Conservation Provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

Š•˜Œ”ȱ˜ Š—ȱ

—Š•¢œȱ’—ȱŠž›Š•ȱŽœ˜ž›ŒŽœȱŠ—ȱž›Š•ȱŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ȱ

Ž—·Žȱ ˜‘—œ˜—ȱ

™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱ›’Œž•ž›Š•ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ

ŽŠ—ȱž‹‹œȱ

—Š•¢œȱ’—ȱ›’Œž•ž›Š•ȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱŠ—ȱŠž›Š•ȱŽœ˜ž›ŒŽœȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ

Š—žŠ›¢ȱŗřǰȱŘŖŖşȱ

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ

ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ

řŚśśŝȱ

ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

ž––Š›¢ȱ

The 2008 enacted farm bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246)

reauthorizes almost all existing conservation programs, modifies several programs, and creates

various new conservation programs. A new Conservation Stewardship program replaces the

existing Conservation Security Program and a new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program

under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program is also authorized with mandatory funding.

Other new programs include the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program and a “Sodsaver” provision

to help preserve native sod, including virgin prairie in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area.

Significant modifications to existing programs include a reduction of the maximum enrolled

acreage under the Conservation Reserve Program to 32 million acres and an increase in the cap

for the Wetlands Reserve Program to over 3 million acres.

Other changes in the enacted bill include modifications to address eligibility requirements,

program definitions, enrollment and payment limits, contract terms, evaluation and application

ranking criteria, among other administrative issues. Eligibility is expanded for many programs

and technical assistance under most programs is broadened to cover forested and managed lands,

pollinator habitat and protection, and identified natural resource areas. Beginning, limited

resource, and socially disadvantaged producers, specialty crop producers, and producers

transitioning to organic production are also targeted for special consideration in many existing

programs.

Estimated new spending on the conservation title—not including estimated conservation-related

revenue and cost-offset provisions in the bill—is projected to increase by $2.7 billion over 5 years

and $4.0 billion over 10 years. Total mandatory spending for the conservation title is projected at

$24.3 billion over 5 years (FY2008-FY2012) and $55.2 billion over 10 years (FY2008-FY2017).

A comparison of conservation provisions in the enacted 2008 farm bill with existing law and the

House and Senate farm bills is provided in the Appendix.

This report will not be updated.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

˜—Ž—œȱ

Policy Questions and Issues Shaping the Conservation Title of the 2008 Farm Bill ..................... 1

Program Funding and Producer Payment Limits ...................................................................... 2

Geographic Emphasis................................................................................................................ 2

Program Complexity ................................................................................................................. 2

Delivery Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 2

Regional and Multistate Conservation Efforts .......................................................................... 3

Program Evaluation................................................................................................................... 3

Program Changes in the Enacted 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110-246) .................................................. 3

Land Retirement and Easement Programs ................................................................................ 4

Conservation Reserve Program........................................................................................... 4

Wetlands Reserve Program ................................................................................................. 5

Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) ................................................................................... 6

Farmland Protection Program (FPP)................................................................................... 6

Working Lands Conservation Programs.................................................................................... 6

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ........................................................... 7

Conservation Security (Stewardship) Program................................................................... 8

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)..................................................................... 8

Other Programs ................................................................................................................... 9

Technical Assistance and Conservation Program Administration....................................... 9

Authorized Reports ........................................................................................................... 10

New Conservation Programs................................................................................................... 10

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program................................................................................ 10

Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives Program.................................................11

Sodsaver Provision.............................................................................................................11

Environmental Services Markets .......................................................................................11

Miscellaneous Conservation Provisions...................................................................................11

Response from Conservation Interest Groups .................................................................. 12

™™Ž—’¡Žœȱ

Appendix. Agricultural Conservation Provisions in the Enacted 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110246) Compared with Previous Law and the House- and Senate-Passed Bills (H.R.

2419) .......................................................................................................................................... 13

˜—ŠŒœȱ

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 36

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

T

he Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246), the 2008 farm bill,

reauthorizes almost all existing conservation programs, modifies several programs, and

creates various new conservation programs. These changes address eligibility

requirements, program definitions, enrollment and payment limits, contract terms, evaluation and

application ranking criteria, among other administrative issues. In general, the conservation title

includes specific changes that expand eligibility and delivery of technical assistance under most

programs to cover more broadly, for example, forested and managed lands, pollinator habitat and

protection, and identified natural resource areas, among other expansions. Producer coverage

across most programs is also expanded to include beginning, limited resource, and socially

disadvantaged producers; speciality crop producers; and producers transitioning to organic

production. The enacted bill also creates new conservation programs to address emerging issues

and priority resource areas, and also new subprograms under existing programs.

Estimated new spending on the 2008 farm bill’s conservation title—not including estimated

conservation-related revenue and cost-offset provisions in the bill—is projected to increase by

$2.7 billion over 5 years and $4.0 billion over 10 years. Total mandatory spending for the title is

projected at $24.3 billion over 5 years (FY2008-FY2012) and $55.2 billion over 10 years

(FY2008-FY2017).

˜•’Œ¢ȱžŽœ’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ‘Š™’—ȱ‘Žȱȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ’•Žȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

Agricultural conservation became a significant and visible policy focus in the Food Security Act

of 1985. Since then, questions and concerns about conservation program funding, policy

objectives, individual program effectiveness, comparative geographic emphasis, and the structure

of federal assistance have been recurring issues in the debate shaping each successive omnibus

farm bill.1 The 2008 farm bill is no exception. These long-standing issues arguably became even

more apparent in this farm bill as they found their way into many individual program changes.

This result may be a continuation of the more active profile taken by many conservation groups

and their supporters in the 2002 farm bill. Unlike commodity programs, conservation program

participation tends to be well represented by small and mid-size farming operations, according to

the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service. The

programs also enjoy wider public support. In an environment of pronounced domestic budget

constraint, however, conservation groups and producers found themselves competing with other

farming interests for the necessary resources to expand and continue many conservation

programs. Budget concerns aside, several other issues emerged in the debate leading to enactment

of the 2008 farm bill: funding priorities and payment structure, geographic targeting, program

complexity, the importance of large-scale conservation efforts, and measurement of costs and

effectiveness. These general policy issues—in various forms—raised questions central to the

deliberations and outcomes in the enacted conservation title of the farm bill.

1

Farmland conservation programs and initiatives initially were enacted as part of the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198, Food

Security Act of 1985), which also included for the first time a conservation title. These programs have been

reauthorized, modified, and expanded, and several new programs have been created, particularly in subsequent

omnibus farm bills.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ŗȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

ȱ

›˜›Š–ȱž—’—ȱŠ—ȱ›˜žŒŽ›ȱŠ¢–Ž—ȱ’–’œȱ

Among the questions raised were: Should payment limits be program-specific, or for some

combination of conservation programs? Would the imposition of payment limits change patterns

of participation and effectiveness of conservation programs? What are the potential differences in

saving under different payment limit options? Where should savings be allocated? Should each

conservation program have the same payment limit? How will funding levels affect the existing

backlog of interest in program participation that cannot be met?

Ž˜›Š™‘’Œȱ–™‘Šœ’œȱ

Because agricultural production is concentrated in specific regions of the United States,

agricultural conservation and environmental issues are not randomly distributed. Some areas and

some natural resources reveal greater environmental impact from agricultural activities—actual

and potential—than others. For example, pressures on farmland development from urban sprawl

are more pronounced on the East and West Coasts. Although many areas of the United States

have water quality/quantity concerns or air quality issues, the deterioration of certain watersheds

and certain air sheds is more advanced in some places than in others. How is it determined where

federal conservation spending would be most effective? Should certain locations (states, regions,

or watersheds) be targeted? Does targeting particular producer groups provide an effective

strategy in resource management? Should some types of agricultural production or resource

concerns receive higher priority in evaluating applications?

›˜›Š–ȱ˜–™•Ž¡’¢ȱ

Members of Congress, conservation groups, the Administration, and individual producers raised

questions about the desirability of proliferating conservation programs and the complexity of

adhering to various regulations that govern the programs. Some producers might have some

acreage under one program and other acreage under another program. On-farm wetland

management may be regulated by one program, while the environmental management plan of

retired acreage is under another program. The question arises whether there is avoidable

duplication or other inefficiencies that significantly limit conservation and resource management

effectiveness. Could existing programs be combined in certain ways? Would a consolidated effort

targeting a few specific resource issues reduce the complexity?

Ž•’ŸŽ›¢ȱŽŒ’ŸŽ—Žœœȱ

Along with the perceived complexity of agricultural conservation programs is the related issue of

the effectiveness of program delivery. 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? What opportunities and problems would

result if a large portion of staff in the responsible agencies retired in a short time period? Does

USDA currently have the staff needed to administer conservation programs if they were all fully

funded? How might more market-based solutions to resource conservation improve delivery

efficiency and program effectiveness?

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

Řȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

Ž’˜—Š•ȱŠ—ȱž•’œŠŽȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ˜›œȱ

Local planning and implementation of conservation programs through locally constituted councils

is an important aspect of conservation management and a long-standing characteristic of U.S.

local-federal relations. A significant question raised by conservation groups, however, is the

extent to which conservation efforts would be more effective and more efficient if they took place

at larger scales, for example, through regional or multistate resource planning and multistate

conservation planning. Because the conservation programs are voluntary, concern was voiced that

participation could decline if producers felt that conservation programs were more remote from

local planning input. Using watersheds or river basin drainage areas as policy targets, for

example, could reduce the planning control of any single area jurisdiction. The trade-off is seen in

the efficiencies that potentially stem from pooling financial and planning resources and targeting

particular resource issues affecting most if not all producers. The Chesapeake Bay region, the

Great Lakes, and specific river basins with significant agricultural impacts are examples where

larger scale planning may hold particular advantages.

›˜›Š–ȱŸŠ•žŠ’˜—ȱ

How effective are federal conservation programs in improving environmental management of

natural resources? Evaluation is an essential part of effective conservation management. Yet,

developing practical and reliable indicators that can be used across programs and with different

producers and different resources has been a challenge. Policymakers and stakeholders generally

agree that conservation measures have been effective in reducing the environmental impact of

agricultural activities, but at what cost, in what locations, and under what specific circumstances

are much more difficult questions to answer. The recognized importance of establishing valid

indicators has been an ongoing issue in environmental management. Research has advanced

considerably in the area, to the point that integrating those findings within the structure of current

programs is viewed by many to be more feasible than it was in the past.

›˜›Š–ȱ‘Š—Žœȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ—ŠŒŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱȱ

ǻǯǯȱŗŗŖȬŘŚŜǼȱ

The 2008 farm bill reauthorizes almost all current conservation programs, modifies several

current programs, and creates various new conservation programs. The various conservation

programs administered by USDA can be broadly grouped into land retirement and easement

programs and so-called “working lands” programs. In general, land retirement and easement

programs take land out of crop production and provide for program rental payments and costsharing to establish longer term conservation coverage, in order to convert the land back into

forests, grasslands, or wetlands. Working lands programs provide technical and financial

assistance to assist agricultural producers in improving natural resource conservation and

management practices on their productive lands. The enacted 2008 farm bill also creates several

new conservation programs under the bill’s conservation and other titles. The following sections

provide brief overviews of the Title II changes to agricultural conservation programs.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

řȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

Š—ȱŽ’›Ž–Ž—ȱŠ—ȱŠœŽ–Ž—ȱ›˜›Š–œȱ

Major land retirement and easement programs include the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),

the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), the Farmland

Protection Program (FPP), among other programs.

