Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP): Status and Issues
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
July 8, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40197
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Summary
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary program that provides
farmers with financial and technical assistance to plan and implement soil and water conservation
practices. EQIP is the largest agriculture conservation financial assistance program for working
lands. EQIP was first authorized in 1996 and was most recently revised by Section 2501 of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, the 2008 farm bill). It is a mandatory
spending program (i.e., not subject to annual appropriations) and is administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Funding
is currently authorized to grow to $1.75 billion in FY2012. Eligible land includes cropland,
rangeland, pasture, non-industrial private forestland, and other land on which resource concerns
related to agricultural production could be addressed through an EQIP contract.
With the 111th Congress facing tighter budget constraints, EQIP could face similar challenges
with a potential reduction in mandatory funding levels and a continuing backlog of unfunded
applications. A change in income limitations along with a new waiver created in the 2008 farm
bill could also raise issues for the program. EQIP will also continue to face challenges in
measuring environmental and program accomplishments.
Congressional Research Service
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Contents
Program Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1
Eligibility and Program Requirements ................................................................................... 2
Program Funding .................................................................................................................. 3
Subprograms......................................................................................................................... 5
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program....................................................................... 5
Conservation Innovation Grants ...................................................................................... 5
Selected Issues ............................................................................................................................ 6
Mandatory Funding Levels.................................................................................................... 6
Child Nutrition Funding ........................................................................................................ 6
Unfunded Application Backlog ............................................................................................. 7
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Waiver ................................................................................... 8
Measuring EQIP Accomplishments ....................................................................................... 9
Figures
Figure 1. EQIP Funding and Reductions, FY1997-FY2012.......................................................... 4
Tables
Table 1. Four Largest EQIP Allocation Recipient States, FY2004-FY2008 .................................. 4
Table 2. Conservation Innovation Grant Funding and Projects, FY2004-FY2009......................... 6
Table 3. EQIP Funded and Unfunded Applications and Funds Obligated ..................................... 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Program Overview
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary program that provides
technical and financial assistance to eligible agricultural producers who wish to implement soil
and water conservation practices. The purpose of EQIP is to promote agriculture production,
forestry management, and environmental quality as compatible goals, and to optimize
environmental benefits. EQIP was originally authorized in the 1996 farm bill1 as an amendment
to the 1985 farm bill.2 EQIP replaced four conservation programs repealed in the same law. These
were the Great Plains Conservation Program, the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Water
Quality Incentives Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
EQIP is the largest agriculture conservation program for working lands.3 The program encourages
farmers and ranchers to participate in conservation efforts by paying a portion of the cost of
installing or constructing approved conservation practices. Eligible producers enter into EQIP
contracts to receive payment for implementing conservation practices. Approved activities are
carried out according to an EQIP plan developed in conjunction with the producer that identifies
the appropriate conservation practice or practices to address resource concerns on the land.
EQIP was amended and reauthorized in both the 2002 and 2008 farm bills.4 The U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers EQIP under a final
rule.5 NRCS implemented EQIP by establishing national priorities to reflect the most pressing
natural resource needs and emphasize offsite benefits to the environment. The current national
priorities, set in 2006 by NRCS, are as follows:
• reduction of nonpoint source pollutants in impaired watersheds (consistent with
total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs);6
• conservation of ground and surface water resources;
• reduction of emissions that contribute to air quality impairment violations of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards;
• reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on
agricultural land; and
• promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation.
1 Section 334 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127, 16 U.S.C. 3839aa.
2 Sections 1240-1240I of the Food Security Act of 1985, P.L. 99-198.
3 Working lands conservation programs are typically classified as programs that allow private land to remain in
production, while implementing various conservation practices to address natural resource concerns specific to the area.
Other conservation programs retire land from production or place restrictive easements on the land.
4 Section 2301 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 107-171, and Section 2501 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246.
5 USDA, NRCS, “Environmental Quality Incentives Program,” 74 Federal Register 2293, January 15, 2009, amended
by USDA, NRCS, “Environmental Quality Incentives Program Correction,” 74 Federal Register 10674, March 12,
2009.
