing safety and deterioration questions, or should its purpose be expanded;

and how will funding levels affect the rehabilitation process?

Comparison of Proposed Provisions. Only one of the four bills, H.R. 2646,

would amend the Watershed Program. In H.R. 2646, §276 would reauthorize the small

watershed rehabilitation program, discussed above, through FY2011at a funding level of $15

million annually.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

Program Description. The WRP, administered by NRCS, provides mandatory funds

through the CCC to restore up to 1,075,000 acres of wetlands and protective buffers on

agricultural land.19 Most, but not all lands, are restored to their original natural condition; the

remainder (up to 30%) can be restored to a different natural condition that meets the

landowner’s objectives while providing wetland benefits. Before the 1996 amendments, all

land was enrolled in a permanent easement; now the program is required to use a mix of

permanent easements, 30-year easements, or cost-sharing agreements of at least 10 years.

The magnitude of assistance to the landowner is greatest for the permanent easement and

least for the cost-sharing agreement. Almost 90% of the enrolled land is under the permanent

easement.

Program Accomplishments. Interest in the WRP has been high as individuals have

sought to enroll many more acres than the program could accept. The FY2001 NRCS

Budget Notes report that for every acre accepted, more than 5 acres of eligible lands were

offered.20 Participation has been concentrated in the lower Mississippi River valley. States

with the most enrolled acreage through March 2001, are Louisiana (139,000 acres),

Mississippi (103,000 acres) and Arkansas (101,000 acres), according to data compiled by

NRCS. The next two states in terms of enrollment – California and Missouri – each have

about 60,000 acres in this program. If interest is measured by number of contracts, the

largest number is in New York (673 contracts). Other states with large numbers of contracts

include Iowa (424), Missouri (400), and Louisiana and Wisconsin (378 each).

Issues. Issues have been raised about enlarging the program, changing the eligibility

requirements, and simplifying the enrollment process.

Scope of Program. In most years, both the earlier Bush and Clinton Administrations

proposed enrolling larger amounts of land than Congress had allowed. Congress did this by

limiting staff time and resources available to the program in appropriations legislation. The

Clinton Administration also proposed larger enrollments because the WRP was a component

of its Clean Water Action Plan, as well as critical to the national wetlands policy goal of nonet-loss. Much of the program effort was centered on reaching this goal for agricultural

lands, and the information that NRCS provides about WRP is more about enrolling land

The WRP was enacted in the 1990 farm bill, and is placed in Subchapter C of Chapter 1

(Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program), and is in §1237-§1237F of the 1985

farm bill (16 U.S.C. 3837-3837f)

However, it does not assess what portion of the offered acres would have been accepted if

funding was not a constraint.

CRS-28

rather than restoration efforts. The program has reached its enrollment ceiling. Questions

include: should the overall ceiling be raised; should a total ceiling be replaced by an annual

enrollment maximum; should the justification for the program be altered if the no-net-loss

goal is attained on agricultural lands, perhaps to enroll lands to offset losses in other land use

categories; and how rapidly are agricultural wetlands being restored and what benefits are

those restorations providing?

Eligible Land. A variety of lands are eligible to enroll in the WRP. As interest in the

program greatly exceeds the amount of land that the program accepts, options to the current

pattern of eligibility might be considered. These options might be based on cost; NRCS

reports that easement costs range from $500 per acre in upstate New York to more than

$2,000 per acre in California. Also, certain types of wetlands may be more valuable because

they are scarce, or because they serve a more important set of functions at a particular

location. Support for some types of benefits, such as habitat, may be greater than for other

types of benefits, such as flood control or improving water quality. Finally, permanent

easements provide the greatest level of protection. Those familiar with the program have

stated that all acreage could be enrolled using permanent easements, if that were allowed.

Questions include: should WRP eligibility be narrowed so long as interest is high; should cost

be a consideration in deciding which acres to enroll; should certain benefits be favored over

others; and should enrollment be limited to permanent easements so long as land owners are

willing to offer sufficient land to be placed under that form of protection?