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱŽœŽ›ŸŽȱ›˜›Š–ȱ

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program that allows producers to enter

into 10-15 year contracts that provide annual rental payments and financial assistance to install

certain conservation practices and maintain vegetative or tree covers. Its purpose is to conserve

and improve soil, water, and wildlife resources by converting highly erodible and other

environmentally sensitive acreage to a long-term vegetative cover. CRP is the largest

conservation program in terms of total annual funding. It is administered by USDA’s Farm

Service Agency (FSA) and is funded through the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). CRP also has several subprograms, one of which is the

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), that are designated to support state and

federal partnerships through incentive payments for installing specific conservation practices that

help protect environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat, and

safeguard ground and surface water.2

The enacted 2008 farm bill (Secs. 2101-2111) caps CRP enrollment at 32 million acres, down

from its current cap of 39.2 million acres. The managers report on the conference agreement

states this reduction is “not ... an indicator of declining or reduced support for CRP”; however, in

other sections of the report USDA is encouraged to assist producers who are transitioning from

land retirement to working lands conservation. The farm bill makes certain program changes,

including allowing USDA to address state, regional, and national conservation initiatives;

providing incentives for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers/ranchers to purchase CRP

land from retiring farmers; allowing certain types of managed haying and grazing and installation

of wind turbines on enrolled lands (but at reduced rental rates); requiring that program

participants manage lands according to a conservation plan; requiring USDA to survey annually

the per-acre estimates of county cash rents paid to CRP contract holders; clarifying the status of

alfalfa grown as part of a rotation practice; and establishing cost-sharing rates for certain types of

conservation structures.

The bill also amends the pilot program for wetland and buffer acres in CRP. Each state can enroll

up to 100,000 acres up to a national maximum of one million acres. This maximum may be raised

to 200,000 in each state following a review of the program. Eligible lands for the program include

(1) wetlands that have been cropped three of the immediately preceding 10 crop years; (2) land on

which a constructed wetland is to be developed to manage fertilizer runoff; and (3) land that has

been devoted to commercial pond-raised aquaculture.3

Conditions under which managed haying and grazing on CRP acreage may occur have been

modified. The farm bill allows managed harvesting and grazing in response to drought and

2

For more detailed information on CRP, see CRS Report RS21613, Conservation Reserve Program: Status and

Current Issues, by (name redacted).

3

Acreage in CREP—a subprogram within CRP—and other continuous enrolled land would be excluded from the CRP

county acreage cap (25%) in order to encourage greater program participation.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

Śȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

routine grazing to control invasive species. Where routine harvesting is permitted, state technical

committees are required to coordinate to ensure appropriate environmental management. In

addition to managed harvesting, the installation of wind turbines on enrolled land is now

permitted activity. Any of these permitted uses on CRP acreage will result in a rental payment

reduction commensurate with the economic value of the authorized activity.

The enacted farm bill permits 50% cost share payments on land used for hardwood trees,

windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wildlife corridors for contracts entered into after November 1990.

Contracts extend from a minimum of two years up to four years. Funding of $100 million also is

authorized to cover cost sharing for the thinning of trees to improve the management of natural

resources on the land.

The 2008 farm bill modifies the criteria for evaluating CRP contract applications. Evaluation

criteria include the extent to which a CRP contract application would improve soil resources,

water quality, or wildlife habitat. The bill also allows the Secretary to establish different criteria in

various states or regions that lead to improvements in soil quality or wildlife habitat. Preference

in new CRP contracts will be given to land owners and operators who are residents of the county

or a contiguous county in which the land is located.

The farm bill also establishes incentives to increase the participation of beginning and socially

disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. It authorizes CRP contract modifications to assist these

producers in leasing or purchasing land under a CRP contract from a retired or retiring farm

owner or operator. The provision authorizes $25 million for assistance in making these land

transfers.

Other enacted modifications to CRP include redefining the Chesapeake Bay region as a priority

area without limiting the region to the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. While the

new program apples to all watersheds draining into the Chesapeake Bay, the Susquehanna,

Shenandoah, Potomac, and Patuxent Rivers will get funding priority. A provision in the Trade and

Tax Provisions Title (Section 15301) will permit retired or disabled farmers and ranchers to

exclude CRP payments from self-employment taxes beginning January 2008.4

Ž•Š—œȱŽœŽ›ŸŽȱ›˜›Š–ȱ

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) provides long-term technical and financial assistance to

landowners with the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property, and

to establish wildlife practices and protection. It is a voluntary program administered by USDA’s

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

The enacted 2008 farm bill (Secs. 2201-2210) increases the WRP maximum enrollment cap to

over 3.014 million acres (up from an existing cap of 2.275 million acres), and expands eligible

lands to include certain types of private and tribal wetlands, croplands, and grasslands, as well as

lands that meet the habitat needs of specific wildlife species. The farm bill authorizes a new

Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program, to establish agreements with states similar to that for

CREP, which includes a Reserved Rights Pilot program to explore whether reserving grazing

rights is compatible within WRP. The bill makes certain program changes, including changing the

4

For additional information on CRP’s tax status, see CRS Report, CRS Report RL34457, Conservation Reserve

Program Payments: Self-Employment Income, Rental Income, or Something Else?, by (name redacted).

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

śȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

ȱ

payment schedule for easements; limiting wetland restoration payments; specifying criteria for

ranking program applications; requiring that USDA conduct an annual survey of the Prairie

Pothole Region starting with FY2008; and requiring USDA to submit a report to Congress on

long-term conservation easements under the program.

›Šœœ•Š—œȱŽœŽ›ŸŽȱ›˜›Š–ȱǻ Ǽȱ

GRP is a voluntary program administered by USDA’s Farm Services Agency (FSA) that helps

landowners restore and protect grassland, rangeland, pastureland, and shrubland and provides

assistance for rehabilitating grasslands.

The enacted 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2403) adopts a new acreage enrollment goal of an additional

1.22 million acres by 2012, with 40% of funds for rental contracts (10-, 15-, and 20-year

duration) and 60% for permanent easements. Requirements for cooperative agreements similar to

those under the Farmland Protection Program are also authorized for GRP easements. The farm

bill modifies the terms and conditions of GRP contracts and easements to permit fire

presuppression and the addition of grazing-related activities, such as fencing and livestock

watering. Priority for enrollment is also given to certain expiring CRP lands, and tribal lands are

made eligible. The bill does not include a Grassland Reserve Enhancement provision, as proposed

in the House.

Š›–•Š—ȱ›˜ŽŒ’˜—ȱ›˜›Š–ȱǻǼȱ

FFP is a voluntary program administered by USDA’s NRCS that provides matching funds to help

purchase development rights for eligible farmlands to keep productive farm and ranchland in

agricultural uses. USDA partners with state, tribal, or local governments and nongovernmental

organizations to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land from landowners, and

provides up to 50% of the fair market easement value of the conservation easement.

The enacted 2008 farm bill changes the program’s purpose from protecting topsoil to protecting

the land’s agricultural use by limiting nonagricultural uses and including lands that promote state

and local farmland protection (Sec. 2401). The federal share of easement costs are capped at 50%,

with the land owner contributing 25% of the costs. The program is also restructured to emphasize

longer term and renewable cooperative agreements. The bill also makes other technical changes

to the program covering the program’s administrative requirements, appraisal methodology, and

terms and conditions, among other issues. It does not rename the program the Farm and

Ranchland Protection Program, as the program is often referred to by USDA.5 The bill provides

additional budget authority for FPP of $743 million.

˜›”’—ȱŠ—œȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜›Š–œȱ

Major working lands programs include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),

the (renamed) Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Agricultural Management

Assistance (AMA) program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), among others.

5

The program was authorized as FPP in the 2002 farm bill, and the name has not been changed in statute.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

Ŝȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

EQIP and CSP are the two largest working lands programs, and received additional budget

authority over five years under the 2008 farm bill of $3.4 billion for EQIP and $1.1. billion for

CSP. The enacted farm bill did not include a Senate proposal that would have closely coordinated

CSP and EQIP under the so-called Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program.

—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—Š•ȱžŠ•’¢ȱ —ŒŽ—’ŸŽœȱ›˜›Š–ȱǻ Ǽȱ

EQIP is administered by USDA’s NRCS and provides technical and cost-share assistance to

farmers and ranchers for promoting agricultural production and environmental quality by

supporting the installation or implementation of structural and management practices on eligible

agricultural land. EQIP includes a number of subprograms, including the Colorado River Basin

Salinity Control, Conservation Innovation Grants, the Ground and Surface Water Conservation

Program, and the Klamath River Basin.

The enacted 2008 farm bill (Secs. 2501-2510) expands the program to cover practices that

enhance soil, surface and ground water, air quality, and conserve energy; it also covers grazing

land, forestland, wetlands, and other types of land and natural resources that support wildlife. In

evaluating applications, cost-effectiveness and comprehensive treatment of resource issues are

given priority. The bill sets aside 5% of the EQIP spending for beginning farmers and ranchers

and 5% for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, providing up to 90% of the costs of

implementing an EQIP plan for these farmers. It also provides payments to assist tribal or native

corporation members, and producers transitioning to organic production.

The 2008 farm bill lowers the EQIP payment limit to $300,000 (down from $450,000) in any 6year period per entity, except in cases of special environmental significance including projects

involving methane digesters, as determined by USDA. Projects with organic production benefits

are capped at $20,000 annually or $80,000 in any six-year period. The enacted bill retains the

requirement that 60% of funds be made available for cost-sharing to livestock producers,

including an incentive payments for producers who develop a comprehensive nutrient

management plan.

The bill reserves $37.5 million of annual EQIP funds for the Conservation Innovation Grants

program and modifies the grants to cover air quality concerns associated with agriculture

(including greenhouse gas emissions). It also replaces the Ground and Surface Water

Conservation Program within EQIP with a new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program

(AWEP) to address water quality and quantity concerns on agricultural land, highlighting certain

priority areas and providing additional mandatory funds for the program. The manager’s report

accompanying the farm bill suggests priority areas under the programs to include the Eastern

Snake Plain Aquifer region, Puget Sound, the Ogallala Aquifer, the Sacramento River watershed,

the Upper Mississippi River Basin, the Red River of the North Basin, and the Everglades. AWEP

prioritizes assistance to areas experiencing significant drought. The bill provides a total of $280

million through FY2012 for AWEP activities.

Funding for EQIP is authorized at $1.2 billion (FY2008), $1.337 billion (FY2009), $1.45 billion

(FY2010), $1.588 billion (FY2011), and $1.75 billion (FY2012).

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ŝȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱǻŽ Š›œ‘’™Ǽȱ›˜›Š–ȱ

The pre-existing Conservation Security Program is a voluntary program administered by NRCS

that provides financial and technical assistance to promote the conservation and improvement of

soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on tribal and private

working lands.6 However, the 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2301) phases this program out (except for

existing contracts) and replaces it with a new and renamed Conservation Stewardship Program

(CSP). The new CSP, beginning in 2009, will continue to encourage conservation practices on

working lands, but will be different from the former program. It eliminates the three-tier

approach, establishes 5-year rather than 10-year contracts, and requires direct attribution of

payments, among other changes, thus requiring that USDA promulgate new rules for the program.

More than $2 billion in funding is made available for existing contracts under the former CSP

program.

Rather than the three-tier payment system, payments for new CSP contracts will be based on

meeting or exceeding a stewardship threshold—the level of resource conservation and

environmental management required to improve and conserve the quality and condition of at least

one resource concern. The stewardship threshold also must be met for at least one priority

resource concern identified at the state level as a priority for a particular watershed or area of the

state. Payments are based on the actual costs of installing conservation measures, any foregone

income, and the value of the expected environmental outcomes. The CSP reserves 5% of the

funds each for beginning farmers and ranchers and disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (Sec.

2704). Monitoring and evaluation of the stewardship plan to assess the environmental

effectiveness is also an element of the new CSP.

The bill sets a target of enrolling 12.8 million acres annually under the new CSP. Individual

producer payments are limited to $200,000 in any 5-year period per entity. Rather than annual

sign-ups for the program, CSP enrollment will be contracted on a continuous basis. The type of

eligible lands is expanded to include priority resource concerns, as identified by states; certain

private agricultural and forested lands; and also some nonindustrial private forest lands (limited to

not more than 10% of total annual acres under the program). Technical assistance will also be

provided to specialty crop and organic producers, along with a pilot testing of producers who

engage in innovative new technologies or participate in on-site conservation research. Producers

may also receive supplemental payments for resource-conserving crop rotations that provide

specific environmental benefits such as improving soil fertility, thus reducing the need for

irrigation. Program payments may not be used for the design, construction, or maintenance of

animal waste storage or treatment facilities or associated waste transport or transfer devices.

