Conservation Compliance and
U.S. Farm Policy
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
June 9, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42459

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Summary
The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant
conservation provisions designed to reduce production and conserve soil and water resources.
Many of the provisions remain in effect today, including the two compliance provisions—highly
erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster). The two
provisions, collectively referred to as conservation compliance, require that in exchange for
certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain
a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop
production.
Conservation compliance affects most USDA benefits administered by the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These benefits can include
commodity support payments, disaster payments, farm loans, and conservation program
payments, to name a few. If a producer is found to be in violation of conservation compliance,
then a number of penalties could be enforced. These penalties range from temporary exemptions
that allow the producer time to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is
ineligible for any USDA farm payment and must pay back current and prior years’ benefits.
A controversial issue in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) debate was whether federal crop
insurance subsidies should be included on the list of program benefits that could be lost if a
producer were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible
land and wetlands. Ultimately the 2014 farm bill did add federal crop insurance subsidies to the
list of benefits that could be lost, but created separate considerations when addressing compliance
violations and the loss of federal crop insurance premium subsidies compared with the loss of
other farm program benefits. How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply,
and traditional exemptions and variances were not amended. The 2014 farm bill also extended
limited protection for native sod in select states.
As Congress follows the implementation of the 2014 farm bill changes to conservation
compliance, additional questions and oversight may occur. Broadly, the reduction in soil erosion
from highly erodible land conservation continues, but at a slower pace than following the
enactment of the 1985 farm bill. The leveling off of erosion reductions leaves broad policy
questions related to conservation compliance, including whether an acceptable level of soil
erosion on cropland has been achieved; whether additional reductions could be achieved, and if
so, at what cost; and how federal farm policy could encourage additional reductions in erosion.

Congressional Research Service

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Contents
Recent Developments: 2014 Farm Bill ............................................................................................ 1
Conservation Compliance Today ..................................................................................................... 1
Sodbuster ................................................................................................................................... 2
Swampbuster ............................................................................................................................. 4
Sodsaver .................................................................................................................................... 5
Affected Program Benefits ........................................................................................................ 6
Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 7
Issues for Congress .......................................................................................................................... 8
2014 Farm Bill Amendments ..................................................................................................... 8
Conservation Compliance ................................................................................................... 8
Sodsaver .............................................................................................................................. 9
Reaction and Implementation .............................................................................................. 9
Erosion and Conversion Rates ................................................................................................. 10
Oversight ................................................................................................................................. 12
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Figures
Figure 1. Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland .................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Soil Erosion on Cropland by Year .................................................................................. 11

Tables
Table 1. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions ........................................................ 4
Table 2. USDA Benefits Affected by Conservation Compliance .................................................... 6
Table 3. Summary of Conservation Compliance Status Reviews .................................................... 8
Table A-1. Comparison of Conservation Compliance Provisions Enacted in the 2014
Farm bill to Prior Law ................................................................................................................ 18
Table B-1. FSA and NRCS Responsibilities Administering Conservation Compliance on
Highly Erodible Land ................................................................................................................. 21

Appendixes
Appendix A. A Brief Legislative History of Conservation Compliance ........................................ 14
Appendix B. FSA and NRCS Responsibilities .............................................................................. 21

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

ederal policies and programs traditionally have offered voluntary incentives to producers to
plan and apply resource-conserving practices on private lands. It was not until the 1980s
F that Congress took an alternative approach to agricultural conservation through enactment
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill). The bill’s more publicized
provisions—the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),1 highly erodible land conservation
(sodbuster), and wetland conservation (swampbuster)2—remain significant today. The latter two
“conservation compliance” provisions require that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of
conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production.
Recent Developments: 2014 Farm Bill
In February 2014, after more than two years of consideration, the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014
farm bill, P.L. 113-79) was enacted. A controversial issue in the 2014 farm bill debate was
whether federal crop insurance subsidies should be included on the list of program benefits that
could be lost if a producer were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on
highly erodible land and wetlands.3 Ultimately the 2014 farm bill added federal crop insurance
subsidies to the list of benefits that could be lost and extended limited protection for native sod in
select states. How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply, and traditional
exemptions and variances were not amended. The 2014 farm bill also created separate
considerations when addressing compliance violations and the loss of federal crop insurance
premium subsidies compared with the loss of other farm program benefits.
The 2014 farm bill also eliminated select USDA farm programs that were tied to conservation
compliance—direct payments and counter-cyclical payments—and added new farm programs
(e.g., Agricultural Crop Risk, ARC)4 to the list of affected benefits. Both the House-passed (H.R.
2642) and Senate-passed (S. 954) versions of the farm bill included these changes, which were
not considered controversial.
Conservation Compliance Today
The 1985 farm bill included a number of significant conservation provisions designed to reduce
crop production and conserve soil and water resources. The highly erodible land conservation
provision (sodbuster) introduced in the 1985 farm bill was not intended to “allow the Federal
government to impose demands on any farmer or rancher concerning what may be done with
their land; ... only that the Federal government will no longer subsidize producers who choose to
convert highly erodible land to cropland unless they also agree to install conservation system(s).”5

