Order Code IB96030
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
Updated July 5, 2002
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 Conservation Activities
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)
Watershed Programs
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)
Farmland Protection Program(FPP)
Forest Incentive Program (FIP)
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Emergency Programs
Water Quality Programs and Initiatives
Private Grazing Lands Program
Air Quality Activities
Research and Technical Activities
Other Conservation Programs and Provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill
Appropriations for FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB96030
07-05-02
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
Conservation was a prominent topic as
$200 million annually to $1.3 billion in
Congress debated the FY2002 farm bill,
FY2007), the Farmland Protection Program
signed into law on May 13, 2002 (P.L. 107-
(from a total of $35 million to $125 million
171). Title II reauthorizes most existing
annually starting in FY2004), and the Wildlife
conservation programs and enacts several new
Habitat Incentive Program (from a total of $50
ones through FY2007. Agencies at the Depart-
million to $85 million annually starting in
ment of Agriculture have started to implement
FY2005). Enrollment ceilings were raised for
these programs.
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

(from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres)
This farm bill will greatly increase con-
and the Wetlands Reserve Program (from
servation spending. The Congressional Bud-
1,075,000 to 2,275,000 acres).
get Office estimates that it provides $9.2
billion in new mandatory budget authority
Two agencies in the Department of
(BA) above the April 2001 baseline through
Agriculture are implementing most of these
FY2007 for conservation programs. This
programs, which are based on providing
amount is somewhat more than the House-
incentives to attract voluntary participants.
passed bill would have provided, but consider-
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
ably less than the Senate bill would have
(NRCS) provides technical assistance and
provided.
administers many of the smaller cost-sharing
programs, and the Farm Service Agency
Title II, as enacted, makes numerous
(FSA) administers the most expensive pro-
changes to the conservation effort. It enacts
gram (the CRP) and emergency programs.
the Conservation Security Program, developed
by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman
As both agencies implemented the last
Harkin, which will provide payments to pro-
farm bill, enacted in 1996, controversy oc-
ducers who apply conservation practices on
curred when the Administration’s interpreta-
working lands starting in FY2003. Other new
tion of the law’s intent differed from that of
programs will retire grasslands, address sur-
interested Members of Congress. Both agri-
face and ground water conservation needs,
culture committees held oversight hearings. If
address conservation issues in certain regions,
similar controversies occur over implementa-
require approved third parties to supplement
tion of this farm bill, and this seems possible
federal efforts to provide conservation assis-
since the Bush Administration played a rela-
tance, and (in the forestry title) replace exist-
tively passive role in developing the farm bill,
ing programs with a new assistance program.
a similar congressional response can be antici-
It greatly expands many conservation pro-
pated.
grams. Funding will grow for; the Environ-
mental Quality Incentives Program (from

---

IB96030
07-05-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
President Bush signed the farm bill into law on May 13, 2002 (P.L. 107-171, H.R.
2646). The bill, titled the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, authorizes most
conservation programs through FY2007 in Title II, and authorizes $9.2 billion over in new
budget authority through FY2007 for mandatory spending on these programs. This law
adds some new programs to the conservation effort and greatly expanded funding for most
existing programs.
Agencies at the Department of Agriculture, primarily the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Farm Services Agency, have started to implement provisions
that take effect in FY2002. Some implementation issues may become contentious if agencies
at USDA proceed in ways that are at odds with congressional or interest group expectations.
Congress has started to consider funding for FY2003. Both appropriations committees
have held hearings. The House Appropriations Committee plans to report its bill soon,
which generally rejects the Administration’s larger proposals for discretionary programs
and places limits on funding for three mandatory programs.
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 benefit the farmer and agriculture by
resolving resource problems on the farm. These programs combined voluntary participation
with technical, educational, and financial assistance incentives. By the early 1980s, however,
concern was growing, especially among environmentalists, that these programs were
inadequate in dealing with environmental problems caused by agricultural activities
(especially off the farm), even those caused by widely accepted practices. Publicized
instances of significant problems, especially soil erosion rates said to rival the dust bowl era,
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
CRS-1

---

IB96030
07-05-02
conservation, which halted access to many federal farm program benefits to producers who
did not meet conservation program requirements for highly erodible lands and wetlands.
Conservation provisions enacted in the next farm bill, in 1990, reflected a rapid
evolution of the conservation agenda. This evolution reflects the growing influence of
environmentalists and other non-agricultural interests in the formulation of agricultural
policy, and a recognition that agriculture was not treated like other business sectors in many
environmental laws. Congress expanded this agenda to address groundwater pollution, water
quality, and sustainable agriculture, and allowed for the use of easements, as well as
amending existing programs. Amendments to the CRP reflect these changes; its earlier focus
on highly erodible land was expanded to include other environmental concerns.

