Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of Current Law with Farm Bills Passed by the House and Senate

Order Code RL31255

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of

Current Law with Farm Bills

Passed by the House and Senate

Updated February 28, 2002

Jeffrey A. Zinn

Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of Current

Law with Farm Bills Passed by the House and Senate

Summary

The most recent farm bill is the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127), popularly called the FAIR Act. Most conservation

authorities in the FAIR Act expire at the end of FY2002. Both chambers of

Congress have passed different versions of a new farm bill that will include future

conservation programs and policies. There is pressure on the conference committee

from supporters of agriculture to resolve these differences quickly before farmers

make spring planting decisions. The FY2002 budget resolution, currently in effect,

provides an additional $73.5 billion dollars in budget authority over the next 10 years

for all agricultural spending, on top of the current baseline of about $97 billion, and

the Administration often has stated that it will support that level of budget authority.

The House approved H.R. 2646 on October 5, 2001, after several days of

debate. Perhaps the most contentious issue was an alternative conservation proposal,

called the Kind-Boehlert amendment, which would have transferred an additional $1.9

billion annually from commodity to conservation programs. It was defeated. The

Senate approved S.Amdt. 2471, offered by Senator Daschle, after several days of

debate at the end of the first session and early in the second session. The Daschle

Amendment includes all the conservation provisions in S. 1731, a clean bill filed by

the Senate Agriculture Committee, and other proposals. During the Senate debate

several amendments to conservation amendments were adopted.

This report compares Title II of H.R. 2646 and Title II of S.Amdt. 2471 with

current law in two tables. The first table compares the provisions to current law. The

second table compares proposed annual funding levels for each program.

Provisions in the conservation titles of the two bills have many similarities. Both

bills would extend most existing conservation programs that expire at the end of

FY2002. Both would greatly increase total conservation budget authority above

current levels, and fund almost all the programs through the Commodity Credit

Corporation. Funding for some programs, such as the Environmental Quality

Incentives Program and the Farmland Protection Program, would increase

significantly. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the current baseline for all

mandatory conservation programs through FY2011 to be $21.4 billion. H.R. 2646,

according to CBO, would increase this to $37.2 billion, while S.Amdt. 2471 would

increase it to $42.7 billion. (CBO assumes the legislation is in effect for 10 years and

is not amended.)

Key differences include the period of authorization. H.R. 2646 provides

authorization through FY2011, while S.Amdt. 2471 provides authorization through

FY2006. The House bill primarily reauthorizes existing programs, usually at lower

funding levels than the Senate bill, and enacts few new programs, while the Senate bill

makes more numerous and significant changes to existing programs and to

conservation policies, and also creates many more new programs.

Contents

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

Table 1. Comparison of Current Resource Law with Provisions in Title II of

Farm Bills Passed by House and Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP) . . . . 4

B. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

C. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

D. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

E. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

F. Farmland Protection Program (FPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

G. Other Programs (Including Technical Assistance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

H. New Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 2. Comparison of Current Resource Conservation Funding with

Proposed Funding in Farm Bills Passed by House and Senate . . . . . . . . . . 21

Resource Conservation Title:

Comparison of Current Law with

Farm Bills Passed by the House and Senate

Introduction

Resource conservation programs were first enacted in the 1930s to reduce the

effects of soil erosion on crop production, then expanded in the 1940s and 1950s to

help landowners manage water resources and control floods. The approach to

conservation that developed with these earliest programs has changed little; it is based

on voluntary participation. Participants are attracted by combination of financial,

technical and educational assistance, and results from related research.

Starting with the omnibus farm bill in 1985, Congress rapidly expanded

conservation programs beyond erosion control and water management, and beyond

the goal of improving crop production. Programs now also protect and restore

wetlands and wildlife habitat, and recognize the need to improve air and water quality,

for example. Since the most recent farm bill was enacted in 1996, new issues

emerged, including: the role that agriculture might play in producing energy from

biomass and in sequestering carbon; protection and restoration of grasslands;

reduction of non point water pollution caused by large confined animal feeding

operations; and additional attention to other “off-farm” impacts. Addressing these

issues will continue to expand the breadth of the resource conservation effort. The

effort will also grow as new conservation tools are added, such as easements which

protect resource values while keeping the land under the control of the farmer.

The expanded conservation effort is reflected in funding levels. Conservation

activities at USDA received a total of just over $1 billion in FY1985; they now

receive more than $3 billion annually. Most of this growth has been for land

retirement and easements (e.g., the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve

Programs), while the other activities have grown little in real terms. The 1996 farm

bill moved funding for five conservation programs from discretionary funding, subject

to the annual appropriations process, to mandatory funding through the CCC.

Funding of mandatory conservation programs totaled just over $2 billion in FY2001,

according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Numerous programs are scheduled to expire at the end of FY2002. During

several days of hearings in 2001, the agriculture committees explored program and

policy options. Farm groups generally suggested increasing funding for existing

programs and reducing conservation impediments to farm operations. Other interest

groups, while supporting some of the farmer proposals, recommended more

substantial changes, including new programs and major shifts in policy.

CRS-2

This report consists of two tables. Table 1 lists current resource conservation

law or policy in the first column, and compares these with provisions in the

conservation titles of both bills. Current law or policy is identified by the section in

law where it can be found, and for each bill, the sections where the provisions can be

found are identified. Table entries also note where proposed provisions would move

a program to a different section of law, which S.Amdt. 2471 would do to several

programs. While this table does include funding for each program in both proposals,

Table 2 pulls all the funding information together in one place.

Table 1 identifies only current conservation law and policy that one or both bills

would amend in the conservation title. While this is a large portion of the

conservation effort, it is far from the entire effort. Programs such as Watershed and

Flood Prevention Operations, administered by the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) would not be directly amended by either set of proposals.

Some provisions that might be considered to be conservation topics are found

in other titles, such as the forestry and research titles, and are therefore not included

in this comparison. For example, in the Senate bill:

! amendments to the Forestry Incentive Program, administered by NRCS, which

provides cost-sharing assistance on small private nonindustrial forest lands are

placed in §804, in the forestry title;

! a provision to reduce incentives to convert uncultivated land to crops by

making that land ineligible for certain farm program benefits immediately, is

placed in §170, in the commodity program title (this provisions is similar to

“super sodbuster” in earlier law) ; and

! a provision that the makes violators of swampbuster and conservation

compliance ineligible for crop insurance payments, is placed in §1014, the

miscellaneous provisions.

The table does not include any analysis of the proposed program and policy

changes, or any assessment of their probable effects. Many of these proposals would

likely have significant effects because of: their scope or scale; the places and natural

resources that they could affect; and approaches that implementing agencies choose

to follow in undertaking changed responsibilities. Some of these proposals have gone

through a lengthy gestation period, such as Senator Harkin’s proposed Conservation

Security Program, while others have been extensively analyzed in assessments by

others, such as the Grasslands Reserve Program proposal, championed by the Nature

Conservancy. Less information is available about other proposals. These proposals

include small or limited programs, such as the Cranberry Acreage Reserve, programs

of limited geographic scope, such as the Southern High Plains groundwater

conservation program, and proposals that appeared near the end of the farm bill

process to address an issue that emerged recently, such as the Klamath Basin

provisions, all in the Senate bill.