1 CRP is not discussed in depth in this report. For additional information and issues related to CRP, see CRS Report
R42783, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues.
2 Highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation are collectively referred to as conservation compliance in
this report.
3 In addition to other conservation changes, the Senate-passed bill (S. 954) re-tied federal crop insurance premium
subsidies to conservation compliance requirements. The House-passed bill (H.R. 2642) did not. An amendment to
include language similar to the Senate bill was offered on the House floor during debate, but was withdrawn (H.Amdt.
188).
4 For additional information on the farm commodity provisions in the 2014 farm bill, see CRS Report R43448, Farm
Commodity Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
5 H.Rept. 99-271, p. 84.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Similarly, the wetland conservation provision introduced in the 1985 farm bill does not authorize
USDA “to regulate the use of private, or non-Federal land”; rather, “the objective of this
provision is to deny various Federal benefits to those producers who choose to drain wetlands for
the purpose of producing agricultural commodities.”6 Since the enactment of the 1985 farm bill,
each succeeding farm bill has amended the compliance provisions. For a brief history of the farm
bill legislative changes to the conservation compliance provisions since the 1985 farm bill, see
Appendix A.
Sodbuster
The highly erodible land conservation provision, as enacted in the 1985 farm bill, introduced the
concept that in exchange for certain federal farm benefits a producer must implement a minimum
level of conservation. The provision, still in force today, applies the loss of benefits to land
classified as highly erodible that was not in cultivation between 1980 and 1985 (i.e., newly
broken land, referred to as sodbuster) and any
highly erodible land in production after 1990,
What Is “Highly Erodible”?
regardless of when the land was put into
For land to be considered highly erodible (as defined
production. Land meeting this classification
under 16 U.S.C. 3801) it must be—
can be considered eligible for USDA program
•
land that currently has, or if put into agricultural
benefits if the land user agrees to cultivate the
production would have, an excessive average annual
land using an approved conservation plan.
rate of erosion in relation to the soil loss tolerance
level (see “The ‘T’’ Factor” text box, below); or
In addition to the application of an approved
•
cropland that is classified as class IV, VI, VII, or VIII
conservation plan, a number of exemptions are
land under the land capability classification system in
possible.8
effect on December 23, 1985.
• Good faith. If the person has acted in
The land capability classification system is an interpretive
grouping on soil maps made primarily for agricultural
good faith and without the intent to
purposes. Capability “classes” are broad categories of
violate the compliance provisions,
soils with similar hazards or limitations. There are eight
then the producer may be granted up
classes, with soil damage and limitations on use becoming
to one year to comply with a
progressively greater from class I to class VIII.7
conservation plan.
NRCS classifies about 97.7 million acres of U.S. cropland
•
as highly erodible, approximately 27% of total cropland
Graduated penalty. Under some
(see Figure 1).
circumstances, producers could be
subject to a minimum of $500 and no
more than $5,000 loss in benefits, rather than a loss of all benefits.
• Allowable variance. If a conservation system fails and the failure is determined
to be technical and minor in nature, and to have little effect on the erosion control
purposes of the conservation plan, then the producer may not be found out of
compliance. Similarly, the producer may not be found out of compliance if the
system failure was due to circumstances beyond the control of the producer.

6 Ibid., p. 88.
7 USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Land Capability Classifications System, Agricultural Handbook 210, Washington,
DC, 1961, ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/LCC/handbook_210.pdf.
8 In addition to those listed, a producer who participated in a USDA program that set aside land for the purpose of
reducing production of an agricultural commodity, may also not be considered ineligible. Many of these “set-aside”
programs are no longer utilized.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

• Temporary variance. A producer may be granted a temporary variance for
practices prescribed in the conservation plan due to issues related to weather,
pests, or disease. USDA has 30 days from the date of the request to issue a
temporary variance determination; otherwise the variance is considered granted.
• Economic hardship. A local Farm Service Agency (FSA) county committee, with
concurrence from the state or district FSA director and technical concurrence
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is allowed to permit
relief if it is determined that a conservation system causes a producer undue
economic hardship.
• Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. Producers new to compliance
requirements (after enactment of the 2014 farm bill on February 7, 2014) have
five reinsurance years9 to develop and comply with a conservation plan.
Producers with compliance violations prior to February 7, 2014, are allowed two
reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan before the loss
of the crop insurance premium subsidies.
Figure 1. Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland
(2007 Natural Resources Inventory)

Source: USDA, NRCS, Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland, 2007, Natural Resources Inventory, Beltsville, MD,
February 2012.
Notes: This map only identifies broad spatial trends and should not be used to determine site-specific
information. Data are not collected on Federal land. In some cases, overlaying dots may completely cover up
underlying dots. Data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Pacific Basin.

9 A reinsurance year is a 12-month period that begins on July 1.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Swampbuster
The “swampbuster” or wetland conservation provision extends the sodbuster concept to wetland
areas. Producers who plant a program crop on a wetland converted after December 23, 1985, or
who convert wetlands, making agricultural commodity production possible, after November 28,
1990, are ineligible for certain USDA program benefits. This means that, for a producer to be
found out of compliance, crop production does not actually have to occur; production only needs
to be made possible through activities such as draining, dredging, filling, or leveling the wetland.
Similar to sodbuster, the 2014 farm bill amends the wetlands conservation provision to include
crop insurance premium subsidies as an ineligible benefit if found to be out of compliance. The
amendment treats the time of wetland conversion differently (Table 1). The amendment also
extends the list of exemptions for compliance violators, allowing additional time (one or two
reinsurance years) for producers to remedy or mitigate the wetland conversion before losing crop
insurance premium subsidies.
Table 1. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions
(amendment in the 2014 farm bill)
Timing Violation Penalty
Newly Converted Wetlands––
Converted wetland
Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies,
wetlands converted after February 7, 2014.
violation impacting
unless exemption applies.
five or more acres.

Converted wetland
Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies,
violation impacting
unless the landowner pays 150% of the cost of
less than five acres.
mitigation to a wetland restoration fund.
Prior Converted Wetlands––wetlands
Any converted
Eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies.
converted before February 7, 2014.
wetland violation.
Ineligible for other USDA program benefits,
unless exemption applies.
New Insurance Policies––wetlands
Any converted
Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies,
converted after a new insurance policy or
wetland violation.
if prior conversions are not mitigated within
plan is made available for the first time.
two reinsurance years.
Source: 16 U.S.C. 3821(c)(2).
Notes: Table only applies to federal crop insurance premium subsidies. All other existing wetland compliance
violations were unaffected by the 2014 farm bill provision.
Under the wetlands compliance provision, the following lands are considered exempt:
• a wetland converted to cropland before enactment (December 23, 1985);
• artificially created lakes, ponds, or wetlands;
• wetlands created by irrigation delivery systems;
• wetlands on which agricultural production is naturally possible;
• wetlands that are temporarily or incidentally created as a result of adjacent
development activities;
• wetlands converted to cropland before December 23, 1985, that have reverted
back to a wetland as the result of a lack of drainage, lack of management, or
circumstances beyond the control of the landowner;
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

• wetlands converted if the effect of such action is minimal; and
• authorized wetlands converted through a permit issued under Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344), for
which wetland values, acreage, and functions of the converted wetland were
adequately mitigated.

Wetlands Mitigation
Under wetlands conservation, compliance violators have the option of mitigating the violation through the restoration
of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the creation of a new wetland.10 Debate over
these wetland mitigation requirements arose during the 2014 farm bill and centered on the concern that some
producers were required to mitigate wetlands with a greater than 1-to-1 acreage ratio (i.e., more than one acre of
mitigated wetland is required to replace one acre of wetland lost). This is allowed by statute if “more acreage is
needed to provide equivalent functions and values that will be lost as a result of the wetland conversion to be
mitigated. 
” The House-passed 2014 farm bill (H.R. 2642) would have limited wetland mitigation to not more than a
1-to-1 acreage ratio. The Senate-passed 2014 farm bill (S. 954) would have required a study to assess the use of
wetland mitigation, determine impacts on wildlife habitat, and provide recommendations for improving wetland
mitigation procedures. Ultimately, the conference agreement adopted neither the House nor Senate provision and
instead provided $10 million in mandatory funding for mitigation banking efforts. While the provision remains
unchanged in statute, the conference report (H.Rept. 113-333) includes language encouraging USDA to use a wetland
mitigation ratio not to exceed 1-to-1 acreage.

