Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill

Order Code RL34060

Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill

Updated May 6, 2008

Tadlock Cowan

Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development Policy

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Renée Johnson

Analyst in Agricultural Policy

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill

Summary

Conservation is playing a prominent role in the development of a farm bill by

the 110th Congress. Major conservation topics include determining the priorities for

the conservation effort; deciding whether any existing programs or activities should

be modified or eliminated; deciding whether new programs or activities should be

added to the effort; and determining funding levels for the overall conservation effort

and for each program.

The House completed action on its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) on July

27, 2007, passing it by a vote of 231 to 191. Many options for conservation had been

offered as the legislation moved through the House, but the conservation title was

passed as reported by the committee and modified by a chairman’s mark. In

summary, this legislation would increase funding for many conservation programs

and add a number of small new programs to the conservation portfolio, and halt new

enrollment into the Conservation Security Program.

The Senate Agriculture Committee reported its version of the farm bill (S. 2302)

on October 25, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-220). Beyond the adoption of a chairman’s mark,

the conservation title was altered little in committee. During floor action, the Senate

adopted an amended version of the committee bill combined with a revenue bill (S.

2242) as a substitute (S.Amdt. 3500 to H.R. 2419). The Senate passed its version of

the farm bill on December 14 (H.R. 2419, amended) by a vote of 79 to 14 after

adopting a wide-ranging manager’s amendment (S.Amdt. 3855). In summary, this

legislation would create a new program that combines the Conservation Security and

Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, provide level funding for most existing

conservation programs, and create new sub-programs within existing programs.

Congressional agriculture leaders and the Administration are currently

negotiating the size of an overall funding increase for agriculture under the new farm

bill. The House, working with the Administration, is proposing an increase of about

$6 billion above a CBO estimate of approximately $597 billion over 10 years, while

the Senate is proposing an increase of $12.3 billion. After an overall number is

agreed to, the funds must then be allocated among all areas of agriculture, and the

portion provided for conservation must be allocated among the many programs.

Congress is under great pressure to complete the farm bill because producers wants

to know the policy changes as they make planting decisions, and because the farm

bill expires on March 15 and would revert to law enacted in 1949 if not extended.

For conservation, inaction would terminate almost all programs.

This report introduces some of the issues that are influencing the development

of a conservation title. It then reviews major provisions passed by both chambers,

followed by some of the alternative conservation proposals that were offered. An

appendix compares current law with the conservation provisions, as passed by both

chambers, in more detail. This report is limited to the conservation title. However,

conservation topics are also addressed elsewhere in the farm bill, including the

energy, forestry, and research titles; those provisions may be discussed in CRS

reports about those titles.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Issues Shaping the Conservation Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conservation Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Energy and Agriculture Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Green Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Payment Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Program Simplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Program Delivery Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

New Conservation Farm Bill Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Market-Based Approaches for Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conservation at Larger Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Measuring Conservation Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Congressional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

House Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Senate Farm Bill (H.R. 2419, amended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Conference Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Other Conservation Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

The Administration’s Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Other Selected Legislative Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendix A. Comparison of the Conservation Titles in the House and Senate

Farm Bills (H.R. 2419) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Conservation Security Program (CSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Conservation Program Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Other Conservation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

New Conservation Programs Authorized in One or Both Bills . . . . . . . . . . 36

Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill

Most Recent Developments1

The House and Senate completed action on their respective versions of a new

farm bill in 2007 (H.R. 2419). However, conference action was initially delayed in

part because of differences between committee leadership and the Administration

over the inclusion of tax provisions in the bill, and the Administration’s demand for

additional reform of commodity programs. Consequently, Congress temporarily

extended portions of the expiring 2002 farm bill until March 15, 2008, as part of the

Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). Since March,

Congress has approved a one-month extension, followed by three consecutive shortterm extensions lasting through May 16.2 Both the House and Senate have named

conferees. Conferees began official meetings in April 2008, and have been working

to resolve approaches to finance new spending above baseline using tax provisions

not usually associated with farm bills.

The House and Senate versions of the pending omnibus farm bill differ in

numerous ways that will have to be resolved by the conference committee. In

conservation, the most significant difference is that the House version allows no new

signups in the Conservation Security Program (CSP) until FY2012, while the Senate

version replaces the CSP with a new Conservation Stewardship Program that

combines features of the existing CSP and Environmental Quality Incentives

Program, requiring that more than 13 million acres be enrolled annually. The Senate

bill provides level funding for most existing conservation programs while increasing

overall conservation funding by almost $4.8 billion between FY2008 and FY2012,

and creates several new programs (mostly within existing programs). The House bill

increases overall funding for conservation by more than $4.5 billion between FY2008

and FY2012 and add several small new programs to the conservation portfolio, while

eliminating very little of the current effort beyond delaying further enrollment in the

CSP until FY2012.

Congress completed action on FY2008 funding for agriculture when it passed

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764). The President signed this

bill on December 26, 2007. It makes several adjustments to funding for conservation

programs (for example, limiting funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program to $1.0 billion and providing $30 million for Watershed Operations),

extends funding through March 15, 2008, for three farm bill programs that expired

at the end of FY2007, and includes a 0.7% across-the-board rescission.

1

This report is an updated and revised version of a report originally written by former CRS

specialist Jeffrey A. Zinn.

2

March 12 (P.L. 110-196), April 17 (P.L. 110-200), April 24 (P.L. 110-205), and May 1

(P.L. 110-208).

CRS-2

Introduction

The 110th Congress is developing an omnibus farm bill to replace the current

2002 farm bill, which generally expired at the end of FY2007. Conservation is

playing a prominent role in this effort. The House completed action on its version

of the farm bill, passing it by a vote of 231 to 191 on July 27, 2007.3 Numerous

options for conservation provisions had been put forth as the legislation moved

through the House; perhaps the most prominent were found in H.R. 1551, introduced

by Representative Kind on March 15, 2007, and H.R. 1600, introduced by

Representative Cardoza on March 20, 2007. Each of these bills had more than 100

cosponsors. However, the House enacted the conservation title as reported by the

Agriculture Committee and modified by a chairman’s mark without further

amendment. In summary, this legislation would increase funding for many

conservation programs and add a number of small new programs to the conservation

portfolio, halt new enrollment into the Conservation Security Program, and eliminate

little else from the current effort.

The Senate Agriculture Committee completed action on its version of the farm

bill (S. 2302) on October 25, 2007, and reported it for full Senate consideration

(S.Rept. 110-220). Beyond the adoption of a chairman’s mark, the conservation title

was altered little in committee. Senate floor action began in early November. The

Senate adopted an amended version of the committee bill combined with a revenue

bill (S. 2242) as a substitute (S.Amdt. 3500 to H.R. 2419). The Senate passed its

version of the farm bill on December 14 (H.R. 2419, amended) by a vote of 79 to 14

after adopting a wide-ranging manager’s amendment (S.Amdt 3855). In summary,

this legislation would create a new program that combines the Conservation Security

and Environmental Quality Incentives Programs, provide level funding for most

existing conservation programs, and create several new sub-programs within existing

programs.

Agriculture committees in both chambers have drawn on information gathered

at numerous hearings, recommendations and proposals offered by many interested

parties (including the Bush Administration), and legislative proposals introduced by

other Members. Recommendations range from general principles to very specific

changes and legislative language, and from changes limited to a specific farm bill

program or title to those involving multiple farm bill titles. Conservation has been

among the most actively addressed farm bill issue areas, attracting recommendations

from many interests who represent widely varying perspectives.4 Coalitions have

formed and articulated their priorities and positions on many of these topics. One

conservation group, the American Farmland Trust, in particular, was very active early

3

For an overview of provisions in H.R. 2419, see CRS Report RL34113, The House-Passed

2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) at a Glance, coordinated by Renee Johnson.

4

For a brief introduction identifying a large sampling of these proposals, see CRS Report

RL33934, Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress, by coordinated

Renee Johnson.

CRS-3

on in soliciting input from a large and diverse set of interests and developing a wideranging set of general proposals, which it released early in the summer of 2006.5

This report covers the issues shaping the debate and tracks the conservation title

of the new farm bill from committee action to enactment. It is limited to the contents

of the conservation title, which is summarized in the text and presented in greater

detail in an appendix. This title is not as wide-ranging as the topic of conservation,

which encompasses policies and programs that protect or restore natural resources

and the environment in conjunction with the production of food or fiber. Aspects of

conservation have been increasingly addressed in other titles in recent farm bills, as

elements of the conservation effort are being integrated with multiple aspects of

agricultural policy. This trend continues with the versions of the farm bill passed by

both chambers, where conservation provisions also are in the energy, forestry, and

research titles, among others.6

Issues Shaping the Conservation Debate

Many issues could influence congressional decisions about conservation. Some

of these issues, such as funding and program complexity, are broad and central to

congressional considerations and to farm bill participants. Other issues, however, are

of great concern to only a portion of farm bill participants. Even if all participants

could agree on a particular issue, such as funding, how it might be addressed — that

is, how large total funding for conservation should be and how those funds should

be allocated among conservation programs — still generates considerable additional

debate. This section broadly identifies and introduces the issues, but does not

provide detailed analysis about them, either individually or in relation to each other.

The introduction of each issue concludes with a series of policy questions. The

House- and Senate-passed bills address many of these issues in different ways that

will have to be resolved by the conference committee.

Conservation Funding. The tight federal budget makes funding for farm

bill programs a contentious topic. Agriculture leaders in both chambers and the

Administration are currently negotiating exactly how much additional funding over

the current baseline will be made available for agriculture; after leaders agree on that

number, they will start the process of making funding decisions about specific

programs. The smaller the increase, the more contentious the allocation discussions

will be. Agricultural interests sought increased funding by fully funding a $20 billion

five-year deficit-neutral reserve fund approved in the FY2008 budget resolution, or

by finding offsetting savings. The current discussions revolve around competing

proposals; the House and the Administration have agree to increasing funding by

about $6 billion over the current baseline of $596.6 billion over 10 years, while the

Senate is suggesting the increase should be $12.3 billion.

5

Information on these proposals can be accessed through the American Farmland Trust

website at [http://www.farmland.org].

6

For more background information about the evolution of conservation programs, more

detailed data about some of the larger conservation programs, and funding in recent years,

see CRS Report RL33556, Soil and Water Conservation: An Overview, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.

CRS-4

After the issue of total funding for agriculture is resolved, the agriculture

committees would then decide what portion of the agriculture funds would go to

conservation programs, and then, how the funding for conservation would be

allocated among the many programs.7 After the program funding levels are

determined, numerous related questions might be addressed, such as (1) whether

certain locations (states, regions, or watersheds), types of producers, or resource

concerns should receive higher priority for access to any programs, and (2) what

levels of funding will mean for the current backlogs of interest in program

participation that cannot be met.

Energy and Agriculture Conservation. Energy is a major topic for this

farm bill, both because of the tremendous potential contribution of biofuel production

to the farm economy, and because of the high costs of petroleum and petroleumbased products. At the center of this issue is finding ways to craft energy policies

that encourage or allow for expanded crop cultivation for biofuels in ways that are

compatible with land retirement and other established conservation goals. Among

the questions that have been raised are (1) should lands retired for multiple years

under federal conservation programs that would be returned to production to grow

energy crops be treated differently than other lands that seek to exit land retirement

programs; (2) should no land, only a few types of lands, or most lands in multi-year

retirement programs be allowed to exit those programs without financial penalty if

they are to be converted to energy crop production; (3) what, if any, stipulations to

protect the public benefits that have resulted from land retirement (not allowing

activity during the nesting season or limiting the harvest frequency, for example)

should be a part of options to return the land to crop production; and (4) how do

subsidies for ethanol and other bioenergy products affect production patterns on

agricultural lands and conservation on those lands? Future energy policies are now

clearer with enactment of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110140), signed into law on December 19, 2007, and may provide useful guidance for

the farm bill conference committee.

Green Payments. Strong interest continues, especially in the conservation

and environmental communities, for a major conservation program for working

lands, generally referred to as a green payments program. A current land stewardship

program, the Conservation Security Program (CSP), is one possibility. It is viewed

by supporters as both compatible with World Trade Organization priorities (should

trade talks be successfully concluded), and as a complement to the many land

retirement conservation programs.8 Among the many policy questions this issue

raises are (1) how should a green payments program be used to integrate commodity

and conservation policies; (2) will any WTO requirements constrain the design of a

7

For additional information about authorized funding levels and actual funding, by year,

for all the mandatory conservation programs from 2003 to the present, see CRS Report

RS22243, Mandatory Funding for Agriculture Conservation Programs by Jeffrey A. Zinn.