Enrollment Process. Actually enrolling land into the WRP is a long process that

includes initial signup, appraisals, and registering the easement with the deed. This process

is characterized by some as “cumbersome” and often has high transaction costs for NRCS and

others who are involved. Questions include: in what ways has the program been simplified

or streamlined since its inception; are there additional ways to simplify or streamline the

enrollment process; at what point in this process should land be considered to be enrolled;

and can the acreage at each stage of this process be identified at any time?

CRS-29

Table 6. Comparison of Proposed WRP Provisions

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Enrollment

§1237(b)(1) limits total

enrollment at 1,075,000

acres. §1237(c) allows land

to be enrolled through 2002.

§241 allows enrollment of up to

150,000 acres per year starting in

2002, with any acres up to the

annual limit that is not enrolled to

be enrolled in succeeding years.

§302(a) allows enrollment of at

least 250,000 acres annually

through FY2008, not to exceed

a total of 2.5 million acres.

§301 allows up to

250,000 acres to be

enrolled annually

from 2003 through

2011.

§103(a) sets an enrollment

ceiling of 3,475,000 acres.

§103(b) allows land to be

enrolled through FY2011.

Enrollment

Options

§1237(b)(2) requires 1/3

enrollment each using

permanent easements, 30 year

easements, and agreements.

§241(b) deletes the 1/3

requirement and the distinction

between permanent and temporary

easements.

§303 creates a new 250,000 acre

wetland reserve enhancement

program, modeled after the

CREP. §303(b) defines eligible

land. §303(c) sets eligibility

requirements for states. §303(d)

sets state cost-sharing

requirements. §303(e) defines

permitted and prohibited uses.

§303(f) establishes payment

terms. §303(g) sets the terms for

contracts and easements.

§303(h) states that special

emphasis should be given to

wetlands which are declining or

endangered, and wetlands that

are not adequately protected by

law, including isolated

wetlands.

No provisions.

§103(c) creates a new wetland

reserve enhancement program,

modeled after the CREP, that

would allow agreements with

state and local government, and

non-governmental

organizations.

Eligible

lands

§1237(c) defines eligible land

based on maximizing wildlife

and wetland benefits, use in

agriculture, likelihood of a

successful restoration, and

§1237(e) makes CRP timber

stands on cropland and

pastureland ineligible.

§241(c) replaces §1237(c),(d), and

(e) with new subtitles that give

priority to land that maximizes

wetlands functions and values,

and make land enrolled in the

CRP or under an EQIP contract

ineligible.

No provisions.

CRS-30

Topic

Current Law

H.R. 2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

Easements

and Agreements

§1237A describes the general

terms of easements and

agreements. §1237A(b)(2)

prohibits altering habitat,

spraying chemicals and

mowing, any activity that

degrades the land, and any

other activity that counters

the purpose of the easement,

unless permitted in the plan.

§242 replaces the 4 more specific

prohibitions in §1237A(b)(2) with

a general statement to allow only

changes permitted in the plan. It

deletes subsection (c), which

makes NRCS responsible for

restoration plans and requires

consultation with State Technical

Committees, and subsection (h),

which permits the use of cost

sharing agreements for

restoration.

No provisions.

Secretary

Duties,

including

Providing

Technical

Assistance

§1237(C) describes how cost

sharing and technical

assistance will be provided;

and how priorities will be set

for determining which bids to

accept (requires consultation

with the Sec. of the Interior).

§243 deletes requirements to

provide technical assistance and to

consult with the Sec. of the

Interior; and gives priority to

using permanent easements.

§265(e) allows producers to use

approved third parties as well as

the NRCS for technical assistance.

No provisions.

§303 limits technical

assistance to 10% of

the funds provided.

§103(d) adds monitoring and

maintenance to what is included

under “assistance.” §103(e)

adds technical assistance to the

activities funded through the

CCC.

Payments

§1237D(c)(1) limits easement

payments to $50,000

annually, with exceptions.

§244 deletes the modifier

“easement” from the limitation.

No provisions.