Prior to the Republican congressional takeover in 1994, conservation policy discussions
centered on: (1) how to build from conservation initiatives enacted in previous farm bills;
(2) how to secure more dependable funding for programs at a time when reducing the federal
deficit was a major priority; and (3) how to incorporate new concepts for resource
management at scales larger than individual farms, called landscapes, watersheds or
ecosystems. The takeover shifted the focus to identifying ways to make the conservation
compliance and swampbuster programs less intrusive on farmer activities. Moreover,
environmental interests initially played a diminished role in developing conservation policy.
After President Clinton vetoed the initial farm bill that Congress had attached to the omnibus
reconciliation legislation in December 1995, Congress quickly passed a free-standing farm
bill early in 1996. The Senate Agriculture Committee staff drafted the conservation title,
which greatly expanded on the vetoed legislation. The enacted bill restored much of the
environmental focus that had been left out of earlier versions, with considerable attention to
wildlife. (For an overview of conservation provisions in the 1996 farm bill, see CRS Report
96-330, Conservation Provisions in the Farm Bill: A Summary.)
The role of conservation has continued to evolve since 1996, challenging existing
programs and agencies. A result of this evolution was that the conservation debate for the
2002 farm bill was framed in terms of: (1) increasing funding; (2) addressing new issues; (3)
providing more conservation on land that is in production; and (4) using funding for
conservation programs to meet world trade obligations. Increased funding was a dominant
theme; at committee hearings, witnesses suggested that total annual conservation funding,
discretionary and mandatory, should grow from more then $3 billion to between $6 billion
and more than $10 billion. Enacting new conservation programs to address emerging
problems has generally been at the center of recent farm bills, but this debate focused on
increasing funding and amending existing programs, so new topics like carbon sequestration
received limited attention. Nonetheless, the bill also includes new programs, of which the
largest is likely to be the Conservation Security Program. Other new programs will retire
grasslands, promote water conservation and quality, and increase conservation activity for
certain regions or resources. Finally, conservation programs are widely viewed as meeting
world trade obligations, or to be in the “green box”, but only if eligibility for payments is
based on fulfilling conservation requirements, and is limited to the costs of complying with
these requirements. USDA will make these determinations in the future.
Specific conservation provisions enacted in Title II of the farm bill are discussed below
for old programs; new programs are presented at the end of this section. These entries will
be updated to identify implementation activities. (Other provisions that could be considered
CRS-2

---

IB96030
07-05-02
to be a part of conservation or could affect the conservation effort can be found in many
titles, especially those addressing research, forestry, and energy.) For detailed information
about the enacted provisions, including how they compare with the House and Senate-passed
bills and prior law, see CRS Report RL31486, Conservation title of the 2002 Farm Bill: A
Comparison of New Law with Bills Passed by the House and Senate, and Prior Law.
The Administration had limited formal involvement in the development of specific
provisions in this farm bill. It released a set of principles for the farm bill on September 19,
2001. It drew on these principles when it issued an Administration policy letter on October
3, 2001 that was critical of aspects of H.R. 2646 and a letter on December 4, 2001, that was
critical of aspects of S. 1731, the farm bill reported by the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Principles it sought for conservation included:
! Sustain past environmental gains;
! Accommodate new and emerging environmental concerns;
! Design and adopt a portfolio approach to conservation policies;
! Reaffirm market-oriented policies;
! Ensure compatibility of conservation and trade policies;
! Coordinate conservation and farm policies; and
! Recognize the importance of collaboration with conservation partners.
Current Major Conservation Activities
USDA’s conservation effort, while diverse, have centered in recent years on
implementing the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, compliance programs, and wetland protection programs. USDA will
adjust this effort as the new farm bill is implemented, reflecting a different mix of programs
and conservation activity. By FY2007, the overall size of the conservation effort will be
much larger and program emphasis may move further away from land retirement and from
programs that support traditional row crop production, as more of the effort centers on other
aspects of natural resource protection and enhancement. Most conservation programs will
continue to be administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which
provides technical assistance to producers and administers most of the programs, and by the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) which provides cost-sharing assistance and administers the
CRP.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Under the CRP, enacted in 1985, 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. Enrollment was limited
to 36.4 million acres, and to 25% of the crop land in a county. The FY2003 budget
submission notes that about 35.1 million acres were enrolled on November 1, 2001. About
135 counties, concentrated in the high plains, have reached the county enrollment limit.
Funding is mandatory spending.
CRS-3