8

For background information on alternative perspectives about the green payment

approach, see CRS Report RL32624, Green Payments in US and European Union

Agricultural Policy, Charles E. Hanrahan and Jeffrey A. Zinn, and CRS Report RL34010,

WTO Compliance Status of the Conservation Sercurity Program and the Conservation

Reserve Program, by Randy Schnepf.

CRS-5

green payments program; (3) does the CSP need to be fully funded and implemented

everywhere to be successful; (4) how might CSP be amended based on

implementation experiences since enactment; and (5) are there ways in which CSP

is not a good model of a green payments program?

Payment Limits. Limiting commodity support payments has been a major

issue for many years, and now that same issue is being raised about conservation

payments.9 Limiting conservation payments, either by not making them available to

very small farms (measured by acres or earnings) or to very large farms (measured

by earnings), or by capping them in some fashion, has been raised as an approach that

could provide additional conservation assistance available to full-time commercial

operators (or to other farm bill programs). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA’s) Economic Research Service determined that conservation payments tend

to go to smaller and mid-sized producers, while commodity payments are more

concentrated among the larger producers. Payment limits are already a part of a few

conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (a

maximum of $450,000 during any six-year period) and the Conservation Security

Program ($45,000 a year). Among the questions that have been raised are (1) should

payment limits be program-specific, or for some combination of multiple

conservation programs; (2) how might payment limits change patterns of

participation and accomplishment for conservation programs; (3) how much money

might be saved using different payment limit options; (4) where should any savings

be allocated; and (5) if payment limits are authorized, should each conservation

program have the same limit?

Program Simplification. The number of conservation programs, each with

its own structure and participation requirements, has proliferated. USDA’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) alone administers about 20 programs and

subprograms. One pressure to condense and coordinate the plethora of programs

comes from potential participants, who may be discouraged from participating by the

complexities they encounter over which program they wish to join and what exactly

will be required from them. A second pressure comes from USDA, which sees a

potential to gain administrative efficiencies and realize financial savings through

program simplification. In addition, the NRCS field staff may believe that it would

be easier to market programs to potential participants if requirements are easier to

explain. Of the Bush Administration’s ten conservation proposals for this farm bill

(see “The Administration’s Proposal,” below), four would combine similar programs,

such as the easement programs or many of the cost-sharing programs. Among the

questions that have been raised are (1) which programs might be combined; (2) what

changes would be required to make these program more compatible (revising the

definitions of eligible land to make them consistent, for example); (3) will combining

programs decrease or increase the number of people or amount of land that is eligible

(and should such changes be a goal of program simplification); (4) can the program

application process be simplified; and (5) what are the potential savings in program

administration costs that could be realized if any of the simplification proposals were

adopted?

9

For additional information on commodity program payments, see CRS Report RS21493,

Payment Limits for Farm Commodity Programs: Issues and Proposals, by Jim Monke.

CRS-6

Program Delivery Capacity. Both the number of issues addressed by

conservation and the funding available to address those problems have expanded

rapidly over the past two decades. During the same time, the number of employees

at the administering agencies has been constant or has shrunk. This delivery capacity

question has generally been raised in relation to technical assistance, which provides

the planning and engineering advice needed to implement conservation programs.

The capacity to provide technical assistance has been augmented by a system of

qualified third party providers, authorized in the 2002 farm bill. Among the

questions that have been raised are (1) does the conservation delivery capacity of

USDA agencies need to be further supplemented through partnerships, relationships

with other organizations, or expansion of the technical assistance provider system;

(2) what opportunities and problems would result if a large portion of staff in the

responsible agencies retired in a short time period; (3) does USDA have the staff

needed to administer conservation programs today if they were all fully funded; and

(4) will the pending farm bill consider how workforce capacity issues might be

addressed to minimize problems in the future?

New Conservation Farm Bill Issues. As in every recent farm bill, new

conservation issues have emerged that might receive increased attention. A sampling

of the issues that might be addressed because they are new or of growing importance

include (1) expanding the number of acres in production to produce biofuels; (2)

protecting threatened and endangered species; (3) eradicating invasive species; (4)

participating in efforts to mitigate the forces behind global climate change; (5)

dealing more aggressively with water scarcity; (6) providing additional conservation

assistance to beginning and limited resource producers; (7) providing additional

assistance to producers of fruits and vegetables; and (8) addressing air quality issues.

In addition, new approaches continue to be added to the conservation tool kit, such

as pending proposals to create the groundwork that could lead to use of market-based

approaches in the future (discussed below). Among the questions that have been

raised are (1) whether new programs are needed to address new issues or can

established programs just be expanded; (2) what expertise and funding that is not

available will be needed to address these new issues; (3) should any new issues

receive a higher priority among all conservation efforts than some of the older ones;

and (4) will legislation establish reasonable expectations for dealing with these

issues?

Market-Based Approaches for Conservation. Pressure has been

growing to foster the use of market-based approaches in conservation. These

approaches, which are based on establishing financial measures for services that can

be provided and developing markets to sell or trade services, are viewed by some as

offering landowners both a new way to be paid for environmental services that

benefit society and a new way to protect and promote services that landowners have

not been compensated for in the past. This approach has long found support in

academic circles, but in recent years, support has spread more widely, especially in

the forestry and conservation communities. Much of that interest has been stimulated

by an increased desire to sequester carbon as a response to global climate change;

earlier interest was concentrated in water quality trading. Among the questions that

have been raised are (1) what opportunities are there to use more market-based

approaches — establishing ecosystem markets or selling carbon credits, for example

— in conservation; (2) what baseline work to establish values for these service and

CRS-7

markets is needed to foster their development and operation; (3) what roles can

agriculture play in addressing global climate change through the use of markets; (4)

what is the federal role in the development and operation of markets generally; and

(5) how should markets be monitored to make sure that the services that benefit to

society are being provided.10

Conservation at Larger Scales. Conservation has traditionally been

applied at the scale of either the individual farm or smaller (a field or even a portion

of a field). Since conservation problems, such as excessive soil erosion, tend to be

concentrated in portions of watersheds, interest has grown in considering larger areas,

such as watersheds or ecosystems, where problem sites can be identified and

conservation most efficiently applied. The result, advocates of this approach say,

would be programs that are more efficient in resolving conservation problems.

Research in several watersheds has shown that, commonly, about 80% of the

conservation problems originate in about 20% of a watershed. Since all participation

in conservation programs is voluntary, these programs often are not implemented

where problems are most severe or concentrated, especially when implemented on

a farm or field basis. Among the questions that have been raised are (1) can the

locations where conservation problems are most concentrated be identified; (2) how

much more efficient might conservation programs be if they could address problems

at the watershed scale; (3) would other related changes need to be made in the

conservation approach (such as not encouraging participation by those who do not

have the most severe problems on their land); (4) are there some programs for which

this approach should not be used; and (5) what role should land retirement programs

play at a watershed or ecosystem scale?

Partnership Opportunities. One premise behind the federal conservation

effort is the extensive use of partnerships involving multiple public and private

organizations. This approach has proven increasingly important as the conservation

mission has rapidly expanded over the past two decades to include new topics and

responsibilities, while the agencies dealing with that expanded mission have found

it challenging to change as quickly. The third party provider system established in

the 2002 farm bill may provide lessons about both the potential and limitations of

partnerships. Some conservation advocates believe that there are additional

opportunities to expand the use of partnerships. Among the questions that have been

raised are (1) how extensively can partnerships supplement staff capacity and

capability; (2) what are some of the factors that might limit or inhibit the use of

partnerships; (3) should the current third party system be altered in any way; (4) who

are the possible leaders of conservation partnerships; (5) what benefits do partners

bring to the conservation effort, and are there any significant offsetting costs; and (6)

what role(s) might voluntary partnerships, such as the Bush Administration’s

Cooperative Conservation Initiative, play in future conservation policy.11

Measuring Conservation Accomplishments. Critics and some

conservation advocates have raised questions about what the overall conservation

10

For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL34042, Environmental Services

Markets: Farm Bill Proposals, by Renee Johnson.

11

More information on this Initiative can be found at [http://cooperativeconservation.gov].

CRS-8

effort actually accomplishes as the level of activity and federal spending have both

grown. The Department of Agriculture has initiated the Conservation Effects

Assessment Program (CEAP) to develop some insights that might help address this

question. In addition, the Resource Conservation Act (RCA), enacted 1978 and

expiring at the end of 2007, requires that the Department conduct a periodic

assessment of natural resource conditions and prepare a national plan to respond to

what was learned. Among the questions that have been raised are (1) should the

RCA be reauthorized, and, if so, should it be amended; (2) should Congress identify

its expectations for what should result from the CEAP effort; (3) how should

measures of accomplishments be integrated with conservation programs; (4) should

the evaluation efforts explore such questions as how efficient and effective are each

conservation program, how enduring are their benefits, and do these programs serve

equally various sectors of agriculture and various regions of the country; and (5) what

mechanisms are incorporated into each program to monitor and measure

accomplishments.

Congressional Activities

House Farm Bill (H.R. 2419). The House passed its version of the farm bill

on July 27, 2007, reauthorizing programs through FY2012. The legislative process

started when the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Conservation,

Credit, Energy, and Research marked up a “discussion draft” of the conservation title

on May 23, 2007. The subcommittee adopted the draft with six amendments. The

discussion draft was prepared before key decisions about funding had been made, and

as a result, it included two optons for funding levels for several programs.

Committee Chairman Peterson released a chairman’s mark, dated July 13, which

made numerous changes to the language approved by the subcommittee and served

as the basis for the full committee markup.12 The full committee marked up the farm

bill between July 17 and July 19, 2007, and reported it on July 23, 2007 (H.Rept.

110-256, pt. 1). While several amendments to the conservation title were offered,

and a portion of these were adopted, these amendments could probably be

characterized more as fine-tuning than as major changes to this title.

The full House adopted a manager’s amendment and an en bloc reserve fund

amendment, which altered many aspects of the conservation title, as reported.

However, most of the 31 amendments that were allowed to be debated on the floor

were defeated or withdrawn. Among these amendments, the House rejected three

that would have altered the conservation title, most notably the Kind Amendment,

which would have made numerous changes enhancing funding and adding a new

forestry program. It was defeated in a roll call vote, 117 to 309.

As passed by the House, Title II, Conservation, contains the following

provisions. All programs are authorized through FY2012, unless otherwise noted,

and spending for four programs amended in other sections is authorized in Section

12

A copy of the conservation (and other) titles and a short summary of major provisions can

be found at the committee’s farm bill home page, at [http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/

Legislation/110/ConservationSBS.pdf].

CRS-9

2401. House provisions are compared to current law and Senate-passed provisions

in much greater detail in the appendix.

!

!

!

!

!

Section 2101 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP). The CRP, a multi-year land retirement program, would be

reauthorized at the current enrollment level of 39.2 million acres. Other

provisions would make eligible multi-year rotations of grasses and

legumes; extend the wetland subprogram; address invasive species; allow

managed grazing at a reduced rental rate; allow dryland crop production

and grazing on certain lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program; facilitate the transfer of land from retiring to

beginning and socially-disadvantaged producers; and allow contracts to

be terminated at any time if they are at least five years old and not enrolled

under the continuous enrollment.

Section 2102 would reauthorize the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).

The WRP protects agricultural wetlands and buffers using multi-year

agreements and easements. The WRP would be reauthorized at 3.605

million acres, with an annual enrollment goal of 250,000 acres. Other

provisions would allow up to 10,000 acres of the acres enrolled annually

to be in eligible flood plains; add provisions on eligible and ineligible

lands, compensation for easements, and considering offers; and authorize

a new enhancement program (like the CRP Program).

Section 2103 would amend the Conservation Security Program (CSP).

The CSP is a land stewardship program to apply conservation on so-called

working lands. The CSP would be changed so that all contracts would be

for five years, with one extension for an additional five years in return for

providing additional conservation benefits in addressing at least one

priority resource of concern. Provisions specify the contents of a CSP

contract; permit contract changes and allow contracts to be terminated

under limited circumstances; eliminate penalties for non-compliance

caused by factors that are beyond the producer’s control; specify how

offers are to be evaluated; coordinate participation with the organic

production program; require the identification of up to five priority

resources of concern in areas within a state; provide stewardship

enhancement payments; limit CSP payments under a contract to $150,000

over five years; limit technical assistance to 15% of CSP spending each

year; and honor preexisting contracts while prohibiting new contracts

between September 30, 2007, and October 1, 2011. (See Section 2401 for

funding provisions, which eliminate enrollment between FY2008 and

FY2012.)

Section 2104 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program

(GRP). The GRP retires and restores grasslands under long-term

agreements and easements. The GRP would be authorized to enroll an

additional at 1.34 million acres, and up to 10% of the enrollment each year

could be certain lands that had been enrolled in the CRP. It would also

authorize an enhancement program similar to the Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program, specify how fair market value is to be determined,

and require the Secretary to transfer easements to states or qualified

private organizations.

