Order Code IB96030
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
Updated March 3, 2003
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
Technical Assistance
Selected Other Conservation Activities
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
Implementing the 2002 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions
Appropriations
FY2003 Discretionary Programs
FY2003 Mandatory Programs
FY2004 Appropriations
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

---

IB96030
03-03-03
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
Conservation is a prominent topic in the
FY2005). Enrollment ceilings were raised for
FY2002 farm bill, signed into law on May 13,
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
2002 (P.L. 107-171). Title II reauthorizes and
(from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres)
amends most existing conservation programs
and the Wetlands Reserve Program (from
and enacts several new ones through FY2007.
1,075,000 acres to 2,275,000 acres).
Other titles also contain some conservation
provisions. Agencies at the Department of
Two agencies in the Department of
Agriculture are implementing these programs.
Agriculture are implementing most of these

programs, which continue to be based on
This farm bill will greatly increase con-
providing incentives to attract voluntary
servation spending. The Congressional Bud-
participants. The Natural Resources Conser-
get Office estimated at the time of enactment
vation Service (NRCS) provides technical
that it would provide $9.2 billion in new
assistance and administers many of the small-
mandatory budget authority above the April
er cost-sharing programs, and the Farm Ser-
2001 baseline through FY2007 for conserva-
vice Agency (FSA) administers the most
tion programs. This amount is slightly more
expensive program (the CRP) and emergency
than the House-passed bill would have pro-
programs.
vided, but considerably less than the Senate
bill would have provided.
As both agencies implement the farm
bill, controversies can be anticipated when the
Title II makes numerous changes to the
Administration’s interpretation of the law’s
conservation effort. It enacts the Conservation
intent differed from that of interested Mem-
Security Program to provide payments to
bers of Congress. Two major issues that have
producers who apply conservation practices
been raised in recent months are how to fund
on working lands, starting in FY2003. Other
technical assistance in support of the manda-
new programs will retire grasslands, address
tory programs in FY2003 and beyond light of
surface and ground water conservation needs,
an OMB determination, supported by the
address conservation issues in certain regions,
Department of Justice, that would not allow
permit approved third parties to supplement
them to be funded as part of each program in
federal capabilities to provide conservation
the CCC, and how to implement the Conserv-
assistance, and (in the forestry title) replace
ation Security Program. These issues were
existing programs with a new assistance
both resolved in FY2003 appropriations.
program. It greatly expands many conserva-
Appropriators will continue to have some
tion programs. Funding will grow for; the
influence on implementation through their
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
actions on agriculture appropriations in FY20-
(from $200 million annually to $1.3 billion in
04 and beyond. In addition, both agriculture
FY2007), the Farmland Protection Program
committees may respond by holding oversight
(from a total of $35 million to $125 million
hearings.
annually starting in FY2004), and the Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program (from a total of $50
million to $85 million annually starting in

---

IB96030
03-03-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Agencies at the Department of Agriculture, primarily the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Farm Services Agency, are implementing Title II of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which authorizes most conservation programs
through FY2007, and authorizes $9.2 billion over current levels in new budget authority for
mandatory spending on these programs. Provisions in this law add new programs to the
conservation effort and amend and greatly expand funding for most existing programs.
Congress completed action on FY2003 appropriations legislation early in the 108th
Congress. Among the many agricultural issues it addressed were: (1) how to fund the
technical assistance needed to support each of the mandatory conservation programs as the
overall effort grows rapidly from year to year, and (2) at what levels to cap funding levels for
the Conservation Security Program each year, so that these savings could be used to offset
the cost of an agricultural disaster assistance package enacted in these appropriations.
The Administration has submitted its FY2004 appropriations proposals, and Congress
will start to consider them shortly.
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
reducing 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 by retiring land
under multi-year contracts. The other three, sodbuster, conservation compliance, and
swampbuster, created a new approach to conservation, by halting producer access to many
CRS-1

---

IB96030
03-03-03
federal farm program benefits if they did not meet conservation program requirements for
highly erodible lands and wetlands.
Provisions enacted in the next farm bill, in 1990, reflected a rapid evolution of the
conservation agenda, including the growing influence of environmentalists and other non-
agricultural interests in the formulation of conservation 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
shifted to give greater emphasis to 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. It also reduced
the influence of environmental interests 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 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. The debate over
conservation in the 2002 farm bill was framed in terms of: (1) increasing funding; (2)
creating new programs and 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. Specific conservation provisions amending old programs enacted in Title II are
discussed below, followed by new programs, then implementation activities. (Other
provisions that could be categorized as conservation can be found in many titles, especially
those addressing research, forestry, and energy.) For detailed information about the enacted
provisions in Title II, 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 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. 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;
CRS-2