6 For more information on TMDLs, see CRS Report 97-831, Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) of Pollutants, by Claudia Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
1
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Eligibility and Program Requirements
Producers with eligible land7 can submit an EQIP plan that describes the conservation and
environmental purposes that will be achieved using one or more USDA-approved conservation
practices. USDA-approved conservation practices may involve structures, vegetation, or land
management. Structural practices include the establishment, construction, or installation of
measures designed for specific sites, such as animal waste management facilities, livestock water
developments, and capping abandoned wells. Vegetative practices involve introduction or
modification of plantings, such as filter strips or trees. Land management practices require site-
specific management techniques and methods, such as nutrient management, irrigation water
management, or grazing management.
Producers can receive technical assistance to develop an EQIP plan and, after approval, to
implement the plan. Decisions about which plans to fund are made by USDA at the state level,
with local input. Applications are accepted and ranked throughout the year within each state.
Applications are grouped with similar crop, forestry, and livestock operation applications and
evaluated within the groups. Additional funding groups may be created to rank applications based
on similar resource objectives, geographic area, or type of agricultural operation. After an
application is selected and approved, USDA provides payments to help the producer offset the
cost of each practice, as well as income forgone relating to that practice implementation.
Participants are eligible to receive payments for both constructing structures and implementing
land management practices. Of the total annual EQIP spending, 60% is allocated to livestock
practices.
Under an EQIP contract, USDA pays up to 75% of the projected costs associated with planning,
design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training, or up to
100% of the estimated income forgone to implement certain conservation practices. This payment
rate can be higher for limited-resource, socially disadvantaged, or beginning farmers and
ranchers,8 provided this increase does not exceed 90% of practice costs. Initial payments are
made in the year in which the contract is signed, but most payments are made after the practices
are completed.
Contracts have a term of one to ten years and payments are limited by direct attribution to
individuals or entities.9 Total payments a person or entity can receive over any six-year period are
limited to $300,000, except for projects having special environmental significance, which are
limited to $450,000 over any six-year period. Individuals or entities with an average annual non-
7 Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, pasture, non-industrial private forestland, and other land on which
resource concerns related to agricultural production could be addressed through an EQIP contract.
8 USDA combines these three groups and refers to them as “historically underserved producers.” A limited resource
producer or rancher is defined as having direct or indirect gross farm sales of less than $155,200 in each of the previous
two years (adjusted for inflation) and a total household income at or below the national poverty level, or less than 50%
of county median household income in the previous two years. A beginning farmer or rancher is defined as having
farmed for less than 10 consecutive years. Socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers are defined as having been
subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual
qualities. Previously, USDA included gender prejudice in the definition of a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher;
however, changes in the 2008 farm bill removed gender from the definition, as it applies to conservation programs.
9 Direct attribution means that payments must be directly attributed to a living person. If the person is part of a larger
business entity then payments must be directly attributed to that person based on ownership shares in the entity.
Individual people may receive EQIP payments through any number of contracts or ownership arrangement of farms,
but the total amount of payments attributed to each living person may not exceed the statutory limits.
Congressional Research Service
2
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
farm adjusted gross income (AGI) of $1 million or more for the three years prior to the contract
period are ineligible unless they received at least two-thirds of their AGI from farming, ranching,
or forestry. The 2008 farm bill created a case-by-case waiver to the AGI limitation for
conservation programs (discussed in more detail in the “Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Waiver”
section below).
Program Funding
The 1996 farm bill authorized EQIP funding of $130 million in FY1996 and $200 million
annually from FY1997 through FY2002. The 2002 farm bill significantly increased the annual
authorized funding level incrementally from $400 million in FY2002 to $1.3 billion in FY2007.
EQIP funding levels were revised in Section 1203 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
171) to limit funding to $1.27 billion in FY2007, while extending the authorization through
FY2010 and providing $1.27 billion in each of FY2008 and FY2009, and $1.3 billion in FY2010.
The 2008 farm bill further increased the annual authorized funding levels incrementally from
$1.34 billion in FY2009 to $1.75 billion in FY2012. Funding under EQIP is mandatory (not
subject to annual appropriations), and the program receives authorized amounts each year under
the borrowing authority of USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).10 Congress, however,
has limited EQIP funding below authorized levels in every year since FY2005, through annual
appropriations bills. Figure 1 identifies the authorized and actual funding levels for EQIP. The
FY2010 appropriations act (Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, P.L. 111-80) limited EQIP to $1.18 billion for
FY2010—a reduction of $270 million from the authorized level of $1.45 billion in the 2008 farm
bill.11 For FY2011, the Administration has proposed a limit of $1.208 billion—a reduction of
$380 million from the authorized level of $1.588 billion.