Changes in

Ownership

, etc.

§1237E limits program entry

if ownership changes

occurred during the previous

year, and specifies terms

under which easements can

be modified or terminated.

§245 replaces 1990 acquisition

date in §1237E(a)(2) with

provision to make eligible at any

time land acquired through

foreclosure where the previous

owner exercised a right of

redemption.

No provisions.

Administration

No provisions.

§302(b) requires the Sec. to issue

revised regulations by 10/1/02 to

ensure equitable regional

enrollment, based on historic

distribution and opportunities for

restoration.

Note: Sec. is the Secretary of Agriculture.

No provisions.

CRS-31

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

Program Description. WHIP, administered by NRCS, provides a total of $50 million

through FY2002 from the CCC to make cost sharing payments of up to 75% and provide

technical assistance to landowners who agree to develop and implement a wildlife habitat

improvement plan under agreements lasting 5 to 10 years.21 Each state determines its wildlife

and habitat priorities. The authorized funds were exhausted during FY2000. Section 211(b)

of the crop insurance reform legislation (P.L. 106-224) provided $40 million for conservation

activities in FY2001, and the Department decided to allocate $12.5 million of this amount to

WHIP.

Program Accomplishments. For the most recent year for which data are available,

FY1999, the program distributed more than $22 million nationwide to fund 3,588 agreements;

amounts ranged from $6,046 in Delaware and $116,931 in Indiana to $779,116 in Colorado.

More than 720,000 acres were enrolled, averaging 187 acres per agreement. Program

accomplishments are described by types of habitat. Almost 90% of the total were upland acres

including grasslands, shrub/scrub, and forests. Of the remainder, more than 50,000 acres were

in wetlands that were not eligible for the WRP. NRCS estimates that threatened and

endangered species may benefit from about 10% of the lands enrolled in FY1999.

Issues. Issues have been raised about the importance of wildlife in the overall

conservation effort and about how to retain wildlife protection benefits after contracts expire.

Wildlife and the Conservation Effort. WHIP is but one of many conservation

programs that can provide wildlife benefits. However, it is the only program that is limited to

wildlife. The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) focused on the integrative nature of these

programs in its recent report, How Much is Enough for 2002; A Regional Wildlife Habitat

Needs Assessment for the 2002 Farm Bill. This report makes numerous recommendations to

expand or adjust existing programs and create new ones, for example, for grasslands.

However, the only WHIP recommendations are to substantially increase funding (to $100

million annually). Questions include: what will more funding for WHIP actually buy; to

paraphrase the WMI report title, how much will be enough; should WHIP remain as a separate

program or be integrated into other conservation programs; and should policy makers increase

efforts to coordinate wildlife goals with other agricultural goals?

Wildlife Protection in the Future. Agreements will start to expire during the next

farm bill. There are no provisions that give priority to renewing contracts, or encourage

retention of the benefits that have been generated. At the end of their contract, landowners

will be under no further obligations, and only some will choose to maintain those benefits.

Questions include: what, if any obligation, should come after the contract for program

participants; should current participants be given a higher priority if they would like to extend

their contracts; and how should any extended contracts differ from the initial ones?

WHIP was enacted as §387 of the 1996 farm bill (16 U.S.C. 3836a)

CRS-32

Table 7. Comparison of Proposed WHIP Provisions

Topic

Current

Law

H.R.

2646

Period of

Authorization

§387(c)

provides a total

of $50 million

from the CCC

(from CRP

funding) by the

end of FY2002.

§271

provides

$25

million

annually

through

FY2011

from the

CCC.

Program

Participation

and

Endangered

Species

No provisions.

Declining

Habitat

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

S. 1326

§301 provides a total of $500

million through FY2008.

§802 provides $100 million

annually through FY2011

from the CCC.

§1326

provides

$50

million

annually

through

FY2011

from the

CCC.

provisions.

§301 adds new subsections that

require at least 50% of the funds

be targeted to habitat for species

recognized as threatened,

endangered, or of special concern

by the Fish and Wildlife Service,

or as imperiled by a state natural

heritage program; authorize the

Sec. to assist landowners in

setting up “safe harbor”

agreements.

