Order Code IB96030
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
Updated January 17, 2006
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 Funding
FY2006 Appropriations (P.L. 109-97)
FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations
FY2006 Rescissions
FY2006 Budget Reconciliation
2007 Farm Bill
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS


IB96030
01-17-06
Soil and Water Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
Soil and water conservation continue to
by providing financial and technical incen-
be prominent farm policy topics in the 109th
tives. The Natural Resources Conservation
Congress as the Administration administers an
Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance
array of current programs and starts to prepare
and administers most programs, and the Farm
for the next farm bill. The last farm bill,
Service Agency (FSA) administers the most
enacted in 2002, increased spending and
expensive program currently (the CRP) and an
expanded the scope of the conservation effort
emergency program.
by reauthorizing and amending many conser-
vation programs and enacting new ones,
Controversies have arisen since 2002,
mostly through FY2007.
especially when Members disagree with the
Administration’s interpretation of the law.
Most existing conservation programs
Two of the larger controversies have been
received increased spending. Examples in-
how to fully fund technical assistance in
clude the Environmental Quality Incentives
support of the mandatory programs, and how
Program (from $200 million annually before
to implement the Conservation Security Pro-
FY2002 to $1.3 billion in FY2007) and the
gram (CSP). The first was resolved with
Farmland Protection Program (from a total of
legislation enacted in late 2004 (P.L. 108-
$35 million to $125 million annually starting
498). The second continues as Congress
in FY2004). Enrollment ceilings were raised
continues to limit funding for the CSP and
for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
NRCS has responded to less funds by limiting
(from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres)
program eligibility to specified watersheds.
and the Wetlands Reserve Program (from
Program proponents both seek more funding
1,075,000 acres to 2,275,000 acres).
and oppose this eligibility limitation.
Several new efforts expanded the scope
The House and Senate Agriculture Com-
of the conservation effort. The largest of these
mittee’s conservation subcommittees both
(potentially), the Conservation Security Pro-
held oversight hearings in 2004. In 2005, the
gram (CSP), provides payments to producers
Senate subcommittee held hearings on endan-
who address natural resource concerns on
gered species on July 26 and the Conservation
private lands in specified locations. Other new
Reserve Program on July 27. Initial farm bill
programs conserve grasslands, address surface
hearings are anticipated in 2006.
and ground water conservation needs and
conservation issues in certain regions, permit
Appropriators continue to influence
approved third parties to provide conservation
conservation topics through their actions. For
assistance, and (in the forestry title) replace
FY2006, they made cuts in several mandatory
existing programs with a new consolidated
programs. They also provided significant
financial assistance program.
funding to emergency programs in response to
numerous hurricanes. Longer-term cuts con-
Two Department of Agriculture agencies
tinue to be considered in connection with
implement most agriculture conservation
reconciliation and other legislation.
programs, which attract voluntary participants
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB96030
01-17-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Impacts from Hurricane Katrina may affect several aspects of the conservation effort.
The Emergency Conservation and Emergency Watershed Programs received substantial
funding in Defense Appropriations, enacted in late December. In the same legislation, a new
Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program was created and also received substantial
funding. Staff and program resources have been shifted to assist in the cleanup.
Congress has completed action on FY2006 funding for agriculture. For conservation,
Congress provided more funds for discretionary conservation programs than was in either
the House or the Senate bill, while making cuts to several mandatory programs. Congress
all but completed work on reconciliation legislation before ending the first session in
December, and reductions in funding for conservation programs are about one third of the
total in that legislation, which is close to final action.
Agencies at USDA continue to implement conservation programs. Recent
announcements include an August 2005 announcement that 110 watershed would be eligible
for the Conservation Security Program in FY2006; an August 2005 announcement about
extending contracts and reenrollment of more than 28 million acres in the Conservation
Reserve Program; an April 2005 announcement soliciting input about future priorities for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program; and a September 2005 announcement of a pilot
initiative for conservation planning in nine states.
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
CRS-1