Sodsaver
The 2014 farm bill amended and expanded the “sodsaver” provision, which reduces benefits for
crops planted on native sod. The provision applies only to native sod acres in Minnesota, Iowa,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska.11 If a producer chooses to plant an
insurable crop on native sod, then crop insurance premium subsidies are reduced by 50
percentage points during the first four years of planting.12 Crops planted on native sod also will
have higher fees under the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP)13 and reduced
yield guarantees.14 This provision is expected to reduce the federal incentive to produce on native
sod.

10 16 U.S.C. 3822(f).
11 Section 11014 of the crop insurance title (title XI). Sodsaver was originally authorized in the 2008 farm bill and only
applied to the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. The provision was never activated and is discussed further in
Appendix A.
12 In 2013, an average of 62% of the total crop insurance premium was paid for by the federal government, and the
remainder by the participating farmer. Therefore, a 50 percentage point reduction would lower a premium subsidy rate
of 62% to 12%.
13 For additional information on crop insurance and NAP, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance:
Background, CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, or CRS Report R43494, Crop Insurance
Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).
14 The yield guarantee for a crop insurance policy is a producer’s “normal” crop yield based on actual production
history (APH). In the absence of actual yield data (e.g., production on native sod or no yield documentation on existing
fields), a “transition yield” (T-yield) is assigned, which is based on a portion of 10-year average county yields for the
crop. The 2014 farm bill sets the T-yield factor on native sod equal to 65% of the 10-year average county yield for
production on native sod. For other cropland, the percentage can be higher depending on the number of years of actual
data included in the APH. Also, “yield substitution” is not allowed; that is, low farm yields must be used in the APH
rather than replacing them with potentially higher T-yields as allowed for other cropland.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Affected Program Benefits
As it exists today, conservation compliance applies to most farm program payments, loans, or
other benefits administered by FSA and NRCS. Table 2 includes the statutory description and
examples of specific USDA program benefits that are affected if a producer is found to be out of
compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions.
Table 2. USDA Benefits Affected by Conservation Compliance
Statutory Description
Examples of Benefits
Contract payments under a production flexibility
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments, Agriculture Risk
contract, marketing assistance loans, and any type of
Coverage (ARC) payments, Margin Protection Program
price support or payment made available under the
(MPP), and Marketing Assistance Loans
Agricultural Market Transition Act, the Commodity
Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 et
seq.), or any other Act.
A farm storage facility loan made under Section 4(h) of
Farm Storage Facility Loan
the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15
U.S.C. 714b(h)).a
Disaster paymentsa
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance program (NAP), ad hoc
disaster assistance programs, Emergency Forest Restoration
Program (EFRP), Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey
Bees, and Farm-raised Fish (ELAP), Livestock Forage Program
(LFP), Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), and Tree Assistance
Program (TAP)
A farm credit program loan made, insured, or
FSA Farm Operating Loans, Farm Ownership Loans, and
guaranteed under the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Emergency Disaster Loans
Development Act or any other provision of law
administered by FSA.b
Any portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop
Federal crop insurance premium subsidiesc
Insurance Corporation Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
A payment made pursuant to a contract entered into
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP),
under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Conservation
(EQIP) or any other provision of Subtitle D of the
Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives
Food Security Act of 1985, as amended
Program (EQIP), and Regional Conservation Partnership
Program (RCPP).
A payment made under Section 401 or 402 of the
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Emergency
Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 or
Watershed Protection (EWP) Program
2202).
A payment, loan, or other assistance under Section 3
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention program
or 8 of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1003 or 1006a).
Source: 16 U.S.C. 3811 and 16 U.S.C. 3812.
Notes: The examples listed should not be considered an exhaustive list. Also affected would be any payments made
under Section 4 or 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b or 714c) for the storage of
an agricultural commodity acquired by the CCC.
a. Applies only to highly erodible land conservation provisions.
b. Only applies if the proceeds of the loan will be used for a purpose that contributes to the conversion of
wetlands that would make production of an agricultural commodity possible or for a purpose that contributes to
excessive erosion of highly erodible land. Loans made before enactment of the 1985 farm bill are not affected.
c. Does not apply retroactively. Only applies to reinsurance years fol owing final determination and after all
administrative appeals.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

If a producer requests any payment, loan, or other benefit subject to the conservation compliance
provision, then the provision applies to all land owned by the producer or the producer’s
affiliates. This includes land located anywhere in the United States or U.S. territories, without
regard to whether payments, loans, or other benefits are actually received for such land. In other
words, if producers are found out of compliance on one portion of their land, they are deemed out
of compliance for all land owned or associated with them, regardless of where it is located.15
Implementation
Both NRCS and FSA implement conservation compliance as part of USDA farm programs. FSA
has primary responsibility for making producer eligibility determinations about conservation
compliance. NRCS has primary responsibility for technical determinations associated with
conservation compliance. Each agency’s role is outlined in Appendix B.
Following the 1985 farm bill, conservation compliance requirements created a large workload for
NRCS staff. Compliance required that new conservation plans be completed by 1990 on the
approximately 140 million acres classified as highly erodible. In contrast, in 1984, the year before
compliance was enacted, NRCS assisted with plans on about 2.5 million acres. Demands
remained high ahead of the 1995 deadline for full implementation. Almost half of these plans
were revised at least once before the 1995 deadline because of changes in farming techniques and
crops, new conservation technology, and changes in ownership and tenancy.
Another dynamic of implementing compliance was the requirement for NRCS to work with a
large number of new, and sometimes less cooperative, clients. Most producers receiving farm
program benefits were familiar with FSA because the agency was already administering many
federal farm programs. However, prior to 1985, conservation programs administered by NRCS
were small and voluntary. Because conservation compliance tied federal farm program benefits to
the requirement for a conservation plan, some producers viewed compliance as coercive. This
perspective made implementation more difficult, and caused many in the agricultural community
to view NRCS as a regulatory agency. This resulted in several congressional oversight hearings to
explore implementation of compliance following enactment.
NRCS continues to conduct compliance status reviews on farm and ranch lands that have
received USDA benefits and which are subject to the conservation compliance provisions (highly
erodible land, wetland compliance, or both). A compliance status review is an inspection of a
cropland tract to determine whether the USDA farm program beneficiary is in compliance with
the conservation compliance provisions (Table 3). The review process requires an NRCS
employee to make an on-site determination when a violation is suspected, and ensures that only
qualified NRCS employees report violations. Ultimately, penalties for noncompliance are
determined by FSA. Penalties may range from a good faith exemption that allows producers up to
one year to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is ineligible for any
government payment and must pay back current and prior years’ benefits.