Table 2 lists, by conservation program, funding/enrollment levels authorized

under current law in the first column, and compares these with proposed

funding/enrollment levels for both bills. All conservation programs in the House bill

would be authorized through 2011, while all conservation programs in the Senate bill

would be authorized through FY2006, unless noted. As currently proposed, most

programs would be first funded in FY2002, although a few would not start until

CRS-3

FY2003. The conservation titles in these bills contain numerous proposed changes

in policy that do not involve funding levels or options; these changes, which in some

instances include how the funds are to be allocated, are identified in table 1. New

smaller programs that would be funded using a portion of funds authorized for a

larger program are included, and the relationship between the new recipient programs

and the larger source programs are identified.

The entry for each program notes whether the proposal would require mandatory

or discretionary funding. (Mandatory funding is provided through the borrowing

authority of USDA‘s Commodity Credit Corporation, while discretionary funding

requires an annual appropriation.) A large majority of conservation funding (although

not a majority of all active conservation programs) already is mandatory, and the

portion of all funding using the CCC would increase under both bills.

Funding levels for many of the programs would increase from year to year.

Higher funding levels in out-years will allow the administering agencies to “ramp up”

their efforts. Given the large magnitude of proposed increases from current levels,

“ramping up” is widely viewed as having the potential to result in more efficient and

effective implementation.

Table 2 provides the official estimates in budget authority prepared by the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO has estimated the baseline budget

authority for all mandatory programs, by year, and increases above that baseline for

both bills over the next 10 years. For each entry in H.R. 2646 that is mandatory

spending, estimated budget authority through FY2006 and FY2011 are included, and

for each entry in S.Amdt. 2471 that is mandatory spending, estimated budget

authority through FY2006 is included. (Most authorizations in this bill expire after

FY2006.)

To summarize the CBO estimates, the total increase in budget authority to

implement the conservation title of H.R. 2646 would be $6.788 billion through

FY2006 and $15.787 billion through FY2011. For S.Amdt. 2471, it estimates a total

increase of $11.776 billion through FY2006. (It also estimates that the total increase

would be $21.303 billion through FY2011 if no further changes were made through

FY2011.) These increases are a significant portion of the $73.5 billion increase in

budget authority authorized in the FY2002 budget agreement for all spending in

programs under the jurisdiction of the agriculture committees.

For several programs, participation is limited by acres permitted to be enrolled,

rather than a cap on funding levels. For these programs, CBO must estimate both the

average cost per acre and the rate at which land would be enrolled. CBO has

developed the following cost estimates for these acreage-based programs:

! For the CRP, $50 per acre annually for regular enrollment, and $100 per acre

for the continuous enrollment option and the Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program (CREP);

! For the proposed Grasslands Reserve Program, $15 to $20 per acre annually;

! For the WRP, $1000 per acre; and

! For the proposed Water Conservation Program, $1,500 per acre, or for the

leasing option, $150 per acre (increasing by 2% to 3% per year).

CRS-4

Table 1. Comparison of Current Resource Law with Provisions in Title II of Farm Bills

Passed by House and Senate

Current Law/Policy

Farm Bill Passed by House

A. Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP)

1. Purpose and Programs. Authorizes program

No provisions.

through long term contacts and acquisition of

easements, to be implemented through the

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands

Reserve Program (WRP), and Environmental Quality

Incentive Program (EQIP). [§1230(a) of the 1985

FSA as amended by §331 of the 1996 FAIR]

Good Faith protection provisions added as §755 of

the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations. [§1230A]

[Note: ECARP is an umbrella under which the CRP,

WRP, and EQIP are placed.]

2. Priority Areas. Permits the Sec. to designate

watershed, multistate areas, or areas of special

environmental sensitivity for enhanced conservation

assistance through the CRP, WRP, and EQIP. [§

1230(c) of the 1985 FSA as amended by §331 of the

1996 FAIR]

B. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

1. Period of Authorization and Purposes.

Authorizes program through FY2002, and states the

purposes are to conserve and improve soil and water

resources. [§1231 (a) of the 1985 FSA as amended

by §322(a)(1) of the 1996 FAIR]

2. Eligibility. Makes certain highly erodible land,

marginal pastureland, and other cropland eligible.

[Section 1231(b) of the 1985 FSA]

Repeals §1230(c). [§201(2)]

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Renames ECARP the Comprehensive Conservation

Enhancement Program (CCEP)and places new name

throughout §1230. [§207(a)]

Amends §1230(a) to reflect changed placement of

conservation programs in 1985 FSA. CCEP includes:

Conservation Reserve Program; Wetlands Reserve

Program; Environmental Quality Incentives Program;

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; a new Grasslands

Reserve Program; and a revised Conservation of Private

Grazing Lands Program.[§211(a)]

Repeals §1230A. [§207(c)] [Note: §1230A is replaced

with new good faith provisions in §1244(a), discussed

below in subsection H and found in §204 of this bill.]

Adds a new subsection giving priority to areas where

projects could be completed most rapidly. [§211(b)]

Reauthorizes CRP through FY2011.

[§211(a)]

Adds wildlife resources to the purposes of the

program. [§211(b)]

Reauthorizes CRP through FY2006. [§212(a)]

Repeals the limit on enrolling marginal

pastureland to less than 10% of the total

enrolled acres, expands the definition of other

eligible cropland to include threats to soil and

air quality, and makes eligible land in

Makes eligible land that has a cropping history for 3 of

the 6 years preceding enactment (and land enrolled in

the CRP on that date), and adds a new subsection that

makes land enrolled under the continuous signup and the

buffer initiative eligible for the regular program.

CRS-5

Current Law/Policy

3. Enrollment Ceiling. Authorizes enrollment

ceiling at 36.4 million acres. [§1231(d) of the 1985

FSA as amended by §332(b) of the 1996 FAIR.]

4. Duration of Contract. Allows CRP contracts for

some land devoted to hardwood trees, shelter belts,

wind breaks, or wildlife corridors to be longer than

the 10 to 15 years allowed for other contracts.

[§1231(e)(2) of the 1985 FSA]

5. Conservation Priority Areas. Requires the Sec.

to establish, at the request of a state, priority

watersheds in specified and other areas where

enrollment would “maximize water quality and

habitat benefits.” [§1231(f) of the 1985 FSA]

6. Enrollment Subcategories. Authorizes a

500,000 acre pilot program, with enrollment limited

to 150,000 acres in any state for small wetlands(less

than 5 acres) and buffers in 6 specified upper

Midwestern states. [A new §1231(h), enacted in Title

XI of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L.

106-387]

Farm Bill Passed by House

production for at least 4 years that would

contribute to conservation of ground and

surface water. [§212(a)]

Adds a new §231(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. [§212(d)]

Raises ceiling to 39.2 million acres. [§212(b)]

No provisions.