Section 2105 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP). EQIP, the central conservation cost-sharing program,

would be amended to add forest management and energy to the program

purposes (and other subsections); permit coordinated implementation by

multiple landowners; increase the cost-share to 90% for beginning and

CRS-10

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

socially disadvantaged producers, and for gasifier technology; allow

incentive payments to use third party providers, to develop

comprehensive nutrient management plans, or to implement certain

energy-related improvements; provide at least 5% of the funds each year

to beginning producers and at least 5% to socially disadvantaged and

limited resource producers; set priorities for evaluating applications; and

require water conservation practices to lead to a net water savings.

(Funding levels would be authorized in Section 2401.) It would also

provide funding for the Conservation Innovation Grants subprogram,

which would consist of (1) innovative grants, (2) a new comprehensive

planning program (specifies a pilot project for in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed), (3) grants to organic and specialty crop producers, and (4) a

new air quality program to help meet regulatory requirements.

Section 2106 would create a new Regional Ground and Surface Water

Enhancement Program. This program, within EQIP, would coordinate

water supply and water quality activities on agricultural lands using

competitive grants of up to five years. It would replace the Ground and

Surface Water Conservation Program. Five identified priority areas would

receive up to 50% of the funds each year. Elements to be used in grant

applications and criteria for selecting proposals are specified. Funding

would be $60 million annually, with administrative expenses limited to

3%.

Section 2107 would reauthorize the Grassroots Source Water Protection

Program, increasing annual funding levels million to $20 million through

FY2012.

Section 2108 would reauthorize, without amendment, the Conservation

of Private Grazing Lands Program.

Section 2109 would reauthorize, without amendment, the Great Lakes

Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control.

Section 2110 would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program

(FPP). The FPP uses long-term agreements and easements to protect

agricultural lands meeting certain qualifications from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It would be renamed the Farm and Ranchland Protection

Program. Program priorities would be to protect productive soils that are

at risk of non-agricultural development, and to support implementation of

state and local policies. A detailed certification process for eligible

participants is spelled out, with certification to be reviewed every three

years; a conservation plan would be required if highly erodible land is

protected; and the federal share could not exceed 50% of the easement’s

fair market value. (Funding levels would be authorized in Section 2401.)

Section 2111 would reauthorize, without amendment, the Farm Viability

Program.

Section 2112 would reauthorize the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program

(WHIP). WHIP protects and promotes wildlife and fish species and their

habitat. The cost-share for long-term agreements would be increased from

15% to 25%. (Funding levels would be authorized in Section 2401.)

Section 2201 would reauthorize the Agricultural Management

Assistance Program. This program provides cost-sharing assistance to

address risk-related problems in 15 specified states where crop insurance

enrollment has been historically low. Hawaii and Virginia would be made

eligible. Of the funds made available, 50% would go to conservation

activities, 10% would go to the Agriculture Marketing Service, and 40%

would go to the Risk Management Agency.

Section 2202 would amend the Resource Conservation and Development

Program (RC&D). RC&D, a multi-country program to promote

CRS-11

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

conservation programs in rural areas, would be amended to emphasize

locally led planning, and to authorize a coordinator for each council to

provide technical assistance.

Section 2203 would reauthorize the Small Watershed Rehabilitation

Program. It would provide $65 million annually in discretionary funding

for FY2008 through FY2012 and $50 million annually in mandatory

funding for FY2009 through FY2012.

Section 2301 would authorize a new Chesapeake Bay Program for

Nutrient Reduction and Sediment Control. Provisions would require that

the Secretary of Agriculture develop a comprehensive restoration plan

within two years of enactment and specifies topics the plan should

address. It would provide mandatory funding starting at $10 million in

FY2008 and growing each year to $55 million in FY2012 for restoration

and enhancement projects. Other provisions would limit federal spending

on any project to $5 million, specify a minimum non-federal cost-sharing

level of 35%, and make operation and maintenance non-federal

responsibilities.

Section 2302 would authorize a new Voluntary Public Access and

Habitat Incentive Program. This program would provide grants to

encourage producers to provide public access for wildlife-related

purposes. Annual appropriations of $20 million for FY2008 through

FY2012 would be authorized.

Section 2303 would authorize a new Muck Soils Conservation Program.

This program would make payments of between $300 and $500 per acre

to conserve and improve muck soils, as defined. Annual appropriations

of $50 million for FY2008 through FY2012 are authorized.

Section 2401 would authorize funding levels for many of the mandatory

conservation programs. It would authorize funding for the Conservation

Security Program ($1,454 million between FY2007 and FY2012 and

$1,927 million between FY2007 and FY2017 for contracts signed before

10/1/07, and $5.1 billion between FY2012 and FY2017 for contracts

signed after 10/1/11); the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program ($125

million in FY2007, growing each year to $280 million in FY2012); the

Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($1.25 billion in FY2008,

growing each year to $2.0 billion in FY2012); and the Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program (extends authorization at $85 million annually through

FY2012).

Section 2402 would improve technical assistance for producers. It

would make it easier for producers to use an approved third party, require

payments for technical services to be at least at market rates, require each

state to review and approve its technical assistance specifications, ensure

that technical assistance addresses the needs of specialty crop producers,

and permit agreements and contracts with non-federal entities to provide

technical assistance.

Section 2403 would authorize a new Cooperative Conservation

Partnership Initiative. This initiative would be established using 10% of

funds from three specified conservation programs (CSP, EQIP, and

WHIP), with 90% of those funds allocated to states and awarded by state

conservationists. This initiative would provide two- to five-year

competitive grants to carry out projects involving multiple producers and

cooperators. Criteria for considering grants and priorities for selection are

specified. The federal cost share would be at least 75%, and incentive and

bonus payments could be made for specified purposes.

CRS-12

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 2404 would reauthorize the regional equity provision. It would

increase the authorized amount for each eligible state to $15 million per

year.

Section 2405 would simplify and streamline access to conservation

programs. It authorizes a simplified and single application process for

individuals who wish to participate in conservation programs, and the

Secretary would report on how it has implemented this provision.

Section 2406 would authorize an annual report on conservation

program participation by specialty crop producers. The first report is to

be submitted within 180 days of enactment.

Section 2407 would authorize the development of performance

standards that would be used for market-based approaches. It would

require an Environmental Services Standards Board to be established to

set standards that could be used to promote market-based approaches to

conservation and environmental benefits produced by agriculture for

which there are no existing markets. Appropriations of $50 million would

be authorized, to remain available until expended.

Section 2408 would amend provisions authorizing state technical

committees. Changes would include specified representation by

agricultural interests; authorizing subcommittees, and shortening and

generalizing provisions that describe their responsibilities.

Section 2409 would add new provisions on payment limits. Payment

limits would be set at $60,000 per year for any single program authorized

by the farm bill, or $125,000 for multiple programs. Three conservation

would be excluded: WRP, FRPP, and GRP.

Section 2501 would amend the adjusted gross income limit.

Section 2502 would encourage the Secretary to develop sustainable

practices guidelines for specialty crop producers and processors when

administering the conservation title.

Section 2503 would require the Secretary to designate at least one

farmland information center. The center(s), funded by a portion of the

FRPP, would distribute information on farmland protection topics.

Section 2504 would authorize a pilot four-year crop rotation program

for peanuts. The contract would be with a producer and provide

mandatory funding not to exceed $10 million per year.

Senate Farm Bill (H.R. 2419, amended). The Senate Agriculture

Committee marked up and reported its version of the farm bill, S. 2302, on October

25, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-220). Other than the adoption of a chairman’s mark, the

conservation title was altered little in conference. The following week, the Senate

adopted a manager’s amendment (S.Amdt. 3500) that combined S. 2302 with a

revenue bill, S. 2242, and is a substitute to H.R. 2419. The Senate passed its version

of the farm bill on December 14, by a vote of 79 to 14, after adopting a wide-ranging

manager’s amendment (S.Amdt. 3855). All programs in the bill are authorized

from FY2008 through FY2012, unless noted. The provisions are summarized

below, and presented in much greater detail in the side-by-side description of current

law, the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill in the appendix.

!

!

Section 2001 would add definitions for beginning farmer and rancher,

Indian tribe, socially disadvantaged farmer, non-industrial private forest

land, and technical assistance.

Sections 2101 and 2201 would amend the compliance provisions for

highly erodible lands and wetlands, respectively, to provide a second

level of review for compliance violations.

CRS-13

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 2301 would move programs in the conservation title by

combining the Healthy Forests Reserve Program with other land

retirement programs in the Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement

Program, and placing EQIP within the new Comprehensive Stewardship

Incentives Program.

Section 2311 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program at

the current enrollment level of 39.2 million acres, and make numerous

other changes, including expanding eligible lands, adding topics that may

be considered when choosing contract offers, extending the wetland

program, and adding wildlife provisions.

Section 2312 would create a new Flooded Farmland Program within the

CRP for closed basins in the Northern Great Plains. Eligible land must

exceed 5 acres and have been flooded the preceding three crop years.

Section 2313 would authorize a new Wildlife Habitat Program within

the CRP to improve habitat on enrolled lands where softwood pine stands

have been established under contracts of up to five years.

Section 2321 would reauthorize the Wetlands Reserve Program,

allowing up to 250,000 acres to be enrolled each fiscal year. It would

authorize a new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program and clarify how

compensation is to be calculated.

Section 2331 would place the Healthy Forest Reserve Program in the

conservation title, and allow it to use permanent easements.

Section 2341 would create a new Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives

Program covering EQIP and a new Conservation Stewardship Program

(CSP) that would replace the current CSP. It lists program purposes,

requires EQIP and the new CSP to be administered in a coordinated

manner and so as to avoid duplication between the two programs, defines

“resource of concern,” limits the number of concerns that can be identified

in a single portion of a state, and requires implementing regulations to be

issued within 180 days of enactment. The new CSP requires more than 13

million acres to be enrolled into the program annually in five-year

contracts, at an average cost of $19 per acre, and sets limits on how many

acres can participate in a state each year.

Section 2356 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program and make numerous amendments, such as adding provisions to

address forestry and forest fire topics, making invasive species

management, pollinator habitat, and predator deterrence practices eligible

for incentive payments, providing technical assistance and payments to

producers for water conservation and irrigation practices, providing

additional assistance to beginning and socially-disadvantaged producers,

and prohibiting duplicate payments for the same practices from other

programs.

Section 2358 would reauthorize Conservation Innovation Grants under

EQIP, clarify that grants are to be used to develop and transfer innovative

conservation technologies, and encourage participation by specialty crop

producers.

Section 2359 would reauthorize the Ground and Surface Water

Conservation Program under EQIP at the current funding level,

authorize the program to work at a regional scale, and create a pilot

program for the Eastern Snake Aquifer.

Section 2360 would authorize a new effort under EQIP to assist

producers who choose to convert to organic agriculture, including

providing technical and financial assistance; financial assistance is limited

to a total of $80,000.

CRS-14

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 2361 would authorize $165 million for a new Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Conservation Program within EQIP, funded at a total of $165

million.

Section 2371 would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program and

clarify who is eligible, delete the need for land to be a subject of a pending

offer to be eligible, add provisions clarifying aspects of cooperative

agreements, and require appraisals to follow accepted practices.

Section 2381 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program and

redefine eligible land, identify priority lands and permitted and prohibited

uses, specify considerations in evaluating offers, and allow certain lands

already enrolled in the CRP to be transferred into this program.

Section 2391 would authorize the new Conservation Stewardship

Program, which would replace the Conservation Security Program.

Participants would be enter into a contract in which they agree to meet

stewardship thresholds for resource concerns they agree to address on

eligible lands.

Section 2392 would extend the Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Program through FY2012.

Section 2393 would extend the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,

increasing the percentage of funds that can be used for long-term projects

from 15% to 25%, and give priority to projects that support the goals of

fish and wildlife conservation plans.

Section 2394 would extend the Grassroots Source Water Protection

Program through FY2012.

Section 2395 would extend the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil

Erosion and Sediment Control through FY2012.

Section 2396 would extend the Farm Viability Program through FY2012.

Section 2397 would create the Discover Watershed Demonstration

Project in the Upper Mississippi River basin to demonstrate approaches

to reducing the loss of nutrients into surface waters in at least 30 small

watersheds, and includes criteria by which those watersheds would be

selected.

Section 2398 would create an Emergency Landscape Restoration

Program replacing two current emergency programs to rehabilitate

agricultural lands after natural catastrophic events; it specifies remedial

actions and authorizes the purchase of flood plain easements.