§801 adds new subsections

that require that at least

$40 million each year be

spent on widely-dispersed

pilot programs to help

avoid listing a species as

endangered or threatened;

and to exempt participants

from being considered as

taking a threatened or

endangered species when

implementing a contract.

provisions.

No provisions.

provisions.

§301 uses at least 20% of the

funds to acquire permanent

easements and water rights to

protect important and declining

habitat identified in each state.

No provisions.

provisions.

Incentive

Payments

No provisions.

provisions

§301 provides incentive

payments to landowners who

implement land management

practices that create or protect

habitat.

No provisions.

provisions.

Revisions to

Enrollment

Criteria

No provisions.

Provisions

No provisions.

provisions.

§301 requires the Sec. to revise

enrollment criteria within 6

months to ensure regional equity

and encourage projects that

contribute to producer

profitability.

Note: Sec. is the Secretary of Agriculture.

CRS-33

Other Amendments to Existing Programs

Each bill also would amend other conservation programs in various ways. Proposals in

some bills directly contradict other bills; for example some programs would be reauthorized

in some bills but repealed in others.22

Technical Assistance

Technical assistance is one of four types of conservation support the federal government

provides to landowners. (The others are financial, educational, and research). Technical

assistance is delivered by the NRCS, primarily through Conservation Technical Assistance

(CTA) activities. NRCS describes CTA as the “intellectual capital of the agency,” combining

expertise in soils and other sciences and engineering with knowledge of local conditions. The

“handbook” for CTA is the Field Office Technical Guide, which specifies standards for the

design and implementation of various conservation practices. Both CTA and the guide are

central to implementing almost every conservation program that serves farmers and

landowners.

For the mandatory programs funded through the CCC (CRP,EQIP, WRP,WHIP, and

FPP), technical assistance is funded as a portion of total funding for each program. This

amounted to $90 million in FY2000, according to data supplied by NRCS to the House

Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture. Otherwise, technical assistance

is provided through the Conservation Operations line of the annual appropriations for NRCS

and through several other program accounts. This amounted to $619 million for CTA and

$212 million for other programs, according to the same data set.

The gap between the need for technical assistance to implement conservation programs

and the funding level for those programs has been growing in recent years. Some of the

underlying reasons for this gap, as summarized in the earlier discussion of cross-cutting issues,

is that: the conservation mission has been expanding; funding devoted to most conservation

activities, other than land retirement programs, has been growing more slowly; and the federal

staff to provide technical assistance has been shrinking. Proposed conservation legislation

could further expand the mission and greatly enlarge several existing programs, increasing the

pressure to address this gap.

Possible solutions that have been suggested could involve some combination of: (1)

shifting overall administration of some programs from NRCS to FSA; (2) increasing staff, and

therefore the capability of NRCS, to provide more conservation and serve more customers;

(3) allowing trained and certified individuals who are parties other than NRCS employees,

referred to as third parties, to provide some of the services that now only are provided by

NRCS; or (4) altering the legislation that created the CCC to either remove the current cap on

funding for technical assistance or create a separate account within the CCC for technical

assistance.

In addition to provisions in H.R. 2646, House Report 107-191, pt. 1, which accompanies

this bill also calls for the Sec. to :examine ways to address over-allocation of water in the

Klamath Basin; to work with states and agricultural producers and coordinate assistance to

implement water conservation practices; to use EQIP contracts to control invasive species;

and to explore ways that farmers can reduce paperwork.