Allows land enrolled under this subchapter to

be eligible to reenroll in the CRP. [§212(c)]

Expands the pilot program to all states and

limits enrollment in any state to 150,000

acres. [§215]

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

[§212(b)]

Raises ceiling to 41.1 million acres. [§212(c)] [Note:

§215(a), water conservation, lowers the CRP enrollment

ceiling from 41.1 million acres to 40.0 million acres,

then adds 500,000 acres for a new pilot program,

bringing the total to 40.5 million acres.]

Amends §1231(e)(2) to allow the Sec. to extend

contracts on hardwood forests for up to 15 years, and

limits annual payments to 50% of the original contract

amount. New contracts can be from 10 to 30 years in

length. [§212(d)]

Gives priority to areas where designation would lead to

the most rapid completion of projects. [§212(b)]

Deletes “pilot”, reauthorizes the program through

FY2006, and increases the maximum size of eligible

sites from 5 acres to 10 acres (but only up to 5 acres are

eligible for payments). [§212(e)]

CRS-6

Current Law/Policy

7. Duties of Owners and Operators. Sets limits on

commercial uses of lands in the CRP, but allows the

Sec. to permit harvesting or grazing under very

limited circumstances. [§1232(a)(7) of the 1985 FSA

as amended by the 1990 FACTA]

Sets a goal of planting 1/8 of the land enrolled each

year to trees or habitat. [§1232(c) of the 1985 FSA]

Allows alley-cropping. [§1232(d) of the 1985 FSA]

Farm Bill Passed by House

Allows certain economic uses of enrolled

lands if consistent with soil, water, and

wildlife conservation. These uses include

managed grazing and haying (with reduced

payments), siting of wind turbines, and

harvesting biomass to produce energy (with

reduced payments). Deletes subsections (c)

and (d). [§213]

8. Payments. Lays out the terms and conditions for

CRP payments. [§1234 of the 1985 FSA as amended

by §1434(a) of the 1990 FACTA)

Payments for easements limited to $50,000 per year.

[§1239C(f) of the 1985 FSA]

No provisions.

9. County Enrollment Limits. Limits enrollment in

the CRP and WRP to 25% of county cropland, and

limits easements to 10%; limits may be exceeded if it

would not adversely affect the local economy or if

operators are having difficulty meeting compliance

requirements. [§1243(b) of the 1985 FSA as

amended by §341 of the 1996 FAIR.]

10. Funding and Administration. Provides

mandatory funding through the CCC. [§1241(a) of

the 1985 FSA as amended by §341 of the 1996

FACT]

Repeals the provision allowing the Sec. to

exceed the county enrollment limit if operators

are having difficulty meeting compliance

requirements. [§244(a)]

Reauthorizes mandatory funding through

FY2011. [§241]

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Adds a new subsection that allows irrigated land to be

enrolled through the buffer initiative or the CREP at the

irrigated land rate. [Section 212(f)]

Allows participants to plant native prairie grasses on

enrolled marginal pastureland, to permit harvesting or

grazing for maintenance purposes on lands enrolled

through the buffer initiative or the CREP, and adds a

new subsection that makes crop production on other

highly erodible land a violation of a CRP contract

unless it has a cropping history or was a building site

when it was purchased. [§212(g)]

Adds a new subsection that permits wind turbines on

CRP land (except land enrolled in the continuous

enrollment), with payments reduced based on the

diminished value for CRP. [§212(h)]

Adds a new subsection to provide enrollment and cost

sharing payments to producers who enroll land in the

buffer initiative or through a CREP. [§212(i)]

Exempts payments for land enrolled in the buffer

initiative or through a CREP from the payment limit

for easements. [§212(j)]

Exempts land enrolled under the continuous signup

from county enrollment limit. [§212(k)]

Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006,

and includes funding for technical assistance in support

of this program. [§211(c)]

CRS-7

Current Law/Policy

11. Study of Economic Effects. No provisions.

C. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

1. Enrollment. The 1990 FACTA adds a new

§1237 to the 1985 FSA establishing the WRP and

capping enrollment at 975,000 acres. [Section 1438]

Enrollment allowed through calendar year 2002.

[§333(b)(1) of the 1996FAIR]

Enrollment ceiling increased from 975,000 acres to

1,075,000 acres. [§808 of the FY2001 Agriculture

Appropriations (P.L. 106-387)]

2. Enrollment Options. Requires 1/3 enrollment

each using permanent easements, 30 year easements,

and long-term agreements. [§1237(b) of the 1985

FSA as amended by §333(a) of the 1996 FAIR]

3. Easements and Agreements. Describes the

general terms of easements and agreements. 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. [§1237A of the 1985 FSA as

amended by §333(d)(1) of the 1996 FAIR]

4. Secretarial Duties, including Technical

Assistance. Describes how cost sharing and technical

assistance will be provided; and how priorities will be

set for determining which bids to accept. [§1237C of

the 1985 FSA]

Farm Bill Passed by House

No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Requires the Sec. to report to the House and Senate

Agriculture Committees on the economic and social

effects of the CRP on rural communities within 270

days of enactment. Specifies 3 components of the

analysis. [§212(l)]

Allows enrollment of up to 150,000 acres per

calendar year starting in 2002, with any acres

up to the annual limit that are not enrolled can

be enrolled in succeeding years, through

FY2011. [§221(a)]

Authorizes enrollment through FY2011.

[§221(c)}

Authorizes WRP enrollment through calendar year

2006. [§214(c)] Sets a maximum enrollment ceiling of

2,225,000 acres, and an annual enrollment ceiling of

250,000 acres, of which up to 25,000 acres can be

enrolled in the new Wetland Reserve Enhancement

Program. [§214(b)]

Deletes the 1/3 requirement, and the

distinction between permanent and temporary

easements. [§221(b]

Creates a new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program

that allows agreements with state and local government,

and non-governmental organizations to restore wetlands

on land in or eligible to be enrolled in the WRP.

[§214(d)]

No provisions.

Replaces the 4 specific prohibitions with a

general statement to allow only changes

permitted in the plan. It deletes subsection

(e), which distinguishes 3 lengths of

easements, and subsection (h), which can

require wetlands to be restored if there is no

easement. [§222]

Deletes subsection (d), which requires the Sec.

to give priority to using permanent easements.

