Order Code IB96030
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
Updated November 24, 2004
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)
Wetlands and Agriculture
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Conservation Security Program (CSP)
Technical Assistance
Selected Other Conservation Activities
Watershed Programs
Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)
Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Emergency Programs
Water Quality Programs and Initiatives
Private Grazing Lands Program
Grasslands Reserve 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
Conservation Appropriations
Discretionary Programs
Mandatory Programs
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

---

IB96030
11-24-04
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
Soil and water conservation were promi-
Two Department of Agriculture agencies
nent farm policy topics in the 108th Congress
implement most agriculture conservation
as the Administration implemented provisions
programs, which attract voluntary participants
in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171). This
by providing financial and technical incen-
farm bill increased spending and expanded the
tives. The Natural Resources Conservation
scope of the conservation effort by reauthoriz-
Service provides technical assistance and
ing and amending most existing conservation
administers most programs, and the Farm
programs and enacting new ones through
Service Agency administers the most expen-
FY2007.
sive program currently (the CRP) and an

emergency program.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimated that conservation spending would
As both agencies implement the farm
increase by $9.2 billion in new mandatory
bill, controversies arise, especially when the
budget authority above the April 2001 base-
Administration’s interpretation of the law’s
line through FY2007 (and the March 2004
intent differs from that of interested Members
baseline raises this total by an additional $2.3
of Congress. Issues that have been attracting
billion). Examples of increases include the
attention include (1) how to fully fund techni-
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
cal assistance in support of the mandatory
(from $200 million annually to $1.3 billion in
programs and (2) how to implement the Con-
FY2007) and the Farmland Protection Pro-
servation Security Program.
gram (from a total of $35 million to $125
million annually starting in FY2004). Enroll-
To address the first issue, the 108th Con-
ment ceilings were raised for the Conservation
gress considered a legislative proposal (H.R.
Reserve Program (CRP) (from 36.4 million
1907) and inserted language in FY2004 and
acres to 39.2 million acres) and the Wetlands
FY2005 appropriations. The House Agricul-
Reserve Program (from 1,075,000 acres to
ture Committee’s subcommittee with conser-
2,275,000 acres).
vation responsibilities focused on this issue at
a June 4, 2003 oversight hearing before re-
Several new programs expand the scope
porting H.R. 1907. The second issue became
of the conservation effort. The largest of these
more prominent after NRCS published rules
(potentially), the Conservation Security Pro-
and held the initial CSP signup in summer
gram (CSP), provides payments to producers
2004 in 18 specified watersheds. The Senate
who address natural resource concerns on
Agriculture Committee’s conservation sub-
private lands in specified locations. Other new
committee focused on CSP at a May 11, 2004
programs conserve grasslands, address surface
oversight hearing, while the House Agricul-
and ground water conservation needs and
ture Committee’s conservation subcommittee
conservation issues in certain regions, permit
examined other topics at a June 15, 2004
approved third parties to provide conservation
hearing. Appropriators continue to have some
assistance, and (in the forestry title) replace
influence on conservation topics, including
existing programs with a new consolidated
these issues, through their actions on the
financial assistance program.
budget each year, such as earmarking funding
and limiting funding for some programs.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB96030
11-24-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Senate Agriculture subcommittee with conservation responsibilities reviewed
implementation efforts at a May 11, 2004 hearing, while House Agriculture subcommittee
with conservation responsibilities reviewed similar topics at a June 15, 2004 hearing. One
issue that both hearings explored, especially the House hearing, was funding for technical
assistance needed to implement the mandatory conservation programs. Congress continues
to address this topic annually in appropriations legislation (while rejecting Administration
proposals), and is considering more enduring solutions in free-standing legislation (H.R.
1907). H.R. 1907 was reported by a subcommittee to the full Agriculture Committee on June
17, 2003. Its provisions were attached in a floor amendment to the House-passed version of
the FY2005 agriculture appropriations legislation (H.R. 4766), but are not a part of the
Senate-passed version of these appropriations.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service announced in August 2004 that it had
enrolled nearly 2,200 participants into the Conservation Security Program in 18 selected
watersheds, under an interim final rule. More recently, it announced that 202 watersheds
encompassing more than 83 million acres will be eligible for the FY2005 sign up, to be held
during the coming winter.

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 debate on this issue
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 or revising programs. These
programs were designed to reduce resource problems on the farm. They 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 not adequately dealing with environmental problems resulting from
agricultural activities (especially off the farm). 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
11-24-04
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.