Section 2399 would authorize a new Voluntary Public Access and

Habitat Incentive Program at $20 million annually to provide grants to

encourage public access for wildlife-dependent recreation.

Section 2401 would provide funding for the Conservation Security

Program ($2.317 billion to administer contracts entered into before the

date of enactment of this farm bill); the Conservation Stewardship

Program (no amount specified); the Farmland Protection Program ($97

million annually through FY2012); the Grasslands Reserve Program (a

total of $240 million through FY2012); and EQIP ($1.27 billion in

FY2008 and FY2009, and $1.3 billion in FY2010 through FY2012).

Section 2402 would reauthorize the regional equity provisions,

increasing the aggregate minimum amount each state is to receive

annually from $12 million to $15 million per year for six specified

programs.

Section 2403 would improve access to conservation programs by

providing that 10% of conservation funds be used to assist beginning and

socially disadvantaged producers; by expanding the use of conservation

innovation grants; by requiring the Secretary to offer higher levels of

technical assistance to beginning and socially disadvantaged producers,

CRS-15

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

where possible; and by allowing the Secretary to implement cooperative

agreements with entities who assist beginning and socially disadvantaged

producers.

Section 2404 would address the delivery of technical assistance and the

use of third party providers.

Section 2405 would alter the administrative requirements for

conservation programs, making changes that include requiring the

Secretary to develop a streamlined application process, encouraging

partnerships and cooperative efforts using at least 5% of conservation

program funds, and requiring monitoring of program performance by

applying the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act.

Section 2406 would recognize environmental service markets by

requiring the Secretary to develop a framework to facilitate participation

in these markets and requiring three reports to Congress on

implementation by specified dates.

Section 2501 would provide direction on state technical committee

operations by requiring the Secretary to develop standardized operating

procedures and updating a list of eligible agencies.

Section 2601 would reauthorize the Agricultural Management

Assistance Program through FY2012 and makes Idaho an eligible state.

Section 2602 would authorize a new Experienced Services Program

under which the Secretary can enter into agreements to hire older qualified

individuals to help administer conservation programs under certain

circumstances.

Section 2603 would update and clarify the provision of technical

assistance, and reauthorize and amend the Soil and Water Resources

Conservation Act.

Section 2604 would reauthorize the Small Watershed Rehabilitation

Program, providing such sums as are necessary.

Section 2605 would amend the Resource Conservation and Development

Program, requiring the Secretary designate a coordinator for each council.

Section 2606 would amend provisions related to the National Natural

Resources Conservation Foundation.

Section 2607 would reauthorize the Desert Terminal Lakes Program

through FY2012.

Section 2608 would deny crop insurance benefits on land parcels greater

than 5 acres converted to cropland from native sod after the date of

enactment, and requires an annual report to Congress on the extent of

conversions.

Section 2609 would retain program eligibility for producers who

participated in a study of aquifer recharge potential in the Texas high

plains.

Section 2610 would require the Department of State to cover certain

expenses incurred by EPA employees working on international treaties.

Section 2611 would allow certain salinity control activities to be carried

out by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Colorado River Basin.

Section 2612 would fund the Great Lakes Program for Soil Erosion and

Sediment Control by authorizing $5 million annually from FY2007

through FY2012.

Conference Committee. Multiple meetings have held by staff to resolve

some of the many differences between the two bills in anticipation of decisions about

funding levels. The conference committee is anticipated to begin more formal

deliberations as soon as a funding agreement is reached. Many of these differences

CRS-16

are a part of the issues shaping the conservation debate that were identified above.

These include the following:

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Conservation Funding. Both bills, as passed, would provide similar total

amounts for conservation between FY2008 and FY2012 (an additional

$4.5 billion for the House and $5.1 billion for the Senate) but allocate it

in very different ways; the allocation questions may become more

contentious if a smaller amount is available.

Energy and Agriculture. Both bills address energy topics in ways that

could have significant effects on conservation efforts, but not in the

conservation title.

Green Payments. The Senate bill would create a major new green

payment program with an enrollment goal of more than 13 million acres

per year, while the House bill would not provide funding for the current

program until FY2012.

Payment Limits. The two bills differ in how they address payment limits

for conservation programs; the House bill would set some general limits

and both bills would set some program-specific limits.

Program Simplification. The House bill would not simplify programs by

combining them, while the Senate bill would combine some programs;

both bills would simplify producer access to programs.

Program Delivery Capacity. The House bill would improve producer

access to technical assistance, while the Senate bill would allow retired

qualified individuals to be hired; the Senate bill would provide more

conservation funding to beginning and socially disadvantaged producers

than the House bill.

New Issues. Both bills would address numerous new issues or change

emphasis among issues that programs already address; some of these

issues are addressed in both bills, and others are not.

Market-Based Approaches. Both bills contain a section encouraging the

development of market-based approaches, but many of the provisions

differ.

Conservation at Larger Scales. Provisions in both bills would encourage

conservation at a larger scale

Partnership Opportunities. Both bills contain provisions to foster

partnerships; the House provisions are extensive and the Senate provisions

are in the manager’s amendment.

Measuring Accomplishments. Both bills would require additional efforts

to measure accomplishments, and the Senate bill would reauthorize the

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act.

Other Conservation Proposals

In developing their bills, both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees

drew from other proposals and suggestions, and alternatives were developed in both

chambers and offered for consideration by the House. Some of these other proposals

are summarized below, and offer additional perspective on the range of options that

received congressional attention.

The Administration’s Proposal. The Administration offered its set of 10

conservation farm bill proposals to Congress on February 2, 2007, then submitted

implementing legislative language in late April. These proposals came out of a

process that started with more than 50 listening sessions, followed by issuing four

broad theme papers. The theme paper on conservation and the environment, issued

CRS-17

in June 2006, identified four “generalized alternatives”: (1) improve existing

conservation programs; (2) provide “green payments” for land in production to

enhance environmental benefits and provide income support; (3) encourage private

sector markets for environmental services; and (4) expand conservation compliance

or establish a standard of care.13 The Administration estimated that its ten

conservation proposals would cost $7.8 billion above current conservation costs. The

proposals (and additional costs) are as follows:

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Consolidate six financial assistance programs that provide conservation

cost-sharing funds and technical assistance in a revised Environmental

Quality Incentives Program, and create a new sub-program to deal with

water quality and quantity issues on a regional basis ($4.25 billion over

the current 10-year baseline).

Amend the Conservation Security Program to emphasize higher levels

of conservation, and expand enrollment from the current 15 million acres

to 96 million acres in 10 years, while simplifying the program ($500

million above the current 10-year baseline).

Consolidate the three easement programs for working lands into a single

program ($900 million above the current 10-year baseline).

Increase the focus of the Conservation Reserve Program on

environmentally sensitive lands, with priority for whole fields enrolled

on which biomass crops for energy are produced.

Increase the Wetlands Reserve Program enrollment cap to 3.5 million

acres, and consolidate this Reserve with the floodplain easement program

($2.125 billion increase above the 10-year baseline).

Expand conservation compliance to include “sod saver” to discourage

conversion of grasslands into cropland.

Designate 10% of financial assistance for each conservation program to

socially disadvantaged and beginning producers.

Encourage the development of private environmental markets to

supplement and complement conservation programs ($50 million).

Repeal regional equity provisions requiring a minimum amount of

conservation funds go to each state, in order to increase allocations for the

most meritorious program areas.

Consolidate the two emergency conservation programs.

Other Selected Legislative Proposals. Several bills containing

conservation proposals for the next farm bill have been introduced. Two bills —

H.R. 1551 (Kind)/S. 919 (Menendez) and H.R. 1600 (Cardoza) — received more

attention because of their broad scope, and also because each had more than 100

cosponsors. Both bills would have provided a greater increase conservation spending

and expanded the conservation effort in other ways. They appear to represent much

of the range of policy and program changes sought by the conservation and

environmental communities. Provisions in both of the larger bills are outlined below.

These bills are a sampling from a larger group of legislative proposals.

H.R. 1551 (Representative Kind)/S. 919 (Senator Menendez). H.R.

1551, the Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007, was introduced on March

13

For more information on the green payment concept, as well as a comparison of views

about it from the United States and Europe, see CRS Report RL32624, Green Payments in

U.S. and European Union Agricultural Policy by Jeffrey A. Zinn.

CRS-18

15, 2007, and S. 919, an identical bill, was introduced on March 20, 2007. H.R. 1551

had more than 100 cosponsors while S. 919 also has several cosponsors. The bill has

four titles, and about 70% of the bill (by length) is the conservation title. All

reauthorizations are through FY2013, unless otherwise noted. Topics addressed in

this bill also are addressed in H.R. 1600, unless they are identified as not being in

both bills. The conservation title of H.R. 1551/S. 919 includes the following

provisions:

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 101 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program and

make numerous amendments, such as greater consideration of animals and

forests, and greater focus on environmental benefits.

Section 102 would reauthorize the Wetlands Reserve Program, increasing

the total enrollment goal to 5 million acres and specifying annual

maximums. It would make other amendments, such as making the

protection of rare and endangered species a priority.

Section 103 would reauthorize the Conservation Security Program,

making changes in the structure, eliminating maintenance payments,

changing some enrollment procedures, and limiting technical assistance

expenditures to 15% of a contract’s value.

Section 104 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program,

increasing total enrollment to 10 million acres and setting several

enrollment goals. It would add provisions for biodiversity, pasture-based

operations, and an enhancement subprogram where states contribute a

portion of the funds (similar to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement

Program in the CRP).

Section 105 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program, at $2.0 billion annually. Among other changes, it would add

new provisions for forest stewardship, enhanced manure and nutrient

management, and state performance incentives; and increase funding for

two subprograms, Conservation Innovation Grants and Ground and

Surface Water Conservation.

Section 106 would reauthorize the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,

increasing funding to $300 million annually in FY2012 and FY2013. It

would also expand the use of long-term agreements, add priorities, and

promote fish habitat.

Section 107 would authorize a new Cooperative Conservation

Partnership Initiative using two- to five-year grants involving multiple

producers. It lists numerous evaluation criteria for applications, eight

program priorities, and funding criteria. It would provide funding by

using 20% of the annual allocation for several specified conservation

programs.

Section 108 would reauthorize the regional equity provisions and increase

the minimum amount each state would receive to $15 million annually.

Section 109 would exclude conservation payments from the cap on

adjusted gross income that is used to exclude from farm programs,

potential participants with very high annual incomes.

Section 110 would increase annual funding for the Agricultural

Management Assistance Program to $40 million and specifies the

allocations among the three component subprograms. (Provision not

included in H.R. 1600.)

Section 111 would authorize $50 million a year for a new Community

Forests and Open Space Program to help protect forests in and near

communities in states designated by the Secretary. (Provision not

included in H.R. 1600.)

CRS-19

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 112 would authorize the Farmland Protection Program through

FY2012 at $300 million annually.

Section 113 would authorize mandatory funding, with no amount

specified, for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. (Provision not

included in H.R. 1600.)

Section 114 would authorize an Integrated Pest Management Initiative

in priority areas identified by the Secretary that would be integrated with

EQIP and use a portion of the funds provided for EQIP and CSP.

Section 115 would authorize a new initiative for socially disadvantaged

farmers and ranchers, funded using up to 10% of the money provided to

several conservation programs. (Provision not included in H.R. 1600.)

Section 116 would establish a Conservation Loan Guarantee Program.

It specifies loans qualifications and provides an unspecified amount of

mandatory funds for implementation.

Section 117 would authorize $40 million annually in mandatory funding

to establish a pilot program for Comprehensive Conservation Planning

in five specified locations (the Chesapeake Bay watershed, for example,

is one of them). (Provision not included in H.R. 1600.)

Section 118 would address technical assistance by clarifying the role of

third-party providers and establishing a financial-aid program to assist

students in exchange for a commitment to work for NRCS.

H.R. 1600 (Representative Cardoza). H.R. 1600, the Equitable Agriculture

Today for a Healthy America or the EAT Healthy America Act, was introduced on

March 20, 2007. This legislation had more than 100 cosponsors, including several

members of the House Agriculture Committee. This bill encompasses more farm

bill topics than H.R. 1551, with eight titles. Some have referred to it as the

California farm bill because provisions center on topic of greatest interest to

California producers. The conservation title is more than 40% of the total bill (by

length). All programs in this bill are authorized through FY2012. Sections that are

identical or nearly identical to similar provisions in H.R. 1551 are identified as such.

The conservation title includes the following sections.

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 201 would reauthorize the Conservation Security Program by

adding eight findings about importance and potential benefits.

Section 202 would reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program and

make numerous amendments, such as greater recognition of rare and

endangered species and habitat, and limiting the portion of land in the

program that can be enrolled through a general signup.