’••’Žȱ Š‹’Šȱ —ŒŽ—’ŸŽœȱ›˜›Š–ȱǻ

Ǽȱ

WHIP is a voluntary program designed for the development and improvement of habitat primarily

on private land. Through WHIP, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service provides both

technical assistance and up to 75% cost-share assistance to establish and improve fish and

wildlife habitat. The terms of WHIP agreements between NRCS and the participant generally are

from 5 to 10 years from the date the agreement is signed. The 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2602)

reauthorizes WHIP at current funding levels, but limits program eligibility to focus on “the

6

For more detailed information on CRP, see CRS Report RS21740, Conservation Security Program: Implementation

and Termination, by (name redacted).

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

Şȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

development of wildlife habitat on private agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and

tribal lands,” thus potentially excluding some previously covered areas (i.e., non-agricultural

lands). It also allows USDA to provide priority to projects that address issues raised by state,

regional, and national conservation initiatives. The manager’s report emphasizes that the program

address various specific wildlife initiatives at state and local levels. The 2008 farm bill provides

$425 million (FY2008-FY2012) and also increases the limit on cost-share payments to 25% for

long-term projects. Payments to an individual entity are limited to $50,000 per year.

‘Ž›ȱ›˜›Š–œȱ

The 2008 farm bill also authorizes a $15 million increase in funding to $20 million annually for

FY2008-FY2012 for the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program (Sec. 2603). Funding is

also increased to $100 million (FY2009) for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, to

remain available until expended (Sec. 2803). The Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, a

partnership between the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the National Rural Water Association, is

designed to help keep surface and groundwater water pollution from affecting drinking water. The

Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is administered by NRCS and works to rehabilitate

older community dams.

The farm bill (Sec. 2801) also provides additional mandatory funding ($15 million annually,

FY2008-FY2012) for the Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMA) and includes

Hawaii as an eligible state under that program. AMA provides cost share assistance to agricultural

producers to voluntarily address issues such as water management, water quality, and erosion

control by incorporating conservation into their farming operations.

The enacted bill amends the Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D) to

emphasize locally led planning processes and to provide assistance for implementing area plans

(Sec. 2805). The RC&D program designates RC&D areas and assists the capability of elected and

civic leaders to plan and carry out projects for resource conservation and community

development.

Also reauthorized through FY2012 is the Farm Viability Program (Sec. 2402). The Farm Viability

Program, as authorized in the 2002 farm bill, provides authority for USDA to provide grants to

eligible entities for the purpose of carrying out farm viability programs. To date, Congress has not

appropriated funds to implement the program.

The Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control is a federal-state

partnership providing demonstration and technical assistance projects throughout the Great Lakes

region. The program is coordinated by the Great Lakes Commission in partnership with the

NRCS, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The enacted

bill modifies the program to implement the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional

Collaboration Strategy (Sec. 2604).

ŽŒ‘—’ŒŠ•ȱœœ’œŠ—ŒŽȱŠ—ȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—ȱ

Site-specific technical assistance (TA) is provided for producers and landowners in constructing

and installing conservation and natural resource management technologies. Producers often need

TA in designing and implementing appropriate conservation strategies. The enacted 2008 farm

bill makes changes in the TA component of various conservation programs to respond to these

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

şȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

producer needs and clarifies the purposes of TA. The bill also requires a review of conservation

practice standards and includes specific provisions to ensure that speciality crops, organic

producers, and precision agricultural producers receive adequate conservation TA. Although

NRCS provides TA directly, the enacted bill also authorizes a national certification process for

third-party providers, including non-federal providers (Sec. 2706). In addition, the bill creates an

Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) Program to make use of the talents and

skills of older, non-USDA employees (Sec. 2710). The bill further establishes state TA

committees composed of various state conservation officials and agricultural producers for each

state to assist in the implementation and technical aspects of conservation programs (Sec. 2711).

The bill authorizes a new Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI) (Section 2707)

as a component of the Conservation Technical Assistance program. It is authorized to target

technical and financial resources on conservation priorities on agricultural and nonindustrial

private forest land on a state, local, multistate, and regional basis. The manager’s report especially

encourages locally developed projects. Eligible CCPI programs include EQIP, CSP, WHIP, Great

Lakes Basin Sediment Control, Conservation of Private Grazing Land, Chesapeake Bay Region,

and Grassroots Water Conservation. The provision reserves 6% of the funding for these programs

for initiatives under the CCPI and establishes criteria for prioritization of projects, including

projects that provide innovative conservation methods.

ž‘˜›’£ŽȱŽ™˜›œȱ

The enacted 2008 farm bill directs USDA to prepare a number of statistical and evaluation reports

regarding various conservation programs: (1) an annual report on conservation program

enrollments and payments—those greater than $250,000—under the Wetlands Reserve Program,

Farmland Protection Program, Grassland Reserve Program, and the Environmental Quality

Incentives Program (for land having special environmental significance). The bill also requires a

report on the new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (Sec. 2705). Other required reports

include one on the long term implications of conservation easements (Sec. 2210), an annual

report on average county cash rental rates (Sec. 2110), and an appraisal of soil and water

conservation programs (Sec. 2804).

Ž ȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜›Š–œȱ

In addition to the changes made to existing agricultural conservation programs, the enacted 2008

farm bill also expands the range of USDA conservation activities by creating several new

programs, including a program expanding conservation activities in the Chesapeake Bay region, a

new state grants program, a provision to limit production on native sod, and a provision

promoting market-based approaches to conservation.

‘ŽœŠ™ŽŠ”ŽȱŠ¢ȱŠŽ›œ‘Žȱ›˜›Š–ȱ

This program (Sec. 2605) is targeted at conserving and protecting the Chesapeake Bay and the

water sources that make up the watershed. It applies to all tributaries, backwaters, and side

channels, including watersheds, draining into the Chesapeake Bay, but gives priority to the

Susquehanna, Shenandoah, Potomac, and Patuxent Rivers. The bill authorizes $188 million in

mandatory funding (FY2009-FY2012) and $438 million over 10 years (FY2009-FY2018).

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ŗŖȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

˜•ž—Š›¢ȱž‹•’ŒȱŒŒŽœœȱŠ—ȱ Š‹’Šȱ —ŒŽ—’ŸŽœȱ›˜›Š–ȱ

Also referred to as the “Open Fields” program, this program authorizes state grants to encourage

land-owners to provide public access for wildlife-dependent recreation, subject to a 25%

reduction for the total grant amount if the opening dates for migratory bird hunting in the state are

not consistent for residents and non-residents. The bill provides $50 million in mandatory funds

(FY2009-FY2012) for the program.

˜œŠŸŽ›ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—ȱ

This 2008 farm bill provision (Sec. 12020) makes producers that plant an insurable crop (over 5

acres) on native sod ineligible for crop insurance and the noninsured crop disaster assistance

(NAP) program for the first five years of planting. The conference agreement states that this

provision may apply to virgin prairie converted to cropland in the Prairie Pothole National

Priority Area, if elected by the state.

—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—Š•ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱŠ›”Žœȱ

This new conservation provision (Sec. 2709) is intended to facilitate the participation of farmers

and landowners in emerging environmental services markets, such as water and air quality,

habitat protection, and carbon storage. The farm bill directs USDA to establish a framework for

developing consistent standards and processes for quantifying environmental services from the

agriculture and forestry sectors, but does not authorize funding for this effort.7

’œŒŽ••Š—Ž˜žœȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ

The enacted farm bill also includes changes to several additional programs. The Colorado River

Basin Salinity Control Act makes funding available to support resource management activities

targeting sources of salinity in the Colorado River (e.g., leaking wells, irrigation, industrial

sources). The enacted farm bill establishes a Basin States Program for salinity control activities

upstream of the Imperial Dam (sec. 2806).

The 2002 farm bill authorized that mandatory spending of $200 million be transferred to the

Bureau of Reclamation to provide water to at-risk natural desert terminal lakes. Section 2807 of

the enacted bill provides $175 million for desert terminal lakes, but also designates that part of

this funding be used for land and water purchases in the Walker River Basin. The basin lies on

California’s eastern border with Nevada.

A provision in the Credit title of the enacted 2008 bill (Sec. 5002) establishes a new loan and loan

guarantee program to assist producers in financing the cost to the producer for applying for

needed conservation installations. The manager’s report states that the loan program is only a

complement to the assistance provided through the various conservation programs. The bill gives

priority for these loans to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, those

converting to organic systems, and producers who need conservation assistance to address

various compliance requirements.

7

For more information on environmental services and the role of markets in environmental conservation planning, see

CRS Report RL34042, Environmental Services Markets in the 2008 Farm Bill, by (name redacted).

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ŗŗȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

Žœ™˜—œŽȱ›˜–ȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ —Ž›Žœȱ ›˜ž™œȱ

The majority of agriculture and farmland conservation groups have responded favorably to the

expanded provisions and increased funding for programs in the Conservation Title of the 2008

farm bill. Since enactment, a few national wildlife groups have expressed concern about changes

to some provisions during the conference negotiations, which are perceived as providing fewer

benefits to the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Among the concerns expressed by these

groups are the reduction in the CRP acreage enrollment cap reduction, easing of the requirements

under the “sodsaver” provision, limitations on the types of lands eligible under Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program, and the new permanent disaster fund, which could encourage marginal land

plantings, among other concerns.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ŗŘȱ

ȱ

™™Ž—’¡ǯ ȱ›’Œž•ž›Š•ȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ—ŠŒŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

ǻǯǯȱŗŗŖȬŘŚŜǼȱ˜–™Š›Žȱ ’‘ȱ›ŽŸ’˜žœȱŠ ȱŠ—ȱ‘Žȱ ˜žœŽȬȱŠ—ȱŽ—ŠŽȬŠœœŽȱ

’••œȱǻ ǯǯȱŘŚŗşǼȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Program Definitions and Funding

Sec. 1201 of the Food Security Act of

1985 (FSA) (P.L. 99-198, or the 1985

farm bill), as amended, defines 18 terms.

[16 U.S.C. 3801]

Sec. 1241(a) of the FSA, as amended,

authorizes mandatory funding through

FY2007 to carry out various

conservation programs. [16 U.S.C.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

No provisions.

(Note: some terms added by the Senate

bill in this section are defined for

specific conservation programs, as

noted below.)

Adds definitions of beginning farmer or

rancher, Indian tribe, nonindustrial private

forest land, socially disadvantaged farmer or

rancher, and technical assistance. Authorizes

USDA to employ a test of net worth or

other measure to qualify. [Sec. 2001]

Extends reauthorization through

FY2012 with funding specified for CSP,

FPP, EQIP, and WHIP. [Sec. 2401(a)]

Extends reauthorization through FY2012

with funding specified for CSP, FPP, EQIP,

WHIP, GRP, and the Voluntary Public

Access and Habitat Incentives Program. [Sec.

Adopts Senate provision with changes.

Removes the test of net worth. Adopts

the 1990 farm bill definition of a socially

disadvantaged farmer or rancher, with

changes to define farm, integrated pest

management, person and legal entity, and

livestock. [Sec. 2001]

Extends reauthorization through FY2012

with the following in additional new

budget authority: CSP ($1.1 billion); EQIP

($3,393 million); and FPP ($773 million).

2401(a)]

[Sec. 2701]

Adds a second level of review by the state

or district director, with technical

concurrence from USDA’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) if

the Secretary has determined that this

exception should apply. [Sec. 2101]

Add a second level of review by the state or

district director, with technical concurrence

from NRCS if the Secretary has determined

that this exemption should apply. [Sec. 2201]

Adopts Senate provision, providing for

review of good faith determinations

related to highly erodible land

conservation. [Sec. 2002]

3841]

Note: Authorized funding levels for

various programs are provided in

individual program sections below.

Highly Erodible and Wetland Conservation

Secs. 1211-1212 of the FSA, as

amended, make violators of the

conservation compliance program

ineligible for certain program benefits,

with some exceptions from full loss of

eligibility. [16 U.S.C. 3811-3812a, 3812f]

Secs. 1221-1222 of the FSA, as

amended, makes swampbuster ineligible

for certain program benefits, with some

exceptions from full loss of eligibility.

[16 U.S.C. 3821-3824, 3822h]

Ȭŗřȱ

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Adopts Senate provision, providing for

review of good faith determinations

related to wetland conservation.