After the congressional party switch in 1994, conservation policy discussions shifted,
with greater attention 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. The 1996 farm bill included a
wide ranging conservation title drafted by the Senate Agriculture Committee staff. The
enacted bill gave 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 nature of the conservation effort continued to evolve after 1996, as reflected in the
provisions of the 2002 farm bill. Conservation themes included (1) increasing overall
funding, (2) creating new programs and addressing new issues, (3) providing more
conservation on lands that are in production (called working lands), and (4) using funding
for conservation programs to meet world trade obligations. Major conservation activities are
discussed below, followed by other new programs, then implementation activities. (Other
activities that could be categorized as conservation are not discussed below, including those
that center on research, forestry, and energy.) For detailed information about the enacted
provisions in the farm bill’s conservation title, including how they compare with 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.
Current Major Conservation Activities
USDA’s conservation efforts, while increasingly diverse, have centered in recent years
on implementing the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), wetland protection programs,
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Conservation Security
Program (CSP), and on funding technical assistance. USDA continues to adjust this effort
to reflect the 2002 enactment. By FY2007, when the current law expires, funding for the
overall conservation effort will be much larger. By that year, this effort will give
proportionally less emphasis to land retirement programs and to land producing row crops,
and more attention to conservation on land that is in production and to livestock producers.
Recognizing this expanding effort with additional programmatic components, Congress also
included a provision in Section 2005 of the 2002 law that require the Secretary to submit a
report to both agriculture committees by December 31, 2005 (with implementing
recommendations) about how to better coordinate and consolidate conservation programs.
Lead conservation agencies continue to be the Natural Resources Conservation Service
CRS-2

---

IB96030
11-24-04
(NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most programs, and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA), which provides cost-sharing assistance and administers the most
expensive program currently, 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 is limited to 25% of the crop land in a county. Funding is mandatory spending.
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 in four of six years preceding enactment is 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 are
being permitted for the first time, with a reduction in annual rental payments.
FSA issued an interim rule on May 8, 2003, that implements these changes. It was used
to guide a summer 2003 signup, which enrolled 2.0 million acres selected from 4.1 million
that were offered. Of this total, about 700,000 acres had been in the program and were being
reenrolled. It held a second general signup on August 30, 2004, in which it enrolled 1.2
million acres of 1.7 million acres that were offered. FSA’s summary of participation through
September 2004 shows 35.6 million acres were enrolled, with about 4 million acres in Texas
and more than 3 million acres in Montana and North Dakota. Also, USDA announced that
emergency haying and grazing would be allowed on CRP lands in areas affected by drought
on June 24, 2004. In August 2004, USDA requested comments in response to 10 questions
it posed about long-term policy topics related to the CRP, due December 8, 2004.
USDA has estimated that the average erosion rate on enrolled acres has been 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,
although any land that is classified as highly erodible can only be farmed if the producer
follows a conservation plan.
In addition to general signups, FSA has enrolled about 2.5 million acres under several
more targeted options, and an additional 2 million acres are being reserved for future
enrollment. These acres can be enrolled continuously because they provide large
environmental benefits. The newer options include enrolling up to 500,000 acres of
floodplains to be planted in hardwood trees, with allotments specified for states; enrolling
up to 250,000 acres of field boarders for northern bobwhite quail habitat; and creating up to
250,000 acres of wetlands in non-floodplain areas. The three largest and oldest options are:
! Enrolling portions of fields with especially high environmental values.
Through January 2004, more than 2.1 million acres had been enrolled, with
CRS-3