---

IB96030
03-03-03
! 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), compliance programs, wetland
protection programs, cost-sharing programs (Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
primarily), and providing technical assistance. USDA will adjust this effort to reflect the
altered mix of activities enacted in 2002. By FY2007, when the current law expires, the size
of the overall conservation effort will be much larger and give less emphasis to land
retirement programs and programs that support traditional row crop production. Lead
conservation agencies will continue to be the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most programs, and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) which provides cost-sharing assistance and administers the CRP.
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 at least 10 years.
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.
USDA announced that 33.9 million acres were enrolled in an October 1, 2002 press release.
Funding is mandatory spending.
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; in some regions where
there is heavy participation, estimated benefits exceed annual costs. However, the General
Accounting Office and others have criticized the potentially ephemeral nature of these
benefits, because the landowner is under no obligation to retain them after contracts expire.
Annual CRP expenditures have been between $1.5 billion and $2.0 billion in recent years,
and were about half of all USDA conservation expenditures annually prior to the 2002 farm
bill.
The Department held one open enrollment period each year between FY1997 and
FY2000. Since FY2000, it has not offered a general opportunity to enroll land because
relatively few contracts have been ending. By November 2002, 31.7 million acres had been
enrolled this way. It continues to enroll land in three other ways. One of these allows
continuous signup for individuals who wish to enroll portions of fields with particularly high
environmental values. FSA reported that through December 2002 almost 1.8 million acres
have been enrolled, with about one-third 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, and
estimates that over 750,000 miles have been enrolled. In April 2000, the Department
CRS-3

---

IB96030
03-03-03
announced incentives to attract more participation: signing bonuses; higher cost-share
payments for cover crops and 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 implement an approved program
starting 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. The Maryland program will cost the state $25 million and the federal
government $170 million. Today, 24 states have approved enhancement programs (including
two programs in two of the states), and three additional states and an Indian tribe have
submitted proposals. FSA data show that almost 445,000 acres had been enrolled through
December 2002, and with more acres (108,000) in Illinois than in any other state.
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 small, isolated
farmable wetlands in six upper Midwestern states in Title XI of the FY2001 Agriculture
Appropriations legislation. USDA offers signup bonuses to attract participation. Signup
started in June 2001, and almost 70,000 acres had been enrolled by November 2002.
NRCS provides technical assistance in support of CRP, but the 1996 farm bill placed
a cap on the portion of 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, and
provisions in the 2002 farm bill have sought to eliminate the problem.
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 within the total enrollment cap. Some economic uses of enrolled lands will be
permitted, including managed haying and grazing, and siting 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
CRS-4

---

IB96030
03-03-03
reduced payments. Drought was widespread in FY2002, and USDA permitted emergency
haying and grazing on all land enrolled in the CRP, subject to certain limitations to protect
the values derived from lands enrolled in the CRP. USDA extended the option of emergency
grazing in four states through the end of the calender year.
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 a contract expires to be fully in compliance (or longer if the Secretary
determines that 2 years is insufficient).
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 was inconsistent in its enforcement from state to state, especially in the early
years. 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) have been the main
agricultural wetland protection programs, and an expanded small, isolated farmable wetlands
program was added in the 2002 farm bill, discussed above. 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.
CRS-5

---

IB96030
03-03-03
Swampbuster includes four major exemptions, and also allows a partial penalty once every
10 years.
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 protects some 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 that lead to different determinations.
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. These agencies have been
unable to revise the MOA to reflect changes in the 1996 farm bill.
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 the §404 program will now be subject only to swampbuster. Some of these wetlands (up
to 1 million acres) may now be in the new farmable wetland component of the CRP. 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
permanent and temporary easements and long-term agreements to protect farmed wetlands.
By the end of FY2001, enrollment has reached the cap of 1,075,000 acres, with almost 35%
of that total in 3 states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Permanent easements account
for almost 90% of the total. The Secretary may delegate the administration of easements to
other federal or state agencies with the necessary expertise. Since 1996, appropriators have
limited enrollment most years. In addition to the annual appropriations, emergency funding
was provided to enroll lands flooded in 1993 in the upper Midwest. (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 2101 creates a national program to
retire small isolated agricultural wetlands, as described 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.
CRS-6

---

IB96030
03-03-03
Cost-Sharing Assistance
Over the past several decades, cost-sharing programs have provided 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.
The 1996 farm act replaced the ACP and three smaller cost-sharing programs) with the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (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 was 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, and the initial
payments were made the year after the contract was signed. Large livestock operations, to
be defined in regulations by USDA, were ineligible for contracts to construct animal waste
management facilities. The law required USDA to designate priority areas in each state for
more concentrated attention; USDA allocated at least 65% of the funding to priority areas.