---

IB96030
07-05-02
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 exceed annual program costs, especially in areas of heavy participation. However,
the General Accounting Office and others have criticized the potentially ephemeral nature
of these benefits, which may not be retained after contracts expire. Currently, annual CRP
expenditures are about $1.5 billion, close to half of all USDA conservation expenditures.
The Department held one open enrollment period each year between FY1997 and
FY2000. The FY1997 signup (the 15th) was large because contracts on approximately 21.4
million acres were set to expire. Bids were offered to enroll more than 23 million acres and
accepted on 16.6 million acres (including 11.7 million acres that had been enrolled).
Subsequent signups have been smaller. The FY1998 signup (the 16th) enrolled 5.9 million
acres; the FY1998 signup (the 18th) enrolled almost 5 million acres; and the most recent
signup ( the 20th) enrolled 2.3 million acres. USDA has not offered another opportunity to
enroll land (farmers with expiring contracts would have the option of extending them for one
year). USDA took this action because relatively few contracts are ending.
USDA set aside 4.2 million acres within the 36.4 million acre cap to enroll land in two
ways outside the open enrollment periods. One of those ways allows continuous signup for
individuals who wish to enroll portions of fields with particularly high environmental values.
FSA reported that through February 2002 almost 1.95 million acres have been enrolled, with
almost 32% of these acres in Iowa and Illinois. The conservation practice that has received
the most attention is buffer strips along water bodies. NRCS started an initiative in 1997 to
enroll 2 million miles of buffer strips by 2002; it estimates that over 750,000 miles have been
enrolled. In April 2000, the Department announced three new incentives to attract more
participation: paying signing bonuses; increasing cost-share payments for cover crops and
making maintenance payments on buffers; and increasing payments on pasture. It estimated
these payments could total up to $350 million over 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, is trying to enroll 100,000 acres of stream buffers, restored wetlands, and
highly erodible lands along streams in a portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Before
this program, less than 20,000 acres had been enrolled, and more than 37,000 acres have
been enrolled under this option. The Maryland program will cost $195 million, of which
$170 million is federal money. A total of 21 states have approved enhancement programs,
and five additional states have submitted proposals. FSA data show that almost 310,000
acres had been enrolled under this option through February 2002, and more than 30% of
those acres are in Illinois.
A third way to enroll land outside the general enrollment periods was created when
Congress authorized a new pilot program to enroll up to 500,000 acres of farmable wetlands
in six upper Midwestern states in Title XI of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations
legislation. USDA offers signup bonuses as an incentive to participate. Signup for this
option started in June, 2001, and results are limited.
CRS-4

---

IB96030
07-05-02
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 to deliver CCC programs. These funds have been insufficient
to pay all related technical assistance costs in recent years, and in FY1999, NRCS briefly
suspended CRP-related activities. The FY1999 Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 106-31)
and FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L. 106-387) provided additional funds.
A new CRP concern was raised in March 2000 when the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed a 1996 federal tax court ruling and required that farmers must pay a 15.3%
self-employment tax on CRP payments. Program supporters fear the ruling could have a
chilling effect on participation. Legislation to overturn the ruling has been reintroduced, but
as tax legislation, it would not be considered by the agriculture committees and was not
considered in the farm bill. (For more information on this 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.)
Section 2101 of the 2002 farm bill reauthorizes the CRP through FY2007 and raises the
enrollment cap from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres. Also, only land that was
cropped 4 of 6 years preceding enactment will be eligible, thus making it more difficult to
cultivate land primarily to gain access to the program. It makes the 6-state pilot program to
retire small, isolated farmable wetlands a national program, with an enrollment ceiling of 1
million acres. Some economic uses of enrolled lands will be permitted, including managed
haying and grazing, and construction of wind turbines, with a reduction in annual rental
payments.
Under prior law, all economic uses of CRP law were prohibited, and under the 2002
law, only a few specified uses will be permitted. An exception is made for natural disasters,
where emergency haying and grazing can be allowed in designated counties in return for
reduced payments. Drought is widespread in 2002, and USDA has responded by permitting
emergency haying and grazing in parts or all of 16 states, subject to certain limitations to
protect the values derived from lands enrolled in the CRP.
Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster
Under sodbuster provisions, established in the 1985 farm bill, 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.
The 1996 farm bill revised these provisions in ways that increased producer flexibility.
Under conservation compliance, also established in the 1985 farm bill, 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).
CRS-5