Annual funding received for EQIP is allocated to the states by NRCS using a formula based on
national priorities, natural resource need, efficiency and performance measures, and regional
equity.12 The EQIP allocation formula uses 20 weighted factors based on the characteristics of
agriculture and land use and resource considerations. Factors with the largest weights within the
formula include irrigated cropland, non-irrigated cropland, non-federal grazing land, livestock
animal units, cropland eroding above the tolerance level, and impaired rivers and streams.13 States
that receive the largest EQIP allocations have remained consistent from year to year, with Texas,
California, and Colorado receiving the highest levels of funding annually between FY2004 and
FY2008 (most recent information available, see Table 1).
10 The CCC is the funding mechanism for the mandatory payments that are administered by various agencies of USDA.
For EQIP, NRCS provides the staff.
11 For more information, see CRS Report R40721, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations.
12 The regional equity provision was first instituted in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, Sec. 2701) and reauthorized in
the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Sec. 2703). The provision mandates that each state receive annually a minimum
aggregate amount of funding for specified conservation programs. Regional equity affects not only EQIP but also the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the Grassland Reserve Program. The 2008
farm bill increased the minimum level of funding to each state for these combined four conservation programs from
$12 million to $15 million.
13 According to USDA, NRCS, Fiscal Year 2009 Allocation Formulas and Methodologies, Washington, DC, January
2009, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/pdf_files/2009_Allocation_Formulas.pdf. FY2009 is the most recent
information available.
Congressional Research Service
3
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Figure 1. EQIP Funding and Reductions, FY1997-FY2012
($ in millions)
$2,000
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
)
$
(
s
n $1,000
io
ll
Mi
$800
$600
$400
Actual
Authorized
$200
$0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
*2007 **2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Source: CRS, based on historical Agriculture Appropriations Reports.
Note: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), limited EQIP spending to $1 billion in FY2008. This
was $270 million below the authorized level. The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), which was passed after the
appropriations act, authorized EQIP spending at $1.2 billion for FY2008, thereby superseding the appropriations limit
and effectively funding EQIP at its authorized level.
Table 1. Four Largest EQIP Allocation Recipient States, FY2004-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Fiscal
Highest
2nd Highest
3rd Highest
4th Highest
Total
Year
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocations
2004 Texas
California
Colorado
Nebraska
$908,280
$78,566
$62,114
$36,932
$29,600
2005 Texas
California
Colorado
Minnesota
$991,879
$90,007
$62,114
$39,186
$32,924
2006 Texas
California
Colorado
Minnesota
$1,013,277
$91,290
$62,902
$41,200
$32,000
2007 Texas
California
Colorado
Minnesota
$1,004,926
$89,124
$62,090
$40,216
$32,907
2008 Texas
California
Colorado
Minnesota
$1,186,427
$103,425
$66,758
$43,528
$41,687
Source: USDA, NRCS, EQIP Program Information by Fiscal Year, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/.
Notes: FY2004 through FY2007 al ocations in this table represent financial assistance al ocated to states only.
Technical assistance, administrative, and technology costs are not included. FY2008 al ocations include both financial
assistance and technical assistance.
Congressional Research Service
4
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Subprograms
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
One of two subprograms under EQIP is the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP).
The 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2510, P.L. 110-246) created AWEP to promote ground and surface water
conservation and to improve water quality on agricultural lands. The program replaces two
previous water conservation programs: the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program and
the Klamath Basin Program.
Eligible partners or groups14 submit project proposals to conserve ground and surface water or
improve water quality in a specified area. NRCS selects projects based on requirements
established in a Federal Register notice15 and enters into agreements with selected partners. In
FY2009, NRCS approved approximately $58 million for 63 projects in 21 states.16 Once
proposals for specific areas are selected, there are two methods for producers to sign up for an
AWEP contract. Producers may either (1) apply directly to NRCS for approved agricultural water
enhancement activities or (2) apply through the partner or group who submits applications on the
producer’s behalf. Funding is authorized as a separate amount from the general EQIP, at $73
million for each of FY2009 and FY2010, $74 million in FY2011, and $60 million in FY2012 and
each fiscal year thereafter.