[Sec. 2003]

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

House Bill

(unless otherwise Indicated)

(H.R. 2419)

Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement Program

The 1990 farm bill amended Sec. 1230

of the FSA to establish a program later

renamed the Comprehensive

Conservation Enhancement Program

(CCEP). The CCEP, which includes the

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and

the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP), promotes long-term

protection for environmentally sensitive

lands through easements and technical/

financial assistance. [16 U.S.C. 3830]

Note: Administration of CCEP, the

subject of sec. 1243, is described below.

No comparable provision. (Note:

Amendments to Sec. 1243 described

below in the “other conservation

programs” subsection.)

The 1990 farm bill amended Sec. 1243

of the FSA to authorize administration

of CCEP. 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.

Amends administration provisions by

moving sections on acreage enrollment

limits, tenant protection, and obtaining

technical assistance. Establishes a new

Cooperative Conservation Partnership

Initiative to carry out projects/initiatives

using competitive (2-5 years) grants.

Specifies 14 criteria to be used in

reviewing applications and 9 project

priorities. Specifies duties of participant

and USDA. Specifies program will be

funded with 10% of funds for CSP, EQIP,

and WHIP. The federal share for each

project will be at least 75% of costs;

90% of the funds will be allocated at the

state level (incentives and bonus

payments may be used for specified

purposes). Limits administrative costs to

5% of any grant. [Sec. 2403]

[16 U.S.C. 3844]

ȬŗŚȱ

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

Deletes Section 1243 in current law, and

moves some provisions, amended, into this

(and other) sections. Extends CCEP through

FY2012. Makes changes that reduce

administrative burdens, streamline the

application process, and promote

partnerships. Deletes EQIP from CCEP and

adds the Healthy Forests Reserve Program.

Adds a new exception whereby USDA may

exceed the enrollment limitation when a

state or local regulation prohibits

agricultural water use, requiring USDA to

enroll the land within 180 days of receiving a

request and pay a rental rate that reflects

the rate prior to implementing the

regulation. [Sec. 2301]

Amends to streamline application process,

add new endangered species provisions, and

establish new partnerships and cooperation

projects for special projects (up to 5 years)

with multiple producers and eligible partners

to address state conservation

recommendations. Specifies five project

purposes, lists application contents, and

identifies USDA’s duties and priorities when

selecting projects (including 14 priority

water project areas); also requires

monitoring and evaluation. Specifies funding

of 10% of the mandatory funds allocated to

each state (except CRP, CSP, WRP, and the

new Conservation Stewardship Program),

with 75% of funds for intra-state and 25% for

multi-state projects. [Sec. 2405]

Does not reauthorize the CCEP. The

Healthy Forest Reserve Program is

retained in the forestry title [Sec. 8205];

the county acreage cap is addressed

elsewhere [Sec. 2708]. The agreement

adopts a provision to exclude CREP

acreage and continuous CRP acreage

from the 25% cap if the county

government concurs, and further

specifies this provision is separate and

distinct from the existing waiver

authority. Additional guidance is provided

in the Managers statement.

Adopts House provision with changes

and names the initiative the Cooperative

Conservation Partnership Initiative

(CCPI). [Sec. 2707] Allows USDA to

make consider local circumstances, goals,

and objectives, and provides for

adjustments to provide producers

preferential enrollment in the applicable

program as part of the special project.

Applies to all USDA conservation

programs except CRP, WRP, FPP and

GRP. The stated intent is to provide for

applications that include innovative

combinations of covered initiative

programs, and applications that might

work in tandem with the enhancement

programs under CRP or WRP. Additional

guidance is provided in the Managers

statement.

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Conservation Reserve Program

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

Sec. 1231(a-d) of the 1985 farm bill

(FSA) authorizes the CRP; the program

is currently authorized through CY2007

at 39.2 million acres. [16 U.S.C. 3831(a-

Extends authorization through CY2012;

retains current acreage enrollment limit

(39.2 million acres). [Sec. 2101(a-b)]

Extends authorization through CY2012.

Retains current acreage enrollment limit.

Adds pollinator habitat to the general

purposes. Expands eligible land to include

some types of marginal pasture-land and land

enrolled in a new flooded farmland program.

Extends authorization through CY2012,

and allows USDA to address issues under

State, regional, and national conservation

initiatives. Caps enrollment at 32 million

acres [Sec. 2103]. Clarifies that alfalfa

grown as part of a rotation practice is a

commodity for crop history purposes.

[Secs. 2101-2102, 2105] Provides for

pollinator habitats. [Secs. 2706, 2708]

Adopts House provision to include all

States that make up the Chesapeake Bay

Region as the Conservation Priority

Area. [Sec. 2104]

d)]

[Sec. 2311(a-c)]

Sec. 1231(f) of the FSA, as amended,

lists priority areas as the Chesapeake

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

Lakes Region, and Long Island Sound.

Deletes states but retains Chesapeake

Bay region. [Sec. 2101(b)]

[16 U.S.C. 3831f]

Sec. 1231(h) of the FSA, as amended,

authorizes a one million acre pilot

program within the CRP for wetlands

and buffer areas. [16 U.S.C. 3831h]

Similar to the House bill; also adds to the list

the prairie pothole region, the Grand Lake

St Mary’s Watershed, and the Eastern Snake

Plain Aquifer.

[Sec. 2311(d)]

Extends program through CY2012.

[Sec. 2101(e)]

Extends program through CY2012; expands

eligibility to include certain shallow water

areas and certain agricultural drainage water

treatment collection areas, and expands the

eligible buffer acreage. Directs USDA to

establish the maximum size of the buffer

acreage to be enrolled along with eligible

lands. Increases the maximum wetland size

to 40 contiguous acres and makes all acres

eligible for payment. [Sec. 2311(e)]

Adopts Senate provision with changes.

Caps enrollment at 100,000 acres in any

State and 1 million acres total. Adds

conforming changes to the Emergency

Forestry Conservation Reserve Program.

Expands enrollment of wetland and buffer

acreage to include land that had been

cropped during 3 of 10 crop years prior

to 2002 and after 1990 and is subject to a

natural overflow of a prairie wetland.

[Sec. 2106]

Sec. 1232(a)(7) of the FSA, as amended,

specifies a duty of participants is limiting

commercial uses, including haying and

grazing on enrolled lands; allows

managed haying/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)]

Adopts House provision with changes,

allowing for routine grazing, including

grazing to control invasive species.

Additional guidance is provided in the

Managers statement. [Sec. 2108] Grants

“management on land” should not result

in a reduced payment, if done in

accordance with the contract.

[Sec. 2107]

Sec. 1234(c) of the FSA, as amended,

establishes a framework for calculating

Ȭŗśȱ

Requires USDA to conduct and make

available an annual survey of dryland and

Similar to the House bill; also requires

USDA to give preference to local owners or

Adopts Senate provision with changes,

adding a new requirement that USDA

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

annual rental payments. [16 U.S.C.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

irrigated cropland cash rental rates in all

counties with more than 20,000 acres of

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

Allows USDA to terminate any contract

after 5 years, but prohibits terminating

contracts for land enrolled under a

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

operators when considering competing

offers providing equivalent benefits. [Sec.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec.

1244(a) of the FSA to authorize USDA

to provide incentives to beginning

farmers/ranchers and Indian tribes to

participate in con-servation programs.

Facilitates the transfer of CRP land from

a retiring owner to a beginning /

socially-disadvantaged 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.

No comparable provision.

(Note: Support for socially disadvantaged and

limited resource farmers/ranchers are in

other bill sections.)

3834c]

Sec. 1235(e) of the FSA, as amended,

allows USDA to terminate CRP

contracts after 5 years if contract was

in effect before 1/1/95. [16 U.S.C.

2311(j)]

Allow USDA to terminate a contract if a

retired or disabled producer has endured

financial hardship because of taxes on rental

payments. [Sec. 2311(k)]

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

give priority to offers from local residents

if conservation benefits are equivalent

among offers. [Sec. 2110 ]

Adopts House provision. [Sec. 2111]

3835e]

[16 U.S.C. 3844(a)]

Specifies a 50% federal share of cost

sharing payments relating to trees,

windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wildlife

corridors. [Sec. 2109]

Adopts House provision with

modifications. [Sec. 2111]

[Sec. 2101(h)]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Creates new Flooded Farmland Program for

the Prairie Pothole region within the CRP.

Allows continuous enrollment. Eligible land

parcels must exceed 5 acres, been incapable

of production preceding 3 crop years, have a

cropping history, and have no natural outlet.

[Sec. 2312]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Creates new Wildlife Habitat Program for

CRP participants with established softwood

pine stands using management practices that

benefit wildlife (contracts up to 5 years).

Program ends September 30, 2011. [Sec.

2313]

ȬŗŜȱ

Deletes this section and modifies CRP

and WRP to accomplish the intent of the

Senate amendment, including expanding

eligible lands under the CRP pilot

program for wetlands and buffer areas

[Sec. 2106] and expands eligible lands

under WRP. [Sec. 2201]

Deletes this section and modifies CRP to

accommodate the intent of the Senate

amendment. Additional guidance is

provided in the Managers statement.

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Wetlands Reserve Program

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

The 1996 farm bill amended Sec.

1237(a) of the FSA to authorize WRP,

stating its purpose 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.

Amends purposes to restore, protect, or

enhance wetlands on private or tribal

lands. [Sec. 2201]

Sec. 1237(b) of the FSA, as amended,

sets maximum enrollment at 2.275

million acres, with an annual calendar

year enrollment goal of 250,000 acres.

Sets maximum enrollment at 3.605

million acres. Sets an annual fiscal year

enrollment goal of 250,000 acres, of

which not more than 10,000 acres may

be flood plain easements. [Sec. 2102(b)]

New section adds language authorizing

WRP from FY2008-12. [Sec. 2402(h)]

Adds riparian areas to eligible wetlands,

and makes eligible floodplain land

flooded in the past calendar year or at

least twice in the past 10 years, and land

that contributes to flood water storage,

flow, or erosion control. [Sec. 2102(c)]

Sets annual fiscal year enrollment goal of

250,000 acres, with no enrollment after

FY2012. [Sec. 2321]

Sets maximum enrollment at 3.041

million acres. Sets annual fiscal year

enrollment goal of 250,000 acres through

FY2012. [Sec. 2202-2203]

Reauthorizes through FY2012. [Sec. 2321(2)]

Expands ineligible lands to include

floodplains where restoration practices

would not be productive or the land is

already protected. [Sec. 2102(d)]

No comparable provision.

Limits compensation to lowest of 4

options: percentage of the fair market

value; percentage of market value

determined by a survey; a geographic

cap; or a landowner’s offer. Allows

USDA to use non-federal contributions

to administer program [Sec. 2102(e)]

Limits compensation 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)]

Expands eligible lands under WRP to

include cropland or grassland that was

used for agricultural production prior to

flooding from the natural overflow of a

closed basin lake or pothole. [Sec. 2203]

Adds terms to “meet habitat needs of

specific wildlife species.” [Sec. 2204]

Expands ineligible lands to include farmed

wetland or converted wetland, together

with the adjacent land that is functionally

dependent on the wetlands, except

wetlands converted before December 23,

1985. [Sec. 2203]

Adopts House provision with changes,

revising the process for determining the

value of easements and contracts by

requiring USDA to provide the lowest

amount of compensation based on a

comparison of the fair market value of

the land, a geographic cap, or an offer

made by the landowner. Provides that

easements with values less than $500,000

be paid out over 1-30 years; easements

with values greater than $500,000 are to

[16 U.S.C. 3837b]

Sec. 1237(c) of the FSA, as amended,

establishes requirements for eligible

lands through 2007. [16 U.S.C. 3837c]

Sec. 1237(e) of the FSA, as amended,

identifies ineligible land to include lands

already planted to timber in the CRP.