15 One exception to this was created in the 2014 farm bill. If a tenant is considered ineligible for benefits under
Swampbuster and USDA determines that the tenant has made a good faith effort to comply with restoration or
mitigation requirements and the landowner continues to refuses to comply, then the denial of benefits may be limited to
the farm that is the basis of the ineligibility.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Table 3. Summary of Conservation Compliance Status Reviews
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total Tracts Reviewed
20,474
18,704
22,210
24,309
Total Acres Reviewed (approx.)
3 million
3.3 million
2.8 million
3.6 million
Tracts Out of Compliance
277
344
530
744
Both Highly Erodible Land and Wetland
177
167
372
401
Conservation Violations
Wetland Conservation Violation Only
100
177
158
343
Percentage Out of Compliance
1.4%
1.8%
2.4%
3.1%
Number of States Recording Non-Compliance
30
28
32
30
Variances or Exemptions Issued
726
732
887
1,081
Source: USDA, NRCS, complied by CRS.
Issues for Congress
The 1985 farm bill created the highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation
compliance provisions, which tied various farm program benefits to conservation standards.
These provisions have been amended with each subsequent farm bill, including the most recent
2014 farm bill. As the 113th Congress continues to review the implementation of farm programs,
issues related to conservation compliance could be debated.
2014 Farm Bill Amendments
Conservation Compliance
When the compliance provisions were first enacted in 1985, crop insurance subsidies were on the
list of program benefits affected by conservation compliance (see Appendix A). The 1996 farm
bill removed crop insurance from this list and added other farm program supports (e.g., direct
payments) in an effort to encourage producers to purchase crop insurance. Financial constraints
and political pressure during the 2014 farm bill debate made the repeal of certain commodity
support programs all but certain. These repeals would mean fewer farm program benefits that
could be tied to conservation compliance. The solution offered by some was to re-tie conservation
compliance with crop insurance premium subsidies since the majority of cropland is now covered
under a federal crop insurance policy and the federal government now pays the majority of a
producer’s crop insurance premium.16 Ultimately, the 2014 farm bill did re-tie conservation
compliance to federal crop insurance subsidies.
While the 2014 farm bill added federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of benefits that could
be lost, it also created a number of exemptions that treat the loss of crop insurance subsidies
separate from other USDA benefits. In the case of highly erodible land conservation, producers
are allowed additional time to comply. Wetland conservation, on the other hand, included a
number of exemptions that allow producers mitigation and payment options before losing the

16 In 2013, crop insurance policies covered 295 million acres (out of 357 million acres of total cropland in the U.S.) and
an average of 62% of the total crop insurance premium was paid for by the federal government. For additional
information, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

crop insurance premium subsidy (see Table 1). The 2014 farm bill authorized $10 million in
mandatory funding to establish a wetlands mitigation bank for producers to offset wetland
conversions and included a grandfather provision that allows producers who converted wetlands
before enactment of the 2014 farm bill to retain their crop insurance premium subsidies. The
inclusion of crop insurance subsidies and corresponding exemptions represent a compromise
created during conference negotiations, since the Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954) included the
compliance requirement and the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642) did not.
Sodsaver
To limit the incentive to convert native sod to cropland, the “sodsaver” provision in the crop
insurance title affects producers purchasing policies for crop insurance or noninsured crop
disaster assistance program (NAP). The provision was originally created in the 2008 farm bill, but
never activated (see Appendix A). Both the House- and Senate-passed 2014 farm bills included
amendments to the sodsaver provision. The major difference between the bills was the area of
application. The Senate-passed provision applied nationwide, whereas the House-passed
provision applied only to the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. The enacted provision
applies to the entire area of the state of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
and Nebraska, rather than only a portion of the state encompassed by the Prairie Pothole National
Priority Area. The enacted provision also reduces NAP benefits, not eliminate them, as was
previously required under the 2008 sodsaver provision.
Reaction and Implementation
The reaction to the final compliance amendments made in the 2014 farm bill is mixed. Most in
the conservation and environmental community who supported the conservation compliance
changes during debate were “reluctantly happy” about the amendments, but disappointed with the
number of exemptions created.17 Some producer groups remain wary of the linkage and continue
to follow its implementation.
Changes in the 2014 farm bill are not expected to have a significant impact on USDA’s
implementation of conservation compliance.18 Crop insurance participants new to compliance
requirements could create an increase in demand for conservation plans, but not near the levels
seen in the 1980s and 1990s.19 According to USDA, the majority of cropland acres participating
in USDA programs were subject to compliance requirements before changes enacted in the 2014
farm bill. Approximately 6,000 producers will be affected by the changes and must comply with
the new requirements by mid-2015.20 Producers must continue to self-certify their compliance
with the sodbuster and swampbuster provisions, and approved conservation plans currently in
place would remain valid.21 USDA retains sole responsibility for implementing the conservation

17 Amanda Peterka, “Lengthy delays, active campaigning led to inclusion of key conservation measure in the farm bill,”
Environment & Energy, February 5, 2014, #2, Daily.
18 Amendments in the 2014 farm bill require USDA to, “coordinate the certification process so as to avoid duplication
or unnecessary paperwork (16 U.S.C. 3812a(d)(4))” and to “use existing processes and procedures for certifying
compliance (16 U.S.C. 3821(c)(4)).”
19 Producers new to conservation compliance would also receive priority when requesting technical assistance from
USDA (16 U.S.C. 3841(c)(2)).
20 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 2014 Farm Bill: Implementation and Next
Steps, Statements from USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., May 7, 2014.
21 USDA is required to review certifications in a “timely manner”; otherwise, producers will be held harmless with
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