[§223]

Amends §1237C(a) to provide funds from the CCC for

technical assistance in support of the WRP. [§214(a)]

Amends §1237C(a)(2) to add monitoring and

maintenance to the types of technical assistance

provided to participants. [§214(e)]

CRS-8

Current Law/Policy

5. Changes in Ownership. Limits program entry if

ownership changes occurred during the previous

year, and specifies terms under which easements can

be modified or terminated. [§1237E of the 1985

FSA]

6. Funding. Funding from the CCC is authorized to

implement the WRP. [§1241(a) of the 1985 FSA]

Farm Bill Passed by House

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. [§224]

Reauthorizes mandatory funding through

FY2011. [§241]

D. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

1. Program Purposes. Identifies 4 programs that

Deletes reference to the programs that were

EQIP replaces. Specifies that EQIP maximize

replaced; replaces the purpose of responding

environmental benefits per dollar spent while meeting to environmental threats with the purpose of

4 purposes. [§334 of the 1996 FAIR adds §1240 to

providing environmental benefits; and expands

the 1985 FSA]

the benefits to include air quality. [§231]

2. Definitions. Defines “eligible land”, “land

Adds non-industrial private forest land to

management practice”, “livestock”, “producer”, and

“eligible land”, and replaces the notion of

“structural practice”. [§1240A of the 1985 FSA]

posing an environmental threat with the notion

of providing environmental benefits in that

definition; and “producer” is expanded to

include non-industrial private forestry. [§232]

3. Program Administration. Authorizes EQIP

Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2011;

through 2002; eligible practices include structural and authorizes contracts of 1 to 10 years; repeals

land management practices; authorizes contracts of 5

requirement that structural practices be

to 10 years; provides cost-share of not more than 75% selected to maximize environmental benefits

for structural practices; prohibits cost sharing to large per dollar spent; deletes limitation on

livestock operations to construct animal waste

payments to large livestock operations to

management facilities; provides incentive payments

construct animal waste management facilities;

for land management practices; provides funding (not and adds a new provision to make incentive

to exceed projected costs) for technical assistance;

payments at an amount and rate to encourage

and lists types of private sources to provide technical

multiple land management practices, with

assistance. [§1240B of the 1985 FSA]

emphasis on payments for practices that

address “residue, nutrient, pest, invasive

species, and air quality management.”

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

No provisions.

Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006,

and includes funding for technical assistance in support

of this program. [§211(c)]

Specifies that EQIP is to promote production and

environmental quality while maximizing environmental

benefits per dollar spent by assisting producers to meet

6 specified purposes. [§213(a)]

Adds definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher”,

“comprehensive nutrient management”, “innovative

technology”, “managed grazing”, “maximum

environmental benefits per dollar expended”, “practice”,

and “program”. [§213(a)]

Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2006; adds

comprehensive nutrient management planning to the list

of eligible practices; allows the Sec. to provide

conservation education to producers; authorizes

contracts of 3 to 10 years; limits producers to 1 contract

for structural practices to manage livestock nutrients

through FY2006; limits large confined livestock

operators to 1 contract over authorization period for a

waste storage or treatment facility; authorizes

application and evaluation procedures for selecting

applicants; prohibits bidding down; limits cost sharing

payments to 75% (up to 90% for limited resource and

beginning farmers, or to address a natural disaster);

CRS-9

Current Law/Policy

Farm Bill Passed by House

[§233]

4. Evaluation of Offers. 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.

[§1240C of the 1985 FSA]

5. Duties of Producers. Lists 5 duties; one is a

prohibition against practices that counter the purposes

of EQIP. [§1240D of the 1985 FSA]

6. Program Plan. Lists the general contents of plans

producers are required to submit to the Sec. to

participate. [§1240E of the 1985 FSA]

7. Secretarial Duties. Assigns 5 duties to the Sec;

one is to provide technical assistance and cost-share

or incentive payments for structural and land

management practices; another is to prepare an

eligibility assessment. [§1240F of the 1985 FSA]

8. Payment Limits and Timing. Limits payments to

$10,000 annually and $50,000 per contract; specifies

the annual limit can be exceeded to maximize the

environmental benefits per dollar spent; and delays

federal expenditures until the year after the contract

has been signed. [§1240G of the 1985 FSA]

Replaces these provisions with general

language about aiding farmers to comply with

environmental laws and encourage

conservation, maximizing the benefits of using

manure and other soil amendments, and

encouraging sustainable grazing systems.

[§234]

No provisions.

Replaces mention of management and

structural practices with providing greater

environmental benefits. [§235]

Deletes incentive payments from

implementing structural and land management

practices. [§236]

Limits payments to $50,000 annually and

$200,000 per contract; repeals language

allowing annual limits to be exceeded to

provide maximum environmental benefit per

dollar spent, and provisions to delay federal

expenditures until the year after the contract

has been signed. [§237]

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

prohibits duplicate cost sharing payments for the same

practice; eliminates (by not including) the limitation on

cost-sharing with large confined livestock operations for

waste management facilities; permits incentive

payments for technical assistance to certified individuals

to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans;

and specifies circumstances for terminating contracts.

[§213(a)]

Adds higher priority also to be given for special projects

initiated by a new partnership program to address

environmental issues placed in §1243(f), and to

innovative technologies for structural or land

management practices. [§213(a)]

Almost identical to current law, except gives the Sec.

greater latitude in determining the appropriate penalty

for violations. [§213(a)]

Almost identical to current law. [§213(a)]

Almost identical to current law, except that it deletes

(by not including) the duty of providing an eligibility

assessment. [§213(a)]

Limits total payments under all contracts to $30,000

annually, $90,000 for 3 year contracts, $120,000 for 4

year contracts, and $150,000 for a contract of 4 years

or more. The Sec. can waive the annual limit to

increase environmental benefits. Deletes provisions to

delay federal expenditures until the year after the

contract has been signed. [§213(a)]

CRS-10

Current Law/Policy

9. Other Provisions. Lays out temporary transition

provisions as EQIP replaces 4 repealed programs.

[§1240H of the 1985 FSA]

Farm Bill Passed by House

Replaces current language in §1240H with

provisions that provide $30 million, in

FY2002, $45 million in FY2003, and $60

million annually in FY2004-11 from the CCC

for cost share payments and low interest loans

to encourage ground and surface water

conservation. [§238]

10. Funding and Administration. Provides $200

million annually through FY2002 from the CCC for

EQIP, with 50% of the total going to practices related

to livestock production. [§1241 of the 1985 FSA as

amended by several annual agricultural

appropriations laws]

Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through

FY2011. [§241]

Provides: $.2 billion in FY2001; $1.025

billion in FY2002-3; $1.2 billion in FY20046; $1.4 billion in FY2007-9; and $1.5 billion

in FY2010-11. [§242]

Reauthorizes the livestock provision through

FY2011. [§243]

E. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

1. Period of Authorization. Provides a total of $50

million from the CCC (from CRP funding) by the end

of FY2002. [§387(c) of the 1996 FAIR]

Reauthorizes funding from the CCC at: $25

million in FY2002; $30 million in FY2003-4;

$35 million in FY2005-6; $40 million in

FY2007; $45 million in FY2008-9; and $50

million in FY2010-11. [§ 252]

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Replaces current language in §1240H with provisions

that provide $100 million annually from EQIP funds,

starting in FY2003, for competitive innovative matching

grants and specifies examples to include market systems

for pollution reduction, promoting carbon sequestration

in soil and other Best Management Practices, and

protecting drinking water quality; permits funds from

other sources; limits funding to 50% of cost; funds

unobligated by April 1 each year can be spent on other

EQIP purposes. Adds new program as §1240I for

groundwater conservation in the southern high plains to

improve irrigation efficiency and reduce water use using

EQIP funds. ($15 million in FY2003, $25 million in

FY2004-5, $35 million in FY2006, and $0 in FY2007)

Adds new pilot programs for drinking water suppliers,

and provides incentives to reduce nutrient loads in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed using EQIP funds as

§1240J. ($10 million in FY2003, $15 million in

FY2004, $20 million in FY2005, $25 million in

FY2006, and $0 in FY2007) [§213(a)]

Provides: $.5 billion in FY2002; $1.3 billion in

FY2003; $1.45 billion in FY2004-5; $1.5 billion in

FY2006; and $.85 billion in FY2007. Provides funding

for technical assistance from the CCC. [§241(b)]

Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006,

and includes funding for technical assistance in support

of this program. [§211(c)]

Moves WHIP to §1240M of the 1985 FSA,

reauthorizes funding from the CCC at: $50 million in

FY2002; $225 million in FY2003; $275 million in

FY2004; $325 million in FY2005; $355 million in

FY2006; and $50 million in FY2007. All funding is to

CRS-11

Current Law/Policy

Farm Bill Passed by House

2. Establishing WHIP. No provisions.

No provisions.