IB96030
01-17-06
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
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 control switched in 1994, conservation policy discussions
turned to identifying ways to make the conservation compliance and swampbuster programs
less intrusive on farmer activities. This switch 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.
The nature of the conservation effort has continued to evolve, as reflected in the
provisions of the 2002 farm bill. Conservation themes included (1) increasing funding, (2)
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. (Additional 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 this farm bill’s
conservation title, 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 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. By FY2007, when many programs authorized in the current
law expire, funding for the overall conservation effort will be much larger. The suite of
programs will place a reduced emphasis on land retirement programs and to land producing
row crops, and more attention to conservation on other land and to livestock producers.
Recognizing this expanding effort, Congress required 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. This deadline was missed.
Lead conservation agencies 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 most
CRS-2

IB96030
01-17-06
expensive program, CRP. (For more information on the suite of current conservation
programs, see CRS Report RL32940, Agriculture Conservation Programs: A Scorecard.)
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 six-state pilot program
to retire small, isolated farmable wetlands into a national program, with an enrollment ceiling
of 1 million acres. 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. FSA’s
summary of participation through September 2005 shows 36.1 million acres were enrolled,
with more than 4 million acres in Texas and about 3.5 million acres in Montana and North
Dakota. In August 2005, Secretary Johanns announced that USDA will offer opportunities
to reenroll or extend contracts involving more than 28 million acres of land where current
contracts expire between 2007 and 2010. Priority for reenrollment will be based on the
relative ranking of all land proposed for reenrollment using the Environmental Benefits
Index. Additional credit will be given for land located in any of five national priority areas
or areas of significant adverse water quality or habitat impacts. Contracts will be offered in
five groups. Land in the highest ranked group will be reenrolled for 10 years (with 15 years
for restored wetlands) using updated market rental rates to reflect local market conditions.
Land in the other groups will receive contract extensions at existing rental rates, with the
second highest group receiving five-year extensions and the lowest group receiving two-year
extensions. FSA plans to complete this process by the end of calender year 2006.
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
Government Accountability Office (GAO) 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 they must follow a conservation plan on any previously
enrolled highly erodible land to retain eligibility for many types of farm program payments.
In addition to general signups, FSA has enrolled about 3.1 million acres under several
more targeted options. 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:
CRS-3

IB96030
01-17-06
! Enrolling portions of fields with especially high environmental values.
Through January 2005, more than 2.25 million acres had been enrolled, with
more than 412,000 acres in Iowa. The most common conservation practice
is buffer strips along water bodies (these strips are usually called riparian
buffers by NRCS). NRCS estimated that almost 1.55 million miles of buffer
strips had been enrolled. FSA enrollment data showed that almost 740,000
acres of buffer strips had been enrolled through September 2005.
! 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. Currently, 26 states have one or more approved
enhancement programs. FSA data show that more than 710,000 acres had
been enrolled through September 2005.
! A program to enroll up to 1 million acres of small, isolated farmable
wetlands. USDA offers signup bonuses to attract participation. Almost
135,000 acres had been enrolled through September 2005, 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. 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, is 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.
The role of USDA agencies in protecting certain wetlands has grown since January 2001
when the Supreme Court determined, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
CRS-4

IB96030
01-17-06
(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 reached almost 1.63 million acres in January 2005. Permanent easements
account for more than 80% of the total, and have been perfected on 1.17 million acres. 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. More recently, the Office of Inspector General reported that
“unwarranted payments” had been made because of lax controls and poor appraisals.
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. NRCS has called
for public comments about whether these priorities should be altered, and held a national
listening session on May 5, 2005 (and state listening sessions) to gather input.
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 September 23, 2004, NRCS announced that it had awarded
$14.5 million to 41 entities. It solicited proposals for FY2005 in March. Second, additional
funds, starting at $25 million in FY2002 and growing to $60 million annually between
CRS-5