Interest in participation 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 provided $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 prior to 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 to $1.3 billion in FY2007. It eliminates the use
of priority areas. Participants will be paid in the first year of a contract. 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 can be higher for
beginning and limited resource producers. The Department can use a portion of EQIP funds
in FY2003 through FY2006 for innovative grants, such as fostering markets for nutrient
trading. 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.
In addition, $50 million is earmarked for the Klamath River basin and is to be provided as
soon as possible.
Technical Assistance
NRCS provides technical assistance on a voluntary basis to conserve and improve
natural resources. Technical assistance is a component of most conservation programs, and
CRS-7

---

IB96030
03-03-03
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 the Conservation
Operations line item. NRCS has characterized technical assistance as the “intellectual
capital” of the agency, allowing it to combine its scientific and technical expertise with
knowledge of local conditions.
A 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 qualified third parties to provide technical assistance.
Funding for technical assistance for the growing mandatory programs was challenged
in late 2002, when the Office of Management and Budget, supported subsequently by the
Department of Justice, issued an opinion that technical assistance funding for mandatory
programs remains limited under a cap that has been placed in Section 11 of the Commodity
Credit Corporation charter under prior law. Congress had thought that it had resolved this
issue through language it included in the 2002 farm bill, and was supported in this conclusion
by an opinion issued by the General Accounting Office. The Administration proposed to
address this limit in FY2003 through a January 2003 proposal to create a new farm bill
technical assistance line item and to fund it at $333 million in FY2003. It proposed to fully
offset this funding with reductions from several other, mostly conservation, programs. It
stated that this line item, combined with other funding would be adequate to fully fund all
technical assistance necessary to implement all mandatory and discretionary conservation
programs.

Congress strongly rejected this proposal. The conservation title of the FY2203 omnibus
appropriations law, drawing from the Senate bill, prohibits using any of the discretionary
funds for technical assistance to implement any mandatory conservation programs.
Additional language in the Senate bill stated that the 2002 farm bill already addressed the
funding of technical assistance to support mandatory programs through the CCC by
providing that funding for each program include funding for necessary technical assistance
through FY2007. This language was added as an amendment to the farm bill in Section 213
of the disaster assistance package portion of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations (Division
N, Title II). This amendment does not affect technical assistance funding for the CRP and
the WRP, where limits are set by acres rather than dollar amounts.
Selected Other Conservation Activities
The conservation includes many additional activities and programs. The list below
includes only conservation activities in USDA that are administered by NRCS and FSA.
Several other USDA agencies also make significant contributions to the conservation effort;
examples include the Agricultural Research Service, which conducts research on numerous
conservation topics; the Economic Research Service, which 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, which conducts research on forest and
tree topics and administers programs to enhance timber stands on private lands. The many
programs that are authorized but are not being implemented are not included.
CRS-8

---

IB96030
03-03-03
Watershed Programs. NRCS has worked with local sponsors under several
authorities to construct more than 10,500 structures to prevent floods, protect watersheds,
control erosion and sediments, supply water, improve water quality, provide recreation
opportunities, enhance habitat, and create or restore wetlands.
A rehabilitation program for aging small watershed structures, authorizing
appropriations of up to $90 million over 5 years was enacted 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.
Section2505 of the 2002 farm bill authorizes both mandatory funding for the
rehabilitation program, rising from $45 million in FY2003 to $65 million in FY2007, and
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 368 areas encompassing more than 85% of the counties in the
country have been designated.
Section2504 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 in FY2001. Demand to participate has greatly exceeded available funds.
Section2503 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 conservation
compliance. Certain private nonprofit organizations can participate. It also authorizes
appropriations for grants to carry out new farm viability programs. The $50 million spent
in FY2002 protected almost 100,000 acres in 41 states; less than $3 million was spent in
every state.

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
CRS-9

---

IB96030
03-03-03
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.)
Section8002 of the 2002 farm bill eliminates FIP and the Forest Service’s 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 will be administered by the Forest Service.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). WHIP was authorized in 1996 to
use a total of $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. Interest in this program has greatly
exceeded available funding.
Section2502 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.

