Order Code IB96030
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
Updated January 22, 2001
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
Selected Other Provisions in the 1996 Farm Act
Conservation Farm Option
State Technical Committees
Flooded Cropland Retirement
Private Grazing Lands
Wildlife
Farmland Protection
Other Activities
Responding to Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates
Water Quality and Agriculture
Other Conservation Programs
Appropriations
FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L. 106-387)
Other Sources of Funding in FY2001
Resource Conservation Policy in the 106th Congress
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB96030
01-22-01
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
The most recent farm bill, the Federal
search Service; and the Forest Service. Most
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of
programs involve more than one of these
1996 (P.L. 104-127), sets out the basis for
agencies.
farm policy through FY2002, including soil
and water conservation policy. Provisions in
These agencies have been implementing
the conservation title reauthorized and amend-
the 1996 farm bill provisions. Controversy has
ed the Conservation Reserve (CRP), Wetland
occurred, especially when the Clinton Admini-
Reserve (WRP), Conservation Compliance,
stration’s interpretation of the law’s intent or
and Swampbuster Programs. (The CRP is
requirements differs from those of interested
used to retire highly erodible or environmen-
Members of Congress. Both agriculture
tally sensitive land; Conservation Compliance
committees have held oversight hearings.
and Swampbuster Programs reduce incentives
These committees have also examined conser-
to cultivate highly erodible lands and wetlands;
vation problems that have emerged since 1996.
and the WRP uses easements to protect agri-
For example, both agricultural committees
cultural wetlands.) New programs it created
have explored livestock waste management
include: the Environmental Quality Incentives
and non point water pollution issues.
Program (EQIP) to provide $200 million
annually in cost-sharing to producers to ad-
During the 107th Congress, both agricult-
dress conservation problems; a conservation
ure committees are likely to consider options
option for producers who receive market
for the next generation of farm policy, includ-
transition payments; and farmland and flood-
ing conservation. Options being suggested
plain protection, grazing lands conservation,
would expand the conservation mission to deal
and wildlife habitat protection programs.
with additional environmental issues, find
ways to tie conservation benefits to commod-
Agencies in the Department of Agricul-
ity programs (“green payments”), and modify
ture generally implement these programs,
existing programs based on experience in
which are based on providing incentives to
recent years or changing needs and resource
attract voluntary participants. Key agencies
conditions. In addition, Congress may also
include: the Natural Resources Conservation
consider ways to integrate some conservation
Service (NRCS), which provides technical
policies with programs and policies outside
assistance and administers many of the smaller
agriculture and the farm bill. However, with
cost-sharing programs; the Farm Service
the new administration getting organized and
Agency (FSA), which administers the largest
changes in Congress, there is little certainty
cost-sharing program and emergency pro-
about the pace or the process that these delib-
grams; the Extension Service, which provides
erations may follow.
educational assistance; the Agricultural Re-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB96030
01-22-01
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Many provisions in current farm law expire in FY2002. The House and Senate
Agriculture Committees each plan to consider options for future agricultural policies, and
possibly start the process to enact new legislation, during the 107th Congress. The form and
pace of these considerations await decisions about committee assignments and organization
in Congress and leadership appointments in the Bush Administration.
Since the last farm bill debate in 1996, new issues have emerged that are attracting
congressional interest, in part because they challenge the adequacy of current conservation
programs. For example, the growing concentration of livestock is raising questions about
waste management and disposal and non point water pollution. The Clinton Administration
addressed these issues by approving new regulations to implement the Total Maximum
Daily Loading (TMDL) program and by promulgating regulations for concentrated animal
feeding operations. The approach the Bush Administration will pursue on these topics is
unknown.
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 to reduce the high levels of soil erosion, and the other was to provide 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. These programs 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, educational, and financial assistance
incentives 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 caused by agricultural activities (especially off the farm), which were
often caused by widely accepted practices. Publicized instances of significant problems,
especially soil erosion rates said to rival the dust bowl era of the 1930s, 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 some of the most severe problems. The other
three, sodbuster, 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.
CRS-1