Conservation Innovation Grants
The second subprogram under EQIP is the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program,
created in the 2002 farm bill. The program, implemented through EQIP, is intended to leverage
federal investment, stimulate innovative approaches to conservation, and accelerate technology
transfer in environmental protection, agricultural production, and forest management. Examples
of CIG projects include developing market-based approaches in conservation, demonstrating
precision agriculture, capturing nutrients through a community anaerobic digester, and
establishing a tribal partnership for regional habitat conservation.17 The program was reauthorized
in the 2008 farm bill through FY2012 at an unspecified funding level of general EQIP dollars.
NRCS uses its discretion to determine the level of general EQIP funds for CIG and allocates
approximately $15 million for a national competition and up to $5 million for a Chesapeake Bay
watershed competition annually (Table 2). In addition, 32 states conduct, or have conducted, a
state-level CIG competition, which has awarded over $17 million since FY2005.
The 2008 farm bill made some modifications to the CIG program. Previously, grants could not
exceed 50% of the project cost, with nonfederal matching funds provided by the grantee. The
2008 farm bill removed this requirement, though USDA still requires a 50% match of nonfederal
funds.18 Also, the farm bill added an air quality component requiring that payments be made
through CIG to producers to implement practices to address air quality concerns from agricultural
14 An eligible partner or group may be a federally recognized tribe, state, unit of local government, agricultural or
silvicultural association, or other such group of agricultural producers.
15 USDA, NRCS, “Agricultural Water Enhancement Program,” 74 Federal Register 2040, January 14, 2009.
16 For a list of approved FY2009 projects, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/2009projects.html.
17 For additional examples of CIG projects, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cig/.
18 USDA, NRCS, Conservation Innovation Grants Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Announcement for Program Funding,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.912, January 16, 2009, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/cig/pdf_files/Fiscal_Year_2009_Announcement_for_Program_Funding.pdf, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
5
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
operations and to meet federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. This air quality
component is authorized at $37.5 million annually. The highest level of funding for all of CIG
was in FY2006 ($26 million), making the $37.5 million requirement for air quality a potentially
difficult target for the program.
Table 2. Conservation Innovation Grant Funding and Projects, FY2004-FY2009
($ in millions)
Fiscal Year
Total Funding
Number of Projects
2004 $12.6
35
2005 $22.0 105
2006 $25.3 161
2007 $26.0 176
2008 $21.0
95
2009 $18.4
55
Source: USDA, NRCS, CIG Awards From Previous Years, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/cig/index.html.
Selected Issues
EQIP continues to receive widespread support in the farm community and in Congress, as it
remains the major source of financial and technical assistance to help producers implement
conservation practices that address specific resource and environmental problems. During the
111th Congress, several issues may attract congressional interest, including budgetary pressures, a
continuing backlog of unfunded applications, adjusted gross income waivers, and measuring
program accomplishments.
Mandatory Funding Levels
The 2008 farm bill reauthorized EQIP through September 30, 2012, with annual authorized
funding levels of $1.2 billion in FY2008, $1.34 billion in FY2009, $1.45 billion in FY2010,
$1.59 billion in FY2011, and $1.75 billion in FY2012. As shown in Figure 1, the authorized
funding level has continued to increase since the 2002 farm bill; however, annual appropriations
acts have reduced the actual funding levels by a total of nearly $1.6 billion from FY2005 through
FY2010.19 With the 111th Congress facing tighter budget constraints, similar cuts to EQIP could
be considered either in the appropriations process or by the authorizing committee seeking offsets
to fund an increase in another program (see “Child Nutrition Funding”).
Child Nutrition Funding
On March 24, 2010, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry passed and
reported the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The act would reauthorize many of the child
19 Annual appropriations reduce funding for other agriculture mandatory programs as a means of meeting overall
budget targets. The Administration’s FY2011 budget proposal would limit EQIP to $1.208 billion, a reduction of $380
million below the authorized level of $1.588 billion.
Congressional Research Service
6
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
nutrition programs and increase funding by $4.5 billion over the next 10 years. To help meet the
current budgeting requirements, the bill includes a proposed reduction to EQIP as a partial offset
to this increase. The bill would reduce the EQIP authorization to $1.477 billion in FY2011
(currently authorized at $1.588 billion in FY2011) and $1.477 billion in FY2012 (currently
authorized at $1.75 billion in FY2012). Under the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline,
this reduction would provide for an estimated $2.2 billion over the next 10 years.