IB96030
01-17-06
FY2004 and FY2007 are provided for a new ground and surface water conservation program
within EQIP. The first year that funds were available, $53 million was provided to 17
western states to implement water conservation practices in response to drought conditions;
a total of 32 states have received assistance. 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 FY2004, more than $31 million had been allocated. In FY2004, funds
were used to complete irrigation management plans on more than 30,000 acres and apply
conservation practices on more than 6,300 acres.
Interest in participating in EQIP continues to far exceed available funds. For FY2004,
for example, NRCS reports that it received almost 183,000 applications, but was only able
to sign almost 48,000 contracts. The cost of funding the remaining applications is more than
$2.0 billion. (For further information on EQIP, see CRS Report RS22040, 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
(CSP) 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 prohibited funding in FY2003, then allowed
only $41.4 million in FY2004 and $202 million in FY2005 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, 2004. 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, which closed on May 28. On July 25,
it announced that more than 12,500 contracts had been accepted; the largest number (2,040)
was in Iowa. 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. On August 25, it announced that land in 110
watersheds in portions of all 50 states would be eligible to enroll in FY2006. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS21739, The Conservation Security Program in the 2002
Farm Bill
; and CRS Report RS21740, Implementing the Conservation Security Program.)
CRS-6

IB96030
01-17-06
Technical Assistance
NRCS provides technical assistance (TA) at the request of the landowner to conserve
and improve natural resources. TA includes professional advice on how to design, install,
and maintain land management and structural practices that provide conservation benefits.
NRCS combines that advice with knowledge of local conditions. TA is a component of most
conservation programs, and NRCS estimates that the cost of providing it in FY2004
amounted to about $1 billion. Almost $400 million came from the CCC and the remainder
was in the Conservation Operations as a line item.
A subsection of §2701 of the 2002 farm bill provided 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 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 the language in the 2002 farm bill had
resolved this issue, and they were supported in this conclusion by a GAO opinion.
The Administration proposed with the FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 budget requests
to address this limit in appropriations by creating a new technical assistance account.
Congress rejected this proposal. In FY2003 and FY2004, Congress prohibited using any of
the discretionary funds from Conservation Operations for technical assistance to implement
any mandatory programs. 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. In P.L. 108-498 (S. 2856), enacted December
23, 2004, Congress required that technical assistance for each mandatory program be paid
from funds provided for that program annually, and that funding for technical assistance
cannot be transferred after FY2004 among the mandatory funded programs.
Other actions related to technical assistance may also attract congressional interest.
First, GAO released a report in November 2004 titled USDA Should Improve Its Methods for
Estimating Technical Assistance Costs
(GAO-05-58). This assessment may contribute to
discussions about the cost of providing technical assistance, which critics state is too high
and reduces the amount of money that goes to program participants. Second, in February
2005, NRCS announced new policy guidance for technical assistance that will establish
national priorities. For the current year, national priorities center on helping producers
comply more easily with environmental regulatory requirements. Third, in September 2005,
NRCS announced that it would initiate a new pilot program for conservation planning in 9
states, using a land-owner self assessment process. This assessment process appears to
mimic the process used by producers who wish to participate in the CSP.
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
and FSA. Other USDA agencies who make significant contributions to the conservation
effort include the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the
CRS-7

IB96030
01-17-06
Forest Service. Also, 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 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.
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. GAO 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.
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). (USDA 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
CRS-8

IB96030
01-17-06
compliance. Certain private nonprofit organizations can compete for these funds. Eligible
lands must be subject to a pending offer. Through FY2004, almost $265 million had been
obligated to acquire 870 easements on almost 178,000 acres in 37 states. An additional 959
easements are pending on more than 209,000 acres in every state. States where the most
funds have been obligated include Maryland ($17.7 million), Pennsylvania ($15.8 million),
and New Jersey ($15.5 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 at least five years. Through FY2004, more than 2.8 million acres have
been enrolled. In FY2004, 3,012 contracts were signed, affecting about 432,000 acres.