Section 203 would reauthorize the Wetland Reserve Program. It is

similar to Section 102 of H.R. 1551.

Section 204 would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program, and is

identical to Section 112 of H.R. 1551.

Section 205 would reauthorize the Grasslands Reserve Program and

establish annual enrollment levels increasing to 3 million acres in 2012

and annually thereafter. Other changes would include allowing land in the

CRP to be transferred into this program; adding considerable detail about

who can hold easements, and adding an enhancement subprogram where

states contribute a portion of the funds (similar to the CREP in CRP).

Section 206 would reauthorize the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,

and is similar to Section 106 of H.R. 1551. It would give more emphasis

to rare and endangered species and their habitat, and require coordination

with state wildlife plans.

CRS-20

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 207 would reauthorize the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program, gradually increasing the annual authorization to $2 billion in

FY2012. It would amend the existing statute in several ways, such as

modifying incentive payment rates. It would increase funding for Ground

and Surface Water and Innovative Grants subprograms, and add a new

section on air quality.

Section 208, which would authorize a new Cooperative Conservation

Partnership Initiative, is nearly identical to Section 107 of H.R. 1551.

Section 209 would reauthorize the regional equity provisions, providing

a minimum of $12 million annually to each state.

Section 210 would authorize an Integrated Pest Management Initiative

that is nearly identical to Section 114 of H.R. 1551.

Section 211 would address technical assistance and is similar to Section

118 of H.R. 1551. In addition, it would require development of technical

assistance for specialty crop producers.

Section 212 would establish a Conservation Loan Guarantee Program,

and is nearly identical to Section 116 of H.R. 1551.

Section 213 would amend the Emergency Conservation Program to add

providing assistance to clean up debris in nurseries affected by natural

disasters. (Provision not included in H.R. 1551.)

Section 214 would exclude conservation payments from the cap on

adjusted gross income, and is identical to Section 109 of H.R. 1551.

Section 215 would encourage the Secretary to develop guidelines for

voluntary sustainable practices for specialty crop producers. (Provision

not included in H.R. 1551.)

Section 216 would require the Secretary “whenever practicable” to assist

specialty crop producers in addressing the adverse impacts of long-term

climate change. (Provision not included in H.R. 1551.)

CRS-21

Appendix A. Comparison of the Conservation Titles in the

House and Senate Farm Bills (H.R. 2419)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

Sec. 1231(a-d) of the FSA authorizes the CRP

through calendar year 2007 at 39.2 million

acres. (16 U.S.C. 3831(a-d))

Extends authorization through calendar year 2012;

retains current acreage enrollment limit. [Sec.

2101(a-b)]

In addition to extending authorization through

calendar year 2012 and retaining current acreage

enrollment limit, adds pollinator habitat to the general

purposes (and elsewhere), and expands eligible land to

include some types of marginal pastureland and land

enrolled in a new flooded farmland program. [Sec.

2311(a-c)]

Sec. 1231(f) of the FSA lists the Chesapeake

Bay region (PA, MD, and VA) , the Great

Lakes Region, and Long Island Sound as

priority areas (16 U.S.C. 3831f)

Deletes states but retains Chesapeake Bay region

[Sec. 2101(b)]

Makes same change as House, and adds the prairie

pothole region, the Grand Lake St Mary’s Watershed,

and the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer as priority areas.

[2311(d)]

Sec. 1231(h) of the FSA authorizes a 1 million

acre pilot program within the CRP for wetlands

and buffer areas (16 U.S.C. 3831h)

Extends program through calendar year 2012.

[Sec. 2101(e)]

Extends program through calendar year 2012; expands

eligibility to include other types of land, such as

certain shallow water areas and certain agricultural

drainage water treatment collection areas. [2311(e)]

Sec. 1232(a)(7) of the FSA specifies a duty of

participants is limiting commercial uses; limits

haying and grazing on enrolled lands; allows

managed haying and grazing under certain

circumstances (16 U.S.C. 3832a(7))

Allows managed haying and grazing to control

invasive species, and adds detail on allowed uses,

enrolled lands, and adjustments to annual contract

payments. [Sec. 2101(f)]

Allows managed haying and grazing to control

invasive species and permits managed haying and

grazing that is a part of a conservation plan. [Sec.

2311(h)]

Sec. 1234(c) of the FSA establishes a

framework for calculating annual rental

payments (16 U.S.C. 3834c)

Adds a requirement that National Agriculture

Statistical Service conduct and release an annual

survey of dryland and irrigated cropland cash

rental rates in counties with more than 20,000

acres of crop and pasture land. [Sec. 2101(g)]

Identical to House provisions, and also requires the

Secretary to give preference to local owners or

operators when considering competing offers

providing equivalent benefits, and adds pollinators and

fish habitat to the contract selection criteria. [Sec.

2311(j)]

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

CRS-22

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

No comparable provisions on incentives for

land transfers in current law.

Amends sec. 1235 (Contracts) by adding a new

subsection to facilitate the transfer of CRP land

from a retiring owner to a beginning or sociallydisadvantaged producer to return land to

production, and allows new owner to begin land

improvements or start organic certification process

one year before CRP contract expires; provides

payments to the retiring owner for 2 years after the

contract expires. [Sec. 2101(h)]

No comparable provisions.

Sec. 1235(e) of the FSA allows the Secretary to

terminate CRP contracts after 5 years if

contract was in effect before 1/1/95 (16 U.S.C.

3835e)

Allows the Secretary to terminate any contract

after 5 years, and prohibits the Secretary from

terminating contracts for land enrolled under a

continuous signup. [Sec. 2101(i) and (j)]

In addition to current law, allows the Secretary to

terminate a contract if a retired or disabled producer

suffers a financial hardship from taxes on rental

payments. [Sec. 2311(k)]

No comparable provision in current law.

No comparable provision.

Creates Flooded Farmland Program for the Northetrn

Great Plains within the CRP as a new sec. 1235B;

allows continuous enrollment; eligible land parcels

must exceed 5 acres, have been incapable of

production the preceding 3 crop years, have a cropping

history, and have no natural outlet. [Sec. 2312]

No comparable provision in current law.

No comparable provision.

Creates Wildlife Habitat Program for CRP participants

who have established softwood pine stands as a new

Sec. 1235C under contracts of up to 5 years to use

management practices that benefit wildlife; program

ends Sept. 30, 2011. [Sec. 2313]

Sec. 1237(a) of the FSA states that the purposes

of WRP are to restore and protect wetlands. (16

U.S.C. 3837a)

Adds to the purposes to create and to enhance

wetlands, and to purchase floodplain easements.

[Sec. 2102(a)]

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1237(b) of the FSA sets maximum

enrollment at 2.275 million acres, with an

annual calendar year enrollment goal of

Maximum enrollment set at 3.605 million acres.

Sets an annual fiscal year enrollment goal of

250,000 acres, of which not more than 10,000

Sets annual fiscal year enrollment goal of 250,000

acres, with no enrollment after FY2012. [Sec. 2321(1)]

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

CRS-23

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

250,000 acres. (16 U.S.C. 3837b)

acres may be flood plain easements. [Sec.

2102(b)]

Sec. 1237(c) of the FSA establishes

requirements for eligible lands through 2007.

(16 U.S.C. 3837c)

Also makes eligible; riparian areas, floodplain

land flooded in the past year or at least twice in the

past 10 years, and land that would contribute to

flood water storage, flow, or erosion control. [Sec.

2102(c)]

Replaces 2007 calendar year with FY2012. [Sec.

2321(2)]

Sec. 1237(e) of the FSA identifies ineligible

land to include lands already planted to timber

or pasture in the CRP. (16 U.S.C. 3837e)

Expands ineligible lands to include floodplains

where restoration practices would not be

productive or the land is already protected

adequately. [Sec. 2102(d)]

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1237A(f) of the FSA states compensation

to be paid in cash (in 5 to 30 payments)and not

to exceed the fair market value, as reduced by

the easement. (16 U.S.C. 3837a(f))

Compensation shall the lowest of 4 options; fair

market value percentage, market value percentage

determined by a survey, geographic cap, or

landowner’s offer. Also, the Secretary may use

non-federal contributions to administer this

program [Sec. 2102(e)]

Compensation shall be limited to lowest of 3 options;

an amount necessary to encourage enrollment, a limit

for a geographic area, or a landowner’s offer.

Compensation may be in 1 to 30 payments. [Sec.

2322(b)(3-4)]

Sec.1237C(c) of the FSA lists three

considerations the Secretary is to use when

considering offers are listed. (16 U.S.C.

3837c(c))

New subsection lists 3 additional criteria for

ranking offers (conservation benefits, costeffectiveness, and offer of a financial

contribution), and conservation benefits of

floodplain lands. [Sec. 2102(f)]

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1237D(c)(4) of the FSA waives limits for

public entities receiving payments through the

wetland and environmental enhancement

programs. (16 U.S.C. d(c)(4))

Provision replaced with a new Wetland Reserve

Enhancement Program, where state contribution

are used to increase payments. [Sec. 2102(g)]

Adds provision at the end of sec. 1237A creating a

new Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program [Sec.

2322(c)]

No comparable provision in current law.

New sec. 1237G authorizes the WRP from

FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec. 2402(h)]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision in current law.

No comparable provision.

New subsection requires a report to both agriculture

committees by 1/1/2010 on the implications of longterm easements on USDA resources. [Sec. 2322(d)]

CRS-24

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

Sec. 1238 of the FSA defines 15 terms;

including “base payment”, conservation

security contract”, “contract security plan”,

“contract security program”, “enhanced

payment”, “nondegradation standard”,

“resource-conserving crop rotation”, “resource

management system”, “tier I conservation

security contract”, “tier II conservation security

contract”, and “tier III conservation security

contract.” (16 U.S.C. 3838)

Twelve terms are defined and definitions that are

new terms or different from current law include;

“conservation plan”, “conservation practice”,

“management intensity”, “nondegradation

standard”, “priority resource of concern”,

“producer”, “resource-specific index”, “sociallydisadvantaged farmer or rancher”, and “structural

practice”. [Sec. 2103(a)]

For all future contracts, the CSP would be replaced by

a new Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP),

placed within a new Comprehensive Stewardship

Incentives Program. The new incentives program,

placed in sec. 1240T of the FSA, is discussed below in

the new programs subsection and is sec. 2341 in this

bill. The new CSP, also in sec. 2341, is discussed in

this section.

The new CSP defines 15 terms in sec. 1240V. [Sec.

2341]

Secs. 1238A(a-b)) establishes CSP between

FY2003 and FY2011. Defines eligible

producers and eligible lands (and excluded

lands (land enrolled in multi year land

retirement programs and land not in crop

production at least 4 of the preceding 6 years)).

(16 U.S.C. 3838a(a-b))

Establishes CSP from FY2012 through FY2017.

To be eligible, producers must submit an

acceptable offer that addresses “at least one

priority resource of concern to a minimum level of

management intensity.” Eligible land would not

include incidental forest land. [Sec. 2103(a)]

Defines and lists purposes for new CSP in sec. 1240U

and establishes program through FY2012 in sec.

1240W. [Sec. 2341]

(Note: Establishes new CSP as a conforming

amendment in sec. 2391, adds a new Sec. 1238D

which provides $2.317 billion to administer existing

CSP contracts, to remain available until spent.

Prohibits new or renewed contracts under old CSP

after farm bill is enacted.)

Secs 1238A(d-3) specifies terms for 3 tiers of

conservation contracts. Identifies topics that

may be addressed in contracts. Contracts are 5

years under tier 1, and 5 to 10 years under tiers

2 and 3. Circumstances and requirements for

modifying, terminating, and renewing contracts

are specified. Contracts may be renewed for 5

to 10 years (16 U.S.C. 3838a(d-e))

Limits program to 1 type of contract of 5 years

and describes 5 elements to be in all contracts, but

eliminates list of topics to be addressed. Contracts

could no longer be terminated, without penalty, by

a producer who is required to modify a contract.

Contracts may be renewed for 1 additional 5 year

period. New provisions on evaluation of offers

and coordination with organic certification are

added. [Sec. 2103(a)]

In sec. 1240X, defines eligible land and eligible

producers; land must have been planted to crops 4 of

the preceding 6 years. Contents of contracts are

specified, and are for 5 years, with a 5 year renewal if

certain conditions are met. Considerations in

evaluating contract offers are specified. Additional

provisions discuss terminating and changing contracts.

Terms of enhancement and supplemental payments are

specified. Duties of the producer are specified. [Sec.