[16 U.S.C. 3837e]

Sec. 1237A(f) of the FSA, as amended,

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)]

Ȭŗŝȱ

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Sec.1237C(c) of the FSA, as amended,

lists three considerations USDA is to

use when considering offers for WRP

contracts. [16 U.S.C. 3837c(c)]

Sec. 1237D(c)(4) of the FSA, as

amended, waives limits for public

entities receiving payments through the

wetland and environmental

enhancement programs. [16 U.S.C.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

No comparable provision.

be paid out over 5-30 years. [Sec. 2208]

Provides for the repeal of payment

limitations (exception for State

agreements for new Wetlands Reserve

Enhancement Program. [Sec. 2209]

Adopts House provision. [Sec. 2207]

Authorizes a Wetlands Reserve

Enhancement Program (WREP). Makes a

conforming change to allow payments for

30-year contracts. [Sec. 2322(c)]

Adopts Senate provision authorizing

WREP for agreements with States similar

to CREP. Authorizes a Reserved Rights

Pilot program. [Sec. 2205-2206]

No comparable provision.

Requires a report to House and Senate

Agriculture Committees by 1/1/2010 on the

implications of long-term easements on

USDA resources. [Sec. 2322(d)]

Adopts Senate provision. [Sec. 2210]

Establishes a new CSP for FY2012-2017.

Eligible producers must submit an offer

addressing “at least one priority

resource of concern to a minimum level

of management intensity.” Eligible land

excludes incidental forest land. Limits

program to one type of contract of 5

years; describes five elements to be in

all contracts, but eliminates list of topics

to be addressed. Prohibits termination

of contracts, without penalty, by a

producer who is required to modify a

contract. Allows contracts to be

renewed for one additional 5 year

period. Adds new provisions on

evaluating offers from organic

Authorizes through FY2012 a new CSP as a

conforming amendment, and reauthorizes

current CSP for existing contracts only.

Future CSP contracts would be replaced by

a Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives

Program consisting of a Conservation

Stewardship Program with similar provisions

of the existing CSP and EQIP. Eligible land

must have been planted to crops 4 of

preceding 6 years. Specifies contract are for

5 years, with renewal under certain

conditions. Allows for terminating and

changing contracts. Specifies how to evaluate

contract offers, producer duties,

enhancement terms, and supple-mental

payments. Defines 15 terms.

Defines program terms for the new CSP.

Adopts elements of the Senate provision.

Expands eligible lands to include

nonindustrial private forest land (limited

to not more than 10% of total annual

acres under the program). Permits 5-year

extension of contracts. Excludes under

the program, land used for cropland that

had not been planted, considered to be

planted, or devoted to crop production

for 4 of the 6 years prior to the date of

enactment of the act (unless the land had

previously been enrolled in CRP; had

been maintained in a long term crop

rotation; or was incidental land needed

for efficient operation). [Sec. 2301]

Adds new additional criteria for ranking

offers (conservation benefits; costeffectiveness; and offer of a financial

contribution) and conservation benefits

of floodplain lands. [Sec. 2102(f)]

Replaces provision with a new language

on Wetland Reserve Enhancement

program, where states contribute funds

so as to increase payments.

[Sec. 2102(g)]

d(c)(4)]

No comparable provision.

Conservation Security Program

The 2002 farm bill amended the FSA to

establish the Conservation Security

Program (CSP) for FY2003-11. Defines

eligible producers and eligible lands and

excluded lands (land enrolled in

multiyear land retirement programs and

land not in crop production at least 4 of

the preceding 6 years). 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. Specifies circumstances

and requirements for modifying,

terminating, and renewing contracts.

Contracts may be renewed for 5 to 10

ȬŗŞȱ

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

years. Defines 15 terms pertaining to

the program.

[16 U.S.C. 3838]

Secs 1238A(d-3) of the FSA, as

amended, 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.

Specifies circumstances and

requirements for modifying,

terminating, and renewing contracts.

Contracts may be renewed for 5 to 10

years [16 U.S.C. 3838a(d-e)]

Sec. 1238C of the FSA, as amended,

specifies that duties of the Secretary

include making payments early in each

fiscal year, the components of payments

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]

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

producers. Defines twelve terms that

are new terms or differ from current

law. [Sec. 2103(a)]

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)]

Alters duties of the Secretary to include

identification of priority resources of

concern at the state level (limited to 5

concerns in any geographic area of a

state). Limits total payments under a

contract to $150,000 (5 years); allows

for the environmental needs associated

with agriculture to be considered in

state allocations; requires USDA to

compile data of specified program

contract and payment topics. [Sec. 2103

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

[Secs. 2391 and 2341]

Defines eligible land and eligible producers;

land must have been planted to crops 4 of

preceding 6 years. Contents of contracts are

specified and are for 5 years, with renewal if

certain conditions are met. Specifies

considerations in evaluating contract offers,

producer duties, enhancement terms, and

supplemental payments. Adds provisions on

terminating and changing contracts. [Sec.

2341]

Alters duties of the Secretary to allow for

continuous enrollment (allowing a producer

to apply at any time during the year),

providing assistance to producers, and

maintaining contract and payment

information that will support program

monitoring and evaluation, and enabling

specialty crop producers to participate.

Specifies an acreage allocation, limiting

payments to $240,000 (6-year).

[Secs. 2391 and 2341]

(a)]

No comparable provision.

Ȭŗşȱ

No comparable provision.

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

Provides for enrollment of up to 79.628

million acres and attempted annual

enrollment of 13.273 million acres,

nationwide and at a average annual cost of

$19 per acre. Provides for small farm

participation, and allocates to each state

each year the lesser of 20,000 acres or 2.2%

Adopts Senate provision with

modifications. Authorizes supplemental

payments for producers who adopt a

beneficial crop rotation that provide

significant conservation benefits and are

not limited to a particular crop, cropping

system, or region of the country. Allows

for on-farm conservation research and

demonstration activities and pilot-testing

as part of contract offers. Allows for

contract modification. [Sec 2301]

Provides that state acreage allocations be

based on each state’s proportion of

eligible acres to the total eligible acres

nationwide (available to all producers,

not only specific watersheds/geographic

regions), allowing for input from USDA.

Directs USDA to adopt continuous

enrollment, but allows for USDA to

determine when to rank applications.

Directs USDA to provide technical

assistance to specialty crop and organic

producers. Directs USDA to encourage

producers who are transitioning from

land retirement programs to enroll in

CSP and other working lands programs.

Limits payments to $200,000 in any 5year period. [Sec. 2301]

Deletes Senate provision. Enrolls an

additional 12.8 million acres annually

FY2008-2017. [Sec. 2301]

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

of the eligible land. [Sec. 2341]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1241(a)(3) of the FSA, as amended,

authorizes mandatory funding for the

CSP at $1.954 billion for FY2006-10 and

$5.65 billion from FY2006-15.

Prohibits any new contracts under the

terms of the 2002 CSP, such that no

new CSP contracts may be entered into

after October 1, 2007 (although

payments may be continued until

contracts expire). For contracts signed

before 10/1/07, provides a total of $1.5

billion in mandatory funding for FY200712, and $1.9 billion for FY2012-17. For

contract signed after 10/1/11, provides

$0.5 billion for FY2012 and $4.6 billion

for FY2012-17.

[16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(3)]

Requires regulations to be issued within 180

days of enactment. [Sec. 2341]

Prohibits any new contracts under the terms

of the 2002 CSP, such that no new CSP

contracts may be entered into after October

1, 2007 (although payments may be

continued until contracts expire). Authorizes

$2.3 billion in mandatory funding for

contracts entered into before the date of

enactment, (available until spent) and an

unspecified amount for the new CSP

(enrollment in the new program is measured

in acres rather than dollars). [Sec. 2401(a)(3-

Deletes Senate provision. Directs USDA

to promulgate regulations. [Sec. 2301]

Adopts Senate provision. The Manager’s

report states that the bill provides for a

$1.1 billion increase in budget authority

above current baseline (FY2008-2017).

Provides such sums as necessary to carry

out existing CSP contracts. [Sec. 2701]

4)]

[Sec. 2401(b)]

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

The 1996 farm bill amended Sec. 1240

of the FSA to authorize EQIP, stating its

purpose as promoting production and

environmental quality as compatible

goals, and optimizing environmental

benefits by working in 5 specified areas.

[16 U.S.C. 3839aa] Defines 6 terms:

beginning farmer or rancher, eligible

land, land management practice,

livestock, practice, and structural

practice.

Sec. 1240B(a-c) of the FSA, as amended,

authorizes EQIP through FY2010.

Eligible practices are defined. Contracts

are 1 to 10 years. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa2(a-c)]

ȬŘŖȱ

Adds forest management and organic

transition to the program purposes.

Revises the descriptions of 2 of the 5

purposes to recognize energy

conservation and conservation on forest

lands. [Sec. 2105(a)] Adds forestry,

forest management practices, and

coordinated implementation to the

“land management practice” definition.

Adds alpacas and bison to the

“livestock” definition. Adds definitions

of “integrated pest management” and

“socially disadvantaged farmer or

rancher.” [Sec. 2105(b)]

Reauthorizes through FY2012. Expands

types of eligible practices to include

organic certification using technical

services from approved providers, and

improved energy efficiency, renewable

energy systems. [Sec. 2105(c)]

Adds forest management to the statement of

program purposes, and recognizes

pollinators and fuels management in the

amplifying statements. [Secs. 2351, 2352, and

2354] Adds aquaculture to the “eligible

land” definition; forestry is added to the

“land management practice” 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]

Adds forest management to purposes,

and adds language regarding forest lands

on EQIP program plan and duplication.

[Secs. 2505-2506] Adopts the Senate

provisions with an amendment to modify

eligible land. [Sec. 2502] Allows for

technical assistance to farmers that

promote pollinator habitats, and farmers

transitioning to organic farming, among

activities. [Sec. 2501] Further clarifies

duties of the Secretary. [Sec. 2507]

Reauthorizes through FY2012. Expands

permitted practices to include conservation

planning. Limits contracts to a maximum of 5

years. Removes prohibitions on bidding

down.

Reauthorizes through FY2012. Limits

payments to 75% of costs. [Sec. 2503]

Lowers individual payment limits from

$450,000 to $300,000 during any 6-year

period , except in cases of special

environmental significance (including

[Sec. 2353(a-c)]

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Sec. 1240B(d)(2) of the FSA, as

amended, allows limited resource and

beginning producers to receive not

more than a 90% federal cost share. [16

U.S.C. 3839aa-2(d)]

Sec. 1240B(e) of the FSA, as amended,

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)]

Sec. 1240B(g) of the FSA, as amended,

requires that 60% of payments go to

practices related to livestock

production requirement. [16 U.S.C.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Sets the federal cost share at 90% for

socially disadvantaged producers.

Provides increased federal cost-share of

90% for using gasifier technology for

certain purposes. [Sec. 2105(d-e)]

Expands purposes for incentive

payments: (1) receiving technical

services from approved third party

providers, (2) developing a

comprehensive nutrient management

plan, and (3) implementing energy

efficiency and renewable energy

projects. Pollinator habitats will receive

special emphasis. [Sec. 2105(f)]

Sets the federal cost share at 90% for

socially disadvantaged producers. Allows for

advanced payments to purchase materials

and contracting. [Sec. 2353(c)]

Extends through FY2012 the 60% of

payments to livestock production

requirement. [Sec. 2105(g)(2)]

Similar to the House bill. [Sec. 2353]

Requires USDA to reserve at least 5%

of program funds for beginning and

socially disadvantaged producers for at

least 90 days after the program funds

Amends the cost-share rate exception for

beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers

or ranchers to allow variable payment, not

to exceed 90%, and authority to provide

Expands purposes receiving special emphasis

to include predator species protected under

the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves,

grizzly bears, and black bears. [Sec.

2353(c)(3)]

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

projects involving methane digesters),

allowing USDA to raise the limit to not

more than $450,000. [Sec. 2508] Directs

USDA to develop criteria for evaluating

applications to address national, State,

and local conservation priorities, allowing

for prioritization and grouping of

applications based on cost-effectiveness,

how address the designated resource

concern(s), how best fulfills the purpose

of EQIP, and if improves conservation

practices or systems. [Sec. 2504]

Adopts Senate proposal. [Sec. 2503]

Adopts House provision. [Secs. 2503.

2706 and 2708] Includes special rule that

USDA may accord significance to

practices promoting residue, nutrient, air

quality, pest, and invasive species

management; pollinator habitat; and

animal carcass management technology.

The conference report recognizes as

consistent with the purposes of EQIP

options to deter predators protected by

the Endangered Species Act, and also

delisted populations.