---

IB96030
01-22-01
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 its focus on soil erosion to encompass additional environmental
concerns. This evolution can be attributed to the growing influence of environmentalists and
other non-agricultural interests in the formulation of agricultural policy, and to a recognition
that agriculture was not treated like other business sectors in many environmental laws. The
conservation title in 1990 addressed new environmental topics, including groundwater
pollution, water quality, and sustainable agriculture, as well as amending existing programs.
Amendments to the CRP reflect these changes; its earlier focus on highly erodible land was
supplemented by several other 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 at a time when controlling outlays to reduce
the federal deficit was a major priority. 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 growing number of plans that farmers had to follow to implement various conservation
activities, which had proliferated during the prior decade, also were discussed.
The focus of these discussions, which led up to the 1995-1996 farm bill debate, shifted
with the new leadership in both chambers. They became 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 that Congress passed in 1995 and attached to
omnibus reconciliation legislation included conservation provisions that centered on saving
money in existing programs, reauthorizing the CRP, and authorizing a new cost-sharing
program for livestock producers, but little else. After President Clinton vetoed this legislation
in December 1995, Congress moved quickly to pass a free-standing farm bill early in 1996.
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 CRP 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 CRP.
CRS-2

---

IB96030
01-22-01
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 quality. 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, have declined to less than $1.5
billion but remain 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 has held one open enrollment period each year since 1996. 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,
and accepted bids on 16.1 million acres (including 11.7 million acres that had been enrolled).
Total enrolled acres dropped to 27.6 million acres, and generated concerns about why USDA
had not accepted more acres and about apparent inconsistencies in bidding from state to state.
Subsequent signups have been smaller. The 16th, completed in November 1997, enrolled
5.9 million acres of the 9.5 million acres that had been bid. The total enrollment stood at 29.9
million acres. The 18th, completed in December 1998 enrolled almost 5.0 million acres of the
more than 7 million acres that had been bid. The most recent enrollment, the 20th signup, was
completed in February 2000 and enrolled 2.5 million acres. USDA estimated that total
enrollment will rise to 33.5 million acres by the end of FY2000. The Department is
preserving most of the acres that remain under the 36.4 million acre cap to enroll land 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 FY1997, the 17th
CRS-3

---

IB96030
01-22-01
signup in FY1998, the 19th signup in FY1999, the 21st signup in FY2000, and the 22nd signup
in FY2001). FSA staff reported that through December 2000 almost 1.4 million acres have
been enrolled under this option. (More than 30% of these acres are in Iowa and Illinois.) The
conservation practice that has received the most attention is filter strips. NRCS has started
an initiative in 1997 to enroll 2 million miles of filter strips and riparian buffers along
streambanks by 2002; it estimates that over 600,000 miles have been enrolled. In April 2000,
the Department announced that it was administratively implementing proposals it had
submitted with the FY2001 budget to attract more participation by: paying signing bonuses;
increasing cost-share payments for cover crops and making maintenance payments on buffers;
and increasing payments on pasture. USDA estimates these payments could total 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 Watershed. (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. Fourteen other states have approved
enhancement programs, and seven additional states have submitted proposals. The most
recent state to be approved was California, on January 19, 2001. FSA data show that more
than 120,000 acres had been enrolled under this option through December, 2000, and almost
half those acres are in Illinois. Combining these three options for enrolling land, USDA
forecasts in its FY2001 budget submission that the reserve will grow to 34.4 million acres in
FY2001 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 portion of program funding from the CCC that can be used to reimburse agencies
for services provided in the delivery of CCC programs. The funds available under this cap
have been insufficient to pay all related technical assistance costs this year. If funding is
insufficient, NRCS may have to suspend CRP-related activities, as it did in FY1999. The
FY1999 Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 106-31) provided an additional $28 million in
FY1999 and $35 million in FY2000. The FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L. 106-387)
provides $35 million for technical assistance to implement the CRP (and the WRP).
The 106th Congress considered using the CRP to address current farm financial
problems. Members introduced bills to raise the CRP cap from 36.4 million acres, offer a
shorter term program (3 to 5 years in length), and allow more land to be enrolled more
quickly. These proposals were discussed at a House Agriculture subcommittee hearing. The
Department addressed this problem administratively by accelerating 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. In its FY2001 budget
submission, the Clinton Administration had proposed raising the enrollment cap to 40 million
acres. However, the only proposal that moved through the legislative process during the
second session of the 106th Congress was in Title XI of the FY2001 Agriculture
Appropriations legislation, which authorized a new pilot program to enroll up to 500,000
acres of farmed wetlands in six upper midwestern states into the CRP. It will offer signup
bonuses as an incentive to participate.
CRS-4