2341]

Sec. 1238C specifies that duties of the

Secretary include making payments early in

each fiscal year, the components of payments

Duties are altered to include identification of

priority resources of concern at the state level,

with a limit of no more than 5 concerns in any

Duties listed in sec. 1240X include making the

program available on a continuous enrollment basis,

providing assistance to producers, and maintaining

Conservation Security Program (CSP)

CRS-25

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

for each tier, annual payment limits for each

tier ($20,000 for tier 1, $35,000 for tier 2, and

$45,000 for tier 3), minimum requirements for

practices, and requirements for implementing

regulations, (16 U.S.C. 3838c)

geographic area of a state, limits total payments

under a contract to $150,000 over 5 years, and the

environmental needs associated with agriculture

are to be considered in allocations to states. A

new subsection requires the Secretary to compile

data on specified program contract and payment

topics. [Sec. 2103 (a)]

contract and payment information that will support

program monitoring and evaluation, and enable

specialty crop producers to participate. [Sec. 2341]

No comparable provisions in current law.

New subsections specify that all contracts in effect

on the date of enactment and signed before

10/1/2007 will remain in effect, and no new or

renewed contracts can be entered into under the

2002 program after 9/30/2007. [Sec. 2103 (b) and

(c)]

No comparable provisions.

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provisions.

Between the date of enactment and 10/30/2017, the

program shall; enroll up to 79.628 million acres and

attempt to enroll 13.273 million acres per year, be

available nationwide, be run at a average annual cost

of $19 per acre, provide for participation by small

farms, and allocate to each state each year the lesser of

20,000 acres or 2.2% of the eligible land. [Sec. 2341]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provisions.

Sec. 1240Y requires regulations to be issued within

180 days of enactment. [Sec. 2341]

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

Sec. 1240 of the FSA lists the purposes of the

program as promoting production and

environmental quality as compatible goals, and

optimizing environmental benefits by working

in 5 specified areas. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa)

Forest management and organic transition are

added to the program purposes. Descriptions of 2

of the 5 purposes are revised to recognize energy

conservation and conservation on forest lands.

[Sec. 2105(a)]

Forest management is added to the statement of

program purposes, and pollinators and fuels

management are recognized in the amplifying

statements. [Sec. 2351]

Sec. 1240A of the FSA defines 6 terms;

“beginning farmer or rancher”, “eligible land”,

Adds forestry, forest management practices, and

coordinated implementation to the “land

Adds aquaculture to the “Eligible land” definition;

adds forestry to the “land management practice”

CRS-26

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

“land management practice”, “livestock,

practice”, and “structural practice.” (16 U.S.C.

3839aa-1)

management practice” definition, adds alpacas and

bison to the “livestock” definition, and adds

definitions of “integrated pest management” and

“socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher”. [Sec.

2105(b)]

definition; adds conservation planning practices to

“practices;” defines “producer” to include custom

feeding businesses and contract growers; and adds

firebreaks to “structural practice”. [Sec. 2352]

Sec. 1240B(a-c) of the FSA authorizes EQIP

through FY2010. Eligible practices are

defined. Contracts are 1 to 10 years. Bidding

down is prohibited. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(a-c))

Authorizes EQIP through FY2012. The definition

of eligible practices is amended to include organic

certification, using technical services from

approved third party providers, and improving

energy efficiency and renewable energy systems.

[Sec. 2105(c)]

Authorizes EQIP through FY2012. Expands permitted

practices to include conservation planning. Limits

contracts to a maximum of 5 years. Deletes

subsection 1240B(c), which prohibits bidding down.

[Sec. 2353(a-c)]

Sec. 1240B(d)(2) of the FSA allows limited

resource and beginning producers to receive not

more than a 90% federal cost share. (16 U.S.C.

3839aa-2(d))

Adds socially disadvantaged producers, and sets

the federal cost share at 90%, and provides an

increased federal cost-share of 90% for using

gasifier technology for certain purposes. [Sec.

2105(d-e)]

Gives up to 90% in financial assistance to sociallydisadvantaged and beginning producers, and allows

for advanced payments to purchase materials and

contracting. [Sec. 2353(c)]

Sec. 1240B(e) of the FSA provides incentive

payments to perform land management

practices, with special emphasis given to

practices that promote specified goals. (16

U.S.C. 3839aa-2(e))

Identifies 3 additional purposes for incentive

payments (receiving technical services from

approved third party providers, developing a

comprehensive nutrient management plan, and

implementing energy efficiency and renewable

energy projects), and adds pollinator habitat to list

of purposes receiving special emphasis. [Sec.

2105(f)]

Predator species protected under the Endangered

species Act, gray wolves, grizzly bears, and black

bears are to the list of purposes receiving special

emphasis. [Sec. 2353(c)(3)]

Sec. 1240B(g) of the FSA requires that 60% of

payments go to practices related to livestock

production through FY2007. (16 U.S.C.

3839aa-2(g))

Extends the 60% of payments to livestock

production requirement through FY2012. [Sec.

2105(g)(2)]

Same as House. [Sec. 2353(c)(4)]

No comparable provision in current law.

Requires the Secretary to reserve at least 5% of

program funds each for beginning producers, and

for socially disadvantaged producers for at least 90

days after the program funds have been made

No comparable provision.

CRS-27

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

available. [Sec. 2105(g)]

No comparable provision in current law.

No comparable provision.

Adds new subsections to give priority to improve

water conservation, and improve air quality where

certain conditions, such as being in a nonattainment

area, exist. Requires participants to have (or expect) at

least $15,000 in gross sales from a farming operation.

[Sec. 2353(c)(6)]

No comparable provision in current law.

Makes market agencies and custom feeding

businesses eligible to participate. [Sec. 2105(h)]

See definition of “producer, “in Sec. 2352, above.

Sec. 1240C of the FSA gives higher priority for

participation in EQIP to producers using costeffective conservation practices and practices

that address national conservation priorities.

(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3)

Identifies 5 priorities for applications and specifies

a streamlined evaluation process for operations

with “substantial and sound environmental

management systems” using a limited number of

practices. [Sec. 2105(i)]

Adds a higher priority for improving conservation

practices or systems in place at the time of the contract

offer. [Sec. 2354]

Sec. 1240E of the FSA defines the general

contents of a producer’s EQIP plan, and calls

on the Secretary to avoid duplication with other

conservation plans. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-5)

Requires the planning requirements to be

consistent with forest plans, and adds to the

avoidance of duplication provisions a subsection

to consider an air or water quality permit that

meets regulatory requirements as an acceptable

plan. [Sec. 2105 (k)]

Forestry language identical to House bill. [Sec. 2356]

Sec. 1240F of the FSA calls on the Secretary to

assist the producer in developing and

implementing their plans by providing funding,

information, and training. (16 U.S.C. 3839aa6)

Adds a new subsection listing 3 criteria that must

be met before the Secretary can provide assistance

for practices with a primary purpose of water

conservation. [Sec. 2105 (l)]

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1240H of the FSA provides for a

competitive grants program within EQIP, on a

matching basis, to implement innovative

conservation practices; 2 examples are listed

(using market systems in pollution reduction

and using innovative practices, such as storing

Adds detail on qualities of eligible projects while

deleting the 2 examples, establishes a pilot

program for conservation planning in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed, and adds a new

subsection to assist producers who are meeting

state and local regulatory air quality requirements.

Adds nonindustrial private forest lands to the list of

potential recipients of innovative technologies. Adds

two items to the list of examples; transfer innovative

technologies to nonindustrial private forest land in

production, and assist in specialty crop production.

[Sec. 2358]

CRS-28

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

carbon in soil); no funding is specified. (16

U.S.C. 3839aa-8)

Provides funding from EQIP as follows: in total,

$30 million in FY2008 growing each year to $75

million in FY2012; with air quality receiving $10

million in FY2008 and growing to $55 million in

FY2012, $5 million going to organic and specialty

crop producers annually, and $5 million going to

the pilot program annually. [Sec. 2105(m)]

Sec. 1240I of the FSA creates a Ground and

Surface Water Conservation Program

(GSWCP) within EQIP for activities that will

result in a net savings of ground or surface

water; lists 6 types of eligible activities

(improve irrigation systems, for example), and

provides mandatory funding of $25 million in

FY2002, growing to $60 million annually in

FY2004 through FY2007. (16 U.S.C. 3839-aa9)

Replaces GSWCP with a Regional Water

Enhancement Program to also address water

quality, to make eligible governmental entities

(including irrigation and water districts) and

Indian tribes, and to implement the program on a

regional scale through cooperative agreements of

from 1 to 5 years; expands the list of eligible

activities; requires the Secretary to identify

priority areas. Lists 5 priority areas, which

together may receive no more than 50% of the

available funds. Establishes a process for

soliciting and selecting proposals and developing

implementation agreements, requires that all

landowners and producers in a region be given an

opportunity to participate, and that the program be

funded at $60 million per year in mandatory

funding through FY2012 and limits administrative

expenses to no more than 3% of the total provided.

[Sec. 2106]

Amends the funding provisions to provide $65 million

annually for FY2008 through FY2012, and $60

million annually thereafter; insures that future funding

will be based on past funding levels and that states

with aquifers encompassing multiple states and

exceeding a minimum withdrawal rate will receive

funding; and provides at least $20 million for the

Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer. [Sec. 2359]

Sec. 1240I(c)(2) of the FSA provides $50

million to carry out water conservation

activities in the Klamath River basin (Oregon

and California) as soon as possible (16 U.S.C.

3839aa-9(c)(2))

Klamath River basin is one of the 5 listed priority

areas under the new Regional Water Enhancement

Program. [Sec. 2106 (b)(2)]

No comparable provision. (Note: The Klamath Basin

is listed as 1 of 14 priority areas in the Partnerships

and Cooperation Program, discussed in the “Other

Conservation Programs” section, below.

No comparable provision in current law.

No comparable provision.

Adds program in new sec. 1240J at end of EQIP to

assist farmers who are converting to organic

production using contracts of between 3 and 4 years.

CRS-29

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

Payments are limited to $20,000 per year, and

contracts may be terminated if the producer is not

pursuing organic certification; to be implemented

within 180 days of enactment. [Sec. 2360]

No comparable provision in current law.

No comparable provision.

Adds a new sec. 1240K to provide $165 million

between FY2008 and FY2012 for a new Chesapeake

Bay Watershed Conservation Program. [Sec. 2361]

Sec. 1241(a) of the FSA authorizes mandatory

funding through FY2007 to carry out numerous

conservation programs. (16 U.S.C. 3841)

Extends authorization through FY2012.

[Sec. 2401(a)]

Identical to House bill. [Sec. 2401(a)]

Sec. 1241(a)(3) of the FSA authorizes funding

for the CSP at $1.954 billion from FY2006

through FY2010 and $5.65 billion from

FY2006 through FY2015. (16 U.S.C.

3841(a)(3))

Authorizes $1,454 million from FY2007 through

FY2012, and $1,927 million from FY2012 through

FY2017. In addition, for contracts signed after

Oct 1, 2011, provides $501 million in FY2012

and $4,646 million for FY2012 through FY2017.

[Sec. 2401(b)]

Authorizes $2,317 million for contracts entered into

before the date of enactment, to remain available until

spent, and an unspecified amount for the new

Conservation Stewardship Program. (Note:

Enrollment in the new program, like the CRP and

WRP, is measured in acres rather than dollars.) [Sec.

2401(a)(3-4)]

Sec. 1241(a)(4) of the FSA authorizes funding

for the FPP at; $50 million in FY2002, $100

million in FY2003, $125 million in FY2004

and FY2005, $100 million in FY2006, and $97

million in FY2007. (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(4))

Funding for the renamed Farm and Ranchland

Protection Program is authorized at; $125 million

in FY2008, $150 million in FY2009, $200 million

in FY2010, $240 million in FY2011, and $280

million in FY2012. [Sec. 2401(c)]

Funding for the FPP is authorized at $97 million

annually from FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec.

2401(a)(5)]

Sec. 1241(a)(5) of the FSA limits funding for

the GRP to a total of $254 million from

FY2003 through FY2007. (16 U.S.C.

3841(a)(5))

No provision. (Note: Bill sets acreage enrollment

limit in GRP provisions, but no funding limit.)