Extends through FY2012 the 60% of

payments to livestock production

requirement. [Sec. 2503]

3839aa-2(g)]

No comparable provision.

ȬŘŗȱ

Adopts Senate provision for advance

payments for beginning, socially

disadvantaged and limited resource

farmers or ranchers and deletes Senate

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

have been made available. [Sec. 2105(g)]

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

advance payments up to 30% for the

purchase of materials or contracting. [Sec.

2353]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Expands eligibility to market agencies

and custom feeders. [Sec. 2105(h)]

Sec. 1240C of the FSA, as amended,

gives higher priority for participation in

EQIP to producers using cost-effective

conservation practices and practices

that address national conservation

priorities. [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3]

Sec. 1240E of the FSA, as amended,

defines the general contents of a

producer’s EQIP plan, and calls on

USDA to avoid duplication with other

conservation plans.

[16 U.S.C. 3839aa-5]

Identifies 5 priorities for program

applications. Specifies a streamlined

evaluation process for operations with

substantial and sound environmental

management systems involving a limited

number of practices. [Sec. 2105(I)]

Adds to the planning requirements the

need to be consistent with forest plans,

and allows as an acceptable plan

consideration of an air or water quality

permit that meet regulatory

requirements as an acceptable plan.

[Sec. 2105(k)]

Gives priority to improving water

conservation and air quality, under certain

conditions. Requires participants to

have/expect at least $15,000 in gross sales

from farming. [Sec. 2353(c)(6)]

Expands ‘producer’ eligibility to include a

custom feeding business and a contract

grower or finisher. [Sec. 2352]

Adds a higher priority for improving

conservation practices or systems in place at

the time of the contract offer. [Sec. 2354]

Includes forestry language similar to House

bill, but also allows a producer organization

to act on behalf of its membership in

submitting applications or conducting similar

activities to facilitate program participation.

[Sec. 2356] Establishes a Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Conservation Program under

EQIP to assist producers in applying

conservation practices on

agricultural/nonindustrial private forestland

in the Bay watershed to address natural

resource concerns related to agriculture,

funded at $165 million for FY2008-12. [Sec.

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

provision for guaranteed loan eligibility.

Adopts Senate provision with an

amendment for cost-share rates and

advance payments for beginning, socially

disadvantaged, and limited resource

farmers or ranchers. [Sec. 2503]

Deletes Senate provision.

Adopts Senate provision with an

amendment to modify eligible land.

[Sec. 2502]

Adopts House provision with changes to

prioritize State, regional, or local

resource concerns, and to allow for the

grouping of applications of similar

agriculture operations. [Sec. 2502]

Adopts House forestry provision [Sec.

, but strikes Senate provision on

producer organizations.

2502]

2361]

Sec. 1240F of the FSA, as amended,

provides for USDA funding,

information, and training to develop and

ȬŘŘȱ

Lists 3 criteria that must be met before

USDA can provide assistance for

practices with a primary purpose of

No comparable provision.

Deletes House provision.

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

implement conservation plans.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

Adds to the Conservation Innovation

Grants provisions under EQIP. Adds

detail on qualities of eligible projects,

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. Provides

funding from EQIP: $30 million

(FY2008) rising to $75 million (FY2012),

with specified funds for air quality and

for organic and specialty crop

producers. [Sec. 2105(m)]

Replaces GSWCP with a Regional

Water Enhancement Program to

address water quality, make eligible

governmental entities (including

irrigation and water districts) and Indian

tribes, and to implement program on a

regional scale through cooperative

agreements. Expands the list of eligible

activities and 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/selecting proposals and

developing implementation agreements.

Provides mandatory funds of $60 million

annually through FY2012 (limits

administrative expenses to no more

than 3% of the total). [Sec. 2106]

Adds to the Conservation Innovation Grants

provisions under EQIP. Adds nonindustrial

private forest lands to the list of potential

recipients of innovative technologies. Adds

two items to the list of examples: (1)

transfers of innovative technologies to

nonindustrial private forest land in

production, and (2) assistance for specialty

crop production. [Sec. 2358]

Adopts House provisions related to

forest resource management and air

quality. Provides $37.5 million annually

(FY2009-2012) to implement air quality

plans. [Sec. 2509] The conference report

states conservation programs should

recognize the use of innovative

technology such as enhanced efficiency

fertilizers.

Maintains GSWCP and provides an increase

in funding from $60million to $65 million

annually. Provides funding for each state that

received funding under the program in

previous years (simple average of funds

provided for FY2002- 2007 or the amount

provided in 2007, whichever is greater),

except for states over the Ogallala Aquifer,

which will receive not less than the greater

of $3 million or the average of funds

provided for FY2002-2007. Provides at least

$20 million for the Eastern Snake Plain

Aquifer. [Sec. 2359]

Replaces GSWCP with the Agricultural

Water Enhancement Program (AWEP)

under EQIP. Provides mandatory funding:

$73 million annually (FY2009-2010), $74

million (FY2011), and $60 million annually

(FY2012 and each year thereafter).

Recognizes the purpose as addressing

water quality/quantity concerns on

agricultural land, with the role of AWEP

partners as leveraging federal funds and

encouraging producers to address these

concerns. The Managers report

emphasizes the importance of addressing

groundwater management in the Ogallala

region, promoting water use efficiency

projects, converting irrigated farming

operations to a dryland farming; and

providing assistance to construct on farm

reservoirs/irrigation ponds in droughtstricken areas. Identifies six priority

areas: The Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer

region, Puget Sound, the Ogallala Aquifer,

the Sacramento River watershed, Upper

water conservation. [Sec. 2105 (l)]

[16 U.S.C. 3839aa-6]

Sec. 1240H of the FSA, as amended by

the 2002 farm bill, provides for a

competitive grants program within

EQIP, on a matching basis, to implement

innovative conservation practices;

examples listed are using market

systems in pollution reduction, and

using innovative practices, such as

storing carbon in soil; no funding is

specified.

[16 U.S.C. 3839aa-8]

Sec. 1240I of the FSA, as amended by

the 2002 farm bill, 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 FY2004-07.

[16 U.S.C. 3839-aa-9]

ȬŘřȱ

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Sec. 1240I(c)(2) of the FSA, as amended

by the 2002 farm bill, provides $50

million to carry out water conservation

activities in the Klamath River basin

(OR, CA) [16 U.S.C. 3839aa-9(c)(2)]

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1241(a)(6) of the FSA, as amended,

authorizes EQIP funding, rising from

$0.4 billion in FY2002 to $1.3 billion in

FY2010. [16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(6)]

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Lists the Klamath River basin as one of

the 5 listed priority areas under the

Regional Water Enhancement Program.

No comparable provision.

(Note: The Klamath Basin is listed as 1 of 14

priority areas in the Partnerships and

Cooperation Program; see above.)

[Sec. 2106 (b)(2)]

No comparable provision.

Authorizes EQIP funding: $1.25 billion

(FY2008), $1.6 billion (FY2009), $1.7

billion (FY2010), $1.8 billion (FY2011),

and $2 billion (FY2012). [Sec. 2401(d)]

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

Mississippi River Basin, the Red River of

the North Basin, and the Everglades. [Sec.

2510] Follows same payment limits as

under EQIP. [Sec. 2508] Provides for a

transition period for the existing GSWCP

through September 30, 2008. [Sec. 2903]

Deletes House provision.

Adds program at end of EQIP to assist

farmers who are converting to organic

production (with contracts of 3-4 years).

Payments are limited to $20,000 per year.

Adopts Senate provision. Includes organic

practices as eligible management systems

and limits payment to an aggregate of

$80,000 in any 6-year period.

[Sec. 2360]

[Secs. 2501 and 2503]

Authorizes EQIP funding: $1.27 billion

annually (FY2008-09), $1.3 billion each

(FY2010-FY2012). [Sec. 2401(a)(7)]

Provides additional budget authority.

Authorizes EQIP funding: $1.2 billion

(FY2008); $1.337 billion (FY2009);

$1.45 billion (FY2012); $1.588 billion

(FY2011); and $1.75 billion (FY2012).

[Sec. 2701]

Farmland Protection Program

The 1996 farm bill amended Sec. 1238H

of the FSA to authorize the Farmland

Protection Program (FPP), defining

eligible entity, land, Indian tribes, and

programs. [16 U.S.C. 3838h-I] The

program, as amended, provides for the

purchase of conservation easements to

protect topsoil by limiting the land’s

nonagricultural uses subject to a

pending offer. The federal cost may not

exceed 50% of the value of the

easement; the value of a charitable

donation by the seller may not exceed

25% of the value of the easement. If

ȬŘŚȱ

Reauthorizes program, and renames to

Farm and Ranchland Protection

Program (FRPP). Expands eligible land

definition to include historic and

archaeological resources. States will be

certified (reviewed every 3 years) to

participate and receive program funds

based on 4 listed requirements. States

may spend up to 10% of funds for

administrative costs. Lists terms and

conditions for agreements with eligible

entities (reviewed every 3 years).

Provides that USDA may require a

contingent right to enforce easement,

Reauthorizes the program. Modifies

definition of eligible forest land, and makes

eligible other land that is needed for efficient

administration of an easement. Changes

purpose of program from protecting topsoil

to “protecting agricultural use and related

conservation values.” Adds new

requirements for cooperative agreements

with participants, cost-sharing, and

protection of the federal investment. Allows

USDA to enter into cooperative agreements

with eligible entities under certain

circumstances, and requires the protection

of federal investment through an executory

Reauthorizes the program through 2012,

but does not rename program. Changes

administrative requirements, appraisal

methodology, and terms and conditions

of cooperative agreements. Adopts

terms/conditions for cooperative

agreements similar to Senate provision.

Clarifies the purpose of the program as

protecting land for agricultural use by

limiting nonagricultural uses. Adopts

Senate provision to modify the definition

of eligible land to include forestland and

other land that contributes to the economic viability of an operation. Establishes a

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

multiple applications are comparable,

USDA may not use cost alone to

determine which ones will be funded.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Sec. 1241(a)(4) of the FSA, as amended,

authorizes mandatory 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.

and requires the use of a conservation

plan for highly erodible cropland.

Retains a federal contingent right of

enforcement or executory limitation in

an easement to ensure its enforcement.

Provides cost-share assistance for

purchasing an easement, but assistance

may not exceed 50% of the appraised

fair market value of the easement. The

fair market value is determined by an

appraisal using an industry-approved

method. [Sec. 2110]

Mandatory 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.

[16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(4)]

[Sec. 2401(c)]

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

limitation. Limits the amount USDA can

share in the costs of purchasing the

easement to 50% of the appraised fair

market value and establishes minimum

amounts entities pay based on the amount of

landowner contributions. Requires appraisals

based on uniform standards of professional

appraisal practice or any other industryapproved standard. [Sec. 2371]

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

certification process similar to the House

bill for all eligible entities. To become

certified, entities must have the authority

and resources to enforce easements,

polices in place that are consistent with

the purposes of the program, and clear

procedures to protect the integrity of the

program. Includes a limit on impervious

surfaces consistent with agricultural

activities, and clarifies agreement terms

for certified and non-certified entities.

[Sec. 2401-2402]

Mandatory funding for the FPP is authorized

at $97 million annually from FY2008 through

FY2012.

[Sec. 2401(a)(5)]

Provides additional budget authority.

Authorizes FPP funding: $97 million

(FY2008); $121 million (FY2009); $150

million (FY2010); $175 million (FY2011);

and $200 million (FY2012). [Sec. 2701]

Grassland Reserve Program

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec. 1238N

of the FSA to authorize the Grasslands

Reserve Program (GRP), setting

maximum enrollment for at 2.0 million

acres (all enrolled parcels in at least 40

contiguous acres). Requires 40% of land

enrolled in 10-20 year, and 60% in 30

year agreements. [16 U.S.C. 3838n]

Sets the GRP enrollment ceiling at an

additional 1.34 million acres, with at

least 60% of these acres to be enrolled

using 30 year rental agreements and

easements. [Sec. 2104(a) and (b)]

Adds definitions: eligible entity, eligible land,

and permanent conservation easement.

Eligible entity and authority would allow for

USDA to enter cooperative agreements

with entities to purchase easements.