---

IB96030
01-22-01
Another CRP concern was raised in March 2000 when the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that farmers must pay a 15.3% self-employment tax on payments received for
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 was
introduced in both Chambers (H.R. 4064 and S. 2344), but action was not completed. (For
more information on this tax issue, see CRS Report RS20564, Conservation Reserve
Payments and Self-Employment Taxes, and for CRP generally, 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 revised the highly erodible land provisions in numerous ways that 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;
! allowing approved third parties to measure residue (organic materials left
after harvest), and requiring that residue measurements include the top two
inches of soil;
CRS-5

---

IB96030
01-22-01
! 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 was caught up in the broader wetlands policy debate
initially. 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
in 1999 between South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some concerns raised by the agricultural community 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 signatory
agencies are attempting to revise the MOA to reflect changes in the 1996 farm bill; this
revision process has proven 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 included in the 1996 farm bill to give producers greater flexibility
in responding to swampbuster. Among these changes included in the enacted legislation, and
addressed in interim final regulations issued on September 6, are
! exempting swampbuster penalties when wetland values and functions are
voluntarily restored following a specified procedure;
CRS-6

---

IB96030
01-22-01
! 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. June 2000 data from NRCS show that over
915,000 acres were enrolled, and about 35% of that total is in 3 states: Louisiana (132,000
acres), Mississippi (92,000 acres) and Arkansas (88,000 acres). The Department estimated
that only 40,000 additional acres could be enrolled in FY2001 before it reaches the enrollment
cap. Legislative proposals endorsed by the Clinton Administration that would have replaced
the current cap with an annual enrollment limit of 250,000 acres were considered but not
enacted by the 106th Congress. However, Congress did raise the enrollment ceiling 100,000
acres in the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations.
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. (Permanent easements currently account for almost 90%of the
total.) 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. (For
more information about wetlands, see CRS Issue Brief IB97014, Wetland Issues, updated
regularly)
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. In FY1995 and FY1996, Congress reduced funding for these programs as part of
efforts to reduce the federal budget deficit. In 1994, Congress moved administration of
almost all the small programs from FSA to NRCS. Funding for all the small cost-sharing
programs combined was always a fraction of the ACP total.
CRS-7

---

IB96030
01-22-01
The 1996 farm act terminated the ACP and three smaller 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 authorized at $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.
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 1997, 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.
The Clinton Administration repeatedly sought higher funding levels while Congress
reduced them. 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. Congress rejected these proposals in the appropriations process, discussed below,
but it did provide an additional $26 million for EQIP in omnibus appropriations legislation at
the end of the 106th Congress (P.L. 106-554). (For further information, see CRS Report 97-
616, Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues, last updated
March 2, 1998.)
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.
CRS-8

---

IB96030
01-22-01
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
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 $18 million for FY2001.
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. Funding for the wildlife program
has been provided in FY2001 by making $20 million, half the amount authorized for
conservation assistance in §211(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224),
available for the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program; §820 of the FY2001 Agriculture
Appropriations (P.L. 106-387) allowed this program to be one of the potential recipients.
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 19 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 would have authorized $55
million annually for this program and made other changes, and several other bills also would
have revitalized this program. The Clinton Administration had requested $65 million in its
FY2001 budget submission. Congress provided $10 million for farmland protection in
FY2001 and made certain private nonprofit organizations eligible to compete with state and
local governments for these funds for the first time in FY2001 in §211 of the Agricultural
Risk Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-224). The Department subsequently decided to make
an additional $20 million, half the amount authorized for conservation assistance in §211(b)
of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224), available for the this program; §820
of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L. 106-387) allowed this program to be one
of the potential recipients.
CRS-9

---

IB96030
01-22-01
Other Activities
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.
Within the Clinton Administration, cooperation on this and related issues grew after
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 among the federal agencies
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. It believes 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 budget requests since FY1999. 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 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.
Current efforts at USDA to address water quality concerns center on the new EQIP
program, plus the CRP Enhancement Program (CREP) and the continuous enrollment option.
During the 106th Congress, both agriculture committees held hearings to examine how
CRS-10