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. Emergency programs are implemented
most years in response to natural disasters that have occurred. In the wake of a very busy
hurricane season, and especially Hurricane Katrina, Congress provided $300 million to the
Emergency Watershed Program, and $199.8 million to the emergency Conservation Program
in Division B, Title I of FY2006 Defense Appropriations (P.L. 109-148, enacted December
30, 2005). It also created a new emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program,
modeled after the CRP, and appropriated $404 million to this effort.
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 occurrences that
drive public interest and concern range from a very large hog farm waste spill in North
Carolina to the Pfiesteria outbreak 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
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.
EPA and USDA announced a final revised rule for managing nutrient wastes from
animal feeding operations, as required under court order, on December 12, 2002. Large
operators are required to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans while smaller
operators are encouraged to develop them after April 14, 2003. Farm interests were generally
pleased because it affects fewer producers and cost less when compared with earlier
CRS-9

IB96030
01-17-06
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, and EPA delayed 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 (subsequent amendments limit
conservation funding to $14 million annually);
! 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. The framework discusses how USDA can help
producers meet environmental regulatory requirements and promote new opportunities while
sharing knowledge and increasing accountability.
The 108th Congress did enact legislation (P.L. 108-328) authorizing funding for the New
York City Watershed Protection Program through FY2010. This program funds conservation
practices on farms in watersheds that provide drinking water to New York City to maintain
a level of water quality that precludes the need to build a new water treatment plant.
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 and $23.5 million in FY2005.
CRS-10

IB96030
01-17-06
Grasslands Reserve Program. Section 2401 of the 2002 farm bill authorizes this
new program to retire 2 million acres under arrangements ranging from 10-year agreements
to permanent easements, permits the delegation of easements to certain private organizations
and state agencies, and provides up to $254 million in mandatory funding. The first national
signup, in FY2003, placed more than 240,000 acres under contract. For FY2004, the
Department issued an interim final rule on May 11, 2004, that guided enrollment of 283,000
acres under 1,055 contracts; an additional 9,000 applications were processed, including at
least one in every state. All the authorized funding was spent by the end of FY2005.
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. USDA and EPA cooperate under a Memorandum of
Agreement signed in January 1998. More recently, federal agencies have been discussing
how agricultural practices and programs affect global warming, especially by sequestering
carbon. On March 23, 2005, USDA announced that NRCS and the National Forest Service
would start to track the amount of carbon that farmers would be sequestering. The 2002
farm bill did not amend air quality provisions. (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.
! 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 to 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 may not be used to purchase or lease water rights.
CRS-11

IB96030
01-17-06
! 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. A final rule and request for FY2005 proposals was
published in the January 11, 2005 FR.
Conservation Partnership Initiative. A call for FY2004 proposals was issued in
the July 24, 2004 FR, and a call for FY2005 proposals was issued in the December 17, 2004
FR.

Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program. June 29, 2002 FR contains
proposed rule. November 12, 2003 FR contains final rule.
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. FSA announced three new initiatives
and called for responses to 10 questions about the future of CRP in an August 4, 2004 FR
announcement.
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.
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.
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). 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.
CRS-12

IB96030
01-17-06
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.
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.
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. A final rule was published in the November 11, 2004 FR.
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 Funding
FY2006 Appropriations (P.L. 109-97). Conservation spending combines
discretionary spending in five accounts (all administered by NRCS) and mandatory funding
for a dozen programs through the Commodity Credit Corporation. (This excludes emergency
conservation programs, discussed above, that are almost always funded in supplemental
appropriations legislation.) The enacted legislation provides more funds for discretionary
programs ($1,004.2 million) than either the Senate bill ($964.0 million) or the House bill
($939.8 million). This amount is also a small increase from the FY2005 appropriation
($991.9 million) and a substantial increase from the Administration’s FY2006 request
($814.4 million). Congress rejected many of the Administration’s proposed reductions from
FY2005 funding for discretionary programs. This law also reduces funding for selected
mandatory conservation programs, and with these reductions, total mandatory funding will
decline slightly from $3.805 billion in FY2005 to $3.729 billion in FY2006.
Discretionary Programs. For the largest program, Conservation Operations, the
law provides $839.5 million, which is higher than both the Senate bill ($819.6 million) and
the House bill ($773.6 million). It is also more than the FY2005 appropriation ($830.7
million) and much more than the Administration request ($767.8 million). The reduction
CRS-13