---

IB96030
07-05-02
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, and was inconsistent in its enforcement from
state to state. Many of the agriculture community concerns were addressed in the 1996 farm
act. (For more background on the compliance programs, see CRS Report 96-648,
Conservation Compliance for Agriculture: Status and Policy Issues.)
Section 2002 of the 2002 farm bill prohibits the delegation of authority by USDA to
other parties to make highly erodible land determinations.
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. Swampbuster includes four major
exemptions, and also allows a partial penalty once every 10 years. Provisions enacted in the
1996 farm bill generally gave producers and USDA greater flexibility under swampbuster.
Swampbuster has been controversial since it was first enacted. Some from the farm
community view wetland protection efforts on agricultural lands as too extensive or
overzealous. They observe that it sometimes protects sites that appear to provide few of the
values attributed to wetlands. A portion of this group also view these efforts as an
unacceptable intrusion of government into the rights of private property owners, or “takings.”
Environmental and other groups counter that the swampbuster program has been enforced
weakly and inconsistently, with few violators losing farm program benefits. 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
federal wetland determinations on agricultural lands under swampbuster and the Clean Water
Act’s §404 Program 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. But aspects of implementation have proven controversial. The signatory agencies
attempted to revise the MOA to reflect changes in the 1996 farm bill; this revision process
was difficult, and has never been completed.
CRS-6

---

IB96030
07-05-02
A new issue for agriculture was raised when the Supreme Court determined, in Solid
Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(January, 2001) that the §404 wetland permit program should not apply to “isolated waters.”
One result is that an estimated 8 million acres of agricultural wetlands that had been subject
to both the §404 program and swampbuster will now be subject only to swampbuster. For
more information on this decision, see CRS Report RL30849, The Supreme Court Addresses
Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction Over “Isolated Waters”: The SWANCC Decision.)

The second wetlands program, the WRP, was established in the 1990 farm bill. It uses
easements to protect farmed wetlands. The Department had chosen to use only permanent
easements prior to 1996, when Congress authorized temporary easements and long-term
agreement options, and instructed that the three options be used equally. Enrollment has
reached the cap of 1,075,000 acres. The Secretary is permitted to delegate the administration
of easements to other federal or state agencies that have the necessary expertise. Since
funding was made mandatory in the 1996 farm bill, appropriators have limited enrollment
most years by placing limits on available staff. In addition to the annual appropriations,
emergency funding was provided to enroll lands flooded in 1993 in the upper Midwest.
November 2001 data show that almost 1,075,000 acres have been enrolled, and almost 35%
of that total is in 3 states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Permanent easements
account for almost 90% of the total. (For more information about wetlands, see CRS Issue
Brief IB97014, Wetland Issues, updated regularly.)
Section 2002 of the 2002 farm bill prohibits USDA from delegating the authority to
make wetland determinations to other parties. Section 2101creates a national program to
retire small isolated agricultural wetlands, as mentioned above in the CRP discussion.
Section 2201 amends the WRP to reauthorize the program through FY2007 and increases
the enrollment ceiling to 2,275,000 acres, while limiting enrollment to 250,000 acres per
year. It eliminates the requirement to enroll land equally using permanent easements,
temporary easements, and long-term agreements. NRCS issued a final rule in the June 7
Federal Register, amending program rules to reflect changes in the 2002 farm bill.
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.
Before 1996, the largest of these programs, by far, had been the Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP), administered by the FSA and funded at between $175 and $200 million
annually during the two decades preceding the early 1990s. In FY1995 and FY1996,
Congress reduced funding for ACP and other cost-sharing programs to reduce the federal
budget deficit. In 1994, Congress moved administration of almost all the cost-sharing
programs, except the ACP, from FSA to NRCS.
The 1996 farm act replaced the ACP and three smaller cost-sharing programs with
EQIP. EQIP is a mandatory spending program which supports structural, vegetative, and
land management practices. Annual funding was authorized at $200 million, and half the
funding was to address the needs of livestock producers. A plan is required to participate.
Each contract was limited to $10,000 annually and to $50,000 in total. Contracts were 5 to
10 years in length. Large livestock operations, defined in regulations by USDA, were
CRS-7

---

IB96030
07-05-02
ineligible for contracts to construct animal waste management facilities. The law required
USDA to designate priority areas for more concentrated attention; USDA allocated at least
65% of the funding to these areas, which were designated within each state.

