Order Code IB96030
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
Updated May 1, 2000
Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Evolution of Federal Resource Conservation Issues
Current Major Conservation Activities
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster
Wetlands and Agriculture
Cost-Sharing Assistance
Other Provisions in the 1996 Farm Act
Conservation Farm Option
State Technical Committees
Natural Resources Conservation Foundation (NRCF)
Forestry Provisions
Flooded Cropland Retirement
Private Grazing Lands
Wildlife
Farmland Protection
Other Activities
Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
Responding to Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates
Water Quality and Agriculture
FY2000 Appropriations
Other Funding Sources
Resource Conservation Policy in the 106th Congress
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB96030
05-01-00
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
President Clinton signed the most recent
The Department of Agriculture has been
farm bill, the Federal Agricultural Improve-
implementing the 1996 farm bill provisions.
ment and Reform Act of 1996 on April 4,
Controversy has occurred, especially when the
1996 (P.L. 104-127). Provisions in the con-
Administration’s interpretation of the law’s
servation title reauthorize and amend the
requirements differs from those of interested
Conservation Reserve, Wetland Reserve,
Members of Congress. The House Agriculture
Conservation Compliance, and Swampbuster
Committee has held oversight hearings to
Programs. New programs include: the Enviro-
review implementation of the CRP and EQIP
nmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to
and to review potential effects of revisions to
provide $200 million annually in cost-sharing
proposed air quality regulations.
to producers to address conservation prob-
lems; a conservation option for producers who
Congress has also examined problems
receive market transition payments; and new
that have emerged since 1996. For example,
programs for farmland and floodplain protec-
both agricultural committees have explored
tion, grazing lands conservation, and wildlife
livestock management and non point water
habitat protection.
pollution issues.
The conservation effort remains centered

The Administration’s FY2001 budget
on voluntary participation, and federal techni-
request includes a total of $3.9 billion for all
cal, financial, and educational assistance. Core
agricultural conservation programs, an in-
programmatic activities include (1) imple-
crease of $1.1 billion over FY2000 estimates.
menting the Conservation Reserve Program to
These increases are largely attributed to the
retire highly erodible or environmentally sensi-
$1.3 billion conservation component of the
tive land; (2) implementing Conservation
new Safety Net Initiative, in which the Admin-
Compliance and Swampbuster Programs
istration proposes expanded activity in current
which remove incentives to cultivate highly
mandatory conservation programs and creating
erodible lands and wetlands; (3) implementing
one new program. It includes $878 million for
the Wetland Reserve Program to set aside
Natural Resource Conservation Service
agricultural wetlands; and (4) implementing
(NRCS) conservation programs, an increase of
EQIP.
$65 million. The proposal also includes a
staffing increase of more than 1800, to 13,450,
Significant changes this farm bill made in
at NRCS to staff the new and expanded
conservation policy include increasing overall
programs.
funding for conservation, making a majority of
the conservation funding mandatory spending
so these programs no longer go through the
annual appropriations process, recognizing
wildlife values and water quality concerns
more explicitly, and providing assistance
explicitly to livestock producers for the first
time.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB96030
05-01-00
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Department of Agriculture continues to implement conservation provisions enacted
in the 1996 farm bill. Most attention has centered on the Conservation Reserve Program,
where a signup was recently completed; results will be announced soon.

The Administration’s FY2001 budget request includes a total of $3.9 billion for all
agricultural conservation programs, an increase of $1.1 billion over FY2000 estimates.
These increases are largely attributed to the $1.3 billion conservation component of the new
Safety Net Initiative, in which the Administration proposes expanded activity in current
mandatory conservation programs and creating one new program. It includes $878 million
for Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation programs, an increase of
$65 million. The proposal also includes a staffing increase of more than 1,800, to 13,450,
at NRCS to staff the new and expanded programs.
New issues are emerging that attract congressional interest, in part because they
challenge the adequacy of conservation programs. One example is that the oldest small
watershed projects are approaching the end of their useful life, and significant funding will
be required to rehabilitate them and take into account modern concerns. A second example,
the concentration of livestock, is raising questions about waste management and disposal
and nonpoint water pollution. While the Administration works to address these issues, they
also attract congressional attention as well.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Evolution of Federal Resource Conservation Issues
Conservation of soil and water resources has been a public policy issue for more than
60 years, an issue repeatedly recast as new problems have emerged or old problems have
resurfaced. Two themes involving farmland productivity dominated the debate until 1985.
One was high levels of soil erosion, and the other was providing water to agriculture in
quantities and quality that enhance farm production.
Congress responded repeatedly to these themes by creating new programs or revising
existing ones that were designed to resolve resource problems on the farm, with the primary
benefits accruing to the farmer and to agriculture. These programs combined voluntary
participation with technical and financial assistance from the federal government. By the early
1980s, however, concern was growing, especially among environmentalists, that traditional
programs were inadequate in dealing with environmental problems (especially off the farm),
which were often caused by widely accepted agricultural practices. Publicized instances of
significant problems increased awareness and intensified the policy debate.
Congress responded, in a watershed event, by enacting four major new conservation
programs in the conservation title of the 1985 Food Security Act. One of these programs,
the Conservation Reserve (CRP), greatly increased the federal financial commitment to
conservation and targeted federal funds at the worst problems. The other three, sodbuster,
CRS-1