CRS-34

Each solution has some supporters, but also vocal opponents. Efforts to move

administration of conservation programs from either NRCS or FSA to the other agency, which

has been proposed in Congress and at USDA in recent years, has generated strong negative

reactions repeatedly from the constituents and clients of both agencies. Supporters of current

proposals to transfer programs from NRCS to FSA argue that the result would be a reduced

workload at NRCS that would allow its staff to focus on fewer programs, while opponents of

these transfers argue that the two agencies have different skills and capabilities, so a transfer

would penalize the overall conservation effort. While appropriators have limited funding

increases and have supported staffing reductions in recent years because of other higher

priorities, they have also supported emergency or supplemental funding for technical assistance

on numerous occasions. Using other parties to do some of the activities assigned to NRCS

has been met with suspicion by those who worry about the quality of service or the expense

of using private providers in place of free public services. Amending the CCC legislation in

either of the suggested ways is opposed by those who would like to maximize the amount of

money coming from the CCC that is distributed to producers, but supported by those who

view conservation as more important to these programs than current funding levels suggest.

Three of the bills propose various responses to these concerns.

In H.R. 2646, §265(b) would provide up to $100 million annually from FY2002 through

FY2011 from the CCC, with the total limited to $850 million, to provide technical assistance

for all the mandatory conservation programs funded through the CCC. It would also allow

technical assistance from other sources by supporting the use of approved other parties as well

as NRCS staff to provide technical assistance for these programs. The Secretary would be

required to issue regulations laying out a system for approving technical assistance providers

within 6 months of enactment; the required expertise in planning and implementation is

specified. Conforming amendments would be made to the highly erodible lands provisions

(1213(c)), CRP (§1233), WRP (§1237C(b), EQIP (§1240B), and Funding and Administration

(for mandatory programs) §1241(b). Section 281 would amend §6 of the Soil Conservation

and Domestic Allotment Act, which was enacted in 1935 and created the Conservation

Operations Account, to allow technical assistance funds to be used for all agriculture

conservation programs.

In H.R. 2375, Title VI would amend technical assistance provisions. Section 601 would

authorize $964 million annually from FY2003 through FY2008 from the CCC. Section 602

would amend §1241 of the 1985 farm bill (the Funding and Administration subtitle) to allow

for full reimbursement of actual technical assistance costs for listed programs and any other

programs funded through the CCC that require technical assistance. Four activities –

providing an eligibility assessment as the basis for developing a conservation plan, providing

technical assistance in developing and implementing the plan, providing technical assistance

in installing structural and land management practices, and providing supporting information,

education, and training in support of implementing the plan -- are listed as being approved for

reimbursement. Section 603 would allow other parties certified by the Secretary to provide

technical assistance. The Secretary would develop guidelines for training and certification, and

establish training centers in eight specified locations, using $50 million annually from the CCC

to implement this subsection.

In S. 1326, §203 would require the Secretary to establish requirements, standards, and

procedures for certifying and recertifying other parties who are qualified to provide technical

assistance. Potential providers would pay a fee, to be set by the Secretary, for the certification

training process. The Secretary would decide which services private providers can offer,

CRS-35

except that they would be prohibited from assessing a CRP contract or conservation farm

option contract that would reduce net environmental benefits.

Grazing Lands Conservation

Section 386 of the 1996 farm bill created a program to coordinate technical, educational,

and related assistance to conserve and enhance private grazing lands, and authorized

appropriations of $20 million in FY1996, $40 million in FY1997, and $60 million annually

thereafter. It has been funded as an activity within the Conservation Operations line item that

earmarked in report language. It was given $18 million for FY2001.

In H.R. 2375, §305 would authorize $100 million annually from the CCC through

FY2008, and provide incentive payments to producers who enter into multi-year contracts to

improve their grazing lands. In S. 1267, §701 would authorize $60 million annually from the

CCC through FY2011, and delete existing provisions that require the program to be funded

as a line item in annual appropriations legislation.

Conservation Practice Standards

Conservation standards are the engineering and other criteria used to design conservation

practices. These standards are compiled in a handbook found in every county in the country.

There are currently no requirements in law for periodically reviewing or updating these

standards, some of which were last updated more than 20 years ago.

In H.R. 2375, §604 would require the Secretary to establish and revise standards for

conservation practices “immediately”, and to update the Handbook and guides where these

standards are described at least once every 5 years.