compliance provisions. The level of interest and debate generated by the changes to conservation
compliance and the new sodsaver provision might result in additional oversight or congressional
interest during implementation.
Erosion and Conversion Rates
The “T” Factor
The reduction in soil erosion from highly
Soil erosion occurs for a variety of natural and manmade
reasons. An evaluation of different soil types and
erodible land conservation continues, but at a
surrounding conditions (e.g., soil depth, slope, etc.)
slower pace than following enactment of the
allows soil scientists to determine what an “acceptable”
1985 farm bill (Figure 2). The leveling off of
rate of soil erosion is for a given area. This is commonly
reduced erosion leaves several broad policy
referred to as “T” or soil loss tolerance rate. T is the
questions, including whether an acceptable
maximum rate of annual soil loss that will permit crop
productivity to be sustained economical y and indefinitely
level of soil erosion on cropland has been
on a given soil. Erosion is considered to be greater than
achieved; whether additional reductions could
T if either the water (sheet and ril ) erosion or the wind
be achieved, and if so, at what cost; and how
erosion rate exceeds the soil loss tolerance rate. The
federal farm policy should encourage
higher the T value, the more soil erosion can be
additional reductions in erosion. Some
tolerated.
environmental and conservation groups have
The use of T is one of the bases for identifying highly
asked Congress to tighten compliance
erodible land associated with conservation compliance.
The erodibility index for a soil is determined by dividing
requirements as one way of reducing soil
the potential average annual rate of erosion for each soil
erosion. Many agricultural groups, however,
by its predetermined soil loss tolerance (T) value.22 T is
prefer additional financial incentives through
also used as one of the criteria for planning soil
voluntary conservation programs, such as
conservation systems required by conservation
EQIP.
compliance. Conservationists focus on reducing soil loss
to or below T by applying practices, such as terraces,
contour strips, grassed waterways, and residue
According to USDA’s Natural Resource
management.
Inventory, in 2010, 94 million acres (26% of
The use of T has been and will likely remain
all cropland) was eroding above soil loss
controversial. Some soil scientists have suggested that
tolerance (T) rates (see text box).23 This
the current values of T far exceed the actual soil
compares to 169 million acres (40% of
formation rates and therefore are not truly “sustainable”
cropland) in 1982. Between 1982 and 2010,
(Craig Cox, Andrew Hug, and Nils Bruzelius, Losing
farmers reduced total cropland soil erosion by
Ground, Environmental Working Group, April 2011).
Despite these concerns, T remains the only commonly
41% (Figure 2). The bulk of this reduction
used standard by which soil erosion is measured.
occurred following the 1985 farm bill and the
implementation of CRP and conservation compliance requirements. Reduction in soil erosion
may also be attributed to other factors. Estimates indicate that compliance provisions could be
responsible for approximately 295 million tons, or 25% of the 1.2 billion ton reduction in
cropland soil erosion that occurred between 1982 and 1997 (most recent information available).24

(...continued)
regard to eligibility even if a subsequent violation is found. Producers who do not self-certify and are found to be in
violation must pay an “equitable contribution” to a restoration fund, not to exceed the premium subsidy amount (16
U.S.C. 3821(c)(3)(E)(ii)).
22 7 C.F.R. §12.21(a).
23 USDA, NRCS, Summary Report: 2010 National Resources Inventory, September 2013, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1167354.pdf
24 Roger Claassen, “Have Conservation Compliance Incentives Reduced Soil Erosion?” USDA, ERS, Amber Waves,
June 2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June04/Features/HaveConservation.htm.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Another 31%, or 365 million tons reduced could be attributed to land use changes, including CRP
enrollment.25
Figure 2. Soil Erosion on Cropland by Year
(billions of tons)
3.5
Wind Erosion
Water Erosion
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1982
187
1992
1997
2002
2007
2010

Source: USDA, NRCS, Summary Report: 2010 National Resources Inventory, September 2013,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1167354.pdf.
Notes: Total includes cultivated and non-cultivated cropland. Water erosion includes sheet and rill erosion.
In addition to soil erosion reductions following the 1985 farm bill, the number of wetlands
converted to cropland was also reduced. Unlike the highly erodible land conservation provision,
the impact of the wetland conservation provision is increasingly difficult to measure.
Swampbuster is one of several federal, state, and local policies that discourage the conversion of
wetlands to other uses.26 Other farm bill programs, such as Wetland Reserve Easements in the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and CRP, seek to provide a reverse effect
and encourage landowners to restore wetlands. Between 1997 and 2007, USDA estimates that the
U.S. experienced a net wetlands gain of about 250,000 acres.27 Sixty percent of the gross loss
(440,000 acres) during that time period is attributed to urban and industrial development and 15%
is attributed to agriculture.

25 Ibid. The 2014 farm bill reduced the acreage enrollment in CRP from an authorized level of 32 million acres
declining to 24 million by FY2018. This could have a potential impact on soil erosion, the magnitude of which is
unclear.
26 The other major federal policy is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. For additional information, see CRS Report
RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues.
27 USDA, RCA Appraisal: Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, Washington, DC, July 2011,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044939.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Oversight
The conservation compliance requirements have undergone several program audits by both the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and USDA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The most recent GAO audit was in 2003,28 which found that many NRCS field offices were not
implementing compliance requirements as outlined in the law and issued through agency policy.
Reasons for the discrepancy related to a lack of resources, training, and guidance; de-emphasis on
compliance relative to other work; and a reluctance to assume an enforcement role. The report
noted the lack of NRCS oversight and called into question the accuracy of agency’s claims that
98% of tracts reviewed were found to be in compliance. The report also faulted FSA for granting
waivers with inadequate documentation. Between 1993 and 2001, FSA waived 4,948 of 8,118
cases (61%) in which farmers were cited with violations. These waivers were granted by local
FSA county committees, which generally consist of farmers elected by other farmers in the
county. The report stated that NRCS staff and conservation groups believed that the county
committees were predisposed to approve farmers’ appeals so as not to penalize a neighbor’s
eligibility for farm program benefits.
In 2008, OIG issued phase I of a two-phase investigation.29 Phase I evaluated changes to the
status review process based on prior audit recommendations made by GAO and OIG. According
to the report, NRCS addressed concerns from the previous GAO and OIG investigations by
implementing improvements on the sampling methodology and the process by which
conservation compliance status review results are summarized, analyzed, and reported. The report
found that between 2002 and 2006, the average rate of compliance reported by NRCS was 98%.30
Between 1993 and 2005, a total of $125 million in program benefits was subject to withholding
due to compliance violations. Of this total, FSA issued good faith exemptions and restored $103
million (83%) in program benefits. The OIG report concluded that the number of compliance
violations reported by NRCS was too low and the number of restored benefits issued by FSA was
too high. Phase II is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the status review process through
field inspections and possibly provide an explanation for the high rate of reinstated benefits. To
date, no report or status on phase II has been released.
The 2008 farm bill (Section 2002) amended the compliance provisions to include a second level
of review for waivers granted by FSA. The conference report cited the changes as “resolv[ing] a
long-standing problem and provid[ing] for increased oversight of the violation process.”31
Opinions vary on how well USDA is enforcing the conservation compliance provisions.
Environmental organizations advocate for more consistent and rigorous status reviews. Producer
organizations advocate for continued flexibility and more additional voluntary programs
incentives to support any necessary improvements.