---

IB96030
05-01-00
conservation compliance, and swampbuster, created a new approach to conservation, which
halted access to federal farm program benefits to producers who did not meet conservation
program requirements.
Conservation provisions enacted in the next farm bill, in 1990, reflected a rapid evolution
of the conservation agenda. By 1990, Congress concluded that the conservation agenda
should be expanded beyond soil erosion to encompass additional environmental concerns.
This evolution can be attributed, in large part, to the growing influence of environmentalists
and other non-agricultural interests in the formulation of agricultural policy. The conserva-
tion title in 1990 added a new theme, water quality. While some provisions amended existing
programs, most addressed other environmental topics, including groundwater pollution, water
quality, and sustainable agriculture. Amendments to the CRP reflect these changes; its earlier
focus on highly erodible land was supplemented by broader environmental concerns.
Prior to the 1994 election, conservation policy discussions centered primarily on how
to build on the conservation initiatives enacted in the previous two farm bills, and on how to
secure more dependable funding for programs. Also, new concepts for resource management
that considered natural systems larger than individual farms, called landscapes, watersheds
or ecosystems, received increased attention. At the individual farm level, proposals to
integrate the number of plans that farmers had to follow to implement various conservation
activities, which proliferated during the prior decade, also were discussed.
The focus of debate over conservation provisions in the 1995-1996 farm bill shifted with
the new leadership in both chambers. Discussions centered on identifying ways to reform the
conservation compliance and swampbuster programs to make them less intrusive on farmer
activities. Moreover, environmental interests initially played a diminished role in policy
formulation. The initial farm bill incorporated into omnibus reconciliation legislation included
conservation provisions that centered on saving money in existing programs and authorizing
a new cost-sharing program for livestock producers. After President Clinton vetoed this
legislation in December, Congress moved quickly to pass a free-standing farm bill. Started
from the vetoed legislation, the conservation title was expanded substantially in the Senate.
The bill, as enacted, restored much of the environmental focus that had been left out of earlier
versions while continuing to attract support from agricultural interests. (For an overview of
conservation provisions in the 1996 farm bill, see CRS Report 96-330, Conservation
Provisions in the Farm Bill: A Summary.)
Current Major Conservation Activities
USDA’s conservation effort, while diverse, centers on implementing the Conservation
Reserve and compliance programs, and carrying out wetland protection responsibilities. The
most significant conservation programs are administered by two agencies. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance to producers who wish
to plan, install, and maintain conservation practices. It also administers some of the programs
that provide cost-sharing assistance to producers as an incentive to practice conservation, and
the compliance and wetland protection efforts. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers
the largest cost-sharing program, the Conservation Reserve Program.
CRS-2

---

IB96030
05-01-00
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Under the CRP producers can bid to enroll highly erodible or environmentally sensitive
lands into the reserve during signup periods, retiring it from production for 10 years (or
longer under limited circumstances). Successful bidders receive annual rental payments, and
cost-sharing and technical assistance to plant conserving vegetation.
During the twelve signups held between 1986 and 1992, 36.4 million acres were
enrolled. (Congress did not appropriate funds to enroll additional lands from FY1992
through FY1996.) USDA estimates that the average erosion rate on enrolled acres was
reduced from 21 to less than 2 tons per acre per year. Retiring these lands also expanded
wildlife habitat, enhanced water quality, and restored soil. The annual value of these benefits
has been estimated from less than $1 billion to more than $1.5 billion; some estimates of these
benefits approach or exceed annual costs, especially in areas of heavy participation.
Annual appropriations to support existing contracts had been somewhat less than $2
billion before the 1996 farm bill was enacted. These costs, which are now greater each year
than all other resource conservation expenditures combined, guarantee program benefits only
during the life of the contract. The General Accounting Office was critical of the potentially
ephemeral nature of these environmental benefits in a 1993 report.
The 1996 farm act amended the CRP by extending the program through 2002 and
capped overall enrollment at 36.4 million acres. It also made CRP a mandatory spending
program, to be funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Producers who enrolled
at least 5 years before this enactment can terminate their contracts early if their lands do not
contain high environmental values or high erosion potential. Conservation requirements
placed on land returning to production can not exceed those placed on similar nearby lands.
The Department issued final rules to implement the 1996 farm bill changes on February
12, 1997 and has held one open enrollment period each year. The 15th signup was held
during March 1997. Contracts on approximately 21.4 million acres were set to expire on
September 30, 1997, and the Department initially announced that it hoped to enroll 19 million
acres from the 240 million eligible acres. FSA used an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI)
to compare all the bids that were offered to enroll more than 23 million acres. In May, it
announced that it would accept bids on 16.1 million acres (including 11.7 million acres that
had been enrolled), reducing the overall reserve by 5.2 million acres, to 27.6 million acres.
The 15th signup generated concerns about why more acres had not been accepted and about
apparent inconsistencies from state to state.
Subsequent signups have been smaller. The 16th was completed on November 14, 1997.
For this signup, FSA accepted 5.9 million acres of the 9.5 million acres that had been bid,
including 1.8 million acres currently enrolled and 2.0 million acres that had been enrolled.
The total enrollment stood at 29.9 million acres. The 18th signup was completed in mid
December 1998. This opportunity attracted bids to enroll more than 7 million acres. On
March 4, 1999, FSA announced that it had accepted almost 5.0 million acres. Total
enrollment will rose to approximately 31.3 million acres at the start of FY2000. The most
recent enrollment, the 20th signup was completed in February 2000; the results will be
announced soon. It is expected that fewer acres will be accepted as the program is
CRS-3