Evaluation and Monitoring

Program evaluation and monitoring has been a limited activity for conservation programs,

based on the small number of studies that have been published. In P.L. 95-192, the Soil and

Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977, §6 lays out a program to periodically monitor

conservation problems and evaluate the effectiveness of current programs and alternatives in

addressing them.

In H.R. 2375, §702 would require the Secretary to work with the National Academy of

Sciences to establish a program to evaluate the benefits of conservation practices as a

condition for receiving rental or cost-sharing payments. It defines the qualifications of

organizations that would be permitted to do the evaluations, and require the Secretary to use

the information these organizations collect to identify and rank needed measures. This activity

would be funded at $10 million annually through FY2011 from the CCC.

In S. 1267, §1002 would require the Secretary to request that the National Academy of

Science prepare a study, to be submitted to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees,

on developing and implementing a county-level accounting system to measure “efforts, gains,

and losses” in participation and natural resources as a result of agricultural conservation

programs.

CRS-36

Program Consolidation and Administration

In H.R. 2375, §503 discusses consolidation of community forestry programs, and was

discussed above in the FIP presentation. That discussion was limited to FIP, which is the only

community forestry program that is not administered by the Forest Service.

In S. 1326, §202 would call on the Secretary to consolidate conservation programs for

agricultural lands, “to the maximum extent possible” by designing forms that apply to all

programs, reducing and consolidating paperwork, developing a single classification system for

all information collected on forms, ensuring that USDA agencies have the technology that will

allow them to share those forms, and develop a single conservation plan format. Within 180

days of enactment, the Secretary would be required to report to both agriculture committees

with an implementation plan, as well as a budget, and a second plan for implementing the

periodic appraisal of soil and water resources required under the 1977 Soil and Water

Resources Conservation Act.

Program Extensions and Deletions

Congress has enacted many conservation programs that have never been implemented.

Other programs may have been implemented earlier, but are no longer being implemented.

Examples from the 1996 farm bill alone include the Conservation Farm Option (§335), the

Natural Resources Conservation Foundation (Subtitle F, §351through §360), and the Flood

Risk Reduction Program (§385).

In H.R. 2646, §291(a) would repeal the wetland mitigation banking program enacted as

§1222(k) of the 1985 farm bill; §291(b) would repeal the CRP payment limits enacted in

§1234(F)(3) of the 1985 farm bill; §291(c) would repeal the base history provisions of the

CRP, enacted in §1236 of the 1985 farm bill; §291(d) would repeal the WRP payment limits

enacted in §1237D(c)(3) of the 1985 farm bill; §291(e) would repeal the Environmental

Easement Program, enacted in Title XII, Subtitle D, Chapter 3 of the 1985 farm bill; §291(f)

would repeal the Conservation Farm Option, enacted in Title XII, Subtitle D, Chapter 5 of the

1985 farm bill; §291(g) would repeal the Tree Planting Initiative, enacted in §1256 of the 1985

farm bill, and §292 would repeal provisions creating the National Natural Resources

Conservation Foundation, enacted in Subtitle F of Title III of the 1996 farm bill.

In S. 1267, §1004(c) would repeal the Environmental Easement Program, enacted in Title

XII, Subtitle D, Chapter 3 of the 1985 farm bill.

In S. 1326, §204 would extend the authorization through FY2011 for several programs,

including the Conservation Farm Option and the Flood Risk Reduction Program (others have

been noted in discussions of those programs).

The Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program

(ECARP)

ECARP is a program and policy umbrella, created in §1230 of the 1985 farm bill.

Programs under this umbrella include the CRP (Subchapter B), the WRP (Subchapter C), and

EQIP (chapter 4). Section 1230(a)(1) states that the main purpose is to assist producers “to

conserve and enhance soil, water, and related natural resources, including grazing land,

CRS-37

wetland, and wildlife habitat.” The main policy that ECARP creates is the identification of

priority areas “that are eligible for enhanced assistance” through the programs that fall under

the ECARP umbrella. Priority areas are to be designated in locations where producers can

benefit from assistance to comply with federal and state environmental laws or to meet other

conservation needs. The only specified law is the non point water pollution requirements of

the Clean Water Act.