---

IB96030
01-22-01
legislation proposed by Senator Harkin (S. 1323) and other proposals might address many
water quality topics, and on the effectiveness and shortcomings of current programs. The
Clinton Administration proposed a new $600 million program as part of its FY2001 budget
submission, but Congress did not act on it.
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. (For more information,
see CRS Report 98-451 ENR, Animal Waste Management and the Environment:
Background for Current Issues.)
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. Congress included a rider in H.R. 4425, the FY2001 Military Construction and
FY2000 Urgent Supplemental Appropriations bill, prohibiting EPA from using FY2000 or
FY2001 funds to implement the TMDL proposal. The Clinton Administration responded by
issuing a revised rule the day before the President signed the bill, July 11, 2000. The revised
rule does delay the effective date of the program until October 31, 2001. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL30437, Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture.)
Other Conservation Programs. The NRCS also administers a number of other
programs that are either smaller or have been less controversial in recent years, but are still
important components of the conservation effort. These include; the Resource Conservation
and Development Program, the Forestry Incentive Program, snow and soil surveys, the
Watershed Program, and the Natural Resource Inventory. They will be discussed as
congressional interest and actions warrant.
Appropriations

FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L. 106-387). The Clinton Administration
requested 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 – increasing the number
of eligible acres in the WRP and the CRP, and providing more funds annually for the EQIP,
Farmland Protection, and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Programs -- and creating one new
program to pay farmers who voluntarily implement specified conservation practices. Other
proposed funding changes included increasing the Conservation Operations Program, which
provides basic technical assistance to farm operators, by $86 million to $747 million; and
initiating a new $60 million loan program to help states and localities rehabilitate dams which
are approaching the end of their design life.
CRS-11

---

IB96030
01-22-01
The conference committee resolved differences between the House and Senate- passed
versions (which each included a large number of earmarks), and also added a number of
conservation provisions and earmarks that had not been in either version. The resulting bill
did not fund the conservation portion of the Safety Net Initiative. It did increase total
discretionary funding over FY2000 by $69 million, which was $4.5 million less than the
Administration had requested. In a separate title dealing with emergencies (Title VIII), it
included $110 million for watershed emergencies and earmarked a portion of those funds to
specific states, and provided $80 million for the Emergency Conservation Program.
Other Sources of Funding in FY2001. Two other laws provided funds for
conservation. In the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, §211 authorized $10 million
for the Farmland Protection Program and $40 million for cost-sharing assistance to farmers
from the Commodity Credit Corporation. Omnibus appropriations legislation passed at the
end of the session (P.L. 106-554) appropriated $26 million for EQIP in §105 and made the
Federal Farmland Protection Program eligible for a portion of the $40 million appropriated
in the emergency title of the appropriations legislation, mentioned above, in §107. The
Department then decided to allocate half the $40 million to the farmland program and the
remainder to the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.
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 a somewhat more detailed
discussion of FY2001 appropriations for conservation, see pages 13-15 of the November 9,
2000 version of CRS Report RL30501, Appropriations for FY2001: U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Related Agencies.
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 if all programs are fully funded.
! A majority of the conservation funding was made mandatory spending, which
reduces the uncertainty of relying on annual appropriations decisions.
! The conservation agenda was 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 have a stronger role in many aspects of the
conservation effort, primarily through state technical committees.
CRS-12

---

IB96030
01-22-01
! The CRP, WRP, and EQIP 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 examined include the role that agriculture plays in
nonpoint pollution, responding the Clinton Administration’s Clean Water Initiative and
animal feeding strategy, agriculture’s role in global climate change, co-location of field staff,
the adequacy of funding and staffing, and the rehabilitation of aging small watershed projects.
Many of these issues are likely to reappear before the 107th Congress, although the
positions that the Bush Administration will take may not be known for some time. 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 in Congress is to increase
the maximum size of the CRP. Many other options are being examined by various interests.
One effort that received attention during the 106th Congress was the development of a
conservation security proposal by Senator Harkin (S. 1426, S. 3223, S. 3260). Whether he
or another member will reintroduce this proposal in the 107th Congress is unknown. Basic
questions that Congress may consider in examining proposals are whether agricultural
conservation programs and agencies (and the overall approach) remain effective, whether they
should serve production agriculture first and foremost or additional interests as well, and how
they might be better-integrated with commodity policies.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Department
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry. The Impact of the Proposed Total
Maximum Daily Load Regulations on Agriculture and Silviculture. Hearings. 106th
Congress, 2nd session. May 22, June 19, and June 20, 2000. 296 p. Serial No. 106-53.
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.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture. Farmland Protection Program.
Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. July 21, 1999. 113p. S. Hrg. 106-422.
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.
CRS-13

---

IB96030
01-22-01
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 RS30501. Appropriations for FY2001: Department of Agriculture and Related
Agencies, 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 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 RL30331. Conservation Spending in Agriculture: Trends and Implications, by
Jeffrey Zinn. 11 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 Report RL30437. Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture, by Claudia Copeland. 29
p.
CRS-14

---