---

IB96030
05-01-00
approaching its overall acreage cap, enrollment on only 400,000 acres will expire this year,
and the Department is preserving acres under that cap to enroll in two other important ways.
One of those ways allows continuous signup for individuals who wish to enroll portions
of fields, with particularly high environmental values (the 14th signup in 1997, the 17th signup
in 1998, the 19th signup in 1999, and the 21st signup in 2000). FSA staff reported that
through March, 2000 almost 1,120,000 acres have been enrolled under this option. (About
45% of these acres are in Iowa, Illinois, and Montana.) The conservation practice that has
received the most attention is stream buffers. NRCS has started an initiative to enroll 2
million miles along streambanks by 2002; it estimates that over 600,000 miles have been
enrolled. The continuous enrollment receives greater emphasis in the Administration’s Safety
Net Initiative, which calls for offering bonuses totaling up to $100 million in FY2000 and up
to $125 million in FY2001 and FY2002 to attract more participation in the continuous
enrollment option. In April, the Department announced that it would try to attract more
participation by paying signing bonuses; increasing cost-share payments for cover crops and
make maintenance payments on buffers; and increasing payments on pasture to attract more
participation. USDA estimates these payments could cost up to $350 million over the next
3 years.
The second way is a state-initiated enhancement program, under which higher rents are
paid to attract eligible land. Maryland, the first state to be approved for this program in
October 1997, will attempt to enroll 100,000 acres of stream buffers, restored wetlands, and
highly erodible lands near streams in the Chesapeake Bay drainage. (Before this agreement
was signed, it had less than 20,000 acres in the CRP.) The Maryland program will cost $195
million; this includes $170 million in federal money. Ten other states have approved
enhancement programs, and two additional states have submitted proposals. FSA estimates
that almost 70,000 acres had been enrolled under this option through March, 2000, and more
than half those acres are in Illinois. Combining these three options for enrolling land, USDA
forecasts in its FY2000 budget submission that the reserve will grow to 34.4 million acres in
FY2000 and to 36.4 million in FY2002.
NRCS provides technical assistance in support of CRP, but the 1996 farm bill placed a
cap on the amount that CCC can be used to reimburse agencies for services provided in the
delivery of CCC programs. The funds available under this cap are insufficient to pay all
related technical assistance costs this year. (In prior years, funding above the cap came from
unobligated balances under previous CRP spending authorities.) NRCS temporarily
suspended CRP-related activities in April while it assesses exactly how much money remains
and how those funds will be spent. The FY1999 Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 106-31)
provided an additional $28 million in FY1999 and $35 million in FY2000. With this
additional money, implementation of new CRP contracts will be possible.
Congress is considered using the CRP to address farm financial problems. Members
talked about enlarging the eligible acreage for the CRP, offering a shorter term program (3
to 5 years in length), and allowing more land to be enrolled more quickly. The Department
did not need congressional authority to accelerate the payments within a fiscal year, and sent
out $1.3 billion to holders of about 400,000 contracts in October 1998, and again in 1999,
instead of later in the year, as had been past practice. Legislative proposals have been
introduced to raise the enrollment cap to 45 million acres (H.R. 408/S. 1523) and to allow
enrollments above the current cap if funds are appropriated (H.R. 1299). These proposals
CRS-4

---

IB96030
05-01-00
were discussed at a July 22, 1999 hearing by a subcommittee of the House Agriculture
Committee where the Department announced that the Administration would support such a
change. In its FY2001 budget submission, it proposed raising the enrollment cap to 40
million acres. However, these proposals have not moved in the legislative process.
A new concern arose in March when the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
farmers must pay a 15.3% self-employment tax on CRP lands. In 1996, a federal tax court
had ruled that farmers did not have to pay this tax. However, the Internal Revenue Service
successfully appealed. Program supporters fear the ruling could have a chilling effect on
participation. Legislation to overturn the ruling has been introduced in both Chambers (H.R.
4064 and S. 2344). (For more information on the CRP, see CRS Report 97-673,
Conservation Reserve Program: Status and Current Issues.)
Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster
Under sodbuster provisions, producers who cultivate highly erodible land (HEL) not
cultivated between 1981 and 1985 are ineligible for most major farm program benefits,
including price supports and related payments. These benefits are lost for all the land the
farmer operates, not just for the HEL. A smaller penalty can be imposed on producers once
every 5 years if circumstances warrant. Producers who cultivate highly erodible land using
an approved conservation plan are not subject to these provisions.
Under conservation compliance, producers who cultivate HEL lose the same program
benefits as sodbusters unless they obtained an approved conservation plan by 1990 and had
fully implemented it by the end of 1994. As under sodbuster, benefits are lost for all the land
the non-complying farmer operates, and graduated penalties are available once every 5 years.
Any person who had HEL enrolled in the CRP has 2 years after his contract expires to be
fully in compliance (or longer if the Secretary determines that 2 years is not feasible).
According to 1997 data compiled by NRCS, producers were actively applying plans on
more than 97% of the tracts of land that were reviewed. NRCS estimates that soil erosion
on these acres is being reduced from an average of 17 tons per year to 6 tons per year. More
generally, a 1997 national survey of erosion rates taken by NRCS, showed that cropland
erosion totaled about 1.9 billion tons per year. This decline in the annual rate of almost 1.4
billion tons from the 1982 survey is attributed mostly to the compliance and CRP programs.
Critics, primarily from the environmental community, have contended that USDA staff
has not vigorously enforced conservation requirements. The Inspector General and the U.S.
General Accounting Office also have been critical of the implementation effort. Others,
primarily from the agriculture community, have countered that the Department has been too
vigorous, and, especially in the early years, was inconsistent in its enforcement from county
to county. Concerns of this community were addressed in the 1996 farm act. These
provisions revise the highly erodible land provisions in numerous ways that are expected to
provide greater producer flexibility; the Department issued interim rules to implement these
changes on September 6, 1997. Among these changes are:
! providing violators up to one year to meet compliance requirements;
! developing expedited variances for weather, pest, or disease problems;
CRS-5