Funding for the GRP is limited to a total of $240

million for FY2008 through FY2012. (Note: Bill has

no acreage enrollment limit.) [Sec. 2401(a)(6]

Sec. 1241(a)(6) of the FSA authorizes funding

for EQIP at; $400 million in FY2002, $700

million in FY2003, $1,000 million in FY2004,

$1,200 million annually in FY2005 and

Funding for EQIP is authorized at; $1,250 million

in FY2008, $1,600 million in FY2009, $1,700

million in FY2010, $1,800 million in FY2011, and

$2,000 million in FY2012. [Sec. 2401(d)]

Funding for EQIP is authorized at; $1,270 million in

FY2008 and FY2009, and $1,300 million in FY2010FY2012. [Sec. 2401(a)(7)]

Conservation Program Funding

CRS-30

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

FY2006, $1,270 million annually in FY2007FY2009, and $1,300 million in FY2010. (16

U.S.C. 3841(a)(6))

Funding for WHIP is authorized at $85 million

annually through FY2012. [Sec. 2401(e)]

Identical to House bill. [Sec. 2401(a)(8)]

Sec. 1201 of the Food Security Act of 1985

(FSA) defines 18 terms that apply throughout

the conservation title . (16 U.S.C. 3801)

No provisions. (Note: some of the terms added by

the Senate bill in this section are defined for

specific conservation programs, as noted

elsewhere.)

Adds definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher”,

“Indian tribe”, “nonindustrial private forest land”,

“socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher”, and

“technical assistance.” [Sec. 2001]

Sec. 1211 of the FSA makes violators of the

conservation compliance program ineligible

for certain program benefits, and sec. 1212 lists

exceptions from full loss of eligibility. (16

U.S.C. 3811-3812a)

One exception, in sec. 1212(f), is to reduce the

penalty for producers who act in good faith or

commit violations that are minor or due to

uncontrollable circumstances. (16 U.S.C.

3812f)

No comparable provision.

Amends sec. 1212(f) to add a second level of review

by the state or district director, with technical

concurrence from the Natural Resources Conservation

Service if the Secretary has determined that this

exception should apply. [Sec. 2101]

Sec. 1221 of the FSA makes violators of

swampbuster ineligible for certain program

benefits, and sec. 1222 lists exceptions from

full loss of eligibility are specified. (16 U.S.C.

3821-3824)

One exception, in sec. 1222(h), is to reduce the

penalty for producers who act in good faith or

commit violations that are minor or due to

uncontrollable circumstances. (16 U.S.C.

No comparable provision.

Amends sec. 1222(h) to add a second level of review

by the state or district director, with technical

concurrence from the Natural Resources Conservation

Service if the Secretary has determined that this

exemption should apply. [Sec. 2201]

Sec. 1241(a)(7) of the FSA authorizes funding

for WHIP at; $15 million in FY2002, $30

million in FY2003, $60 million in FY2004, and

$85 million annually in FY2005-FY2007. (16

U.S.C. 3841(a)(7))

Other Conservation Programs

CRS-31

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

Sec. 1230 of the FSA establishes the

Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement

Program (CCEP) through calendar year 2002.

CCEP , which includes the CRP, WRP, and

EQIP, promotes long-term protection for

environmentally sensitive lands by using

easements and providing technical and

financial assistance. (16 U.S.C. 3830) (Note:

Administration of CCEP, the subject of sec.

1243, is described below in the “other

conservation programs” subsection)

No comparable provision. (Note: Amendments to

Sec. 1243 described below in the “other

conservation programs” subsection .)

Deletes sec. 1243 in current law, and moves some of

these provisions, amended, into this (and other)

sections. Extends CCEP through FY2012. Expands

CCEP to also provide for; reducing administrative

burdens, streamlining the application process, and

creating opportunities for partnerships. Deletes EQIP

from CCEP (moving it to the new Comprehensive

Stewardship Incentives Program), and adds Healthy

Forests Reserve Program. Changes include adding a

new exception under which the Secretary may exceed

the enrollment limitation when a state or local

regulation prohibits agricultural water use. In these

instances, the Secretary must enroll the land within

180 days of receiving a request, and must pay the

rental rate that in effect prior to implementing the

regulation. [Sec. 2301]

Sec. 1238H of the FSA defines “eligible

entity”, “eligible land”, “Indian tribe”, and

“program.” for the Farmland Protection

Program (FPP). (16 U.S.C. 3838h)

Expands eligible land definition to include historic

and archaeological resources. [Sec. 2110]

Modifies definition of eligible forest land, and makes

eligible other land that is needed for efficient

administration of an easement. [Sec. 2371(a)]

Sec. 1238I of the FSA establishes FPP to

purchase conservation easements to protect

topsoil by limiting nonagricultural uses on land

that is subject to a pending offer; the federal

cost may not exceed 50% of the value of the

easement, and the value of a charitable

donation by the seller may not exceed 25% of

the value of the easement; if multiple

applications are comparable, the Secretary may

not use cost alone to determine which one will

be funded. (16 U.S.C. 3838i)

Changes program name to Farm and Ranchland

Protection Program (FRPP); states will be certified

(certifications to be reviewed every 3 years) to

participate and receive program funds based on 4

listed requirements, and states may spend up to

10% of those funds for administrative costs.

Terms and conditions for agreements with eligible

entities (agreements to be reviewed every 3 years)

are listed. The Secretary may require in an

easement a contingent right to enforce the

easement. [Sec. 2110]

Changes the purpose of the program from protecting

topsoil to “protecting agricultural use and related

conservation values.” Adds three new subsections;

defining requirements for cooperative agreements with

participants, restating cost-sharing requirements, and

stating that the federal investment will be protected

while specifying that these easements are not a federal

acquisition of property. [Sec. 2317(b)]

Sec. 1238N of the FSA sets the maximum

The enrollment ceiling is an additional 1.34

Adds definitions of “eligible entity,” “eligible land,”

3822h)

CRS-32

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

enrollment at 2.0 million acres for the

Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) (see Sec.

1241(a)(5) for maximum funding), with all

enrolled parcels to be at least 40 contiguous

acres. Requires 40% of the land to be enrolled

in 10-20 year rental agreements and 60% in 30

year rental agreements and easements. (16

U.S.C. 3838n)

million acres, with at least 60% of these acres to

be enrolled using 30 year rental agreements and

easements. (Note: does not contain a maximum

funding limit.) [Sec. 2104(a) and (b)]

and “permanent conservation easement;” enrollment

options are a 30 year contract, 30 year easement, and

permanent easement. (Note: Limits the program by

setting a maximum funding level but sets no

maximum acreage limit (see “conservation funding

section” below.) [Sec. 2381]

No comparable provision in the GRP in current

law.

The Secretary may transfer certain land currently

in the CRP into the GRP, but limits the total in any

calendar year to no more than 10% of the acres

enrolled in the GRP. Requires the Secretary to

pay the lowest of 4 specified ways to calculate fair

market value. [Sec. 2104(c)]

Allows the Secretary to transfer certain land currently

in the CRP to a permanent easement under GRP, but

limits the total transferred in any calendar year to 10%

of the total funding available for the GRP in that year.

[Sec. 2381]

Sec. 1238O of the FSA specifies the duties and

requirements of landowners in the GRP, terms

of easements and agreements, and how

applications are to be evaluated. (16 U.S.C.

3838o)

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1238P specifies duties of landowners, specifies

considerations for the Secretary in evaluating offers,

specifies how levels of compensation are to be

calculated, and provides technical assistance. [Sec.

2381]

No comparable provision in the GRP in current

law.

No comparable provision.

A new sec. 1238Q specifies the terms and conditions

that apply to contracts and easements in the GRP,

including permitted and prohibited uses, minimum

requirements for a cooperative agreement, and that

the federal investment is protected while specifying

that these easements are not a federal acquisition of

property. [Sec. 2381]

No comparable provision in the GRP in current

law.

Authorizes a Grasslands Reserve Enhancement

Program. [Sec. 2104 (d)]

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1238Q(a) of the FSA allows the Secretary

to transfer the title of an easement in the GRP

to a organizations or a state. (16 U.S.C.

3838q(a))

Requires the Secretary to transfer the title of an

easement to a private organizations or a state.

[Sec. 2104 (e)]

No comparable provision.

CRS-33

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

The Healthy Forest Reserve Program

(HFRP) was authorized in forest legislation

(P.L. 108-148, Title V(16 U.S.C. 6571-6578))

and not placed in the conservation title.

No comparable provisions.

HFRP moves to new secs. 1237M-T. It improves

forest ecosystems to support endangered species

recovery, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration using

agreements and easements; federal financial cost share

is specified; and technical assistance is provided.

Authorizes such sums as necessary annually from

FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec. 2331]

Sec. 1238J of the FSA authorizes grants and

appropriates “such sums as are necessary” in

discretionary funding through FY2007 to

implement a Farm Viability Program. (16

U.S.C. 3838j)

Authorizes discretionary funding for program

through FY2012. [Sec. 2111]

Identical to provisions in House bill. [Sec. 2396]

Sec. 1240M(e) of the FSA authorizes the

Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Program and provides discretionary funding of

$60 million per year through FY2007. (16

U.S.C, 3839bb(e))

Extends the authorization of appropriations

through FY2012. [Sec. 2108]

Identical to House bill [Sec. 2392]

Sec. 1240N of the FSA authorizes Wildlife

Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to

provide cost sharing payments to landowners

who improve habitat, with up to 15% of the

total made available in any years for

agreements that are longer than 15 years. (16

U.S.C. 3839bb-1)

A new subsection extends program authorization

through FY2012, allows additional funds to also

be used to meet regulatory requirements that

“reduces the economic scope of the producer’s

operation”, and increases the portion of funds for

long term agreements from 15% to 25%. [Sec.

2112]

Reauthorizes WHIP through FY2012, increases the

portion of funds for long term agreements from 15%

to 25%, and requires the Secretary to give priority to

projects that would foster the goals of state, regional,

and national fish and wildlife conservation plans. [Sec.

2393]

Sec. 1240O of the FSA authorizes a Grassroots

Source Water Protection Program to assist

state rural water associations that operate

wellhead and groundwater protection programs,

and authorizes $5 million annually through

FY2007 in discretionary funding. (16 U.S.C.

3839bb-2)

Authorizes $20 million annually in discretionary

funding from FY2008 through FY2012 and onetime funding of $10 million in mandatory funding

to remain available until spent. [Sec. 2107]

Authorizes $20 million annually in discretionary

funding from FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec. 2394]

Sec. 1240P of the FSA authorizes a Great

Extends the authorization of appropriations

Extends the authorization of appropriations through

CRS-34

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

Lakes Program for Soil Erosion and

Sediment Control, and provides $5 million

annually in discretionary funding through

FY2007. (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-3)

through FY2012. [Sec. 2109]

FY2012; specifies that program is to assist in

implementing the recommendations of a collaborative

restoration strategy, and gives priority to projects with

3 specified goals. [Sec. 2395].

Sec. 524(b)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance

Act authorizes an Agricultural Management

Assistance Program for listed states that have

historic low participation rates in the federal

Crop Insurance Program. (7 U.S.C. 1524(b))

Adds Hawaii and Virginia to the list of eligible

states, and allocates 50% of the funds to NRCS,

10% to the Agricultural Marketing Service to

provide organic certification assistance, and 40%

to the Risk Management Agency. [Sec. 2201]

Adds Idaho to the list of eligible states and

reauthorizes the program through FY2012. [Sec. 2601]

Sec. 1528-1537 of the Agriculture and Food

Act of 1981 authorizes the Resource

Conservation and Development Program to

assist multi county areas develop and

implement a regional plan which may address

land conservation, water management,

community development or land management.

(16 U.S.C. 1528-1527)

Amends the Resource Conservation and

Development Program to provide a designated

coordinator to assist each approved area, and

delete Sec. 1534, which requires a program

evaluation to the agriculture committees before

June 30, 2005 [Sec. 2202]

Almost identical to House bill provisions. [Sec. 2605]

Sec. 14(h) of the Watershed Protection and

Flood Prevention Act authorizes discretionary

and mandatory funding to implement a Small

Watershed Rehabilitation Program. (16

U.S.C. 1012)

Authorizes $50 million annually in mandatory

funding for FY20089 through FY2012 and extends

the FY2007 discretionary funding level through

FY2012. [Sec. 2203]

Authorizes such sums as necessary in discretionary

funding annually from FY2008 through FY2012. [Sec.

2604]

Sec. 1241(d) of the FSA authorizes a program

to promote regional equity, by giving every

state a priority to receive a total of at least $12

million annually from specified mandatory

funded programs. (16 U.S.C. 3841d)

Annual funding for regional equity is raised to at

least $15 million [Sec. 2404]

Annual funding for regional equity is raised to at least

$15 million, and crop insurance payments are added to

this calculation. The Secretary is to review and update

the conservation program state allocation formulas by

1/1/2012. [Sec. 2402]

Sec. 1242 of the FSA authorizes Delivery of

Technical Assistance directly or using a 3rd

party provider and specifies how 3rd party

providers are to be approved by the Secretary.