Interest has far exceeded available funds. For FY2000, for example, NRCS received
about 54,000 applications requesting $402 million, but was only able to sign 16,000
contracts, with a total cost of almost $177 million. These contracts are providing $140
million in financial assistance, $33 million in technical assistance and almost $4 million in
educational assistance. The Clinton Administration repeatedly sought higher funding levels
(but did not submit the needed authorizing legislation). Congress rejected these proposals
and usually limited funding to less than $200 million, except for FY2001, when it provided
full funding in omnibus appropriations legislation (P.L. 106-554). (For further information
on the early implementation of EQIP, see CRS Report 97-616, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues, last updated March 2, 1998.)
Section 2301 of the 2002 farm bill reauthorizes EQIP through FY2007. It gradually
increases annual funding from $200 million currently to $1.3 billion in FY2007. It
eliminates the use of priority areas. Funds will be spent in the first year of a contract, rather
than having to wait until the year after the date of enrollment. The large livestock operation
funding prohibition for animal waste management facilities is eliminated. The total of all
EQIP payments a producer or entity can receive, combined, is $450,000 through FY2007.
Contracts can be as short as 1 year. Producers with comprehensive nutrient management
plans are eligible for incentive payments, and producers receiving funding for animal waste
manure systems must have these plans. Cost share assistance will be higher for beginning
and limited resource producers than for other producers. The Department can use a portion
of EQIP funds in FY2003 through FY2006 for innovative grants, such as fostering markets
for nutrient trading, and additional funds, starting at $25 million in FY2002 and growing to
$60 million in FY2004, are provided for a new ground and surface water conservation
program within EQIP. Of these funds, $50 million are earmarked for the Klamath River
basin and are to be provided as soon as possible.
Selected Other Conservation Activities
Conservation includes many additional activities and programs. The list below does not
include programs the numerous programs that have been authorized but are not being
implemented. Also, it only includes conservation activities in USDA that are administered
by NRCS and FSA. Several other agencies also make significant contributions to the
conservation effort; for example, the Agricultural Research Service conducts research on
numerous conservation topics; the Economic Research Service provides analysis of many
conservation topics and played a major role in developing the Environmental Benefits Index,
used to compare CRP bids; and the Forest Service conducts research on forest and tree topics
and administers programs to enhance timber stands on private lands.
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA). NRCS provides technical assistance
on a voluntary basis to conserve and improve natural resources. Technical assistance is a
component of most conservation programs, and the cost of providing it has amounted to just
under $1 billion annually in recent years, according to the NRCS. Almost two thirds of this
funding is found in Conservation Operations. NRCS characterizes technical assistance as
CRS-8

---

IB96030
07-05-02
the “intellectual capital” of the agency, allowing it to combine its scientific and technical
expertise with knowledge of local conditions.
One subsection of section 2701 of the 2002 farm bill provides that funding for technical
assistance in support of each mandatory program come from the funding provided by the
CCC for that program. Another subsection authorizes the Secretary to establish a program
to certify third parties to provide technical assistance.
Watershed Programs. NRCS has worked with local sponsors under several
authorities to construct more than 10,500 structures. Benefits from these structures may
include flood prevention, watershed protection, erosion and sediment control, water supply,
water quality, recreation, habitat enhancement, or wetland creation or restoration.
A rehabilitation program for aging small watershed structures, authorizing
appropriations of up to $90 million over 5 years was enacted late in the Small Watershed
Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (§313 of P.L. 106-472). The law permits federal funds
to pay for 65% of rehabilitation projects, with the remainder coming from local sponsors, and
requires that projects meet National Environmental Policy Act requirements. NRCS released
a status report in June, 2000.
Section 2505 of the 2002 farm bill authorizes mandatory funding for the rehabilitation
program, rising from $45 million in FY2003 to $65 million in FY2007, and authorizes
additional appropriations, rising from $45 million in FY2003 $85 million in FY2007.
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D). RC&D provides a
framework for local interests to work together to improve the economy, environment, and
living standard in multi-county areas through RC&D Councils. USDA provides technical
and financial assistance to councils and helps them secure funding and services from other
sources. NRCS states that 348 areas encompassing more than 75% of the country have been
designated, and additional requests are pending.
Section 2504 of the 2002 farm bill permanently reauthorizes the program, and makes
numerous technical amendments.
Farmland Protection Program(FPP). The 1996 farm bill authorized USDA to
assist state and local governments to acquire easements to limit conversion of agricultural
lands to nonagricultural uses. The program was allocated $35 million from the CCC to
protect between 170,000 and 340,000 acres of farmland. Eligible lands must be subject to
a pending offer. From FY1996 through FY1998, $33.5 million was obligated in 19 states
to place easements on 127,000 acres on 460 farms with an estimated easement value of $230
million. Congress provided an additional $17.5 million in FY2001. The 2001 legislation
also made certain private nonprofit organizations eligible to compete with state and local
governments for these funds. These funds were used to protect about 28,000 acres in 28
states. Demand to participate greatly exceeds available funds.
Section 2503 of the 2002 farm bill increases annual mandatory funding from $50
million in FY2002 to a high of $125 million in FY2004 and FY2005. The definition of
eligible land is expanded to include rangeland, pastureland, grassland, certain forest land, and
land containing historic or archeological resources. The program will be subject to
CRS-9

---

IB96030
07-05-02
conservation compliance. Certain private nonprofit organizations can participate. It also
authorizes appropriations for grants to carry out new farm viability programs. On May 30,
2002, NRCS issued a request for proposals, to be submitted by July 15, 2002, so it can decide
how to spend the $50 million authorized for FY2002.