---

IB96030
05-01-00
! allowing approved third parties to measure residue (organic materials left
after harvest), and requiring that residue measurements include the top two
inches of soil;
! allowing producers to modify plans while maintaining the same level of
treatment; and
! allowing local county committees to permit relief if a conservation system
causes a producer undue economic hardship.
(For more background on the compliance programs, see CRS Report 96-648,
Conservation Compliance for Agriculture: Status and Policy Issues.)
Wetlands and Agriculture
Swampbuster and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) are the main agricultural
wetland protection programs. Under swampbuster, farmers who convert wetlands to produce
crops lose the same federal farm program benefits as would be lost under conservation
compliance or sodbuster until the wetland is restored. Wetlands are exempt from
swampbuster if they: (1) were previously converted or artificially created; (2) are created by
irrigation or water delivery systems; (3) made possible agricultural production under natural
conditions or where production had a minimal effect; or (4) are farmed using an approved
wetland conservation plan. A partial penalty may be allowed once every 10 years.
Implementation of swampbuster has been caught up in the broader wetlands policy
debate. Some from the farm community view wetland protection efforts on agricultural lands
as too extensive or overzealous, and a portion of this group also view these efforts as an
unacceptable intrusion of government into the rights of private property owners.
Environmental and other groups counter that the swampbuster program has been enforced
weakly and inconsistently. A central source of controversy has been that about 4 million
tracts of agricultural land may contain wetlands, and only about 2.6 million tracts have
received wetland determinations. New determinations will be certified. Controversies also
arise over inconsistencies; such as when adjoining states use different interpretations of rules
based on their physical settings that lead to different determinations; such a controversy arose
earlier in 1999 between South Dakota and Minnesota, but was resolved in January, 2000.
Some agricultural concerns were thought to have been addressed when a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) making NRCS responsible for all wetland determinations on
agricultural lands was signed by NRCS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 6, 1994.
This MOA made NRCS responsible for wetland determinations for the federal wetland
regulatory program, known as the Section 404 Program, as well as swampbuster. But aspects
of implementation have proven controversial. The MOA is currently being revised to reflect
changes in the 1996 farm bill; this revision process has proven lengthy and difficult.
These specific actions did little to address broader concerns about regulatory actions,
characterized by some as wetland “takings”. While not addressing these broader issues,
numerous provisions were considered for the 1996 farm bill to give producers greater
flexibility in responding to swampbuster. Among the changes included in the enacted
legislation, and addressed in interim final regulations issued on September 6, are
CRS-6

---

IB96030
05-01-00
! exempting swampbuster penalties when wetland values and functions are
voluntarily restored following a specified procedure;
! providing that wetlands will not be considered “abandoned” as long as the
land is only used for agriculture (abandoned means that the land has not been
actively managed for agriculture for 5 years; previously, abandoned land
could be reclassified if it retained wetland characteristics);
! giving the Secretary discretion to determine which program benefits violators
are ineligible for and to provide good-faith exemptions;
! allowing mitigation and starting a pilot mitigation banking program (using
the CRP); and
! repealing required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The WRP, established in the 1990 farm bill, uses easements to protect farmed wetlands.
The Department had chosen to use only permanent easements prior to 1996. The enrollment
goal is capped at 975,000 acres. The law permits the Secretary to delegate the administration
of easements to other federal or state agencies that have the necessary expertise. Congress
has appropriated funds most years since enactment, although at considerably lower amounts
than the Administration has requested. In addition to the annual appropriations, emergency
funding was provided to enroll lands flooded in 1993 in the upper Midwest. Farmer interest
has generally exceeded available funding. April 2000 data from NRCS show that over
785,000 acres were enrolled, and more than 35% of that total is in 3 states: Louisiana
(123,000 acres), Mississippi (83,000 acres) and Arkansas (74,000 acres). The Department
estimates that only 40,000 additional acres could be enrolled in FY2001 before it reaches the
enrollment cap. Two legislative proposals, S. 1448 and H.R. 2066, would replace the current
cap with an annual enrollment limit of 250,000 acres. The Administration endorsed these
proposals in its FY2001 budget submission as an element of the Safety Net Initiative, but
Congress has yet to act on them.
Provisions in the 1996 farm act made WRP a mandatory spending program and extend
program authority through 2002. Eligibility was expanded to include land that maximizes
wildlife benefits and wetland values and functions. After October 1, 1996, enrolled land was
to be 1/3 in permanent easements, 1/3 in 30-year easements, and 1/3 in restoration cost-share
agreements; and 75,000 acres was to be enrolled in temporary easements before permanent
easements can again be used. The specific role of FWS was replaced by consultation with
state technical committees. The Department issued final rules implementing these changes
on August 8, 1996. The new regulations opened the program for continuous signup for the
first time. Permanent easements currently account for 88% of the total, while 10% is enrolled
under 30-year easements, and the remainder under restoration agreements. (For more
information about wetlands, see CRS Issue Brief IB97014, Wetland Issues.)
Cost-Sharing Assistance
Over the past several decades, Congress has enacted cost-sharing programs that provide
financial incentives to induce farmers to participate in conservation efforts. These programs
pay a portion of the cost of installing or constructing approved conservation practices. The
largest of these programs, by far, had been the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP),
funded at between $175 and $200 million annually during the two decades preceding the early
1990s. All other cost-sharing programs combined were always a fraction of this total. In
CRS-7