3. Cost-sharing Payments. Authorizes cost sharing

payments for several approved purposes. [§387(b)]

4. Participation Related to Public Lands. No

provisions.

No provisions.

5. Pilot Program. No provisions.

No provisions.

F. Farmland Protection Program (FPP)

1. Funding Level. Provides up to a total of $35

million from the CCC by FY2002. [§388(c) of the

1996 FAIR]

Provides up to $50 million annually through

FY2011 from the CCC. [§ 253(b)]

2. Eligible Land. 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.

[§388(a) of the 1996 FAIR]

3. Conservation Planning. Requires a conservation

No provisions.

Deletes the maximum and minimum acreage

limits, and makes historic and archaeological

sites eligible. [§253(a)]

No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

remain available until spent. Provides funding for

technical assistance from the CCC. [§217(g)]

Requires consultation with STCs to establish WHIP.

[§217(b)]

Requires the Sec. to use at least 15% of the cost-sharing

funds on endangered and threatened species. [§217(c)]

Makes individuals and organizations leasing public

lands eligible for grants. [§217(e)]

Allows funds to be used on public lands if they will

benefit private lands. [§217(f)]

Allows the Sec. to use up to 15% of the funds to enroll

land for at least 15 years to protect “essential plant and

animal habitat.” [§217(d)]

Moves the FPP to §1238H-J of the 1985 FSA and

requires that the program be administered by NRCS

[§218(a)]

Repeals §388 of the 1996 FAIR. [§218(c)]

Reauthorizes funding from the CCC at: $150 million in

FY2002; $250 million in FY2003; $400 million in

FY2004; $450 million in FY2005; $500 million in

FY2006; and $100 million in FY2007. Provides

funding for technical assistance from the CCC; limits

the federal share to 50%, and limits the portion of the

non federal share provided by the landowner or in inkind

goods and services to 25%; prohibits bidding down.

[§218(b)]

Same as §253(a); and also defines eligible land to

include cropland, rangeland, grassland, pasture land and

forest land that is part of an agricultural operation.

[§218(a)]

Identical to current law. [§218(a)]

CRS-12

Current Law/Policy

plan if the land is highly erodible; the Sec. can require

conversion of land to a less intensive use in the plan.

[§388(b) of the 1996 FAIR]

4. Eligible Participants. Makes eligible any state or

local agency that has made an offer to purchase a

conservation easement. [§388(a) of the 1996 FAIR]

5. New Program Options. No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by House

Expands eligibility to also include federally

recognized Indian tribes, and non profit

organizations that meet specified

qualifications. [§253(c)]

No provisions.

G. Other Programs (Including Technical Assistance)

1. Resource Conservation and Development

Permanently reauthorizes program, and makes

Program (RC&D). Provides assistance to encourage numerous other, mostly minor or technical

and improve the capacity of state and local

amendments. [§254]

governments and non profits in rural areas to develop [Note: Many of the changes in the two bills

and implement conservation programs. Authorized

are different from each other, but they do not

through FY2002. [Title III of the Bankhead-Jones

change the basic intent or operation of the

Farm Tenant Act as amended by §1528-§1538 of the program.]

1981 AFA]

2. Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.

Authorizes $15 million annually in “FY2002

Provides financial and technical assistance to

and each succeeding year” to fund the Small

rehabilitate water structures that are nearing or past

Watershed Rehabilitation Program. [§257]

the end of their design life. Authorizes

appropriations of: $5 million in FY2001; $10 million

in FY2002; $15 million in FY2003; $25 million in

FY2004; and $35 million in FY2005. [Authorized in

§313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse

Improvement Act of 2000]

3. Conservation of Private Grazing Lands.

Adds encouraging the use of sustainable

Provide coordinated technical, educational, related

grazing systems to the list of activities for

assistance to preserve and enhance privately-owned

which assistance can be provided. [§251]

grazing lands; authorizes 2 demonstration districts,

and authorizes $20 million in FY1996, $40 million in

FY1997, and $60 million in FY1998 and each

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Identical to §253(c). [§218(a)]

Allows up to $10 million to be spent annually to provide

matching grants for market development, and technical

assistance to participants. [§218(a)]

Permanently reauthorizes program, and makes

numerous other, mostly minor or technical amendments.

[§216]

[Note: Many of the changes in the two bills are different

from each other, but they do not change the basic intent

or operation of the program.]

No provisions.

Moves the program to a new §1240P of the 1985 FSA,

makes numerous other, mostly minor, changes, and

authorizes$60 million annually through FY2006.

[§217(a)]

Repeals provisions establishing program in §386 of the

1996 FAIR. [§217(b)]

CRS-13

Current Law/Policy

subsequent year. [§386 of the 1996 FAIR]

4. Technical Assistance. Allows persons who need

and apply a conservation compliance plan to obtain

technical assistance from approved sources other than

NRCS; the Sec. must document a rejection of

assistance from those sources [§1243(d) of the 1985

FSA]

5. State Technical Committees (STC). Creates

STCs , lists the composition, outlines responsibilities

to include providing “information, analysis, and

recommendations” on implementing conservation

provisions (including several specified topics) to the

state conservationist, and exempts the STC from

FACA meeting requirements. [§1261 of the 1985

FSA]

6. Repeals of Authorized Programs and Activities.

No provisions.

H. New Programs

Farm Bill Passed by House

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Allows producers to seek assistance from

third parties, who have the specified expertise,

and requires the Sec. to develop a system for

approving qualified third parties who provide

technical assistance to EQIP participants

within 6 months of enactment. [§244(b)]

No provisions.

Adds a new §1244(f) to the 1985 FSA requiring the

Sec. to create a certification program for third parties to

provide technical assistance, specifies standards for

certification, permits the Sec. to repay landowners who

use third parties, and establishes an advisory committee

for the certification program. [§204]

Expands membership in STCs to include expertise in

forestry, restates its responsibilities to mesh with other

changes this legislation makes to conservation

programs, and makes subcommittees and local working

groups working on STC business exempt from FACA.