---

IB96030
11-24-04
more than 434,000 acres in Iowa. The most common conservation practice
is buffer strips along water bodies. NRCS estimated that almost 1.55
million miles of buffer strips had been enrolled through December, 2003.
! A state-initiated enhancement program (Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program, or CREP) under which states contribute funds so that higher rents
can be offered to potential participants in smaller specified areas where
benefits will be greater. Maryland, the first state to implement a program,
is enrolling stream buffers, restored wetlands, and highly erodible lands
along streams in a portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Currently, 25
states have one or more approved enhancement programs. FSA data show
that almost 560,000 acres had been enrolled through January 2004, with
more than 109,000 acres in Illinois.
! A program to enroll up to 1 million acres of small, isolated farmable
wetlands. It was authorized in Title XI of the FY2001 Agriculture
Appropriations legislation as a pilot program in six upper midwestern states.
USDA offers signup bonuses to attract participation. Almost 95,000 acres
had been enrolled by May 2003, with almost half those acres in Iowa.
NRCS provides technical assistance in support of CRP, but the 1996 farm bill placed
a cap on 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. Provisions in the 2002 farm bill have sought, unsuccessfully, to eliminate the
problem. Recent efforts to address this issue are discussed in the subsection titled Technical
Assistance, below. (For more information on CRP, see CRS Report RS21613, Conservation
Reserve Program: Status and Current Issues.)
Wetlands and Agriculture
Swampbuster and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) have been the main
agricultural wetland protection programs. (An expanded small, isolated farmable wetlands
program, added to the CRP in the 2002 farm bill, was discussed above.) Under
swampbuster, farmers who convert wetlands to produce crops lose many federal farm
program benefits until the wetland is restored. Swampbuster includes four major
exemptions. It allows a partial penalty once a decade.
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. The only provision in the 2002 farm bill
amending swampbuster addresses a concern expressed by the farm community by prohibiting
USDA from delegating the authority to make wetland determinations to other parties.
CRS-4

---

IB96030
11-24-04
Some concerns raised by the agricultural community about the potential roles of other
federal agencies 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) in 1994. But aspects of implementation were
controversial, and these agencies have been unable to revise the MOA to reflect changes in
the 1996 farm bill.
An additional issue for agriculture was raised in January 2001 when the Supreme Court
determined, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, that §404 (of the Clean Water Act) wetland permit program should not apply
to certain “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 be enrolled 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.
Enrollment has reached more than 1,470,000 acres. Permanent easements account for more
than 90% of the total. The Secretary may delegate the administration of easements to other
federal or state agencies with the necessary expertise. Section 2201 of the 2002 farm bill
reauthorizes the WRP through FY2007 and increases the enrollment cap to 2,275,000 acres,
while limiting enrollment to 250,000 acres per year. On June 29, 2004, USDA announced
a partnership initiative in Nebraska, modeled after the CREP component of the CRP, to
enroll almost 19,000 acres. This may be a prototype for future initiatives. Another wetland
protection program is created in Section 2101 to retire 1 million acres of small isolated
agricultural wetlands as part of the CRP, and a more recent initiative will be used to create
250,000 acres of wetlands (see the CRP discussion, above). (For more information about
wetlands, see CRS Issue Brief IB97014, Wetland Issues, updated regularly.)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP provides financial incentives to induce farmers to participate in conservation
efforts. It pays a portion of the cost of installing or constructing approved conservation
practices. EQIP is a mandatory spending program which supports structural, vegetative, and
land management practices. Under provisions in the 2002 farm bill, annual funding is
authorized to increase from $200 million in FY2002 to $1.3 billion in FY2007, with 60% of
these funds each year to be used to address the needs of livestock producers. A plan is
required to participate. The total of all EQIP payments a single entity can receive, combined,
is $450,000 through FY2007. Contracts can be 1 to 10 years in length. 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 implementing
regulations list four national priorities that guide decisions about which producers receive
assistance and help optimize environmental benefits from this program.
CRS-5

