Order Code RS22243
Updated March 17, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Mandatory Funding for Agriculture
Conservation Programs
Jeffrey A. Zinn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized large increases in
mandatory funding for several agricultural conservation programs. Since FY2002,
Congress has acted, through the appropriations process, to limit funding for some of
these programs below authorized levels. It limited total funding for all these programs
to 97.6% of the authorized total, declining annually to 87.3% in FY2006. Program
supporters decry these growing reductions as changes that increasingly compromise the
intent of the farm bill. Others counter that, even with these reductions, funding for these
programs continues to grow, from almost $3.1 billion in FY2003 to almost $3.8 billion
in FY2006. This report reviews the funding history of these programs since the 2002
farm bill was enacted. It will be updated periodically.
Introduction
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) authorized
increased mandatory funding for agriculture conservation programs. Mandatory funding
means that the amount authorized by Congress is available unless limited to smaller
amounts in the appropriations process; if appropriators do not act, the amount that was
authorized is provided to the program. These mandatory funds are provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation, a financing institution for
many agriculture programs, including commodity programs and export subsidies.
While most conservation programs currently are authorized using mandatory
funding, discretionary funding is used for six conservation programs. For discretionary
programs, appropriators decide how much funding to provide each year in the annual
agriculture appropriations bill, subject to any maximum limit set in law. Conservation
program advocates prefer mandatory funding over discretionary funding. They believe
that it is generally easier to protect authorized mandatory funding levels from reductions
during the appropriations process than to secure appropriations each year. However, since
FY2002, Congress has limited funding for some of the mandatory programs each year
below authorized levels in annual appropriations acts. Advocates for these programs
decry these reductions as significant changes from the intent of the farm bill. They
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
contend that such reductions compromise the ability of these programs to provide the
magnitude of benefits to producers and the environment that were anticipated. Others,
including those interested in reducing agricultural expenditures or in spending these funds
for other agricultural purposes, counter that, even with these reductions, overall funding
is substantially higher and continues to increase.
Mandatory Conservation Funding Before 2002
Congress provided mandatory funding for selected conservation programs for the
first time in the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127).1 Prior to 1996, all conservation programs
had been funded as discretionary programs. Conservation program advocates viewed
mandatory funding as a much more desirable approach, and Congress agreed, enacting
provisions that moved some conservation programs from discretionary to mandatory
funding. Some of these advocates viewed this change in funding as a major achievement
in the 1996 farm bill. Amounts authorized for these programs may seem modest when
compared with today’s levels. Programs funded using mandatory funding, and the
authorized levels under the 1996 law, were:
! Conservation Reserve Program (a maximum of 36.4 million acres at any
time through FY2002, with no dollar amount specified);
! Wetland Reserve Program (a maximum of 975,000 acres at any time
through FY2002, with no dollar amount specified);
! Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($130 million in FY1996, and
$200 million annually thereafter through FY2002);
! Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (a total of $50 million between
FY1996 and FY2002);
! Farmland Protection Program (a total of $35 million with no time span
specified); and
! Conservation Farm Option ($7.5 million in FY1997, increasing each year
to a high of $62.5 million in FY2002).
The 2002 Farm Bill
The 2002 farm bill greatly expanded mandatory funding for conservation,
authorizing the annual funding levels shown in Table 1. Mandatory funding was
provided both for expiring programs that were reauthorized and for new programs created
in this legislation. This increase in authorized funding levels was widely endorsed for
many reasons. Many supporters of conservation long had been seeking higher funding
levels, and this was another significant step in that effort. An argument that proved to be
particularly persuasive in this farm bill debate was documentation of large backlogs of
producer interest to enroll in many conservation programs. Demand to participate in
some of these programs exceeded the available program dollars several times over, and
some Members reasoned that higher funding was warranted to satisfy this demand.
Funding for FY2002 is not included in the table as the FY2002 appropriations
legislation was enacted on November 28, 2001, six months before the 2002 farm bill.
Program funding decisions had to be based on provisions that had been enacted in the
1 The one exception to this statement is that the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198) authorized
mandatory funding for the Conservation Reserve Program in FY1986 and FY1987.