[§220]

Repeals provisions: creating the Wetlands

Mitigation Banking Program [§1222(k) of the

1985 FSA]; exempting CRP payments from

any limits under the 1985 FSA, the 1990

FACTA, and the 1949 AA [§1234(f)(3)];

protecting the base history of land enrolled in

the CRP [§1236 of the 1985 FSA]; exempting

WRP payments from any limits under the

1985 FSA, the 1990 FACTA, and the 1949

AA [§1237D(c)(3)] and; creating the

Environmental Easement Program [§1239 of

the 1985 FSA], the Conservation Farm

Option [§1240M of the 1985 FSA], and the

Tree Planting Initiative [§1256 of the 1985

FSA]. [§261]

Repeals the National Natural Resources

Conservation Foundation [§351-§360 of the

1996 FAIR]. [§262]

Repeals numerous conservation programs in current law

and reauthorizes them in other sections of farm law, as

noted in the entries above.

CRS-14

Current Law/Policy

1. Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP).

A. Reserve Size. No provisions.

B. Eligible Lands. No provisions.

C. Enrollment Options. No provisions.

D. Permitted and Prohibited Uses of Enrolled Lands.

No provisions.

E. Ranking Criteria for Bids. No provisions.

F. Payment Levels. No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by House

Places GRP in §1238 of the 1985 FSA,

creating a 2 million acre grasslands reserve,

split evenly between restored grasslands and

virgin (never cultivated) grasslands.

§1238(b)(1) sets minimum size for enrolled

parcels at 50 contiguous acres east of the 90th

meridian and 100 contiguous acres west of the

90th meridian. [§255(a)]

Defines eligible land to include natural grass

and shrub land that has a potential to serve as

important plant or animal habitat, or has been

historically dominated by natural grass or

shrubland. [§255(a)]

Spends at least 2/3 of funds on contracts of 10

to 20 years, and the remainder on 30 year or

permanent easements. [§255(a)]

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 almost all practices that require

disturbing the land surface in §1238(A)(b).

[§255(a)]

Requires the Sec. to develop ranking criteria

for reviewing applications, with emphasis on

support for native vegetation, grazing

operations, and plant and animal diversity,

and to set the terms for restoration. [§255(a)]

Describes how payment levels are to be set for

each form of participation, sets cost sharing

payments for restoration at 90% for virgin

grasslands and 75% for restored grasslands,

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Places GRP in §1238N-P of the 1985 FSA, creating a 2

million acre grasslands reserve, of which up to 500,000

acres will be native grasslands in tracts of 40 acres or

less. §1238N sets minimum size for enrolled parcels at

40 contiguous acres east of the 98th meridian and 100

contiguous acres west of the 98th meridian [§219(a)]

Same definition of eligible land as in H.R. 2646, except

that it also allows incidental additional land that is

necessary for the administrative efficiency of an

easement to be enrolled. [§219(a)]

Allows permanent easements, 30 year easements, the

longest easements allowed by state law, and 30 year

rental agreements. §1238Q allows Sec. to delegate

easements to state agencies, private conservation

organizations and land trusts. [§219(a)]

Similar to H.R. 2646 for permitted and prohibited uses

of enrolled lands. [§219(a)]

Requires Sec. to work with STCs in developing ranking

criteria, and to give priority to grazing operations,

maintaining or restoring biodiversity, and land under the

greatest threat of conversion. [§219(a)]

Describes how payment levels are to be set for each

form of participation, provides that rental agreements be

reviewed and adjusted at least once every 5 years, limits

cost-sharing payments to 75% for restoration, and

CRS-15

Current Law/Policy

G. Penalties for Violation. No provisions.

H. Funding. No provisions.

2. Farmland Stewardship Program. No

provisions.

3. Conservation Security Program (CSP). No

provisions

Farm Bill Passed by House

and provides technical assistance. [§255(a)]

No provisions.

Amends §1241 of the 1985 FSA to provide a

total of $254 million through the CCC

through FY2011to implement the GRP.

[§255(b)]

Adds this program as a new §1239 to the

1985 FSA. It is to be administered by NRCS

“to more precisely tailor and target” current

conservation programs, using program

funding on a watershed basis, where possible.

Participation requires matching funds, and

can involve other agencies. Participants

submit a management plan and are

encouraged to use easements to implement

conservation management. [§256]

[Note: No appropriations are authorized, so

all funding would come from existing

programs]

No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

provides technical assistance. [§219(a)]

Describes the roles of the Sec. and the landowner in

implementing restoration agreements, and lists the

penalties for violations, and allows periodic site

inspections. [§219(a)]

Amends §1241 of the 1985 FSA to provide such sums

as necessary from the CCC to implement the GRP.

[§219(b)]

Conservation Security Program (CSP). Authorizes a

CSP in §1238– §1238B of the 1985 FSA. Defines 22

terms and lists 13 program purposes. To participate,

producers must have an approved plan for eligible

lands, which are any “private agricultural land” except

land in the CRP and WRP, or that has not been in

production at least 3 of the preceding 10 years.

Producers can receive an advance payment when they

enroll, base payments, and bonus payments for certain

practices. Practices required for each of 3 tiers of

participation are specified, and minimum requirements

for each will be determined at the state level and

CRS-16

Current Law/Policy

Farm Bill Passed by House

4. Partnerships and Cooperation. No provisions.

No provisions.

5. Watershed Risk Reduction Program. No

provisions.

No provisions.

6. Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment

Control Program. No provisions.

No provisions.

7. Water Conservation Program. No provisions.

No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

approved by the Sec. Land in an approved plan will be

enrolled in a contract between FY2003 and FY2006;

Tier 1 contracts will be 5 years; Tier II and III contracts

will be 5 to 10 years, and contracts can be renewed.

Total annual payments are limited to $20,000 for Tier I,

$35,000 for Tier II, and $50,000 for Tier III. Specified

practices are ineligible. One state pilot programs is

authorized after October 1, 2004. [§201]

Amends §1241 of the 1985 FSA by adding a new

subsection (c) to provide “such funds as are necessary”

from the CCC through FY2006. [§202]

Allows implementation to start on the date of enactment.

[§206]

Adds a new §1242(f) to the 1985 FSA to allow special

projects as recommended by a state conservationist,

which can respond to meeting the requirements of three

specified federal environmental laws or addressing

watersheds or other areas with significant environmental

problems. Participants agree to a plan to adjust

implementation of conservation programs to increase

environmental benefits. Funding uses 5% of EQIP

funds annually, with any unused funds to go to other

EQIP activities that year. [§203]

Authorizes $15 million annually through FY2006 to

implement a new program to purchase floodplain

easements at §1240N of the 1985 FSA. [§217(a)]

Authorizes $5 million annually through FY2006 to

implement a new soil erosion and sediment control

program for the Great Lakes basin at Section 1240O of

the 1985 FSA. [§217(a)]

Reduces CRP enrollment ceiling from 41.1 million acres

to 40.0 million acres. [§215(a)]

Authorizes two new programs. One will allow up to

500,000 acres to be enrolled in state CREPs to

CRS-17

Current Law/Policy

Farm Bill Passed by House

8. Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.

No provisions.

No provisions.

9. Organic Agriculture Research Trust Fund. No

provisions.

No provisions.

10. National Organic Research Endowment

Institute. No provisions.