Authorizes cooperative agreements with non-

Expands use of 3rd parties using contracts. Adds

new subsections to pay providers at least

prevailing market rates when federal employees

are not available to provide these services, to

review and update all relevant technical assistance

Expands use of 3rd parties using contracts, calls on the

Secretary to develop national certification criteria and

approve any unique standards established at the state

level. Provides funds through each conservation

program, specifies minimum and maximum contract

CRS-35

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

federal entities to provide technical assistance.

(16 U.S.C. 3842)

specifications, and to address the needs of

specialty crop producers in the technical

specifications. [Sec. 2402]

terms, and requires the Secretary to review and adjust

certification requirements within 1 year of enactment.

Also requires the Secretary to review and revise

conservation practice standards. Specialty crop

provisions are generally identical to the House bill.

[Sec. 2404]

Sec. 1243 of the FSA authorizes

Administration of the Comprehensive

Conservation Enhancement Program

(CCEP) (includes CRP. WRP. And EQIP and is

authorized in Sec. 1230, discussed above).

Provisions include; avoiding duplication of

required conservation plans, limiting

enrollment under CRP and WRP to 25% of the

cropland in a county, protecting the interests of

share croppers and tenants, allowing approved

sources to provide technical assistance, and

using up to 5% of the funds from the mandatory

funded conservation programs to foster

cooperation through partnerships. (16 U.S.C.

3844)

Amends administration provisions by moving

subsections on acreage enrollment limitations,

tenant protection, obtaining technical assistance

from other approved sources to the end of sec.

1244; replaces the subsection on avoiding

duplication of plans with a subsection establishing

a new Cooperative Conservation Partnership

Initiative to carry out projects and initiatives that

address conservation topics on a scale larger than

an individual farm using competitive grants of 2 to

5 years. Specifies 14 criteria to be used in

reviewing applications and 9 priorities that

projects should address. Specifies duties of

participant and duties of the Secretary. Program to

be funded with 10% of the funding for CSP, EQIP,

and WHIP, and to be reallocated back to those

programs if not spent by April 1 of that year; the

federal share for each project will be at least 75%

of the cost. 90% of the funds to be allocated at the

state level. Incentive and bonus payments may be

used for 2 specified purposes. Administrative

costs are to be limited to 5% of any grant. [Sec.

2403]

Deletes sec. 1243 and moves retained provisions to

sec. 1230; see discussion of sec. 1230, above.

New sec. 1243(a) contains streamlined application

process provisions, and new sec. 1243(b) contains

endangered species provisions: both are discussed

below in “new programs” subsection. Establishes

Partnerships and Cooperation to undertake special

projects with multiple producers and working with

eligible partners to address conservation issues

recommended by the state conservationist. Uses all

the mandatory funded conservation programs except

CRP and WRP. Five project purposes are specified.

Application contents are listed. Duties of the

Secretary provisions include using 5 priorities when

selecting projects, using more detailed special rules

when considering regional water enhancement

projects, identifying 14 priority water project areas.

Project agreements may be up to 5 years. Funding is

10% of the mandatory funds allocated to each state

(excluding CRP, CSP, the new Conservation

Stewardship Program, and WRP), with 75% of the

total for intrastate projects and 25% for multi-state

projects. Requires monitoring and evaluation. [Sec.

2405]

Sec. 1244(a) of the FSA authorizes the

Secretary to provide beginning farmers and

ranchers and Indian tribes incentives to

participate in conservation programs. (16

Expands access to incentives to include socially

disadvantaged and limited resource farmers and

ranchers. [Sec. 2405(a)]

No comparable provision. (Note: provisions to assist

socially disadvantaged and limited resource farmers

and ranchers are in other sections of the bill.)

CRS-36

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

Sec. 1261 authorizes state technical

committees (STC), and includes provisions

listing members and interests to be represented,

outlining STC duties, and specifying that the

committees are advisory only and have no

implementation or enforcement authority. (16

U.S.C. 3861-3862)

Provisions added include having at least 12

producers representing agriculture, and deleting

persons knowledgeable about conservation; and

new provisions creating subcommittees and listing

topics to be addressed. Responsibilities are

described more generally than under current law.

[Sec. 2408]

Adds nonindustrial private forest land owners to the

list of groups represented on the STC. [Sec. 2501]

Sec. 351 of the 1996 farm bill authorizes a

National Natural Resources Conservation

Foundation to raise private funds that will be

used to promote conservation. Program has

never been implemented. (16 U.S.C. 58015809)

No comparable provision.

Amends numerous provisions authorizing the

Foundation. [Sec. 2606]

Sec. 2507 of the FSA authorizes the Secretary

to transfer $200 million from the CCC to the

Bureau of Reclamation to ‘provide water to atrisk natural desert terminal lakes.” (43 U.S.C.

2211note)

No comparable provision.

Amends the desert terminal lakes provision to allow

funds to be used to lease water or to purchase land and

related interests in the Walker River Basin. [2607]

U.S.C. 3844(a))

New Conservation Programs Authorized in One or Both Bills

No comparable provisions in current law.

Authorizes a new Chesapeake Bay Program for

Nutrient Reduction and Sediment Control in

Sec. 1240Q to carry out restoration, enhancement,

and preservation projects starting in 4 specified

watersheds, and implement a comprehensive plan

to be submitted by the Secretary to Congress

within 2 years of enactment. Mandatory funding

starts at $10 million in FY2008 and grows to $55

million in FY2012. The non-federal cost share to

implement projects is at least 35%, and the federal

share of any project can not exceed $5 million.

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to be a

No comparable provision. (Note: Chesapeake Bay

program authorized as a part of EQIP in sec. 2361.)

CRS-37

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

member of the Chesapeake Bay Executive

Council. [Sec. 2301]

No comparable provisions in current law.

Authorizes grants to states through a new

Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive

Program in Sec. 1240R to encourage landowners

to provide public access for “wildlife-dependent

recreation.” Identifies the contents of applications

and priorities for awards, and provides

discretionary funding of $20 million per year

through FY2012. [Sec. 2302]

Generally identical to House bill, except placed in sec.

1240S, and does not authorize any appropriations.

[Sec. 2399]

Appropriations of $20 million per year through

FY2012 authorized as a new subsection 1241(a)(9) in

Conservation Funding Provisions. [Sec. 2401(a)(9)]

No comparable provisions in current law.

Authorizes a new Muck Soils Conservation

Program for eligible land (defined by 5

characteristics). Provides $50 million annually in

discretionary funding through FY2012, with

payments to be between $300 and $500 per acre.

[Sec. 2303]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provisions in current law.

Authorizes a new subsection at the end of Sec.

1244 requiring the Secretary to develop and

implement a single simplified application

process for conservation programs within 1 year

of enactment. [Sec. 2405(b)]

Generally similar to provisions in House bill. [Sec.

2405(a)]

No general provision in current law. (Note:

Current law limits CRP payments to $50,000

per year in sec. 1234(f), sets payment limits for

each of 3 tiers in the CSP in sec. 1238C(d)-(e),

and limits EQIP payments to $450,000 for all

contracts in any 6-year period in sec. 1240G.

Authorizes new payment limits in sec. 1246,

limiting annual payments to $60,000 under any

single conservation program, and $125,000 under

all conservation programs; excludes the WRP,

FRPP, and GRP. Defines how payments should be

attributed to individuals. Deletes existing

conservation payment limit language. [Sec. 2409]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provisions in current law.

Requires the Secretary to submit an annual report

on specialty crop producer participation in

conservation programs in a new sec. 1252,

including how to improve specialty crop producer

No comparable provision.

CRS-38

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

access to these programs. Initial report to be

submitted within 180 days of enactment. [Sec.

2406]

No comparable provisions in current law.

Authorizes a new program to promote marketbased approaches to conservation in sec. 1245. 4

findings about the need and the benefits of

facilitating markets are listed. The Secretary may

conduct relevant research, enter into contracts, and

award grants to foster markets. Establishes an

Environmental Services Standards Board made up

of senior federal officials to facilitate the

development of credit markets and disseminate

performance standards to federal agencies.

Defines “baseline” and “performance standard.”

Authorizes $50 million in discretionary funding,

with appropriated amounts to remain available

until spent. [Sec. 2407]

Authorizes new provisions for conservation

programs in environmental service markets in a

new sec. 1245. The Secretary is to use a collaborative

process with specified interests to develop a

framework for participating in environmental services

markets. Components of the framework are specified

(includes designing accounting features and

developing a verification process), with priority given

to participation in carbon markets. Three

implementation reports, with contents specified, are

required within specified times from the date of

enactment. Discretionary funding of “such sums as

are necessary” are authorized. [Sec. 2406]

No comparable provisions in current law.

Adds income from affiliated packing and handling

operations to definition of farm income when

calculating adjusted gross income limitation to

determine eligibility for conservation programs.

[Sec. 2501]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provisions in current law.

Allows the Secretary to encourage development of

voluntary sustainable practices guidelines for

specialty crops. [Sec. 2502]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provisions in current law.

Requires the Secretary to develop information on

the importance of productive farmland and

designate at least 1 farmland information center

to distribute this and related information. Federal

matching funds are at least $400,000, and shall not

exceed 0.5% of the amount provided to implement

the FRPP. [Sec. 2503]

No comparable provision.

CRS-39

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

No comparable provisions in current law.

Requires the Secretary to contract with a peanut

producer for a 4 year crop rotation and provides

up to $10 million annually from FY2008 through

FY2012. [Sec. 2504]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision in current law. (Note:

See the Conservation Security Program, above,

in existing programs.)

See section 2103, the Conservation Security

Program (above), for some related changes; for

example, the House bill defines “priority resources

of concern.” However, the House bill does not

create a new program.

Authorizes a new Comprehensive Stewardship

Incentives Program in secs. 1240T to coordinate

administration of a new Conservation Stewardship

Program created in secs. 1240U-1240X (which

combines the Conservation Security Program (CSP)

and EQIP (both discussed above) and address defined

resources of concern, meet regulatory requirements,

encourage conservation, and promote conservation and

production as compatible goals. Implementing

regulations to be issued within 180 days of enactment.

[Sec. 2341]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Authorizes a Discovery Watershed Demonstration

Program in a new sec. 1240Q to reduce the loss of

nutrients into surface waters in 30 small watersheds in

the Upper Mississippi River basin. Authorizes such

discretionary funds as are necessary. [Sec. 2397]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Authorizes an Emergency Landscape Restoration

Program in a new sec. 1240R to replaces the

Emergency Conservation and the Emergency

Watershed Protection Programs. [Sec. 2398]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Authorizes access to conservation provisions in a

new sec. 2401(g) to provide 10% of the funds (or acres

in the cases of WRP and CRP) to beginning producers

who derive at least $15,000 from selling agricultural

products, or socially-disadvantaged producers.

Includes higher levels for technical assistance where

possible, and encourages cooperative agreements.

[Sec. 2403]

CRS-40

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Adds a sec. 1244(d) requiring the Secretary, at the

request of a landowner, to help get “safe harbor”

assurances if land enrolled in a conservation program

benefits a specie under the Endangered Species Act.

[Sec. 2405(b)]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Adds a sec. 1244(e) requiring the Secretary to assist

producers who apply for programs indirectly

through certain organizations if it will increase

participation and program benefits; payment limits

apply to each producer, not the organization. [Sec.

2405(b)]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Authorizes a Agriculture Conservation Experienced

Service Program in sec. 307 of the Department of

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The

Secretary can enter into agreements with organizations

to provide technical assistance using qualified

individuals who are 55 or older. [Sec. 2602]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

New provisions titled technical assistance amend the

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of

1935 to update definitions. Reauthorizes the Soil and

Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977through

2028, and requires a national appraisal of soil, water

and related resources and a national conservation

program to be issued every 10 years. [Sec. 2603]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

The “sodsaver” makes cultivated land that was

vegetated with native sod and has never been used to

produce a crop ineligible for crop insurance and

disaster assistance; requires the Secretary to report

within 180days of enactment, and annually thereafter

on changes in cropland acreage, by county, from

calendar year 1995. [Sec. 2608]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Requires that no producers in Texas lose program

CRS-41

PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 107-171)

(UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

HOUSE BILL

(H.R. 2419)

SENATE AMENDMENT

(H.R. 2419)

benefits as a result of participating in a study of the

Ogallala Aquifer’s recharge potential. [Sec. 2609]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136o(d)) to

require the State Department to pay EPA employee

expenses incurred while conducting certain

international activities. [Sec. 2610]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Amends sec. 202(a) of the Colorado River Salinity

Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1592(a)) to create a basin

states program implementing specified salinity

control activities. [Sec. 2611]

No comparable provisions in current law.

No comparable provision.

Amends sec. 33 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136w-8) to allow

the EPA Administrator to waive a portion of the

pesticide registration service fee under certain

circumstances. [Sec. 2612]