---

IB96030
11-24-04
Three new subprograms are authorized under EQIP. First, a portion of EQIP funds in
FY2003 through FY2006 can be used to make grants for innovative efforts, such as fostering
markets for nutrient trading. On March 22, 2004, NRCS announced that it was soliciting
proposals and making $15 million available; it announced that it had awarded $14.5 million
to 41 entities on September 23, 2004. Second, additional funds, starting at $25 million in
FY2002 and growing to $60 million annually between FY2004 and FY2007 are provided for
a new ground and surface water conservation program within EQIP. USDA announced on
May 9, 2003 that it was providing $53 million from these funds to 17 western states to
implement water conservation practices in response to drought conditions. Third, an
additional $50 million is earmarked for the Klamath River basin in Oregon and California,
and is to be provided as soon as possible; through FY2003, more than $12 million had been
allocated, and an additional $19 million has been released so far in 2004.
Interest in participating in EQIP continues to far exceed available funds. For FY2003,
for example, NRCS reports that it received more than 116,000 applications, but was only
able to sign almost 34,000 contracts. Obligations for FY2003 totaled almost $643 million.
In early May 2004, USDA announced that it was making $32 million available to low
income farmers. (For further information on EQIP, see CRS Report 97-616, Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues.)
Conservation Security Program (CSP)
Section 2001 of the 2002 farm bill authorizes the new Conservation Security Program
to provide payments to producers on all agricultural land that was cropped in four of six
years before 2002. Payments are based on which of three levels of conservation is planned
for and practiced. The lowest level allows contracts of five 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.
Implementation has proven controversial, as the authorizing legislation created this
program as a true entitlement, but appropriators provided no funding in FY2003 and only
$41.4 million in FY2004 to implement this program. NRCS issued a draft rule that
generated more than 10,000 comments, then issued an interim final rule on June 21. This
rule requires interested producers to complete a self-assessment to determine their eligibility.
NRCS designed the program so that it could be expanded or contracted from year to year
based on funding levels, by limiting signup each year to producers in specified watersheds.
Based on this rule, signups in the summer of 2004 enrolled nearly 2,200 producers in 18
specified “priority watersheds.” On November 2, 2004, NRCS announced that 202
watersheds encompassing more than 83 million acres in every state would be eligible for the
FY2005 signup, to be held during the winter of 2005. In a separate action that will affect
CSP in the future, Congress capped total funding for CSP over the next 10 years at $6.0
billion to pay for disaster assistance during October 2004 (Division B, P.L. 108-324). This
action generated complaints from program supporters in Congress and elsewhere. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS21739, The Conservation Security Program in the 2002
Farm Bill; and CRS Report RS21739, Implementing the Conservation Security Program.)
CRS-6

---

IB96030
11-24-04
Technical Assistance
NRCS provides technical assistance at the request of the landowner to conserve and
improve natural resources. Technical assistance includes professional advice on how to
design, install, and maintain land management and structural practices that provide
conservation benefits. Technical assistance is a component of most conservation programs,
and NRCS estimates that the cost of providing it in FY2004 amounts to about $1 billion from
NRCS and almost $400,000 million from the CCC. Almost three-quarters of the NRCS total
is 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 §2701 of the 2002 farm bill provides that technical assistance in support
of each mandatory program come from the funding provided by the CCC for that program.
However, the Office of Management and Budget, supported subsequently by the Department
of Justice, issued an opinion in late 2002 that technical assistance funding for mandatory
programs remains limited under a cap that has been placed in §11 of the CCC charter under
prior law. Many in Congress had thought that it had resolved this issue through language it
included in the 2002 farm bill, and they were supported in this conclusion by a GAO opinion.
The Administration repeatedly proposed to address this limit in appropriations by creating
a new farm bill technical assistance line item.
Congress rejected this proposal in both FY2003 and FY2004, and the House has again
for FY2005. Further, Congress has prohibited using any of the discretionary funds from
Conservation Operations for technical assistance to implement any mandatory programs.
Additional language stating that the 2002 farm bill already provides technical assistance
funding from the CCC for each program through FY2007 was added as an amendment to the
farm bill in §213 of the disaster assistance package portion of the FY2003 omnibus
appropriations (Division N, Title II). It does not affect technical assistance funding for the
CRP and the WRP, where limits are set by acres rather than dollar amounts. This
prohibition, combined with a retention of the cap on CCC funds that can be spent on
administrative expenses, meant that some of the mandatory programs donated funding for
technical assistance to other programs, thereby leaving less money available to implement
their activities. The largest donors in FY2003 were EQIP ($107.9 million) and the Farmland
Protection Program ($27.6 million).
For FY2004, the conference committee includes language with each of the five
discretionary NRCS accounts that prohibits using these funds to pay for technical assistance
in support of the mandatory conservation programs. As a result, NRCS had to again donate
funding from some mandatory programs to others for technical assistance. The House
adopted an amendment to the FY2005 appropriations (H.R. 4766), similar to free-standing
legislation (H.R. 1907), which prohibits using other mandatory programs to fund TA for
CRP or WRP. This amendment goes beyond H.R. 1907 by also prohibiting transfer of funds
for TA between these two programs.
Selected Other Conservation Activities
Federal conservation efforts include many additional activities and programs. The list
below includes only selected conservation activities in USDA that are administered by NRCS
CRS-7