Most of the concern about the child nutrition bill appears to revolve around the proposed
reduction of EQIP funding to offset the bill’s funding increases. Supporters of the offset point to
the reduction as a way for the authorizing committee to do what the appropriations committee has
been doing for years and utilize the offsets elsewhere. Others counter that a reduction of EQIP’s
funding authority—while still an increase over previous levels—will not make the program
immune from further cuts by appropriators. Some also point to the impact that a reduction will
have in determining baseline funding for future farm bill debates.20
The popularity of EQIP and its backlog of unfunded applications has been cited as a reason not to
reduce its funding authority but rather to look to other programs for possible offsets. An
amendment by Senator Chambliss was offered at the March 24, 2010, committee markup, which
proposed to reduce authorized acres under the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) rather
than authorized funding under EQIP. The amendment received support from both political parties;
however, it failed to pass by a margin of one vote (11-10). Those opposed to the amendment cited
concerns that a reduction in CSP authorized acres could reduce the farm bill baseline more than a
reduction to EQIP.
On July 1, 2010, the Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing on H.R. 5504, Improving
Nutrition for America’s Children Act. The act would increase funding by $8 billion over the next
10 years, but does not offer an offset for the increase. In the House, unlike the Senate, the
Committee on Education and Labor has jurisdiction over nutrition programs, while any offsets
from farm bill programs, such as EQIP, are under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on
Agriculture. Based on comments from Representative Collin Peterson, chairman of the House
Committee on Agriculture, it seems unlikely that EQIP budget authority would be used to offset
the proposed increase in H.R. 5504.21 As this bill moves forward, additional debate on offset
alternatives is expected.
Unfunded Application Backlog
A main justification for the large funding increase in the 2002 farm bill was to respond to a large
backlog of producer demand that had been documented during the farm bill debate. Despite this
increase in funding, the number of pending applications continues to exceed the amount of
available funding (see Table 3). Although this gap now constitutes a smaller portion of
applications, it is still an issue for many producers who seek environmental assistance and are
continuously denied funding due to budgetary constraints.22 Many conservation groups worry that
20 As with all federal programs, the farm bill debate is influenced by budgetary constraints imposed by Congress. The
baseline establishes how much authorizers may spend on a bill without having to seek offsets elsewhere. Calculating
the baseline assumes a continuation of current policies under expected economic conditions, therefore any reduction in
farm bill program funding would affect the baseline estimates in future years.
21 Jerry Hagstrom, “Peterson: No Offset From Environmental Program,” National Journal, Congress Daily, April 16,
2010.
22 At the conclusion of FY2009, states with the highest total of unfunded applications were Oklahoma (4,063), Texas
(3,944), California (3,853), Nebraska (2,814), and Georgia (2,516).
Congressional Research Service
7
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
this could deter producers from applying and enrolling in the program. This issue will likely
intensify if annual appropriations continue to reduce actual funding or if funding is reduced to
offset additional funding for other programs.
Table 3. EQIP Funded and Unfunded Applications and Funds Obligated
Fiscal Total Applications Total Applications
Percentage of
Funds Obligated (Financial
Year
Funded
Unfunded
Applications Funded
Assistance, $ in millions)
2000 16,249
37,712
30%
$139,606
2001 17,648
29,777
37%
$160,123
2002 19,817
70,495
22%
$322,193
2003 30,251
174,062
15%
$483,484
2004 46,413
135,394
26%
$718,150
2005 49,406
32,708
60%
$794,261
2006 41,190
32,633
56%
$787,968
2007 41,700
40,535
51%
$784,186
2008 48,116
23,803
67%
$924,221
2009 31,960
54,329
37%
$976,196
Source: USDA, NRCS, EQIP Contract and Funding Information, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/.
One reason why higher funding has not resulted in the elimination of the backlog is that the
average contract size has grown since the 2002 farm bill. The average cost of an EQIP contract
has more than doubled from almost $7,800 per contract prior to 2002 to over $16,000 per contract
since 2002.23 One reason for this increase could be the higher funding cap established in the 2002
farm bill that allowed large-scale livestock operations to fund waste management facilities and
allowed the installation of more expensive conservation practices. According to NRCS, between
1997 and 2007, the top practice by cumulative cost-share dollars was waste storage facilities,
which totaled $486 million over the ten-year period.24 Though the 2008 farm bill lowered the
payment limitation to $300,000 over any six-year period, the average contract is still considerably
less ($16,000) than the limit. This will continue to be an issue as it is widely believed that the
lower payment limitation will not greatly reduce the number of unfunded applications.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Waiver
Another issue that the 111th Congress will likely monitor is the new waiver of the AGI limitation
for conservation programs created in the 2008 farm bill. The AGI provision sets a maximum
23 Contracts can vary from one to ten years; however, most are between two and five years in length and include
between two and five practices. Data compiled by Soil and Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)—Program Assessment, March 2007, http://www.swcs.org/
documents/filelibrary/EQIP_assessment.pdf.