---

IB96030
05-01-00
FY1995 and FY1996, Congress reduced funding for these programs, and in 1994, Congress
moved administration of almost all the small programs from FSA to NRCS.
The 1996 farm act terminated the ACP and three other cost-sharing programs – the
Great Plains Conservation Program, the Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program -- and replaced them with a new Environmental Quality
Improvement Program (EQIP). EQIP is a mandatory spending program which supports
structural, vegetative, and land management practices. Annual funding is $200 million. Half
the funding addresses the needs of livestock producers. A plan is required to participate.
Payments per contract are limited to $10,000 annually and to $50,000 over the life of a
contract (5 to 10 years); exceptions to the annual limit are permitted. Large livestock
operations, defined in final regulations, can not use these payments to construct animal waste
management facilities. The Administration’s FY2001 budget submission proposes to raise
the funding cap from $200 million to $325 million and actual funding from $174 million to
$325 million as part of both the Clean Water and Safety Net Initiatives.
NRCS issued a final rule on May 22, 1997. Major topics addressed in the rule include
the identification and designation of priority areas (where funding would be concentrated),
development of conservation plans and administration of EQIP contracts, the definition of
large confined livestock operations, education and technical assistance activities, and payment
limits. In March 1977, the Department announced that at least 65% of the funding is to be
spent in state-designated priority areas, while the remainder can be spent on problems of
state-wide concern. Almost 19,000 contracts were signed in FY1999, with a total cost of
$174 million. These contracts are providing $137 million in financial assistance, $33 million
in technical assistance and $3.8 million in educational assistance. As in earlier years, interest
was much greater, with almost 52,000 applicants requesting funding totaling $386 million.
(For further information, see CRS Report 97-616, Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP): Status and Issues.)
Selected Other Provisions in the 1996 Farm Act
Conservation Farm Option. A new 10-year Conservation Farm Option was enacted
as a pilot program, for producers participating in the market transition program. Participation
requires a plan. Annual payments are based on estimated benefits from conservation
programs. Authorized funding levels increase funding each year, starting from $7.5 million
in FY1997, and total $197.5 million over 7 years. However, no funds have been
appropriated. The final rule was published September 29, 1998 Federal Register.

State Technical Committees. Provisions expanded membership eligibility for state
technical committees to include agricultural producers, representatives from agribusiness and
non-profit groups, and individuals with demonstrated expertise. Committees are required to
give notice and hold open meetings, to establish procedures for evaluating petitions on new
conservation practices, and to establish priorities for state initiatives under EQIP. All states
have implemented these provisions. The final rule to provide greater uniformity in the ways
committees operate among states was issued in the August 3, 1999 Federal Register.
Flooded Cropland Retirement. The Secretary may contract with market transition
program participants to retire frequently flooded cropland. Participants receive up to 95%
of their projected program payments and must agree to comply with swampbuster and
CRS-8

---

IB96030
05-01-00
conservation compliance, and to forego future disaster payments. Funds will come from the
CCC. The Department purchased easements using funds provided through the FY1997 and
FY1999 supplemental appropriations for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
Program. The FY1999 funds, $11.9 million, were used to purchase easements on 18,000
flood-prone acres in 8 states.
Private Grazing Lands. A new voluntary coordinated technical and educational
assistance program was established to maintain and improve resource conditions on private
grazing lands. Appropriations were authorized at $20 million in FY1996, $40 million in
FY1997, and $60 million annually thereafter. The Department is allowed to establish two
grazing management demonstration districts, following specified procedures. No funds have
been appropriated, although Congress continues to earmark a portion of NRCS’s
Conservation Operations funds for this effort annually, providing $17 million for FY2000.
Wildlife. Cost-sharing to develop and implement wildlife habitat improvement
management plans were authorized, using $50 million from funds allocated to the CRP. A
final rule was issued on September 19, 1997. The FY1998 appropriations obligated $30
million, and the remaining $20 million are being obligated in FY1999. In other sections of
the conservation title, wildlife is given greater recognition. The Administration has requested
$50 million annually as part of its Safety Net Initiative.
Farmland Protection. The Secretary was authorized to acquire easements to limit
conversion to nonagricultural uses. The program is to protect between 170,000 and 340,000
acres of farmland, using $35 million from the CCC. Eligible lands must be subject to a
pending offer from a state or local government. From FY1996 through FY1998, $33.5
million was obligated in 18 states. These funds are being used to place easements on 127,000
acres on 460 farms with an estimated easement value of $230 million. Interest in the program
has been high, and requests have exceeded funding. Bills introduced in the 106th Congress
(S. 333 and H.R. 1950) would authorize $55 million annually for this program and make
other changes, and several other bills would revitalize this program as part of wide-ranging
resource protection efforts. The Administration has requested $65 million annually as part
of the conservation component of its Safety Net Initiative.
Other Activities
Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The GPRA,
P.L. 103-62, requires all federal agencies (and Departments) to submit a strategic plan to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), produce an annual performance plan starting in
FY1999, and furnish annual performance reports beginning with FY1999. GPRA emphasizes
performance outcomes such as improvements in resource and environmental conditions,
rather than traditional measures of effort such as staff hours or outlays of funds. USDA’s
plan identifies “sensible management of natural resources” as one of three Department goals
and identifies ten agencies with relevant mission areas. NRCS, the Department’s lead agency
for conservation, set the six objectives, including:
! Conserving watersheds;
! Conserving and enhancing the productivity and quality of cropland;
! Conserving and restoring agricultural wetlands; and
! Building a strong and effective grass roots partnership.
CRS-9