---

IB96030
11-24-04
and FSA. Other USDA agencies who make significant contributions to the conservation
effort include the Agricultural Research Service (conducts research on numerous
conservation topics); the Economic Research Service (provides economic analysis of many
conservation topics and led the effort to develop 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). None of the many
conservation programs that have been authorized but are not being implemented are
included.
Watershed Programs. NRCS has worked with local sponsors under several
authorities for more than 50 years to construct more than 10,500 structures to prevent floods,
protect watersheds, control erosion and sediments, and other purposes. A rehabilitation
program for aging small watershed structures was enacted in the Small Watershed
Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (§313 of P.L. 106-472). Section 2505 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. The law permits federal funds to pay for 65%
of rehabilitation projects, with the remainder coming from local sponsors.
Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster. Under conservation compliance and
sodbuster provisions, established in the 1985 farm bill, producers who cultivate highly
erodible land (HEL) 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.
A smaller penalty can be imposed on producers once every five years if circumstances
warrant. Producers who cultivate highly erodible land using an approved conservation plan
are not subject to conservation compliance. Section 2002 of the 2002 farm bill, in the only
amendment to these provisions, prohibits USDA from delegating authority to other parties
to make highly erodible land determinations. Any person who had HEL enrolled in the CRP
has two years after a contract expires to be fully in compliance (or longer if the Secretary
determines that two 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.
Critics, primarily from the environmental community, have contended that USDA staff has
not vigorously enforced these requirements. The General Accounting Office issued a report
critical of the implementation effort in April 2003 titled USDA Needs to Better Ensure
Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands (GAO-03-418). Others, primarily
from the agriculture community, have countered that the department has been too vigorous
at times.
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 375 areas encompassing more than 85% of the counties in the
country have been designated. This total includes 7 that were accepted from 28 applications
during the summer of 2003. Section 2504 of the 2002 farm bill permanently reauthorizes the
program, and makes numerous technical amendments.
CRS-8

---

IB96030
11-24-04
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). (USDA now calls it the Farm and Ranch
Lands Protection Program.) The 1996 farm bill authorized USDA to assist state and local
governments to acquire easements to limit conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural
uses. Section 2503 of the 2002 farm bill greatly increases 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 is subject to conservation
compliance. Certain private nonprofit organizations can compete for these funds. Eligible
lands must be subject to a pending offer. Through FY2003, almost $177 million had been
obligated. Easements have been acquired on almost 105,000 acres in 37 states and are
pending on an additional 201,000 acres in every state. States where the most funds have
been obligated include Pennsylvania ($11.7 million), Maryland ($11.2 million), and
California ($10.1 million).
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. This
money was allocated in FY1998 and FY1999. 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 who protect and restore essential plant and animal habitat
under agreements of 15 years or longer. About 14,500 agreements have helped improve and
protect more than 2.3 million acres since the program began.

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. Proposed rules for the EWP were issued in the November 19, 2003,
Federal Register, with comments to be submitted by January 20, 2004. The FY2004
omnibus appropriations bill provides $150 million of EWP funds and $12 million in ECP
funds to address resource problems stemming from the widespread wildfires in southern
California; NRCS announced on November 20, 2003, that it had already provided $480,000
to address these problems. On August 11, 2004, FSA released $2.7 million in ECP to
address hurricane damage.
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
hypoxic conditions creating a large “dead zone” in the central Gulf of Mexico and in several
estuaries. 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
CRS-9

---

IB96030
11-24-04
of agriculture. In some cases, contamination may have resulted even though producers
followed accepted agricultural practices, and did not commit illegal acts. Current agricultural
conservation programs that address water quality concerns center on EQIP, 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 were controversial because it would greatly
expand the number of animal operations at which nutrient management plans would be
required. EPA and USDA announced the final revised rule, which is required under court
order, on December 12, 2002. Large operators will be required to develop comprehensive
nutrient management plans while smaller operators will be encouraged to develop them. It
was published in the February 12, 2003 Federal Register, effective April 14, 2003. Farm
interests were generally pleased because it will affect less producers and cost less when
compared with earlier proposals. On February 27, 2004, NRCS released its National Animal
Agriculture Conservation Framework, which it describes as a blueprint for assisting
livestock and poultry producers with their voluntary efforts to deal with environmental
issues. (For more information on this rule, see CRS Report RL31851, Animal Waste and the
Environment: EPA Regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).)
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 farm bill programs, including
! the Conservation Security Program, enacted in §2001, which is expected to
be used to address water quality problems, especially nutrient management;
! the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program, enacted in §2301 as
part of EQIP and discussed above;
! the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program amendments enacted in §2505;
! the Agricultural Management Assistance Program, reauthorized in §2501,
to provide $20 million annually between FY2003 and FY2007 and $10
million annually thereafter to 15 specified states that have been chronically
underserved by risk management programs;
! a new program for the Great Lakes Basin states enacted in §2502;
! a new Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, enacted in §2502; and
! a new program for the Delmarva Peninsula enacted in §2601-2604.