24 Other top practices between FY1997 and FY2007, by cumulative cost-share dollar, were irrigation systems ($337
million), fence ($329 million), brush management ($190 million), pipeline ($187 million), irrigation pipeline ($168
million), and nutrient management ($164 million). The term cost-share describes the percentage of the cost to install
conservation practices paid by USDA. This term does not represent incentive payments and was removed from the
program in the 2008 farm bill.
Congressional Research Service
8
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
amount of income that an individual can earn and still remain eligible for program benefits, but
USDA is allowed to waive the limit in certain cases. USDA administers the AGI limitation
through a final rule issued on January 7, 2010.25
Income limitations on conservation programs have been somewhat controversial. The 2008 farm
bill made the AGI limitation for conservation programs higher than the AGI limitation for
commodity programs to encourage environmental stewardship on farms and ranches, particularly
larger operations that may have greater natural resource concerns. Supporters of AGI limits
believe that tighter limits benefit small producers and gain additional public support for all
agricultural programs through fiscal responsibility. Opponents of AGI limits on conservation
programs believe that conservation benefits the general public, and thus any producer’s
enrollment, irrespective of wealth, is good for the general public.
The AGI waiver can be granted on a case-by-case basis by USDA if it is determined that
environmentally sensitive land of special significance would be protected through the
conservation program. 26 Under this rule, USDA can waive the AGI limitation through a written
request that documents that the land contains critical resources, for example, endangered,
threatened, or at-risk species; historical or cultural resources; unique wetlands; or critical
groundwater recharge areas. The waiver must also show that the producer’s participation is
critical for the success of the project and will benefit multiple producers in the community,
geographic region, or watershed. The number and frequency of AGI waivers granted is not
limited, is at USDA’s sole discretion, and remains to be determined.
Measuring EQIP Accomplishments
From available records, NRCS can provide considerable information about EQIP contracts,
including which conservation practices are being installed, and their design and maintenance
standards. However, until recently, relatively little was known about what is actually being
accomplished through EQIP contracts. To begin filling this void, NRCS has compiled information
about various resource concerns that EQIP addresses. These data show that in 2007, the primary
resource concerns addressed through EQIP spending included water quality (20%), plant
condition (17%), soil erosion (16%), water quantity (13%), domestic animals (12%), soil
condition (10%), wildlife and fish (7%), and air quality (5%).27 Little is known, however, about
how enduring those conservation practices might be after the contract ends. Among the questions
that NRCS is trying to address for all of its conservation activities, including EQIP, are how to
(1) evaluate performance, (2) measure environmental changes, (3) evaluate cost-effectiveness, (4)
determine which methods to use to identify environmental effects, and (5) determine which types
of data should be collected to measure output.
NRCS initiated a national review in 2003, called the Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP), in an attempt to develop better answers to all these questions. CEAP was originally
intended to account for the benefits from the 2002 farm bill’s substantial increase in conservation
program funding through the scientific understanding of the effects of conservation practices at
25 USDA, CCC, and FSA, “Payment Eligibility and Payment Limitation; Miscellaneous Technical Corrections,” 75
Federal Register 887, January 7, 2010.
26 Section 1604, P.L. 110-246.
27 USDA, NRCS, Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Program Information Review, Fiscal Year 2007.
Congressional Research Service
9
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
the watershed scale.28 Only a few initial results are currently available based on cropland in the
upper Mississippi river basin. Initial findings show beneficial effects from conservation practices
as well as additional application needs.29 EQIP offers financial assistance to producers to
implement many of the conservation practices analyzed in the CEAP assessment; however, the
assessment does not correlate the effects and benefits of conservation practice to any one federal
program.
Author Contact Information
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
28 Lisa F. Duriancik, Dale Bucks, and James P. Dobrowolski et al., “The First Five Years of the Conservation Effects
Assessment Project,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 63, no. 6 (Nov/Dec 2008), p. 185A.
29 For more information on CEAP, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/.
Congressional Research Service
10