Forest Incentive Program (FIP). FIP, a line item in the NRCS budget, provides
technical and financial assistance to help landowners install practices such as tree planting
and timber stand improvement on non-industrial private forest lands. While forestry and
farm conservation issues can be closely related, all other programs for forests on private
lands are administered by the Forest Service. (For more information on FIP and related
programs, see CRS Report RL31065, Forestry Assistance Programs.)
Section 8002 of the 2002 farm bill eliminates FIP and the Stewardship Incentive
Program, replacing them with a new Forest Land Enhancement Program, to be funded with
a total of $100 million in mandatory funding between the date of enactment and the end of
FY2007. The new program reportedly will be administered by the Forest Service.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). WHIP, authorized in 1996, used
$50 million from mandatory funds allocated to the CRP to provide cost sharing and technical
assistance for conservation practices that primarily benefit wildlife. The FY1998
appropriations obligated $30 million, and the remaining $20 million was obligated in
FY1999. More recently, Congress provided additional conservation funding for FY2001,
and the Department allocated $12.5 million to WHIP.
Section 2502 of the 2002 farm bill provides $15 million in FY2002, growing to $85
million in FY2005 and thereafter. It provides that up to 15% of the funding each year can
be used for higher cost sharing payments to producers whom protect and restore essential
plant and animal habitat under agreements of 15 years or longer. It makes WHIP subject to
conservation compliance requirements.

Emergency Programs. The Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) is administered
by the NRCS and the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) is administered by the FSA.
The EWP provides technical and cost sharing assistance for projects that restore land after
flooding and protect it from future damage. The ECP provides cost-sharing and technical
assistance to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters, and to carry out emergency
water conservation measures during severe drought.
The 2002 farm bill does not amend emergency conservation programs.
Water Quality Programs and Initiatives. Groundwater and nonpoint pollution
have emerged as major issues for conservation policy as more instances of contamination in
which agricultural sources play major roles have been identified. Specific instances that
drive public interest and concern range from a very large hog farm waste spill in North
Carolina to the outbreak Pfiesteria and fish kills in portions of the Chesapeake Bay and 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. Current conservation programs that are used to address water quality
CRS-10

---

IB96030
07-05-02
concerns center on the EQIP program, plus both the Enhancement Program (CREP) and the
continuous enrollment option under CRP.
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
required. In early August 1999, EPA released a long-awaited draft plan for issuing Clean
Water Act permits, which is required under court order. Large operators will be required to
develop comprehensive nutrient management plans while smaller operators will be
encouraged to develop them. The comment period on the proposed rule was extended.
Because of the court order, EPA must release the final rule by December 15, 2002.
Limiting total maximum daily loadings (TMDLs) is another approach to cleaning
polluted waterways authorized under the Clean Water Act. 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 had announced in August, 1999. It responded to the rider by
issuing a revised rule delaying the effective date of the program until October 31, 2001. (For
more information, see CRS Report RL30437, Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture.)
The 2002 farm bill could addresses these topics through existing programs, such as
EQIP, discussed above, and also through the new programs listed below, including:
! The Conservation Security Program, in Section 2001, which is expected to
be used to address water quality problems, especially nutrient management;
! the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program enacted in Section
2301 as part of EQIP (discussed above);
! the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program amendments enacted in
Section 2505 (discussed above);
! the Agricultural Management Assistance Program reauthorized in Section
2501 that provides $10 million annually ($20 million annually between
FY2003 and FY2007) to 15 specified states that have been underserved by
risk management programs for conservation;
! a new program for the Great Lakes Basin states enacted in Section 2502;
! a new Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, also enacted in Section
2502; and
! a new demonstration program for the Delmarva Peninsula enacted in
Sections 2601-2604.