In H.R. 2646, §221would delete the entire ECARP provision, with the exception of

§1230A, which provides relief to producers who have violated provisions of CRP or WRP

through no fault of their own; this subsection would be transferred to a new §1244, in the

Funding and Administration subtitle.

In H.R. 2375, §701 would add a provision to §1230 to require the Secretary to revise

policies by October 1, 2002 to ensure that enrollment of land into the ECARP programs is

equitable among regions.

In S. 1326, §204(a) would extend the authority for ECARP through FY2011.

New Program Proposals

Each bill includes some new program proposals. These proposals are briefly explained

in this section. Some other proposals in these bills are not discussed in this section. All the

proposals to alter forestry programs, other than changes to the FIP, are not included. In

addition, several proposals in two bills that have not been traditionally considered to be part

of resource conservation are not included. These provisions include §1003 of S. 1267, which

would require the Secretary to prepare a study of the effectiveness of agriculture disaster

programs and submit that study to Congress within 60 days of enactment, and several sections

in H.R. 2375, including:

! Expansion of state marketing programs (§102);

! Amendments to the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act (§103);

! Promotion of locally-grown fruits and vegetables (§104);

! Increasing appropriations for assistance to socially-disadvantaged farmers (§105);

! Providing loans and grants for manure reuse activities (§202); and

! A new program to assist in the transition to organic farming, funded at $100 million

annually through the CCC (§401).

Grassland Reserve

Three of the bills would authorize a new grassland reserve. This reserve would be in

addition to the private grazing lands conservation program. Amendments to the existing

program, proposed in H.R. 2375 and S. 1267, are discussed above.

CRS-38

Table 8. Comparison of Proposed Grasslands Reserve Program

Topic

H.R. 2646

H.R. 2375

S. 1267

Program

Purposes

§274 creates a 2 million acre

grasslands reserve under ECARP,

split evenly between restored

grasslands and virgin (never

cultivated) grasslands. Minimum

size for enrolled parcels is 50 acres

east of the 90th meridian and 100

acres west of the 90th meridian.

§306(a) would establish a

new 3 million acre program,

with at least half the land

enrolled using permanent

easements.

In Title IV, §401 creates a 1

million acre grasslands

reserve. Same minimum size

qualifications as in H.R.

2646.

Eligible

Land

§274 permits landowners to enroll

natural grass and shrub land that has

a potential to serve as important plant

or animal habitat.

§306(b) uses the same

definition of eligible land as

in H.R. 2646, except that this

bill also would allow

incidental additional land to

be enrolled.

§401 same as H.R. 2375.

Contracts

§274 permits contracts of 10, 15, and

20 years. Contract payments are

limited to 75% of the grazing value of

the land.

§306(c) permits contracts of

10 years. §306(e) requires

the Sec. to establish a system

for fair compensation.

§401 allows enrollment in;

permanent easements, 30

year easements, easement at

the maximum length

allowed by a state, and 30

year rental agreements.

Permitted

and

Prohibited

Uses

§274 permits contract holders to use

common grazing practices, and

permits haying and mowing outside

the bird nesting season, but prohibits

all agricultural production (except

hay) and all practices that require

disturbing the land surface or

breaking the soil except construction

of fire breaks and fences, or

restoration activities.

§306(c)(2) similar to H.R.

2646 for permitted and

prohibited activities, except

that this bill also prohibits

building permanent structures

on enrolled land.

§401 same as H.R. 2646,

except that this bill requires

periodic inspections of

enrolled lands. It specifies

payment schedules under the

different forms of

enrollment, and requires that

land in a 30 year rental

agreement be reassessed

periodically, with the

payment rate adjusted.

Ranking

Bids

§274 requires the Sec. to develop

ranking criteria, with emphasis on

support for native vegetation, grazing

operations, and plant and animal

diversity.

§306(d) same as H.R. 2646,

and adds preference for large

contiguous tracts of working

farm and ranch land.