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. The Department
announced on September 16, 2002, that it would release $94 million in the EWP to 34 states
in response to wildfires and other natural disasters.
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
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.”
CRS-10

---

IB96030
03-03-03
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. EPA and USDA announced the final rule in mid December
2002. Farm interests were generally pleased because it will affect less producers and cost
less when compared with earlier proposals.
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.)
Water quality problems are likely to be addressed not only through existing programs,
such as EQIP, discussed above, but also through the new programs, including:
! The Conservation Security Program, in Section2001, which is expected to
be used to address water quality problems, especially nutrient management;
! the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program enacted in
Section2301 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. 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.
CRS-11

---

IB96030
03-03-03
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.
! Reauthorizes the Agricultural Management Assistance Program through
FY2007 in Section 2501, and provides an additional $10 million (for a total
of $20 million) in mandatory funding annually.
! Authorizes a Grassroots Source Water Protection Program in Section 2501
and annual appropriations of $5 million through FY2007.
CRS-12

---

IB96030
03-03-03
! 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.
Implementing the 2002 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions
Official actions, including announcements in the Federal Register (FR), taken to
implement selected conservation programs authorized or significantly amended by the 2002
farm bill are listed below.
Conservation Reserve Program: No action.
Wetland Reserve Program: FR (06/07/02) contains notice of amendment to existing
rule published. On September 6, 2002, a press release announced that approximately $275
million in FY2002 would go to 42 states to enroll up to 250,000 acres.
Environmental Quality Incentive Program: FR (07/24/02) contains notice providing
additional $275 million for FY2002. On August 1, 2002, the Secretary announces $227
million released. On September 16, 2002, a press release announced that $10 million in
previously unallocated FY2002 funds will go to 14 drought-stricken states. FR (2/10/03)
contains notice of proposed rules and requests comments by March 12, 2003.
Conservation Technical Assistance: On November 7, 2002, a “summit” is hosted by
USDA in Washington to receive public input. FR (11/21/02) contains interim final rule, with
comments to be submitted by February 19, 2003.
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program: No action.
Resource Conservation and Development Program: No action.
Farmland Protection Program: FR (05/30/02) notice requests proposals for FY2002,
due August 15, 2002. On September 6, 2002, a press release announced that $48 million
would be spent in 32 states in FY2002. FR (10/28/02) contains proposed rule, with
comments to be submitted by December 30, 2002.
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program: FR (07/24/02) contains final rule providing
additional cost share assistance to participants with agreements exceeding 15 years.
Agricultural Management Assistance Program: On August 19, 2002, NRCS
announces release of $1.5 million.
Private Grazing Lands Program: FR (06/29/02) contains proposed rule. FR
(11/12/02) contains final rule.
Grasslands Reserve Program: No action.
Conservation Security Program: FR (2/8/03) contains advance notice of proposed
rule-making, with request for comments by March 20, 2003.
Partnerships and Cooperation: No action.
CRS-13

---

IB96030
03-03-03
Appropriations

FY2003 Discretionary Programs. The FY2003 omnibus appropriations law (P.L.
108-7) provides $1.027 billion for all discretionary conservation programs within USDA,
which is $7 million higher than the House Appropriations Committee approved, $9 million
less than the Senate approved, and $22 million below the Administration request of $1.049
billion. Much of the difference between the congressional levels and the Administration
request was a $48.7 million request for Emergency Conservation Program that Congress
rejected. The FY2003 law is a decrease of $29 million below the FY2002 appropriation of
$1.056 billion, which included $94 million of supplemental spending provided for watershed
and flood prevention in P.L.107-206.
The largest discretionary conservation program is Conservation Operations (CO), most
of which supports technical assistance. The law provides $825 million for CO in FY2003,
which is less than the Administration request of $841 million, but a significant increase from
the $779 million provided in the FY2002 appropriation. A large portion of the requested
increase, $48 million, would have paid for technical assistance in helping animal feeding
operations comply with clean water regulations. The law provides less than either the House
bill ($844 million) or the Senate bill ($840 million). The conference report accompanying
the law identifies 114 earmarks for CO with a total cost of more than $110 million. The law,
drawing from the House bill, makes earmarks additions to each state’s allocation.