Provides for GRP enrollment options

through a 30 year contract, 30 year

easement, and permanent easement. [Sec.

2381]

No comparable provision.

ȬŘśȱ

Allows USDA to transfer certain land

currently in the CRP into the GRP, but

Allows USDA to transfer certain land

currently in the CRP to be transferred to a

Adopts an acreage enrollment goal of an

additional 1.22 million acres by 2012.

Includes 10-, 15-, and 20-year rental

contracts and permanent easements.

Deletes House priority for 60% of

acreage in long term contracts; retains

current law that 60% of funds would be

dedicated to easements, while 40% of

funds would be dedicated to short term

contracts. Adopts Senate definition of

eligible entity, authority, and eligible land

(with technical corrections). Adopts a

priority for enrollment of CRP land with

a modification to clarify that the priority

applies upon expiration of the CRP

contract. [Sec. 2403]

Adopts House provision regarding the

method for determining fair market value

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Sec. 1238O of the FSA, as amended,

specifies the duties and requirements of

landowners in the GRP, terms of

easements and agreements, and how

applications are to be evaluated.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

limits the total in any calendar year to

no more than 10% of GRP acres

enrolled. Requires USDA pay the lowest

of four specified ways to calculate fair

market value. [Sec. 2104(c)]

No comparable provision.

[16 U.S.C. 3838o]

No comparable provision.

Sec. 1238Q(a) of the FSA, as amended,

allows USDA to transfer the title of an

easement in the GRP to a state or

private organization. [16 U.S.C.

Authorizes a Grasslands Reserve

Enhancement Program. [Sec. 2104 (d)]

Requires USDA to transfer the title of

an easement to a private organizations

or a state. [Sec. 2104 (e)]

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

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]

with a technical correction. [Sec. 2403]

Specifies landowner duties and USDA

considerations in evaluating offers. Specifies

how to determine compensation levels and

technical assistance. Specifies

terms/conditions that apply to GRP

contracts/easements, such as permitted and

prohibited uses, minimum require-ments for

cooperative agreements, and other

considerations. [Sec. 2381]

No comparable provision.

Adopts Senate provisions with changes.

Provides authority for USDA to enter into

cooperative agreements with eligible entities

for those entities to purchase, own, enforce,

and monitor easements. [Sec. 2381]

Adopts the Senate amendment provision

for cooperative agreements between

USDA and eligible entities with a

modification to the language specifying

that eligible entities shall assume costs of

administering and enforcing easements.

Adopts a requirement for a contingent

right of enforcement. [Sec. 2403]

3838q(a)]

Sec. 1241(a)(5) of the FSA, as amended,

limits funding for the GRP to a total of

$254 million from FY2003-07.

[16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(5)]

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

No comparable provision.

(Note: Sets acreage enrollment limit in

GRP provisions, but no funding limit.)

Total GRP funding limited to $240 million

for FY2008-12, with no acreage enrollment

limit. [Sec. 2401(a)(6]

Reauthorizes WHIP through FY2012;

allows additional funds to be used to

meet regulatory requirements that

“reduces the economic scope of the

producer’s operation;” increases

portion of funds for long-term

agreements from 15% to 25% of funding.

Reauthorizes WHIP through FY2012;

increases portion of funds for long-term

agreements from 15% to 25% of funding;

requires USDA to give priority to projects

that foster the goals of state, regional, and

national fish and wildlife conservation plans.

[Sec. 2403]

Deletes House provision.

Deletes Senate provision.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

The 1996 farm bill amended Sec. 1240N

of the FSA to authorize Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program (WHIP), providing

cost-sharing 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.

ȬŘŜȱ

[Sec. 2393]

Limits program eligibility to focus on

lands ‘‘for the development of wildlife

habitat on private agricultural land,

nonindustrial private forest land, and

tribal lands.” Raises limit on cost-share

payments for long-term projects to 25%

and limits total payments to $50,000 per

year. Allows USDA to provide priority to

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

projects that address issues raised by

State, regional, and national conservation

initiatives. [Sec. 2602]

Reauthorizes program through FY2012 at

current levels. [Sec. 2701]

[16 U.S.C. 3839bb-1]

[Sec. 2112]

Sec. 1241(a)(7) of the FSA, as amended,

authorizes mandatory funding raising

from $15 million to $60 million

between FY2002-04, and $85 million

annually (FY2005-07). [16 U.S.C.

Mandatory funding for WHIP is

authorized at $85 million annually

through FY2012. [Sec. 2401(e)]

Similar to the House bill.

Reauthorizes discretionary funding for

program through FY2012. [Sec. 2111]

Reauthorizes discretionary funding for

program through FY2012. [Sec. 2396]

Reauthorizes the program through 2012.

Extends authorization of appropriations

through FY2012. [Sec. 2108]

Extends authorization of appropriations

through FY2012. [Sec. 2392]

Extends authorization of appropriations

through FY2012. [Sec. 2601]

Authorizes $20 million annually in

discretionary funds (FY2008-12) and

one-time funding of $10 million in

mandatory funding to remain available

until spent. [Sec. 2107]

Authorizes $20 million annually in

discretionary funding (FY2008-12).

Adopts Senate provision. [Sec. 2603]

Extends authorization of appropriations

through FY2012. [Sec. 2109]

Extends authorization of appropriations

through FY2012; specifies program will help

implement recommendations of a

collaborative restoration strategy, giving

priority to certain projects. [Sec. 2395].

[Sec. 2401(a)(8)]

3841(a)(7)]

Other Conservation Programs

The 2002 farm bill amended the FSA to

provide grants to implement a Farm

Viability Program. Authorizes

appropriations “such sums as are

necessary” through FY2007.

[Sec. 2402]

[16 U.S.C. 3838j]

The 1996 farm bill amended Sec.

1240M(e) of the FSA to authorize the

Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Program. Authorizes appropriations of

$60 million annually through FY2007.

[16 U.S.C, 3839bb(e)]

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec. 1240O

of the FSA to authorize a Grassroots

Source Water Protection Program to

assist state rural water associations that

operate wellhead and groundwater

protection programs. Authorizes

appropriations of $5 million annually

through FY2007. [16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2]

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec. 1240P

of the FSA to authorize a Great Lakes

Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment

Control, and provides $5 million

annually through FY2007. [16 U.S.C.

3839bb-3]

ȬŘŝȱ

[Sec. 2394]

Reauthorizes program, and authorizes $5

million annually FY2008-2012.

[Sec. 2604]

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

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

Insurance Act authorizes an Agricultural

Management Assistance (AMA)

program for listed states that have

historic low participation rates in the

Federal Crop Insurance Program. [7

Adds Hawaii and Virginia to the list of

eligible states. Allocates 50% of funds to

USDA’s NRCS; 10% to Agricultural

Marketing Service (for organic

certification assistance); and 40% to the

Risk Management Agency. [Sec. 2201]

Reauthorizes the program through FY2012;

adds Idaho to the list of eligible states. [Sec.

Adopts House provision with changes to

include Hawaii as an eligible State.

Provides an additional $25million in

mandatory funding (FY2008-2012).

Amends RC&D program to provide a

designated coordinator to assist each

approved area. Eliminates requirement

to submit a program evaluation to the

House and Senate Agriculture

Committees before June 30, 2005.

Similar to House provision, clarifying that an

area plan must be developed through a

locally led process, and that the planning

process, and that the planning process must

be conducted by a local council. Provides for

a coordinator to improve technical

assistance to councils, as designated by

USDA. [Sec. 2605]

Adopts Senate provision. [Sec. 2805]

Authorizes $50 million annually in

mandatory funding (FY2009-12);

extends FY2007 discretionary funding

level through FY2012. [Sec. 2203]

Authorizes such sums as necessary in

discretionary funding annually (FY2008-12).

Adopts House provision and provides

$100 million in mandatory funding for

FY2009 to remain available until

expended. [Sec. 2803]

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.

Directs USDA to update state allocation

formulas. [Sec. 2402]

Adopts Senate provision with changes.

Expands use of third party providers

using contracts. Specifies providers

should get at least prevailing market

rates, calls for a review/update of all

technical assistance specifications,

including the needs of specialty crop

producers. [Sec. 2402]

Expands use of third party providers using

contracts. Directs USDA to develop national

certification criteria and approve established

state standards. Provides funding through

each conservation program, specifies

minimum and maximum contract terms,

among other considerations. Includes similar

provisions for specialty crop producers as

Adopts Senate provision with changes

regarding the delivery of technical

assistance. [Sec. 2706]

2601]

[Sec. 2801]

U.S.C. 1524(b)]

Secs. 1528-1537 of the 1981 farm bill

(Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, P.L.

108-7) authorizes the Resource

Conservation and Development

Program (RC&D) to develop and

implement a regional plan to address

conservation, water/land management,

or community development. [16 U.S.C.

[Sec. 2202]

1528-1527]

Sec. 14(h) of the Watershed Protection

and Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 106472) authorizes discretionary and

mandatory funding for a Small

Watershed Rehabilitation Program. [16

[Sec. 2604]

U.S.C. 1012]

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec.

1241(d) of the FSA to authorize a

program to promote regional equity,

giving each state a total of at least $12

million annually from certain mandatory

programs.

[Sec. 2703]

[16 U.S.C. 3841d]

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec. 1242

of the FSA to authorize delivery of

technical assistance directly or using a

third party provider and specifies how

providers are to be approved by USDA.

Authorizes cooperative agreements

with non-federal entities to provide

technical assistance. [16 U.S.C. 3842]

ȬŘŞȱ

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec.

1244(a) of the FSA to authorize USDA

to provide incentives to beginning

farmers/ranchers and Indian tribes to

participate in conservation programs.

[16 U.S.C. 3844(a)]

The 1990 farm bill amended Sec. 1261

of the FSA to authorize state technical

committees (STC), including members

and interests to be represented,

outlining duties, and specifying that

committees are advisory with no

implementation or enforcement

authority.

[16 U.S.C. 3861-3862]

The 1996 farm bill amended Sec. 351 of

the FSA to authorize a National Natural

Resources Conservation Foundation to

raise private funds that will be used to

promote conservation. Program has

never been implemented.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

the House bill. [Sec. 2404]

Expands access to program incentives to Requires USDA to develop a streamlined

include socially disadvantaged and

application process for conservation

limited resource farmers and ranchers.

programs. Provides for Safe Harbor

Requires USDA to develop a

assurances to the landowner under the

streamlined application process. [Sec.

Endangered Species Act. Allows producers

2405]

to apply for programs through a producer

organization. [Sec. 2405]

Specifies STC have at least 12 producers Adds non-industrial private forest land

representing agriculture; removes

owners to the list of groups represented on

requirement for persons knowledgeable the STC. Requires USDA to develop

about conservation; adds new

standard operating procedures to be used by

provisions creating subcommittees and

the State technical committee in the

development of technical guidelines for the

lists potential topics; describes

responsibilities in more general terms.

implementation of the conservation

[Sec. 2408]

provisions of this title. Makes local work

groups subcommittees of the State technical

committee.

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

Adopts House provision with changes to

include certain acreage limitations and

exemptions, and also a pollinator

protection provision. Requires USDA

report to Congress on the completion of

the requirements not later than 1 year

after enactment. [Sec. 2708]

Adopts House provision with changes to

require USDA to develop standard

committee operating procedures,

updates the names of participating

agencies, and deletes the requirement for

establishing specific issue-area

subcommittees. Requires that public

notice be given for meetings of the State

technical committee and adds local

working groups as subcommittees. [Sec.

[Sec. 2501]

2711]

No comparable provision.

Amends numerous provisions authorizing

the Foundation. [Sec. 2606]

Deletes Senate provision.

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]

Adopts Senate provision with changes.

Provides $175 million in mandatory

funding. [Sec. 2807]

Specifies STC have at least 12 producers

representing agriculture. Removes

requirement for persons knowledgeable

about conservation. Adds new

provisions creating subcommittees issue

Adds non-industrial private forest land

owners to the list of groups represented on

the STC. [Sec. 2501]

Adopts House provision with changes to

require USDA to develop committee

standard operating procedures, and to

update the names of participating

agencies. Deletes the requirement for

[16 U.S.C. 5801-5809]

The 2002 farm bill amended Sec. 2507

of the FSA to authorize USDA to

transfer $200 million of CCC funds to

the Bureau of Reclamation for water to

at-risk natural desert terminal lakes.