In addition, USDA released a draft framework for addressing animal agriculture
conservation on September 9, 2003. Many, but not all, aspects of animal agriculture
conservation are tied to water quality concerns. The framework discusses how USDA can
CRS-10

---

IB96030
11-24-04
help producers meet environmental regulatory requirements and promote new opportunities
while sharing knowledge and increasing accountability.
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. Section 2502 of the 2002 farm bill reauthorizes
the program through FY2007 with appropriations of $60 million annually. Appropriators
continue to earmark a portion of NRCS’s Conservation Operations funds for this effort
annually, providing $23.4 million for FY2004.
Grasslands Reserve Program. 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. The Department started a national signup on June 30, 2003, with Texas receiving
$7.8 million, three times the next largest state allotment. More than 240,000 acres were
placed under contract. For FY2004, the Department issued an interim final rule on May 11,
2004, that will guide the spending of approximately $70 million.
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 increased 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. The Department testified at a global warming hearing held by the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 8, 2003. The 2002 farm bill did
not amend air quality provisions. On April 9, 2003, USDA announced that it had appointed
new task force members, who met in late May. In the April 29, 2004 FR, USDA issued a
call for nominations of new members by June 14. (For more information, see CRS Report
97-670, Agriculture and EPA’s Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates.)
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 the National Resources
Inventory. It also does applied research through the plant material and technical centers.
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 Partnerships and Cooperation in §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 §2004, to provide 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-11

---

IB96030
11-24-04
! reauthorizes the Agricultural Management Assistance Program through
FY2007 in §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 §2501 and
annual appropriations of $5 million through FY2007.
! authorizes a Great Lakes Program for Erosion and Sediment Control in
§2501 and annual appropriations of $5 million through FY2007.
! authorizes Desert Terminal Lakes provisions in §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 matching funds through FY2007 to demonstrate
local conservation and economic development through a Conservation
Corridor Demonstration Program with state and local partners on the
Delmarva Peninsula in §2601-2604.
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.
Agricultural Management Assistance Program. August 28, 2002 FR contains
proposed rule, and April 9, 2003 FR contains a final rule. The FY2004 appropriations
legislation amended the 2002 farm bill by allocating these funds among three purposes in
2004 and thereafter, and on February 23, 2004, USDA announced the FY2004 allocations
for conservation to eligible states.
Conservation Innovation Grants. An interim final rule and request for proposals
was published in the March 29, 2004 FR.

Conservation Reserve Program. A general signup, held between May 5 and June
13, 2003, was administered under an interim final rule, published in the May 8, 2003 FR.
The final rule was published in the May 14, 2004 FR.
Conservation Security Program. February 18, 2003 FR contains advance notice
of proposed rule making, with request for comments by March 20, 2003. January 2, 2004
FR contains a proposed rule. The May 4 FR contains a notice describing the criteria used to
select eligible watersheds. An interim final rule was published in the June 21, 2004 FR to
guide the FY2004 sign up.
Technical Assistance Service Providers. On November 7, 2002, a “summit”
is hosted by USDA in Washington to receive public input. November 21, 2002 FR contains
interim final rule, with comments to be submitted by February 19, 2003. Comments were
requested by June 23, 2003, on an interim final rule establishing payment rates for technical
service providers and USDA policy for subcontracting in the March 24, 2003 FR. NRCS
announced payment rates for providers, by state, on August 6, 2003, and revised rates on
October 27, 2004.
CRS-12