28 U.S. GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA needs to better ensure protection of highly erodible cropland and
wetlands, GAO-03-418, April 2003, http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/237878.pdf.
29 USDA, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Report: Natural Resources Conservation Service Status Review
Process, Report No. 50601-13-KC, Great Plains Region, June 2008.
30 Specifically on average, 58% were found to be in compliance, 37% required no conservation plan because no highly
erodible land was present or if wetlands were present there was no violation found, 3% were found to be out of
compliance but granted variances (e.g., weather, pest, disease exemptions), and 2% were found to be out of
compliance.
31 H.Rept. 110-627.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Conclusion
Since its introduction in the 1985 farm bill, conservation compliance has remained a controversial
issue. Most producers prefer voluntary financial incentive programs such as EQIP, to policies
such as conservation compliance, which discourages the degradation of private lands by
restricting access to other federal benefits. With continued fiscal challenges, increasing or
maintaining funding levels for financial incentive programs could be difficult. Conservation
compliance on the other hand, does not increasing federal spending but continues to be unpopular
among many producer groups. The compliance requirements have also made significant
contributions to reducing soil erosion and maintaining wetlands since the 1980s. These
environmental gains appear to be leveling off, however, and raise questions about conservation
compliance’s ability to further conservation goals. Similar to previous farm bills, the changes to
conservation compliance in the 2014 farm bill debate were controversial. As Congress evaluates
the implementation of the 2014 farm bill, conservation compliance might continue to generate
interest.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Appendix A. A Brief Legislative History of
Conservation Compliance
Prior to the 1985 farm bill, approximately two dozen soil and water conservation programs
existed. These programs reflected a pattern that was established in the 1930s—voluntary
cooperation from land users and incentive-based programs—and changed little in 50 years. The
expansion of agricultural production in the 1970s to respond to growing world demand for farm
products was accompanied by an increase in soil erosion.32 Much of this erosion was attributed to
producers expanding their acreage into “marginal” land—land that easily erodes and is often less
productive. Intense production practices were supported by many of the federal farm policies in
place at the time.
In 1977, Congress enacted the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (P.L. 95-192, referred
to as the RCA). The RCA required USDA to appraise the nation’s natural resources on nonfederal
land and provide Congress with an annual evaluation report. Many of the soil and water resource
issues were highlighted in the 1980 RCA report and drew attention to the high societal cost of soil
erosion and wetland conservation that resulted from intense production.33 As part of the National
Program for Soil and Water Conservation, USDA presented the alternative of “cross-compliance,”
in which farmers who receive USDA benefits would be required to meet minimum conservation
standards.34
In the early 1980s, large-scale commodity surpluses of certain agricultural products developed
from weak global demand and advances in agricultural productivity. In response, during the 1985
farm bill debate, Congress sought new farm policies to increase export markets and reduce
domestic production, thereby reducing surpluses. The result was what some classified as a radical
departure from the traditional conservation approach.
1985 Farm Bill
The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant
conservation provisions designed to reduce production and conserve soil and water resources.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), as authorized in the 1985 farm bill, was allowed to
remove up to 45 million acres of land from production under multi-year rental agreements. The
financial incentives of CRP far exceeded those of most early conservation programs, and CRP
remains the largest conservation program (in terms of funding) to date.35 The other conservation

32 J. Douglas Helms, Leveraging Farm Policy for Conservation: Passage of the 1985 Farm Bill, USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Historical Insights Number 6, June 2006, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/
FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044129.pdf.
33 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summary of Appraisal, Parts I and II, and Program Report, GPO 1980 633-
769/460, 1980.
34 U.S. Department of Agriculture, A National Program for Soil and Water Conservation, 1982 Final Program Report
and Environmental Impact Statement, GPO 1982-0-522-010/3711, September 1982.
35 CRP is currently authorized to enroll up to 32 million acres and annually spends an average of over $2 billion in
mandatory funding. The purpose of CRP has long been debated. In its early years, some believed the program’s sole
purpose was for production control. Others saw CRP as a soil erosion control program. Today, many view it as a
wildlife habitat program. The program’s objectives and purpose are not debated in this report. For additional
information and issues related to CRP reauthotization, see CRS Report R42093, Agricultural Conservation and the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

provisions were highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation
(swampbuster). Despite the historic significance of these provisions there was surprisingly little
debate recorded at the time.
Sodbuster
The highly erodible land conservation provision, as enacted in the 1985 farm bill, introduced the
requirement that in exchange for certain federal farm benefits a producer must implement a
minimum level of conservation. The provision applies the loss of benefits to land classified as
highly erodible that was not in cultivation between 1980 and 1985 (i.e., newly broken land,
referred to as sodbuster) and any highly erodible land in production after 1990, regardless of
when the land was put into production. Land meeting this classification could be considered
eligible for USDA program benefits if the land user agreed to cultivate the land using an approved
conservation plan.
There were two main exceptions. First, the farmer had until January 1, 1990, or two years after
the completion of a soil survey—whichever was later—to be actively applying an approved
conservation plan. Second, if a farmer was actively applying an approved conservation plan, then
they had until January 1, 1995, to be full in compliance with the plan. The program benefits that
could be lost included
• price supports and related payments,
• farm storage facility loans,
• crop insurance,
• disaster payments,
• any farm loans that will contribute to excessive erosion of highly erodible land,
and
• storage payments made to producers for crops acquired by the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC).
Swampbuster
The “swampbuster” or wetland conservation provision extends the sodbuster requirement to
wetland areas. Producers who plant a program crop on a converted wetland would be ineligible
for certain USDA program benefits. The most controversial debate over the swampbuster
provision was on the definition of an affected wetland areas. This resulted in many wetland areas
being exempt, including
• wetlands converted before enactment (December 23, 1985),
• artificially created lakes, ponds, or wetlands,
• wetlands created by irrigation delivery systems,

(...continued)
Next Farm Bill.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