No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

contribute to the restoration os a water course or lake,

and permit leasing or purchasing water rights. Priority

given to places where more than 20% of the cost would

be paid from non federal sources and promotes any of 4

specified benefits for fish, wildlife, and plants.

Protection of state water laws are specified. Eligible

states are Nevada, California, New Mexico,

Washington, Oregon, Maine, and New Hampshire;

others can apply to participate. [§215(b)]

Authorizes new Water Conservation Program in

§1240R of the 1985 FSA. NRCS will provide cost

sharing assistance to increase irrigation efficiency,

convert production to less water-intensives crops, and

acquire water rights. Protection of state and other water

laws required. Nebraska and South Dakota are

ineligible, while the same seven states as in the program

above are eligible, and others may apply. Authorizes

funding from the CCC at $25 million in FY2002, $52

million in FY2003, and $100 million annually in

FY2004 through FY2006, with $5 million allocated

each year to monitoring activities. [§215(c)]

Authorizes a new program in §1240Q of the 1985 FSA

to appropriate $5 million annually through FY2006 to

use technical assistance capabilities of state rural water

associations that operate wellhead or groundwater

protection programs. [§217(a)]

Provides $45 million from the CCC in FY2003, to

remain available until spent and to accrue interest, in

FY2003 to establish a new research fund on organic

products. [§231]

Establishes a National Organic Research Endowment

Institute to develop and implement a plan for research

on organic products using the trust fund (established in

§231). [§232]

CRS-18

Current Law/Policy

11. Cranberry Acreage Reserve. No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by House

No provisions.

12. Klamath Basin. No provisions.

No provisions.

13. Administrative Requirements for

Conservation Programs

A. Relief for Good Faith Actions

No provisions.

B. Assistance for Limited Resource Producers. No

provisions.

No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Authorizes purchase of permanent easements on

wetlands and buffers that are part of a cranberry

operation from willing sellers. Authorizes $10 million

annually for this activity. [§261]

Authorizes the Sec. to create a federal task force

(membership specified) to develop a coordinated federal

effort to manage water resources in this basin, with 6

duties specified. In addition to using existing programs,

the Task Force will establish a grant program to carry

out its responsibilities. [§262(a) and (b)]

The task force will issue an initial report within 180

days of enactment, a draft 5-year plan to implement its

duties within 60 days thereafter, and a final plan within

1 year of enactment. Eight items to be considered in the

plan are specified. [§262(c)]

Consultation with specified non-federal entities is

required. [§262(d)]

Authorizes a total of $175 million from the CCC from

FY2003 through FY2006, and specifies that $15 million

is to go to specified tribes in Oregon and $15 million to

specified tribes in California. Funds may not be

obligated after September 30, 2006. [§262(e)]

Adds a new §1244(a) to the 1985 FSA giving the Sec.

the option of granting relief to conservation program

participants who act in good faith under a contract, and

are subsequently determined to be in violation. Types

of relief and exceptions are specified. [§204]

Adds a new §1244(b) which provides necessary funds

from the CCC to assist certain limited resource, socially

disadvantaged, and beginning producers, and Indian

tribes to participate in conservation programs by

providing “education, outreach, monitoring, evaluation,

and related services.” The Sec. may contract with other

entities to provide these services. Adds a new §1244(c)

CRS-19

Current Law/Policy

Farm Bill Passed by House

C. Data Collection and Program Evaluation.

No provisions.

D. Mediation. No provisions.

No provisions.

E. Privacy of Personal Information (Confidentiality).

No provisions.

No provisions.

F. Tribal Lands. No provisions.

No provisions.

G. Regional Equity of Conservation Spending. No

provisions.

No provisions.

14. Assessment of Conservation Programs. No

provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

allowing the Sec. to provide incentives to these

producers(except socially-disadvantaged ones) to

participate in conservation programs. [§204]

Adds a new §1244(d) which requires the Sec. to collect

data that would permit evaluation of conservation

programs. [§204]

Adds a new §1244(e) which requires the Sec. to provide

mediation services when an adverse decision is made

about a conservation program. [§204] [Note: §1244(f),

on technical assistance, is discussed above, in entry

G4.]

Adds a new §1244(g) to prohibit the Sec. from releasing

personal information about individuals related to

conservation programs, except in aggregate. [§204]

Adds a new §1244(h) which requires the Sec. to

cooperate with a tribal government when carrying out

conservation programs on tribal lands. [§204]

Requires that each state receive at least $12 million

annually from FY2002 through FY2006, for

conservation programs. Of the total, $5 million is to be

used for EQIP, and $7 million is to be used for other

conservation programs, with any portion not obligated

by April 1of the fiscal year to be reobligated to other

specified programs. [§241]

Assessment of Conservation Programs. Requires the

Sec. to develop a plan to better coordinate and

consolidate the implementation of conservation

programs to insure funding of highest priorities while

accounting for regional variation. [§ 205(a)]

Requires the Sec. to provide the plan (and

recommendations) to both agriculture committees within

180 days of enactment. [§205(b)]

Requires the Sec. to provide a plan (with a cost

estimate) for updating the national conservation

program required by the Soil and Water Resources

Conservation Act of 1977 to both agriculture

committees within 180 days of enactment, and to report

CRS-20

Current Law/Policy

Farm Bill Passed by House

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

to both committees on the status of plan implementation

by April 30, 2005. [§205(c)]

Requires the Sec. to revise conservation technical

standards within 180 days of enactment , and to update

them at least once every 5 years. [§205(d)]

CRS-21

Table 2. Comparison of Current Resource Conservation Funding with Proposed Funding in Farm Bills

Passed by House and Senate

Current Law/Policy

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

Capped at 36.4 million acres; mandatory

spending authorized through FY2002. (16

U.S.C. 3831-3836, and 3841)

Farm Bill Passed by House

CRP capped at 39.2 million acres; mandatory

funding authorized through 2011. (CBO estimates

increase in budget authority of $574 million

through FY2006, and $1.517 billion through

FY2011.)

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Capped

at 1,075,000 acres in total with no annual

enrollment goal or limit; mandatory spending

authorized through FY2002. (16 U.S.C. 38373837f, and 3841)

WRP capped at 150,000 acres per calender year,

and any acres within that cap not used in a given

year can be enrolled in subsequent years;

mandatory funding authorized through 2011.

(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of

$859 million through FY2006, and $1.726 billion

through FY2011.)

EQIP mandatory funding authorized at:

$0.200 billion in FY2001;

$1.025 billion in FY2002 and 3;

$1.200 billion in FY2004 through 6;

$1.400 billion in FY2007 through 9; and

$1.500 billion in FY2010 and 11.

(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of

$4.650 billion through FY2006, and $10.850

billion through FY2011. (Excludes a new Ground

and Surface Water Conservation Program,

discussed below and estimated separately by

CBO))

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

(EQIP) Authorized at $130 million in

mandatory spending in FY 1996, and $200

million annually in FY1997 through FY2002.

(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3839aa-8, and 3841)

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

CRP capped at 41.1 million acres (the Water

Conservation Program would reduce it to 40.0 million

acres, and then adds a .5 million acre pilot program,

making the final total 40.5 million acres.) Mandatory

funding authorized through FY2006. (CBO estimates

increase in budget authority of $931 million through

FY2006.)