---

IB96030
11-24-04
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). July 24, 2002 FR contains
notice providing additional $275 million for FY2002. February 10, 2003 FR contains notice
of proposed rules and requests comments by March 12, 2003. May 30, 2003 FR contains
final rule. On March 29, 2004, USDA released an interim final rule for the new
Conservation Innovation Grants component of EQIP, enacted in 2002, and made $15 million
available to fund proposals, which had to be submitted by May 28, 2004.
Farmland Protection Program. May 30, 2002 FR notice requests proposals for
FY2002, due August 15, 2002. October 28, 2002 FR contains proposed rule, with comments
to be submitted by December 30, 2002. May 16, 2003 FR contains final rule. March 17,
2004 FR contains request for proposals, to be submitted by May 16, 2004. (Note: NRCS is
now calling this the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program.)
Grasslands Reserve Program. June 13, 2003 FR contains a notice of availability
of funds that will apply to the 2003 signup only, which started on June 30, 2003. A
September 24, 2003 press release announced that a total of $49.7 million had been released
to all 50 states, funding only a very small portion of the $1.7 billion that had been requested.
The May 11, 2004 FR contains an interim final rule.
Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program. June 29, 2002 FR contains
proposed rule. November 12, 2003 FR contains final rule.
Resource Conservation and Development Program. Some action under
discretionary authority but no additional rule making.
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Some action under discretionary
authority but no additional rule making.
Wetland Reserve Program. June 7, 2002 FR contains final notice of amendment
to existing rule.
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. July 24, 2002 FR contains final rule
providing additional cost share assistance to participants with agreements exceeding 15
years.
Conservation Appropriations

Conservation spending combines discretionary spending, which has totaled more then
$1 billion annually in recent years in five accounts and mandatory funding through the
Commodity Credit Corporation, which is estimated to total just under $3 billion in budget
authority in FY2004, according to the December 2003 Congressional Budget Office baseline.
The NRCS administers all the discretionary conservation programs.
Discretionary Programs. The FY2005 request from the Administration totaled
$909 million for discretionary spending. It included creation of a new sixth account to fund
technical assistance to support the Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve Programs.
This total was a reduction of $267 million from the FY2004 total. More specifically, the
Administration requested $710.4 million for Conservation Operations, $5.0 million for
Watershed Surveys and Planning, $40.2 million for Watershed and Flood Prevention
CRS-13

---

IB96030
11-24-04
Operations, $10.1 million for Watershed Rehabilitation, and $50.7 million for the Resource
Conservation and Development Program. For the new Farm Bill Technical Assistance
account, the Administration requested $92.0 million. The request also sought to eliminate
funding for all earmarks in the FY2004 appropriation, which totaled $141 million.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818), to receive final
congressional action in December, provides a total of $999.2 million for the five enacted
accounts and rejects the proposal to create a sixth account. Conservation Operations is the
only account funded at an amount that is not between the levels in the House and Senate
versions of this legislation. It provides $837.4 million, which is $8.5 million less than in the
House bill and $16.7 million less than in the Senate bill. The bill funds numerous earmarks.
Each of the discretionary programs is prohibited from funding technical assistance in support
of the mandatory programs.
Mandatory Programs. For the mandatory programs, funding levels (or acreage
enrollment limits) are specified in the 2002 farm bill Total outlays for these programs are
estimated to grow from $2.92 billion in FY2004 to $2.99 billion in FY2005, barring action
by Congress. However, the Administration requested reductions in FY2005 that would save
$448 million. H.R. 4818 reduces spending from authorized levels by a total of $400 million
in six programs: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (-$183 million); Wetland
Reserve Program (154,500 acres, which is estimated to save $150 million); Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (-$38 million); Farmland Protection Program (-$13 million); Ground and
Surface Water Program (-$9 million), and Conservation Security Program (-$7 million).
Many of the mandatory programs, including some of those with funding reductions, will
actually increase from FY2004 levels because higher funding levels were authorized in the
2002 farm bill.
LEGISLATION
Relatively few bills addressing conservation topics have been introduced in the 108th
Congress. They will be included in the list below only after Congress takes some action
following introduction.

P.L. 108-328 (H.R. 2771, Fossella)
Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed
Protection Program through 2010. Introduced July 17, 2003; referred to Committee on
Energy and Commerce; reported to House, April 28, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-476). Passed House
by voice vote, May 5, 2004. Passed Senate by unanimous consent, September 30, 2004.
Signed into law, October 16, 2004.
H.R. 1907 (Lucas)
Ensures the availability of funds for technical assistance to implement certain
mandatory conservation programs. Introduced May 1, 2003; referred to Agriculture
Committee; forwarded by Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and
Research to full committee by voice vote, June 17, 2003.
CRS-14

---

IB96030
11-24-04
S. 1425 (Clinton)
Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed
Protection Program through 2004. Introduced July 17, 2003; referred to Committee on
Environment and Public Works; reported to Senate November 20, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-205).
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.
——Oversight of Conservation Programs of the 2002 Farm Bill. Hearings. 108th Congress,
2nd session. May 11, 2004. 155p. S. Hrg. 108-564.
CRS-15

---