• wetlands on which agricultural production is naturally possible, or
• wetlands converted if the effect of such action is minimal.
Changes Since the 1985 Farm Bill
Since the enactment of the 1985 farm bill, each succeeding farm bill has amended the compliance
provisions (both highly erodible land and wetland conservation).
1990 Farm Bill
The compliance provisions were amended in several ways in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-624, 1990 farm bill). Conservation provisions were expanded to
include wetlands converted after enactment (November 28, 1990), where agricultural commodity
production was made possible. This meant that crop production did not actually have to occur in
order to be found out of compliance, only that production was made possible through activities
such as draining, dredging, filling, or leveling the wetland. The 1990 farm bill added six more
federal farm programs to the list of benefits that could be lost for non-compliance, including
many of the conservation programs. A graduated penalty was added so that under some
circumstances, producers could be subject to a loss in benefits of between $500 and $5000. This
graduated penalty may be applied only once every five years. The revisions protect tenant farmers
who may be ruled out of compliance because of the actions of the landowner or previous tenants.
Compliance exemptions were also expanded to include highly erodible land set aside, or taken
out of production, under the commodity support programs.
1996 Farm Bill
Beginning in 1994, conservation policy discussions in Congress focused on identifying ways to
make the compliance programs less intrusive on farmer activities. As a result, conservation
compliance provisions were significantly amended in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127, referred to as the 1996 farm bill). Many of the conservation
compliance changes enacted in the 1996 farm bill were meant to provide producer flexibility and
reduce the impact on farm operations. Some of the major amendments to highly erodible land
conservation compliance in the 1996 farm bill include
• removing crop insurance from the list of benefits that could be lost if the farmer
is found out of compliance;
• adding production flexibility contracts36 to the list of benefits that could be lost if
found out of compliance;
• highly erodible land exiting CRP would not be held to a higher compliance
standard than nearby cropland;
• providing violators with up to one year to meet compliance requirements;
• developing procedures to expedite variances for weather, pest, or disease
problems;

36 Producer flexibility contracts are now referred to as direct payments.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

• requiring an erosion measurement before the conservation system is
implemented;
• allowing third parties to measure residue and require that residue measurements
take into account the top two inches of soil;
• allowing producers to modify plans as long as the same level of treatment is
maintained;
• allowing local county committees to permit relief if a conservation system causes
a producer undue economic hardship; and
• establishing a wind erosion estimation pilot study to review and modify as
necessary wind erosion factors used to administer conservation compliance.
Several changes were made in the 1996 farm bill to the wetland conservation provisions as well.
Similar to the provisions for highly erodible land, wetland conservation provisions were meant to
provide greater program flexibility. Major changes included
• exempting swampbuster penalties when wetland values and functions are
voluntarily restored following a specified procedure;
• providing that prior converted wetlands will not be considered “abandoned” as
long as the land is only used for agriculture;
• giving the Secretary of Agriculture discretion to determine which program
benefits violators are ineligible for and to provide good-faith exemptions;
• establishing a pilot mitigation banking program (using the CRP);
• repealing required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• expanding the definition of agricultural lands used in a 1994 interagency
Memorandum of Agreement.
While the 1996 farm bill reduced the impact of the compliance requirements it also expanded the
voluntary incentive-based programs for agricultural conservation. For the first time the majority
of conservation funding was authorized as mandatory funding.37 Total funding levels for
conservation were increased. The conservation agenda was also broadened by adding wildlife
considerations and evaluating nonpoint source pollution from agricultural sources.
2002 Farm Bill
The Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171, 2002 farm bill) continued
and expanded many of the conservation priorities in the 1996 farm bill, especially those related to
voluntary incentive programs and increased funding. Few changes were made to the conservation
compliance provisions. The primary change was the requirement that USDA not delegate
authority to other parties to make highly erodible land determinations. Also, any person who had
highly erodible land enrolled in the CRP was given two years after a contract expires to be in full
compliance.

37 Mandatory funding is made available by multiyear authorizing legislation and does not require annual appropriations
or subsequent action by Congress.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

2008 Farm Bill
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, referred to as the 2008 farm bill)
again made few changes to the conservation compliance provisions. The primary change was the
addition of a second level of review by the state or district FSA director, with technical
concurrence from the state or area NRCS conservationist if USDA determines that this exception
should apply.
The 2008 farm bill also created the “sodsaver” provision under the crop insurance title (XII). The
sodsaver provision would have made producers who planted crops (five or more acres) on native
sod ineligible for crop insurance and the noninsured crop disaster assistance (NAP) program for
the first five years of planting. The 2008 farm bill limited the provision to virgin prairie converted
to cropland in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area, but only if elected by the state. States
included in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area are portions of Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Ultimately no governors opted to participate in the program
and sodsaver was never activated.
2014 Farm Bill
When the farm bill debate began in 2012, the fiscal climate made reductions in the farm bill
baseline all but certain. One of the largest programs on the chopping block was direct payments
in the commodity title. Because conservation compliance is tied to farm program benefits the loss
of such a large benefit would ultimately reduce the incentive to comply with conservation
requirements. Conservation advocates cited the need for additional farm program benefits to be
tied to conservation compliance in exchange for the loss of direct payments. Ultimately the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, 2014 farm bill) added the federally funded portion of crop
insurance premiums to the list of benefits that could possibly be lost if a producer were found out
of compliance. The amendments, however, treat compliance violations and the loss of federal
crop insurance premium subsidies separate from the loss of other farm program benefits.
Additionally, the 2014 farm bill amended the sodsaver provision by removing the elective option,
reducing crop insurance subsidies rather than eliminating them, and expanding the provision to
six states. Table A-1 compares changes made by the 2014 farm bill to prior law.
Table A-1. Comparison of Conservation Compliance Provisions Enacted in the 2014
Farm bill to Prior Law
Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sodbuster