---

CRS-3
1996 farm bill. Indeed, by the time this farm bill was enacted, the process of determining
FY2003 appropriations was well along.2 Notwithstanding the date of enactment, the 2002
farm bill did authorize money in FY2002 for several mandatory programs.
Spending Limits on Mandatory Appropriations Since FY2002
Since FY2002, the annual agriculture appropriations acts have capped funding for
some of the mandatory conservation programs below authorized levels each year. The
programs that are limited and the amounts of the limitations change from year to year.
One of these programs, the Wetland Reserve Program, has been capped in enrolled acres,
which appropriators translate into savings, based on average enrollment costs. Table 1
compares the authorized spending level for each of these programs with the amount that
Congress actually provided through the appropriations process. Table 1 does not include
any mandatory conservation programs enacted since the 2002 farm bill, including the
Conservation Reserve Program Technical Assistance Account (enacted in P.L. 108-498),
the Healthy Forest Reserve (enacted in P.L. 108-148), and the Emergency Forestry
Conservation Reserve Program (enacted in P.L. 109-148).
Many of these spending reductions originate in the Administration’s budget request.
Since the farm bill states that the Secretary “shall” spend the authorized amounts for each
program each year, Congress must act to limit spending to a lesser amount. The mix of
programs and amounts of reduction in the Administration request have varied from year
to year. Congress has concurred with the Administration request some years for some
programs. Starting in FY2003, the requested reductions in mandatory funding below the
authorized levels (shown in the table), are as follows:
! In FY2003, the request was submitted before the farm bill was enacted,
and did not include any requests to reduce funding levels.
! In FY2004, the request was to limit the Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP) to 200,000 acres ($250 million), limit the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) to $850 million, limit the Ground and Surface
Water Program (GSWP) to $51 million, limit the Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program (WHIP) to $42 million, limit the Farmland Protection
Program (FPP) to $112 million, limit the Conservation Security Program
(CSP) to $19 million, and eliminate funding for the Watershed
Rehabilitation and Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA)
Programs.
! In FY2005, the request was to limit the WRP to 200,000 acres ($295
million), EQIP to $985 million, WHIP to $59 million, FPP to $120
million, CSP to $209 million, and eliminate funding for the Watershed
Rehabilitation and AMA Programs.
2 In addition, during the FY2001 appropriations process, Congress had provided one-time
funding to several conservation programs beyond what had been authorized in the 1996 farm bill.
These one-time appropriations were congressional and administration responses to a combination
of forecasts of federal budget surpluses, and high demand to participate in these programs.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Authorized and Actual Funding Levels for Mandatory Conservation Programs, FY2003-FY2007
(all figures in millions) (limited to programs enacted in or amended by provisions in the 2002 farm bill)
Program
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Auth.
Actual
Auth.
Actual
Auth.
Actual
Auth.
Actual
Auth.
Actuala
Conservation Reserve Programb
39.2 mil.
No limit
39.2 mil.
No limit
39.2 mil.
No limit
39.2 mil.
No limit
39.2 mil.
acres
($1,821)
acres
($1,798)
acres
($1,828)
acres
($1,993)
acres
($1,821)
($1,798)
($1,828
($1,993)
($2,187)
Conservation Security Programc
$0
$0
$53
$41
$282
$202
$331 $259
$373h
Environmental Quality Incentive
$700 $695
$1,000 $975
$1,200 $1,017
$1,200 $1,017
$1,270h
Program
Ground and Surface Water
$45 $45
$60 $51
$60 $51
$60 $51
$60
Program
Klamath River Basin Programd
$12
$12
$19
$19
$10
$10
$8
$8
$6
Grasslands Reserve Programe
$38
$38
$57
$57
$128
$128
$54
$54
$0
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
$30 $30
$60 $42
$85 $46
$85 $43
$85
Farmland Protection Program
$100 $100
$125 $112
$125 $112
$100 $74
$97
Wetlands Reserve Programb
250,000
245,833
250,000
189,144
250,000
154,500
250,000
150,000
250,000
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
($314)
($309)
($354)
($285)
($344)
($275)
($392)
($250)
($403)
Agriculture Management Assistance
$20 $1
$14 $14
$14 $14
$14
$5
$14
Programf
Watershed Rehabilitation Programg
$45 $0
$50 $0 $55 $0 $60 $0
$65
i
Biomass Program
$14
$14
$14
$14
$14
$14
$14
0
TOTAL (% of total authorized that
$3,139
$3,065
$3,604
$3,357
$4,145
$3,697
$4,311
$3,759
$4,560
was provided)
(97.6%)
(93.1%)
(89.2%)
(87.23%
)
a. These amounts will be filled in after appropriations legislation for these fiscal years is enacted.
b. Information in the appropriations process uses acres rather than dollars; costs are estimated based on enrolled acres during fiscal year. FY2006 and FY2007 are CBO estimates,
and do not include the Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program, estimated to spend $21 million in FY2006 and $110 million in FY2007.
c. Since this is a capped entitlement for total spending over 10 years, the authorized amounts are CBO estimates of spending.
d. Funding for this program is specified as $50 million, to be made available “as soon as practicable after the date of enactment.”
e. Program has both total spending and total acreage limits, without specifying any annual levels for either funding or enrollment.
f. Program amended in FY2004 appropriations making $14 million available for conservation annually, with the remainder available for other purposes.
g. Program also is authorized to receive discretionary funding through annual appropriations.
h. Authorized amounts reduced to these levels by Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-148) and, for CSP, by lower funding levels in earlier years.
i. Program will be transferred to Rural Development by March 1, 2006.

