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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31255

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** February 28, 2002
- **Citation:** RL31255

## Text

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.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31255. Public record. Not legal advice.