WRP capped at total enrollment of 2.225 million acres,

with annual (calendar year) enrollment limited to 250,000

acres, of which up to 25,000 acres can be enrolled in a

new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program; mandatory

funding is authorized. (CBO estimates increase in budget

authority of $1.383 billion through FY2006.)

EQIP mandatory funding authorized at:

$0.50 billion in FY2002;

$1.30 billion in FY2003;

$1.45 billion in FY2004 and 5;

$1.50 billion in FY2006; and

$0.85 billion in FY2007.

Includes new programs for Partnerships and Cooperation

at 5% of annual EQIP authorization, Conservation

Innovation Grants at $100 million per year, Southern

Plains Groundwater Conservation at $15 million in

FY2003 and increasing to $35 million in FY2006, and a

pilot program for drinking water suppliers in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed at $10 million in FY2003 and

increasing to $25 million in FY2006. (CBO estimates

increase in budget authority of $5.227 billion through

FY2006.)

CRS-22

Current Law/Policy

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

Authorized through FY2002 at a total of $50

million in mandatory spending from the funds

made available to implement the CRP. (16

U.S.C. 3836a)

Farmland Protection Program (FPP).

Authorized to enroll between 170,000 acres and

340,000 acres through FY2002, with total

mandatory funding of $35 million. (16 U.S.C.

3830)

Ground and Surface Water Conservation

Program (WCP) (New program, within EQIP,

that would provide cost-share payments and

low interest loans to encourage groundwater

conservation.)

Resource Conservation and Development

Program (RC&D) Authorized such

discretionary funds as may be necessary

through FY2002. (16 U.S.C. 3453-3461)

Farm Bill Passed by House

WHIP mandatory funding authorized at:

$25 million in FY2002;

$30 million in FY2003 and 4;

$35 million in FY2005 and 6;

$40 million in FY2007;

$45 million in FY2008 and 9; and

$50 million in FY2010 and 11.

(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of

$155 million through FY2006, and $385 million

through FY2011.)

FPP mandatory funding authorized at no more than

$50 million annually, and the enrollment limits are

eliminated. (CBO estimates increase in budget

authority of $250 million through FY2006, and

$500 million through FY2011.)

WCP mandatory funding authorized at:

$30 million in FY2002;

$45 million in FY2003; and

$60 million in FY2004 through 11.

(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of

$255 million through FY2006, and $555 million

through FY2011.)

RC&D is authorized permanently to spend such

discretionary funds as may be necessary.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

WHIP mandatory funding authorized at:

$50 million in FY2002;

$225 million in FY2003

$275 million in FY2004

$325 million in FY2005;

$355 million in FY2006, and

$100 million in FY2007.

(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of $1.23

billion through FY2006.)

FPP mandatory funding authorized at:

$150 million in FY2002;

$250 million in FY2003;

$400 million in FY2004;

$450 million in FY2005;

$500 million in FY2006; and

$100 million in FY2007.

Not more than $10 million annually goes to a new Market

Viability Program, and the upper and lower enrollment

limits are eliminated. (CBO estimates increase in budget

authority of $1.750 billion through FY2006.)

No provisions.

Same as H.R. 2646.

CRS-23

Current Law/Policy

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) (New

program that would pay landowners to retire

grasslands for multi-year periods.)

Farmland Stewardship Program (FSP) (New

program that would provide assistance through

existing conservation programs and require

matching assistance from other sources to

implement farmland stewardship agreements.)

Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.

Authorized discretionary funding at:

$10 million in FY2002;

$15 million in FY2003;

$25 million in FY2004; and

$35 million in FY2005.

(16 U.S.C. 1012)

Conservation Security Program (CSP) (New

program that would make payments to farmers

based on which of three levels of conservation

they practice)

Watershed Risk Reduction Program. (New

program that would implement projects and

activities, including purchase of floodplain

easements, to reduce the risks caused by natural

disasters. )

Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion

and Sediment Control (New program that

would provide conservation assistance to

control sediment and soil erosion.)

Conservation of Private Grazing Lands.

Authorized discretionary funding at $20 million

in FY1996; $40 million in FY1997; and $60

million in “each subsequent fiscal year.” (16

U.S.C. 2005b)

Farm Bill Passed by House

GRP is capped at 1.0 million acres of “restored

grassland” and 1.0 million acres of “virgin

grassland”, and funding is capped at $254 million

in total mandatory spending through FY2011.

(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of

$45 million through FY2006, and $254 million

through FY2011.)

No appropriation or spending amounts are

specified, and funding is to come from other

specified conservation programs. (CBO estimates

no new funding under this authority through

FY2011.)

Authorizes appropriations of $15 million annually

in discretionary spending “for FY2002 and each

succeeding year.”

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

GRP is capped at 2 million acres, with up to 500,000

acres of native grasslands. GRP mandatory funding

authorized at “such sums ...as are necessary.” (CBO

estimates increase in budget authority of $44 million

through FY2006.)

No provisions.

CSP mandatory funding authorized at “such funds as are

necessary”. (CBO estimates increase in budget authority

of $387 million through FY2006.)

No provisions.

Authorizes appropriations of $15 million annually from

FY2002 through FY2006.

No provisions.

Authorizes appropriations of $5 million annually from

FY2002 through FY2006.

No provisions.

Authorizes appropriations of $60 million annually from

FY2002 through FY2006.

No provisions.

No provisions.

CRS-24

Current Law/Policy

Grassroots Source Water Protection

Program. (New program to supplement

technical assistance capabilities.)

Organic Agricultural Research Trust Fund.

(New program that would establish a fund to be

invested in organic research.)

Cranberry Acreage Reserve Program. (New

program that would fund purchase of

permanent easements on eligible land.)

Klamath Basin. (New program that would

create an interagency task force to develop a

plan to address specified topics about water

shortages and resource restoration, and provide

implementing grants.)

Farm Bill Passed by House

No provisions.

Farm Bill Passed by Senate

Authorizes appropriations of $5 million annually from

FY2002 through FY2006.

No provisions.

Mandatory funding authorized at $45million in FY2003

to establish trust fund. (CBO estimates increase in

budget authority of $45 million in FY2003.)

Authorizes total appropriation of $10 million.

CREP Pilot Program and Water Benefits

Program. (Two new programs to promote

water conservation in approved states.)

No provisions.

No provisions.

No provisions.

Mandatory funding authorized at a total of $175 million

between FY2003 and FY2006, with $15 million of that

amount to go to specified Indian tribes in California and

$15 million to go to specified Indian tribes in Oregon.

Any funds unallocated by April 1of each year are to be

reallocated to specified conservation programs. No funds

to be obligated after FY2006. CBO estimates increase

in budget authority of $175 million through FY2006.)

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program authorized

at up to 500,000 acres in approved states. Water

Benefits Program mandatory funding authorized at;

$25 million in FY2002;

$52 million in FY2003;

$100 million in FY2004;

$100 million in FY2005; and

$100 million in FY2006.

(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of $604

million through FY2006.)