---

IB96030
05-01-00
The Administration discussed its subsequent budget proposals, in part, in terms of these goals
and objectives.
Responding to Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates. The
Environmental Protection Agency, under court order, promulgated revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone and two sizes of particulates on July
18, 1997. Many in the agriculture community questioning the scientific basis and economic
consequences of these proposals. USDA raised scientific questions when it officially
responded to these proposals through its new Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, which was
created as a result of provisions in the 1996 farm bill.
Senator Inhofe attached language to the surface transportation bill (S. 1173) that
establishes an extended implementation schedule and require EPA to pay certain monitoring
costs. Implementation was thrown into turmoil by recent federal circuit court rulings that
state that EPA has exceeded its authority by issuing these regulations.
Within the Administration, cooperation on this and related issues is likely to grow as
USDA and EPA signed a Memorandum of Agreement in January 1998 to work more closely
on air quality topics. More recently, there have been discussions within the Administration
on the role agricultural practices, such as tillage, and programs, such as land retirement, could
play in controlling greenhouse gases. (For more information, see CRS Report 97-670,
Agriculture and EPA;’s Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates.)
Water Quality and Agriculture. Groundwater and nonpoint pollution have emerged
as major issues as more instances of contamination in which agricultural sources play major
roles have been identified. As the specific instances that drive public interest and concern
mount, such as a very large hog farm waste spill in North Carolina, the outbreak Pfisteria and
fish kills in portions of the Chesapeake Bay, or the discovery of a large “dead zone” in the
central Gulf of Mexico, questions are being raised about the extent of the problems, the
severity of the potential threat to human health, the adequacy of government programs, and
the contribution of agriculture. In some cases, contamination may have resulted even though
producers followed accepted agricultural practices, and did not commit illegal acts. Also, a
large issue at many locations, odor, is addressed by local and state programs.
The magnitude of these concerns can be measured by the responses. The National Pork
Producers Council was the first industry group to conclude an environmental dialogue,
endorsed by EPA, with recommendations for states to enact legislation that would phase in
environmental standards that all pork producers would have to meet. They believe that this
proactive effort responds to the highly publicized problems some producers have
encountered, and might forestall more stringent regulations or controls. Poultry growers and
other livestock groups have tried to complete a similar dialogue process.
These issues have been elevated as policy questions through the Clinton Administration’s
Clean Water Action Plan. It was developed by several federal agencies under guidance laid
out by Vice President Gore and released in February 1998. Funding to implement these
recommendations was included in the FY1999 and FY2000 budget requests. Congress
generally has not supported the agriculture proposals, which sought new emphasis within
existing law and new funding for three agencies in the Department of Agriculture rather than
CRS-10

---

IB96030
05-01-00
new law. These funds would have been spent to make grants to partnerships involved in
managing watersheds, to increase monitoring, and to restore and improve riparian areas,
grazing lands, and forest health in high priority areas.
While the 1990 farm act had responded to water quality concerns with a number of new
initiatives and amendments to established programs, the 1996 farm act did not directly address
water quality concerns with any new initiatives. However, the new EQIP program, plus the
CRP Enhancement Program (CREP) and the continuous enrollment option, are at the heart
of the USDA response. At an April 2, 1998 hearing convened by the Senate Agriculture
Committee and a May 13 hearing convened by two subcommittees of the House Agriculture
Committee, witnesses commented on how legislation proposed by Senator Harkin (S. 1323)
and other proposals might address many of these topics, and on the effectiveness and
shortcomings of current programs. An Administration proposal similar to this legislation, and
made as part of the Safety Net Initiative, would provide $600 million annually for a new cost-
sharing Conservation Security Program. The program would provide annual payments to
producers who implement certain conservation practices, such as nutrient management and
grassed waterways. Payments would be based on the comprehensiveness of the plans.
NRCS released proposed revisions to its nutrient management policy, which are
designed to help the farm community more effectively address these topics, on June 30, 1998.
USDA and EPA released a “unified national strategy for animal feeding operations.” on
March 9, 1999. Elements in the strategy are controversial because it would greatly expand
the number of animal operations at which nutrient management plans would be implemented.
In early August 1999, EPA released a long-awaited draft plan for issuing Clean Water Act
permits. Large operators will be required to develop comprehensive nutrient management
plans while smaller operators will be encouraged to develop them. In addition, President
Clinton announced on August 14, 1999, a proposal for cleaning up polluted waterways based
on strengthening “total maximum daily loading” (TMDL) requirements. More recently, at
an October 28, 1999 hearing convened by the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee
on Department Operations, members received testimony on this effort. (For more
information, see CRS Report 98-451 ENR, Animal Waste Management and the
Environment: Background for Current Issues; and CRS Report RL30422, EPA’s Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: Highlights of Proposed changes and Impacts on
Agriculture.
Appropriations