IB96030
01-17-06
requested by the Administration was based on a decision not to fund earmarks, which totaled
more than $122 million in FY2005 and would have saved an estimated $114.3 million in
FY2006. However, Congress rejected this proposal and again identified numerous earmarks.
The Secretary is to report to the appropriations committees by July 1, 2006, on any projects
or activities earmarked in this law for which funds have not been obligated. The law does
not allocate any funds to assist producers in meeting regulatory requirements, as called for
in both the Administration request and the House bill.
Among the other discretionary programs, the law provides $75 million for Watershed
and Flood Prevention Operations, which is $15 million more than provided in the House and
Senate bills and the same as the FY2005 appropriation, but $75 million more than the
Administration had requested. It limits spending on technical assistance to $30 million of
this total. For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the law provides $6.1 million, which is less
than the House and last year’s appropriation ($7.0 million) but more than the Senate ($5.1
million). The law provides $31.6 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which
is more than the Senate provided ($27.3 million) and the Administration had requested
($15.1 million), but less than the House provided ($47.0 million). The law provides $51.3
million for the Resource Conservation and Development Program, which is nearly identical
to funding in the Senate ($51.2 million) and the House ($51.4 million). These amounts are
substantially more than the Administration request of $25.6 million.
In one major change from the Administration’s request, Congress included numerous
priority projects using funds from the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations account,
but does not earmark specific amounts. The Administration had asserted that elimination of
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations would allow resources to be redirected to other
priority “regulatory challenges.” In a second major change from the request, Congress
rejected the proposed reduction to the RC&D account that would have been based on a new
policy to phase out federal support to RC&D councils after they had received federal funds
for 20 years. Of the 375 councils, 189 (50%) would have lost funding under this proposal.
The conference committee report includes language from the House committee report stating
that changes in funding policy for this program should be based on “effectiveness and
performance” rather than on the age of councils.
Mandatory Programs. Overall funding for the suite of mandatory conservation
programs will decline slightly from FY2005. Specific reductions are listed in Table 1 on the
next page. The law places no funding or enrollment limits on the largest of these programs,
the CRP, so program spending is estimated to increase by $79 million to $2.021 billion in
FY2006. All the mandatory programs have authorized dollar or acreage limits either
annually or for the life of the authorization, so changes in funding should be compared with
these limits, which can change from year to year. One large reduction from FY2005, for the
Grasslands Reserve Program from $128 million to $0 in FY2006, reflects the allocation of
the entire $254 million authorized in the FY2002 farm bill by the end of FY2005. The
largest reductions are EQIP, authorized at $1.2 billion but slated to receive $1.017 billion in
FY2006, and the WRP, authorized to enroll 250,000 acres but limited to 150,000 acres. By
contrast, the largest increases from FY2005 are the CRP (up $79 million) and the CSP (up
$56 million). Although the CSP increases, CBO had estimated in its January 2005 baseline
that it would grow by $254 million in FY2006, rather than this smaller amount, so program
supporters probably view this increase as a large reduction from the higher estimated level.
CRS-14