Private Grazing Lands Program. A voluntary coordinated technical and
educational assistance program was enacted in the 1996 farm bill 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. Appropriators have
not established a separate line item, but continue to earmark a portion of NRCS’s
Conservation Operations funds for this effort annually, providing $21.5 million for FY2002.
Section 2502 of the 2002 farm bill reauthorizes the program through FY2007 with
appropriations of $60 million annually, and makes it subject to conservation compliance.
CRS-11

---

IB96030
07-05-02
Section 2401 of the 2002 farm bill authorizes a new Grasslands Reserve Program to retire
2 million acres under arrangements ranging from 10-year agreements to permanent
easements, permits the delegation of easements to ceratin private organizations and state
agencies, and provides up to $254 million in mandatory funding.
Air Quality Activities. The 1996 farm bill created an interagency air quality task
force in USDA. The task force represented USDA on scientific topics such as EPA’s
proposals to revise National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone and two
sizes of particulates in 1997. Cooperation grew after USDA and EPA signed a Memorandum
of Agreement in January 1998. More recently, federal agencies have been discussing how
agricultural practices and programs affect global warming, especially by sequestering carbon.
(For more information, see CRS Report 97-670, Agriculture and EPA;’s Proposed Air
Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates.)
The 2002 farm bill does not amend air quality provisions in the conservation title.
Research and Technical Activities. Many agencies in USDA conduct research
and provide technical support. NRCS, for example, provides basic data about resource
conditions and characteristics through the soil and snow surveys and periodic surveys
through the National Resources Inventory. It also does applied research through the plant
material and technical centers.
Section 2005 of the 2002 farm bill requires the Secretary to submit a report, with
implementing recommendations, about how to better coordinate and consolidate
conservation programs to both agriculture committees by December 31, 2005.
Other Conservation Programs and Provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill. In
addition to the farm bill programs described above, the conservation title contains several
other programs. It:
! Authorizes the Conservation Security Program in Section 2001 to provide
payments to producers starting in FY2003, based on which of three levels
of conservation is planned for and practiced. Payments are available on all
agricultural land that was cropped in 4 of 6 years before 2002. The lowest
level allows contracts of 5 years and annual payments up to $20,000; the
middle level allows contracts of 5 to 10 years and annual payments up to
$35,000; the top level allows contracts of 5 to 10 years and annual payments
up to $45,000. The lowest level requires a plan that addresses at least one
resource concern on part of a farm; the middle level requires a plan that
addresses at least one resource concern on the entire operation, and the top
level requires a plan to address all resource concerns on the entire operation.
! Authorizes Partnerships and Cooperation in Section 2003, using up to 5%
of conservation funding, for both stewardship agreements with other entities
and special projects designated by state conservationists to enhance
technical and financial assistance to address resource conservation issues.
! Amends administrative requirements in Section 2004, to provide the option
of providing incentives to beginning and limited resource farmers and
ranchers and Indian tribes, and to protect the privacy of personal information
related to natural resource conservation programs and information about
National Resources Inventory data points.
CRS-12

---

IB96030
07-05-02
! Reauthorizes the Agricultural Management Assistance Program through
FY2007 in Section 2501, and provides $10 million in mandatory funding
annually.
! Authorizes a Grassroots Source Water Protection Program in Section 2501
and annual appropriations of $5 million through FY2007.
! Authorizes a Great Lakes Program for Erosion and Sediment Control in
Section 2501 and annual appropriations of $5 million through FY2007.
! Desert Terminal Lakes provisions in Section 2507 require the Secretary to
transfer $200 million in mandatory funds to the Bureau of Reclamation to
pay for providing water to at-risk natural desert terminal lakes; other
provisions prohibit using these funds to purchase or lease water rights.
! Authorizes appropriations of such funds as are necessary through FY2007
to conduct a Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program on the
Delmarva Peninsula in Sections 2601-2604 to provide matching funds to
demonstrate local conservation and economic development with state and
local partners.
Appropriations for FY2002

FY2002. The President signed the FY2002 Agriculture Appropriations legislation on
November 28 (P.L. 107-76). For discretionary conservation programs, this law provided
$962.1 million to NRCS activities. For the core technical assistance effort, the Conservation
Operations Program, the law provided $779.0. A particularly contentious issue was using
Conservation Operations funds to provide technical support for the CRP because it reduces
funds available for other programs and activities. The law allows the Secretary to transfer
to the CRP up to $13 million from the EQIP. The law provided funding levels for other
conservation line items that are higher then FY2001. These amounts include:
! $11 million for Watershed Surveys and Planning (an increase from $10.8
million in FY2001);
! $106.6 million for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (An
increase from $99.2 million in FY2001);
! $48.0 million for Resource Conservation and Development Program
(RC&D) (a large increase from the $41.9 million in FY2001); and
! $6.8 million for the Forestry Incentives Program (an increase from $6.3
million in FY2001).
The Senate and the House both included numerous earmarks in their reports, especially
in the Conservation Operations and Watershed Operations portions. Among the most
notable was a $45.5 million limitation on technical assistance under the Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations Program. The conference committee was silent on most earmarks,
and stated that any earmarks in either report it did not address were considered to be adopted.
It provided $10 million for a new line item to rehabilitate aging small watershed projects.
For the mandatory programs that are funded through the CCC and are not subject to
annual appropriations, the Administration proposal did not assume the recurrence of several
single year increases at unauthorized levels provided in FY2001 under various emergency
supplemental measures. Supporters of these FY2001 increases characterize the FY2002
proposals as reductions. (For a more detailed discussion of FY2002 appropriations for
CRS-13