---

CRS-5
! In FY2006, the request was to limit the WRP to 200,000 acres ($321
million), EQIP to $1.0 billion, WHIP to $60 million, FPP to $84 million,
Biomass Research and Development to $12 million, CSP to $274 million,
and eliminate funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation and AMA
Programs.
! In FY2007, the request is to limit EQIP to $1.0 billion, GSWP to $51
million, WHIP to $55 million, FPP to $50 million, Biomass Research and
Development to $12 million, CSP to $342 million, and eliminate funding
for the Watershed Rehabilitation and AMA Programs.
Discussion
While Congress has reduced funding for some of these mandatory conservation
programs, either in support of an Administration request or on its own, the reductions first
exceeded 10% of the total in FY2005. However, the gap between authorized levels and
actual amounts continues to rise each year, both as a percentage and in dollars. As a
percentage, it has declined from 97.6% of the total authorized amount in FY2003 to 87.3%
in FY2006. Even with these reductions, however, actual total funding has risen almost
$720 million over the same four-year time period, which is an increase of almost 25% from
the FY2003 authorization.3
Reductions have not been uniform among programs. The largest mandatory program,
the CRP, has not been limited in any way by appropriators since the 2002 farm bill was
enacted. The second-largest program, EQIP, has absorbed the largest reductions from
authorized levels, totaling $396 million between FY2003 and FY2006. Funding for a third
program, the CSP, has been amended four times since 2002. As initially enacted, it was
the first true conservation entitlement program, that is, any individual who met the
eligibility requirements would be accepted into the program. Congress has capped CSP and
then repeatedly reduced the cap to fund other activities, usually disaster assistance.
More generally, the table shows that these reductions have varied from year to year
and program to program since 2002. At one extreme, the Watershed Rehabilitation
Program has received no mandatory funding in any year (it is one of the five conservation
programs authorized to receive discretionary appropriations as well, and those have been
provided), and at the other extreme, the CRP has not been limited in any way. Some of the
programs have unusual characteristics which affect how they are treated for budget
purposes, as noted in the table footnotes. For example, the Grasslands Reserve and
Klamath River Basin Programs each have a total authorized level that is not subdivided by
fiscal year in the authorizing legislation. For those programs, the amount that was spent
each year (not the remaining lifetime authorization) is included for purposes of calculating
the percentage by which funding is reduced.
As a result of the many variations in how these programs are authorized (some in acres
and others in dollars, and some as a total amount and others by year), there are several
alternative ways to calculate the annual and total reduction from the authorized level.
3 If the full authorized amount had been provided in FY2006, the increase would have been more
than 35% from the FY2003 authorized amount.

---

CRS-6
However, all of these calculations lead to the same general set of observations. First,
overall funding for the suite of mandatory agriculture conservation programs has been
reduced each year. Second, the magnitude by which this suite of programs is being reduced
has been growing each year. Third, these reductions may still be significant to current or
potential beneficiaries of those program. Fourth, even with these reductions, overall
funding for the group of mandatory programs has continues to rise. Finally, funding for the
discretionary agricultural conservation programs varies more from year to year, with much
larger percentage reductions than the mandatory programs in some years. Greater variation
in funding for discretionary programs supports the view of conservation proponents that
using the mandatory approach has been a more successful and predictable approach to
conservation program funding in recent years. ( For more information on each of these
programs, see CRS Report RL32940, Agriculture Conservation Programs: A Scorecard.)

Concluding Observations
When considering whether reductions in mandatory funding for conservation
programs are compromising the conservation effort, three points should be considered.
First, one measure of how conservation funding is viewed in relation to other agriculture
funding was demonstrated through the FY2006 reconciliation process. The agriculture
committees were initially required to reduce total funding for USDA mandatory programs
by $3.0 billion over five years, including a reduction of $176 million in FY2006.
Conservation provided $934 million of those savings, with no reductions for FY2006. This
amount is about 25% of the total reduction that was enacted, $3.7 billion over five years.
These savings came from lowering caps on spending for CSP and EQIP in future years
(which also required authorizing them beyond 2007), and eliminating unspent funds for the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program that had been carried over from earlier years. Part of
the debate over these reduction is whether conservation is being asked to bear a
disproportionate share of these reductions. (For more information on reconciliation, see
CRS Report RS22086, Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation.)
Second, it appears highly likely that reductions to mandatory program spending at the
current scale will continue. Reductions have been in every administration request and
annual appropriations bill since FY2003. It is less certain, however, whether these
reductions will continue to grow, as a percentage of the total. Future change will depend
both specifically on congressional support for conservation, and on broader pressures that
influence federal spending in general. It also is likely that the affected programs and the
magnitude of the reductions will continue to vary from year to year, making it difficult to
forecast the future based on the past.
Third, supporters of conservation programs may look for ways to address the challenge
of spending reductions in the next farm bill. However, several broader forces may make
it more difficult to authorize higher funding levels or to protect current funding levels for
these conservation programs. One force may be broader efforts to control federal spending.
A second force may be competition among the various agriculture constituencies for limited
funds; the FY2006 reconciliation process provided an indication of how Congress will treat
conservation when it must make decisions based on this competition. A third force may
be limits on the capacity of federal conservation agencies at current staffing levels and with
the current approaches, to plan and install all the conservation practices that additional
funding would support, and it seems more likely that increasing staff levels in federal
agencies to provide more conservation will not be an option.

---