FY2001 Request. The Administration’s budget requests a total of $3.9 billion in
FY2001 for all agricultural conservation programs, an increase of $1.1 billion over FY2000
estimates. These increases are largely attributed to the $1.3 billion conservation component
of the new Safety Net Initiative, in which the Administration proposes expanded activity in
five current programs and creating one new program, identified above. Each conservation
proposal would require authorizing legislation. Nearly one-half of the total, $600 million,
would support a proposed new Conservation Security Program to would promote sound land
management by providing conservation payments to landowners who voluntarily implement
specified conservation practices. The remainder would increase the size of five current
programs. It would increase the number of eligible acres in the WRP and the CRP, and
provide more funds annually for the EQIP, Farmland Protection, and Wildlife Habitat
CRS-11

---

IB96030
05-01-00
Improvement Programs. The initiative would support a 16% increase in staff years for
NRCS, from 11,600 to almost 13,450.
Other conservation programs would undergo less change. The Conservation Operations
Program, which provides basic technical assistance to farm operators, would increase by $86
million, to $747 million. Increases would be partially offset by a decrease of $16 million for
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations programs. The Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations Program would initiate a new $60 million loan program to help states
and localities rehabilitate dams which are approaching the end of their design life. Most of
the smaller conservation programs are proposed to be level funded in FY2001, although the
Forestry Incentive Program would receive no funding, as had ben proposed in FY2000.
FY2000 Appropriations. The FY2000 agriculture appropriations (P.L. 106-78)
provided $813 million for conservation programs. This amount was more than either the
House or the Senate had approved ($800 million and $808 million, respectively), but less than
the Administration had requested ($867 million). Congress generally rejected the
Administration proposals. It placed a $47 million limit on spending for technical assistance
under the Watershed Program so that a majority of the $99 million would fund projects, and
provided $6.3 million for the Forestry Incentives Program. Both committee reports and the
conference committee report identified earmarks; among the largest in the conference report
were $17 million for the grazing lands initiative and $7.9 million for animal feeding
operations. The conference committee report also specified that $8 million in the Watershed
Operations appropriation be made available for pilot rehabilitation of aging water projects in
four specified states, and that no more than $1 million can be spent implementing the
Endangered Species Act. Congress limited WRP enrollment to 150,000 acres.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 also contained more than $500 million
in funding to assist producers affected by natural disasters. Two conservation programs
received funding: the Emergency Conservation Program received $50 million for
rehabilitating damaged farmland, and the Emergency Watershed Protection Program received
$80 million to reduce hazards to life and property in watersheds damaged by disasters.
The Administration proposal, in contrast with the FY2001 proposal, would be been
accompanied by an approximately 10% declining in staffing level, or a loss of 1,055 positions.
NRCS assessed the impacts of such a reduction on its field operations, especially its ability
to support land enrollment into the CRP. However, Congress provided an additional $28
million for technical assistance in FY1999 and $35 million in FY2000 in the FY1999
Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 106-31). In addition, it provided $95 million to NRCS
to rebuild watersheds damaged by disasters and $28 million to FSA for the Emergency
Conservation Program to clean up flooded farmland.
Other Funding Sources. Beyond federal resources, state agencies and conservation
districts provide a growing portion of the staff and funds supporting conservation. The
National Association of Conservation Districts, in October 1997 testimony before the House
Agriculture Committee, estimated that conservation districts employed over 23,000 and state
conservation agencies over 1,000, and that these organizations had $700 million in operating
funds and $400 million in financial incentives for program participants in FY1997. (For more
information on the FY2000 proposal, see CRS Report RS20046, The Administration’s
FY2000 Budget Request for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
CRS-12

---

IB96030
05-01-00
Resource Conservation Policy in the 106th Congress
The 1996 farm act reaffirmed the traditional approaches to federal conservation policy
— technical assistance, cost-sharing, and education — while changing the resource
conservation effort in several ways that go beyond individual provisions and programs.
! The total funding committed to resource conservation will grow by an
average of $300 million annually.
! A majority of the conservation funding will be mandatory spending, which
reduces the uncertainty of relying on annual appropriations decisions.
! The conservation agenda is expanded by adding wildlife considerations, by
creating a new cost sharing program to address nonpoint pollution and
livestock problems, and by creating a new agricultural air quality committee.
! State and local levels will have a stronger role in many aspects of the
conservation effort, primarily through state technical committees.
! The CRP, WRP, and EQIP will use priority areas established by each state
to target the most pressing problems and increase the efficiency of
conservation expenditures.
The role of conservation continues to evolve, challenging existing programs and
agencies. Issues that the 106th Congress may examine include the role that agriculture plays
in nonpoint pollution, responding the Administration’s Clean Water Initiative and animal
feeding strategy, looking more closely at agriculture’s role in global climate change, co-
location of field staff, and funding. Old issues may get some attention as well. For example,
the aging of small watershed projects was the subject of legislation (H.R. 728) was amended
and passed in the Agriculture Committee, and reported by the House Resources and
Transportation Committees (H. Rept. 106-484, pt. 1 and 2). In addition, Congress may look
to conservation programs to play a more prominent role in addressing the farm financial
downturn; one possibility that has been widely discussed is to increase the maximum size of
the CRP, and the Administration proposes other roles in its Safety Net Initiative. Basic
questions that Congress may consider in such examinations are whether agricultural
conservation programs and agencies (and the overall approach) remain effective, and whether
they should serve production agriculture first and foremost or additional interests as well.
CRS-13