---

IB96030
07-05-02
conservation, see the final version of CRS Report RL31001, Appropriations for FY2002:
U.S. Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies.)
FY2003. The Administration requests $897 million for Conservation Operations, up
$118 million from FY2002. The Administration requests no funding for Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations, Watershed Surveys, or the Watershed Rehabilitation Programs,
but instead requests $111.4 million for Emergency Watershed Protection, so USDA can
focus its resources on providing assistance rapidly after a natural disaster, and limit
watershed spending to disasters. The Emergency Conservation Program is usually funded
through emergency supplemental legislation, but the budget requests $48.7 million, the
average amount spent over each of the past 10 years, so these funds will be available when
needed. The budget also requests no funding for the Forestry Incentive Program.
The House Appropriations Committee rejects many of these proposals, providing
similar levels of funding for each of the Watershed Operations and Survey Programs as last
year and no funding for the Emergency Conservation Program. It does agree, however, to
provide no funding for the Forestry Incentive Program, which was replaced by a new
program in the 2002 farm bill, or for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. It provides
slightly more funding than the Administration requested for Conservation Operations, the
largest discretionary account, and includes about 50 earmarks for that account.
For the mandatory programs, the Administration assumes full funding for EQIP at $200
million in FY2003, even though budget authority expires at the end of FY2002. No funding
is requested for any of the other mandatory programs that expire after FY2002. The budget
does assume continuing outlays for land retirement programs. For the CRP, for example, it
assumes outlays of $1.856 billion in FY2003 to fund existing and new contracts.
The House Appropriations Committee takes three actions to limit mandatory programs.
It limits the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to $695 million instead of the $700
million authorized, limits the Wetlands Reserve Program to 245,833 acres instead of the
250,000 acres authorized, and limits expenditures under the new Conservation Security
Program to Iowa (making it a pilot program).
LEGISLATION
Almost 100 bills with conservation provisions were introduced; only the enacted farm
bill is listed below.
P.L. 107-171, H.R. 2646
Provides for the continuation of farm programs through FY2011. Introduced July 26,
2001; referred to Committee on Agriculture. Reported August 2, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-191,
pt. 1) and August 31, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-191, pt. II). Passed the House (amended) October
5, 2001. Passed the Senate (amended) February 13, 2002. House agrees to conference report
May 2, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-424). Senate agrees to conference report May 8, 2002. Signed
into law May 13, 2002.
CRS-14

---

IB96030
07-05-02
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. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment. H.R. 728, The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 1999and
the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Small Watershed Program. Hearings,
106th Congress, 1st session. Sept. 24, 1999. 63p. Serial No. 106-40.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Forestry,
Conservation, and Rural Revitalization. Farmland Protection Program. Hearings,
106th Congress, 2nd session. September 18, 2000. 61p. S. Hrg. 106-947.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition,
and General Legislation. Carbon Cycle Research and Agriculture’s Role in Reducing
Climate Change. Hearings, 106th Congress, 2nd session. May 4, 2000. 116 p. S. Hrg.
106-905.
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.
-----. Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape.
Washington, January 2001. 66p. Agricultural Economic Report No. 794.
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 RL31001. Appropriations for FY2002: Department of Agriculture and Related
Agencies, coordinated by Ralph M. Chite.
CRS Report 98-451. Animal Waste Management and the Environment: Background for
Current Issues, by Claudia Copeland and Jeffrey Zinn. 40 p.
CRS-15

---

IB96030
07-05-02
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 RL31486. Conservation Title of the 2002 Farm Bill: A Comparison of New
Law with Bills Passed by the House and the Senate, and Prior Law, by Jeffrey Zinn.
33 p.
CRS Report 97-616. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues,
by Jeffrey Zinn and Geoffrey Becker. 6 p.
CRS Report RL31065. Forestry Assistance Programs, by Ross Gorte. 20p.
CRS Report RL31255. Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of Current Law with
House and Senate Farm Bills, by Jeffrey Zinn. 24p.
CRS Report RL31131. Selected Conservation Proposals for the Next Farm Bill, by Jeffrey
Zinn. 40 p.
CRS Report RL30437. Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture, by Claudia Copeland. 29
p.
CRS-16

---