IB96030
01-17-06
The law also provides $2.5 million to initiate a new 2 million acre land retirement
program authorized in forestry legislation, the Healthy Forest Reserve. This program
reportedly will be administered by NRCS. (For more information on authorized funding
levels annually for the mandatory conservation programs and reductions, see CRS Report
RS22243, Mandatory Funding for Agriculture Conservation Programs. For a more detailed
review of FY2006 appropriations, see CRS Report RL32904, Agriculture and Related
Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations
.)
Final funding levels in FY2006 still may be affected by: (1) supplemental appropriations
to address emergencies (especially hurricane-related disaster relief); (2) rescissions to offset
the emergency costs; and (3) reconciliation to limit spending in future years.
Table 1. Changes in Mandatory Conservation Programs
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Enacted
Authorizatio
House bill:
Senate bill:
Program
Enacted
(P.L. 108-447): n under 2002
Allowed
Allowed
(P.L. 109-97)
Allowed Level
Farm Bill*
Level
Level
Environmental Quality
$1.017 billion $1.200 billion $1.052 billion $1.017 billion $1.017 billion
Incentives Program
Conservation Security
$202.4 million
$331 million
$245 million
$331 million
$259 million
Program
Wildlife Habitat
$47 million
$85 million
$43 million
$47 million
$43 million
Incentives Program
Wetlands Reserve
154,500 acres
250,000 acres 154,500 acres 150,000 acres 150,000 acres
Program
Farm and Ranch
$112 million
$100 million
$73.5 million
$100 million
$73.5 million
Lands Protection
Program
Ground and Surface
$51 million
$60 million
$51 million
$51 million
$51 million
Water
Small Watershed
$0
$210 million
$0
$0
$0
Rehab. Program
Ag. Management
$14
$20 million
$6 million**
$20 million
$6 million
Assistance
* Figures in the FY2006 authorized column represent how much would be available under current law, including the
carryover of unobligated balances from prior years, had no restrictions been placed.
** Under this program, as amended, $14 million of the total goes to NRCS, and that would not be funded; the remaining
$6 million, which goes to RMA and AMS, would be fully funded.
FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations. Congress provided additional funds to
emergency programs to respond to hurricane damage which occurred during calendar year
2005 in Division B of P.L. 109-148, the FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations,
signed into law on December 30, 2005. In title I of Division B, Congress provided, subject
to a 1% across the board rescission, $199.8 million to the Emergency Conservation Program
and $300 million to the Emergency Watershed Program. Congress did not provide any
CRS-15

IB96030
01-17-06
instructions as to how these funds should be allocated among eligible states. Congress
stipulated that all Emergency Watershed recipients must pay at least 25% of the costs,
meaning no recipient could be eligible for a higher federal cost share, which the Secretary
could have otherwise provided under certain circumstances. It also specified that funds may
be used “to remove and dispose of debris and carcasses....”
Congress also created a new Emergency Forestry Conservation Program for the same
locations, and funded it at $404.1 million. This program appears to be modeled after the
CRP as it would retire land under 10-year contracts to reduce erosion and reestablish timber
stands. The Department has yet to announce which agency will administer this program,
although that should occur soon as regulations are to be issued within 90 days of enactment.
FY2006 Rescissions. In Title III of Division B, Congress partially offset disaster
authorizations. The Administration had proposed rescissions totaling $2.3 billion from
“lower-priority federal programs and excess funds” in FY2006 funding on October 31, 2005.
Under this proposal, programs in the Department of Agriculture would contribute $641
million to this effort, with $10 million coming from unobligated balances in the
Conservation Operations account. Congress enacted the Conservation Operations
component.
FY2006 Budget Reconciliation. During the week of December 18, both the House
and Senate approved a conference agreement on budget reconciliation. However, the Senate
made small changes in non-agricultural areas that will require House approval when it
returns for the second session. The agriculture committees had been instructed to reduce
funding by $173 million in FY2006, and a total of $3.0 billion between FY2006 and
FY2010. The agreement reduces gross spending by $532 million in FY2007 and $3.7 billion
overall, and net spending by a total of $99 million in FY2006 and $2.7 billion overall.
Conservation programs contribute $934 million (25% of the gross amount and 34% of the
net amount). More specifically, this agreement reduces the cap on CSP funding in future
years (a savings of $649 million) while reauthorizing it through FY2011, limits EQIP to
$1.275 billion annually from FY2007 through FY2009 (a savings of $75 million) while
reauthorizing it through FY2010, and cancels unspent prior year funding for the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program (a savings of $210 million). For more information on the
reconciliation, see CRS Report RS22086, Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation,
by Ralph M. Chite.
2007 Farm Bill
Many interests are starting to discuss what provisions might be considered for a farm
bill in 2007. Coalitions are forming and groups are developing their priorities and positions.
Farm bill considerations are in the formative stages in Congress, however, and there is little
specific on which to usefully comment at this time. As a possible prelude to farm bill
discussions, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation,
and Rural Revitalization held hearings on endangered species and on the CRP on July 26 and
27, respectively. The House Agriculture Committee is reportedly planning to hold initial
field hearings on the farm bill soon.
CRS-16

IB96030
01-17-06
LEGISLATION
Bills will be listed in this section only after the 109th Congress takes some action beyond
introduction.
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-17