---

IB96030
05-01-00
LEGISLATION
H. R. 408 (Peterson)
Amends to the Food Security Act to expand the number of acres in the CRP.
Introduced January 19, 1999; referred to Committee on Agriculture.
H. R. 728 (Lucas)/ S. 1762 (Coverdell)
Amends to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to authorize cost-sharing
assistance to rehabilitate structural measures. H.R. 728 introduced February 11, 1999;
reported by the Committee on Resources (November 18,1999; H. Rept. 106-484, pt.1) and
reported by the Committee on Agriculture, amended (October 27, 1999)..
H.R. 1299 (Berry)/S. 1523 (Lincoln)
Reforms the marketing loan program, expands land enrollment opportunities under the
CRP, and maintains opportunities for foreign trade in agricultural commodities. H.R. 1299
introduced March 25, 1999; referred to Committee on Agriculture. S. 1523 introduced
August 5, 1999: referred to Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 2066 (Pickering)/S. 1448 (Hutchinson)
Amends the Food Security Act to authorize the annual enrollment of land in the WRP
to extend the program through 2005, and for other purposes. H.R. 2066 introduced June 8,
1999; referred to Committee on Agriculture. S. 1448 introduced July 28, 1999; referred to
Committee on Agriculture.
H. R. 2779 (Moran)
Amends the Food Security Act to give producers greater flexibility in enrolling certain
marginal land in the CRP, and for other purposes. Introduced August 5, 1999; referred to
Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 2793 (Stenholm)
Designates USDA as the lead federal agency for national agricultural conservation and
environmental policy, including water quality research and assessment, and technical
assistance for agricultural activities, and for other purposes. Introduced August 5, 1999;
referred to Committee on Transportation and Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 3101 (Bryant)
Authorizes farmers and ranchers in designated drought disaster areas to use certain land
enrolled in the CRP for haying and grazing. Introduced October 19, 1999; referred to
Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 4064 Moran)
Amends the IRS Code to exclude certain CRP payments from net self-employment
earnings. Introduced March 22, 2000; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
S. 333 (Leahy)/H.R. 1950 (Farr)
Amends the 1996 farm act to improve the Farmland Protection Program. S. 333
introduced February 3, 1999; referred to the Committee on Agriculture, which held a hearing,
July 21, 1999. H.R. 1950 introduced May 26, 1999; referred to Committee on Agriculture.
CRS-14

---

IB96030
05-01-00
S. 1177 (Harkin)
Amends the Food Security Act to permit the harvesting of lands enrolled in the CRP for
recovery of biomass used in energy production. Introduced May 27, 1999; referred to
Committee on Agriculture.
S. 1426 (Harkin)
Provides incentive payments to farmers who undertake conservation practices under
multi-year contracts. Introduced July 21; referred to Committee on Agriculture.
S. 2344 (Brownback)
Amends the IRS Code to treat CRP payments as rentals from real estate. Introduced
April 4, 2000; referred to Committee on Finance.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on General Farm
Commodities, Resource Conservation, and Credit. Review of USDA’s Administration
of the CRP. Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. July 22, 1999. 96 p. Serial No.
106-30.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Agricultural Resources and
Environmental Indicators, 1996-1997. Washington, July 1997. 347 p. Agricultural
Handbook No. 712.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. America’s
Private Land: A Geography of Hope. Washington. 1996. 81 p.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS20046. The Administration’s FY2000 Budget Request for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, coordinated by Ralph M. Chite.
CRS Report 97-670. Agriculture and EPA’s Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone and
Particulates, by James McCarthy and Jeffrey Zinn. 15 p.
CRS Report 98-451. Animal Waste Management and the Environment: Background for
Current Issues, by Claudia Copeland and Jeffrey Zinn. 40 p.
CRS Report RL30422. EPA’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: Highlights
of Proposed Changes and Impacts on Agriculture, by Claudia Copeland. 11 p.
CRS-15

---

IB96030
05-01-00
CRS Report 96-330. Conservation Provisions in the 1996 Farm Bill: A Summary, by Jeffrey
Zinn. 6 p.
CRS Report 96-648. Conservation Compliance for Agriculture: Status and Policy Issues,
by Jeffrey Zinn. 6 p.
CRS Report 97-673. Conservation Reserve Program: Status and Current Issues, by Jeffrey
Zinn. 6 p.
CRS Report 97-616. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues,
by Jeffrey Zinn and Geoffrey Becker. 6 p.
CRS-16

---