[43 U.S.C. 2211note]

The 1990 farm bill amended Sec. 1261

of the FSA to authorize state technical

committees (STC), including members

and interests to be represented,

outlining duties, and specifying that

ȬŘşȱ

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

committees are advisory with no

implementation or enforcement

authority.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Authorizes a new Chesapeake Bay

Program for Nutrient Reduction and

Sediment Control to carry out

restoration, enhancement, and

preservation projects. Identifies four

specified watersheds. The non-federal

cost share for each project will be at

least 35%, but will not exceed $5

million. Sets mandatory funding at $10

million (FY2008), rising to $55 million

(FY2012). [Sec. 2301]

No comparable provision. (Note: The

Chesapeake Bay program is authorized as a

part of EQIP.)

areas. Describes responsibilities in more

general terms. [Sec. 2408]

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

establishing specific issue-area

subcommittees. [Sec. 2711]

[16 U.S.C. 3861-3862]

New Conservation Programs

No comparable provision.

Adopts House provision with changes.

Renames program Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Program. Applies to all

tributaries, backwaters, and side

channels, including watersheds, draining

into the Chesapeake Bay, but gives

priority to the Susquehanna, Shenandoah,

Potomac, and Patuxent Rivers. Provides

mandatory funds of $23 million (FY2009);

$43 million (FY2010); $72 million

(FY2011); and $50 million (FY2012). [Sec.

2605]

No comparable provision.

The so-called “Open Fields” provision

authorizes state grants through a new

Voluntary Public Access and Habitat

Incentive Program to encourage landowners to provide public access for

wildlife-dependent recreation. Sets

application contents and award

priorities. Authorizes discretionary

funding of $20 million annually through

FY2012.

Similar to the House bill, and includes a

priority to States where the location of

participating lands would be available to the

public and provides $20 million per year in

mandatory funding annually (FY2008-2012).

[Sec. 2399 and Sec. 2401(a)(9)]

Adopts Senate provision with an

amendment, providing $50 million in

mandatory funds for the period FY20092012. Includes a 25% reduction for the

total grant amount if the opening dates

for migratory bird hunting in the State

are not consistent for residents and nonresidents. [Sec. 2606]

[Sec. 2303]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Authorizes a new Muck Soils Conservation Program for eligible land, defined

by five characteristics. Authorizes

ȬřŖȱ

Creates a new Conservation Access

program, requiring 10% of the funds (or

acres in the cases of WRP and CRP) be used

to assist beginning and socially disadvantaged

farmers and ranchers with annual gross sales

of $15,000 or more. [Sec. 2403]

No comparable provision.

Adopts Senate provision with changes.

Provides that 5% of CSP acres and 5% of

EQIP funds be used to assist beginning

farmers or ranchers, and an additional 5%

of each to assist socially disadvantaged

farmers or ranchers. [Sec. 2704]

Deletes provision.

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

appropriations of $50 million annually

through FY2012, with payments

between $300-$500 per acre. [Sec.

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

2303]

No comparable provision.

(Note: Current law limits CRP payments

to $50,000 per year, sets payment limits

for each of 3 tiers in the CSP, and limits

EQIP payments to $450,000 for all

contracts in any 6-year period.

[16 U.S.C. 3834, 3838c, and 3839aa-7]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Authorizes new payment limits, deleting

existing conservation payment limit

language. Limits annual payments to

$60,000 for any single program; limits

total payments to $125,000 under all

conservation (except WRP, FRPP, GRP).

Defines how payments should be

attributed to individuals. [Sec. 2409]

Requires USDA to submit an annual

report on specialty crop producer

participation in conservation programs,

including how to improve producer

program access. [Sec. 2406]

Authorizes a new provision to develop

agriculture and forestry based

environmental services to promote

market-based conservation. Specifies

use of USDA-funded research,

contracts, and award grants. Establishes

a USDA-led Environmental Services

Standards Board of senior federal

officials to facilitate the development of

credit markets and disseminate

performance standards to federal

agencies. Authorizes $50 million in

discretionary funding, with appropriated

amounts to remain available until spent.

No comparable provision.

Deletes provision. Places payment limits

within each section of the bill and deletes

this section.

No comparable provision.

Deletes provision. The managers report

states it has modified the compliance and

performance provisions of Section 1244

of FSA to accommodate the intent of the

House bill.

Adopts House provision with changes.

Directs USDA to work in consultation

with other federal and state government

agencies, nongovernmental interests and

other interested persons, as determined

by USDA, to establish technical guidelines for measuring environmental

services and to establish a verification

process (allowing for consideration of

third party verifiers). Directs USDA to

focus initially on carbon markets. Does

not authorize funds, expecting USDA to

use available resources. [Sec. 2709]

Authorizes a new provision to develop

agriculture and forestry based environmental

service markets, giving priority to developing

carbon storage. Directs USDA to use a

collaborative process with specified

government and non-government interests

to develop a framework and identifies

relevant framework components

(quantification, accounting, and verification).

Requires three reports to Congress.

Authorizes discretionary funding of “such

sums as are necessary.” [Sec. 2406]

[Sec. 2407]

No comparable provision.

Ȭřŗȱ

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.

Deletes provision.

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Allows USDA to encourage

development of voluntary sustainable

practices for specialty crops. [Sec. 2502]

Requires USDA to develop information

on the importance of productive

farmland and designate at least one

farmland information center to

distribute this and related information.

Specifies federal matching funds of at

least $400,000 (not exceeding 0.5% of

the amount provided to implement the

FRPP). [Sec. 2503]

Requires USDA to contract with a

peanut producer for a 4 year crop

rotation; authorizes appropriations up

to $10 million annually (FY2008-12).

Sec. 2504]

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

No comparable provision.

Deletes provision.

No comparable provision.

Deletes provision.

Similar to House provision, but provided

within CSP, directing USDA to provide

additional payments to producers who agree

to adopt resource-conserving crop rotations

to achieve optimal crop rotations. [Sec.

Adopts Senate provision. [Sec. 2301]

2341]

No comparable provision.

(Note: See the Conservation Security

Program, above, in existing programs.)

See section 2103 on the Conservation

Security Program (described 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.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

ȬřŘȱ

Authorizes a new Comprehensive

Stewardship Incentives Program to

coordinate administration of a new

Conservation Stewardship Program (see

above) and EQIP. Addresses defined

resource concerns, meets regulatory

demands, encourages conservation, and

promotes conservation and production as

compatible goals. [Sec. 2341]

Authorizes a Discovery Watershed

Demonstration Program to reduce loss of

nutrients into surface waters in 30 small

watersheds in the Upper Mississippi River

basin. Authorizes discretionary funds as are

necessary. [Sec. 2397]

Authorizes an Emergency Landscape

Restoration Program to repair landscapes

damaged by natural events. Replaces two

others emergency conservation and

Deletes Senate provision. Renames CSP

the Conservation Stewardship Program.

[Sec. 2301]

Deletes provision.

Deletes provision.

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

watershed programs. [Sec. 2398]

Directs USDA to assist producers who apply

for programs indirectly through certain

organizations, if this will increase

participation and program benefits; payment

limits apply to each producer, not the

organization. [Sec. 2405]

Authorizes a new Agriculture Conservation

Experienced Service Program, such that

USDA can enter into agreements with

organizations to provide technical assistance

using qualified individuals 55 years or older.

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

Deletes provision. Places payment limits

within each section of the bill and deletes

this section.

Adopts Senate provision, but limits

individuals employed under this authority

to providing only technical assistance

(excluding administrative tasks).

[Sec. 2710]

[Sec. 2602]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Amends the Soil Conservation and

Domestic Allotment Act of 1935 by

providing definitions and creates new

technical assistance provisions. Reauthorizes

the Soil and Water Resources Conservation

Act of 1977 through 2028; requires a

national appraisal of soil, water and related

resources to be issued every 10 years. [Sec.

Adopts Senate provision. [Sec. 2802]

2603]

No comparable provision.

The “sodsaver” provision noncropland

(including native grassland and

pastureland) planted to an insurable

crop ineligible for crop insurance for the

first 4 years of planting. [Sec. 11007]

Makes native sods planted to an insurable

crop (over 5 acres) ineligible for crop

insurance and the noninsured crop disaster

assistance program. Directs USDA to report

within 180 days of enactment, and annually

thereafter, on changes in cropland acreage,

by county, since 1995. [Sec. 2608]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Requires that no producers in Texas lose

program benefits as a result of participating

in a study of the Ogallala Aquifer’s recharge

potential. [Sec. 2609]

Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) [7 U.S.C.

136o(d)] to require the State Department to

Ȭřřȱ

Makes native sods planted to an insurable

crop (over 5 acres) ineligible for crop

insurance and the noninsured crop

disaster assistance program for the first 5

years of planting. May apply to virgin

prairie converted to cropland in the

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area, if

elected by the state. [Sec. 12020]

Adopts Senate provision. [Sec. 2901]

Adopts the Senate provision on payment

of expenses. [Sec. 14209] Deletes Senate

provision making technical corrections to

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

Sec. 202(a) of the Colorado River

Salinity Control Act of 1974 authorizes

DOI to construct, operate, and

maintain the specific salinity control

units as the initial stage of the Colorado

River Basin salinity control program.

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

No comparable provision.

[43 U.S.C. 1592(a)]

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

pay expenses incurred by EPA employees

associated with certain international

activities. [Sec. 2610] 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]

Amends the act to create a basin states

program implementing specified salinity

control activities. Requires DOI to consult

with the Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Advisory Council related to

assistance in the form of grants, grant

commitments, or the advancement of funds

to federal or non-federal entities. Requires a

planning report to Congress describing the

proposed program implementation;

stipulates that no funds may be expended

until 30 days after the report is submitted.

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

pesticide registration, but includes a

container recycling provision.

[Sec. 14109]

Adopts Senate provision. The Mangers

report states this provision to be fiscally

neutral both as to appropriations and as

to draws on the basin funds. States there

are no changes to the cost share ratios

already established in the act; the

percentage split between the two funds;

or the 15% cap requirement on the basin

states cost share derived from the Upper

Colorado River Basin Fund. [Sec. 2806]

[Sec. 2611]

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Authorizes USDA to accept

contributions to support conservation

programs to establish a sub-account for

each USDA conservation program to

accept contributions of non-Federal

funds. Provides that contributions of nonFederal funds received for a conservation

program be deposited and shall be

available to USDA, without further

appropriation and until expended.

[Sec. 2702]

No comparable provision.

ȬřŚȱ

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Direct USDA to submit to Congress an

annual report regarding enrollments and

assistance under conservation programs,

including (1) WRP, FPP, and GRP

payments valued at $250,000 or greater;

(2) EQIP payments for land determined

to have special environmental

significance; and (3) AWEP payments

ȱ

Prior Law/Policy

(P.L. 107-171)

(unless otherwise Indicated)

House Bill

(H.R. 2419)

Senate Amendment

(H.R. 2419)

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

No comparable provision.

Enacted 2008 Farm Bill

(P.L. 110-246)

subject to the waiver of adjusted gross

income limitations. Allows for waivers

granted by USDA to protect

environmentally sensitive land of special

significance. [Sec. 2705]

Amends the Soil and Water Resources

Conservation Act of 1977 to require

USDA to conduct two comprehensive

appraisals and inventory of soil, water,

and related natural resource

conservation (completed by year-end

2010 and 2015). Requires a report in

early 2012 on the types of improvements

to appraisals and programs. [Sec. 2804]

Other miscellaneous provisions:

—Names the National Plant Materials

Center at Beltsville, MD, in honor of

Norman A. Berg. [Sec. 2902]

—Directs USDA, in consultation with the

CCC, to promulgate regulations not later

than 90 days after the date of enactment,

necessary to implement title II. [Sec.

2904]

Ȭřśȱ

ȱ

˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖŞȱŠ›–ȱ’••ȱ

ž‘˜›ȱ˜—ŠŒȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ

(name redacted)

Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural

Development

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural

Resources Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

řŜȱ

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.