No provisions.

Costsharing

Payments

§274 provides cost sharing payments

for restoration of 90% or less on

virgin grasslands or 75% or less on

restored grassland; annual payments

to producers could not exceed 75% of

the grazing value of the land.

No provisions.

§401 limits cost sharing

assistance to 75%, and limits

reimbursement to NRCS for

technical assistance to 10%

of the federal cost of

restoration and the cost of

acquisition.

Program

Administration

§264 makes FSA the primary

implementing agency.

No provisions.

§401 sets criteria for the Sec.

to delegate easements to

private conservation and

land trust organizations, and

requires implementing

regulations to be issued

within 180 days.

Note: S. 1326 does not contain any comparable proposal.

Sec. is the Secretary of Agriculture.

CRS-39

WRP Enhancement Program

In H.R. 2375, §303 would create a 250,000 acre program of cost sharing with states,

modeled after the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Participants could

enroll wetlands in agreements of 10 to 30 years, or in easements of more than 30 years. States

would identify eligible land as significant habitat, having water quality value, or a potential to

reduce floods, with priority given to types of wetlands that are declining or not protected by

law. Eligible lands would include wetlands, converted wetlands, potential wetlands, and

limited buffer areas. States must submit a plan and contribute 25% of the program costs to

participate. The activities permitted and prohibited would be the same as under the grasslands

reserve proposal in H.R. 2375 (discussed above). In land placed under permanent easement,

restoration of wetlands, grassland and shrubs would be permitted, while development and

commercial crop and timber production would be prohibited.

Corridor Demonstration Projects

In H.R. 2375, Title VIII would establish one or more demonstration projects for

ecosystems or watersheds using existing conservation programs, as determined within 90 days

of enactment by the Secretary, in consultation with the states. Agreements with states would

be through a plan about resources to be used, giving the Secretary flexibility to make

adjustments to apply programs more effectively and efficiently. States would have 6 months

from the date of enactment to submit plans; the Secretary would have 30 days to review and

approve the proposal based on 4 specified criteria. States would contribute an unspecified

portion of necessary resources; the federal portion would be funded through an unspecified

portion of the funding for all conservation programs provided through the CCC.

Privacy

Protection of data collected by federal agencies about resource conditions or farm

operations that could be used to identify individuals or to locate specific sites or properties has

been a growing concern to producers. Driving this concern are the expanded ability of

computers to manipulate complex data sets, and efforts by environmental quality programs

to locate possible sources of problems, such as groundwater pollution, that might originate

from agricultural activities. Specific concerns include potential liability and reduced property

values. Producers and landowners reportedly have responded to these concerns by being less

willing to share information about their operations in surveys conducted by agencies in USDA.

In H.R. 2375, §702(f) would protect data about individuals used for evaluation and

monitoring; and allow the use of data aggregated so that individuals could not be identified.

In the EQIP provisions, §201(c) which would establish watershed quality incentive contracts,

has a subsection 9, excludes collected data from federal mandatory disclosure requirements

except “in an aggregate form to measure expected benefits.”

In S. 1276, §1001 would add a new section to subtitle E of the 1985 farm bill (Funding

and Administration subsection) stating that information associated with implementing any

NRCS or FSA conservation program, or with the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) and the

individual sample points from which that data is compiled, is not public and not to be released.

Cooperating agencies and organization, however, could obtain these data. Information from

the NRI could be released in aggregate form that precludes identification of individuals or

specific data gathering sites.

CRS-40

In S. 1326, §201 is identical to privacy provisions in S. 1276, except that it also includes

a provision that allows an individual to disclose information about his operation, but that

information may not be used as a condition for participating in or benefitting from any

program.

Farmland Stewardship Program

In H.R. 2646, §275 would create a new Farmland Stewardship Program, to be

administered by NRCS, “to more precisely tailor and target” current conservation programs,

using program funding on a watershed basis, where possible. Participation would require

matching funds. Participants would submit a management plan and would be encouraged to

use easements, where possible, to implement conservation management.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.