For watershed activities, the law provides $110 million for Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations ($200 million appropriated in FY2002, including a $94 million
supplemental appropriation provided in P.L. 107-206), $11.2 million for Watershed Surveys
and Planning ($11 million in FY2002) and $30 million for Watershed Rehabilitation
Program ($10 million in FY2002). It identifies several earmarks in the general provisions
and in the conference report. Congress rejected the Administration request to replace all
appropriations for these three watershed programs with $110 million for Emergency
Watershed Protection (the average of annual spending over the past 10 years), so that USDA
would have funds on hand to provide immediate assistance after a natural disaster. The law
includes provisions that limit spending for technical assistance to $45.5 million of the total
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, and limit expenditures related to protecting
threatened and endangered species to $1 million.
The law provides no funds for the Emergency Conservation Program, an FSA-
administered program which helps producers repair damaged farmland following a disaster.
Traditionally, this program has been funded through emergency supplemental appropriations.
Congress rejected an Administration proposal to fund this program in FY2003 at the average
of the past 10 years, $48.7 million, so that it can more rapidly respond to emergencies.
The law provides $51 million for the Resource Conservation and Development Program
to support activities in designated RC&D districts. This amount is almost $2 million more
than the Administration request and $1 million more than the House provided, but $4.1
million less than the Senate provided.
FY2003 Mandatory Programs. The Administration’s FY2003 request was
submitted prior to enactment of the 2002 farm bill, which reauthorized and greatly increased
funding for many conservation programs slated to expire at the end of FY2002. Although
CRS-14

---

IB96030
03-03-03
the Administration had stated its support for authorizing higher annual mandatory
conservation funding levels in the 2002 farm bill, its request for FY2003 did not include any
of the anticipated reauthorizations or increases, except that it requested level funding at $200
million for EQIP. With the exception of funding for the Conservation Security Program
(CSP), discussed in the next paragraph, the law places limits on three programs. All the
programs that are not addressed will be fully funded at the authorized levels. It limits
enrollment in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 245,833 acres instead of the 250,000 acres
authorized in the farm bill in Section759, it limits funds for EQIP to $695 million instead of
the $700 million authorized in the farm bill in Section760, and it provides no mandatory
funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program in Section740 (but $30 million in
discretionary funds is provided for this program elsewhere in this law). (For more details on
FY2003 conservation funding, see CRS Report RL31301, Appropriations for FY2003: U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies.)
The CSP was used to fund the entire agricultural disaster assistance package of more
than $3 billion. This was done by limiting total CSP funding between FY2003 and FY2013
to a total of $3.773 billion. The estimated saving provided by this cap, based on January
2003 CBO estimates of the total program cost of $6.878 billion, not only funds the entire
disaster package, but also leaves more funding for the CSP than had been estimated when
the farm bill was enacted. Revised CBO estimates are that the program will have $3 million
in FY2003, then grow rapidly in future years. The House bill would have limited this
program to a single state, Iowa, making it a pilot program in FY2003, while the Senate bill
would have made it available in all states.
FY2004 Appropriations. Requested funding levels for conservation are historic
highs, but less than authorized levels in the 2002 farm bill in some instances. Much of the
difference reflects the Administration proposal to fund technical assistance in support of
mandatory programs by establishing a separate discretionary account called Farm Bill
Technical Assistance, funded at $432 million. However, this funding issue was resolved
without establishing such an account in the FY2003 appropriations legislation that was
subsequently enacted (see discussion in the Technical Assistance subsection, above).

Administration requests for FY2004 include: $704 million for Conservation Operations;
$5 million for Watershed Surveys and Planning; $40 million for Watershed Operations; $10
million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program; and $50 million for the Resource
Conservation and Development Program. For the mandatory programs, EQIP would be
funded at $909 million instead of $1 billion; the Ground and Surface Water component of
EQIP would be funded at $51 million instead of $60 million; the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program would be funded at $42 million instead of $60 million; the Farmland Protection
Program would be funded at $112 million instead of $125 million; and the CSP would be
funded for the first time at $19 million.
CRS-15

---

IB96030
03-03-03
LEGISLATION
Almost 100 bills with conservation provisions were introduced in the 107th Congress;
only the enacted farm bill is listed below. Legislation in the 108th Congress will be included
only after Congress takes some action following introduction.
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.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture. Conservation. Hearings. 107th
Congress, 2nd session. February 28 and March 1, 2002. 250p. S. Hrg. 107-225.
---- Conservation on Working Lands for the New Federal Farm Bill. Hearings. 107th
Congress, 1st session. July 31, 2001. 86p. S. Hrg. 107-828.
CRS-16

---