Sec. 1211 of the FSA, as amended, requires that in
Adds the federal y funded portion of crop insurance
exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer premiums to the list of program benefits that could be
agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on
lost if a producer is found to produce an agricultural
highly erodible land (referred to as HEL compliance).
commodity on highly erodible land without an approved
Examples of affected benefit include commodity support
conservation plan or qualifying exemption. [Sec.
programs (e.g., Title I farm bill programs), conservation
2611(a)(1)]
programs, disaster payments, and operating loans. [16
U.S.C. 3811]
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sec. 1212 of the FSA, as amended, allows producers to
Provides a separate provision for crop insurance benefits.
cultivate crops on highly erodible land and remain eligible A person subject to compliance for the first time
for program benefits if the landowner agrees to cultivate
because of these amendments is given five reinsurance
the land using an approved conservation plan or qualifies
years to develop and comply with an approved
for an exemption. [16 U.S.C. 3812]
conservation plan to remain eligible for payments. A
person who would have been determined in violation
had they continued participation in programs requiring
compliance after enactment of this bill and are still in
violation must be granted two reinsurance years to
develop and comply with an approved conservation plan.
A person found in violation during a crop year shal be
ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidy. This
applies to reinsurance years subsequent to the date of
the final determination of a violation and does not apply
to the existing reinsurance year or any reinsurance year
prior to the date of the final determination. [Sec.
2611(a)(2)]
Sec. 1213 of the FSA, as amended, outlines the
Requires that when determining crop insurance premium
requirements for development and implementation of
assistance, USDA must allow self-certification of
conservation plans for conservation compliance. [16
compliance and act in a timely manner to evaluate such
U.S.C. 3812a]
certifications, as wel as avoid duplication or unnecessary
paperwork. [Sec. 2611(a)(3)]
Swampbuster
Sec. 1221 et seq. of the FSA, as amended, requires that in Adds the federal y funded portion of crop insurance
exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer premiums to the list of program benefits that could be
agrees not to convert wetlands to crop production. The
lost if a producer is found to have converted a wetland
provision, known as Swampbuster, affects producers
to crop production. Persons in violation who meet select
who plant a program crop on a wetland converted after
criteria have a varying amount of time (one to two
December 23, 1985, or who convert wetlands, making
reinsurance years) to initiate a conservation plan to
agricultural commodity production possible, after
remedy a violation and remain eligible. Requires an
November 28, 1990. Examples of affected benefits
annual report on ineligibility determinations. Al persons
include commodity support programs (e.g., Title I farm
applying for the federal y funded portion of crop
bill programs), conservation programs, disaster
insurance in the first ful reinsurance year after
payments, and operating loans. [16 U.S.C. 3821 et
enactment must certify their compliance with the
seq.]
wetlands compliance provision. USDA must evaluate the
certifications in a timely manner. A person found in
violation is only declared ineligible following final
determination and may not be retroactive. The timing of
a violation affects eligibility. Only USDA is responsible for
the enforcement of compliance. [Sec. 2611(b)(2)]
Sec. 1222 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA), as
Adds language that amends Sec. 1222(k) of the FSA,
amended, allows USDA to exempt persons from
authorizing USDA to expand and make permanent the
ineligibility under wetland compliance (swampbuster) if
wetland mitigation banking pilot program. Provides $10
certain factors exist, including: there is a minimal effect;
million mandatory funding to remain available until
the values, functions, and acreage are mitigated;
expended. Al ows access to existing mitigation banks.
conversion occurred after December 23, 1985, but
[Sec. 2609]
before November 28, 1990, and are mitigated; or the
action is authorized by a Clean Water Act section 404
permit (33 U.S.C. 1344). Sec. 1222(k) of the FSA, as
amended, allowed USDA to operate a pilot program for
mitigation banking. [16 U.S.C. 3822]
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Sodsaver

Sec. 508(o) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as
Removes the elective option and applies to all native sod
amended, and Sec. 196(a) of the Federal Agricultural
in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Improvement and Reform Act of 19996, as amended,
Montana, and Nebraska. Replaces ineligibility with
require that native sod planted to an insurable crop
reduced benefits for crop insurance and NAP in the first
(over 5 acres) be ineligible for crop insurance and the
4 years of planting, including: (1) a reduction in the crop
noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) for
insurance premium subsidy by 50 percentage points, and
the first 5 years of planting. May apply to virgin prairie
NAP fee is doubled; (2) annual data for APH are equal to
converted to cropland only in the Prairie Pothole
65% of the transitional yield for all four years rather than
National Priority Area, if elected by the state Governor.
the higher, variable percentage applicable for other
Native sod is defined as land with native grasses, forbs,
cropland; and (3) for crop insurance, yield substitutes are
and shrubs that have no history of being tilled for annual
not allowed; that is, low farm yields must be used in the
crop production. [7 U.S.C. 1508(o)] and [7 U.S.C.
APH rather than replacing them with potential y higher
7333(a)(4)]
T-yields. (On other cropland, producers can substitute
60% of the T-yield for any actual yield below 60% of the
To complete the actual production history (APH) database
T-yield). Amends the definition of native sod to include
used for calculating the yield guarantee, a farmer can use a
land where the producer cannot substantiate that the
variable percentage of the transitional yield (T-yield),
ground has never been tilled. [Sec. 11014(a-b)]
depending on the number of years of actual history: 1 year =
80%, 2 years = 90%, 3 years =100%. Yield substitutes are
allowed.
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA to submit an annual report to Congress
that describes cropland acreage in each applicable county
and state, and the change in cropland acreage from the
preceding year, beginning with calendar year 2000. [Sec.
11014(c)]
Source: CRS.
Notes: For additional information on changes in the 2014 farm bill, see CRS Report R43504, Conservation
Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).

Congressional Research Service
20

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Appendix B. FSA and NRCS Responsibilities
Table B-1. FSA and NRCS Responsibilities Administering Conservation Compliance
on Highly Erodible Land
FSA Responsibilitiesa
•
Establish field/tract boundaries, field numbers, and acreage
•
Consult with NRCS about the adequacy of conservation
systems as needed
•
Determine whether a tenant is required to produce an
•
Determine whether a producer violated the conservation
agricultural commodity on highly erodible land under the
compliance provisions (both highly erodible land
terms and conditions of an agreement between the
conservation and wetland conservation)
landlord and the tenant or sharecropper
•
Determine whether an individual, joint venture, or entity is
•
Notify new owners and operators of a tract of previous
a producer on a highly erodible field or converted wetland
determinations and the status of conservation system on
the tract
•
Determine whether the land meets the sodbuster
•
Determine whether proceeds of a farm program loan
provisions (i.e., was converted from native vegetation, such
made, insured, or guaranteed by FSA-Farm Credit wil be
as grassland, rangeland, or woodland, to agricultural
used for a purpose that will contribute to excessive
production after December 23, 1985)
erosion on highly erodible land or to the conversion of a
wetland to produce an agricultural commodity
•
Determine if the conversion of a wetland was caused by a
•
Determine whether persons qualify for a good faith
third party
exemption
•
Provide general supervision for day-to-day conservation
•
Determine on request whether application of a
compliance operations
conservation system causes a person undue economic
hardship
•
Refer cases requiring a technical determination to NRCS
•
Provide producers with appeal rights and mediation
•
Obtain producer’s certification of intentions to comply
•
Consult with NRCS about determinations of third-party
with conservation compliance requirements
conversion
•
Determine the accuracy of a producers certification
•
Make determinations of ineligibility for certain program
according to the spot-check procedures
benefits, as violations are discovered
NRCS Responsibilitiesb
•
Provide technical assistance for conservation planning
•
Complete compliance reviews that are (1) regularly
when requested, and applying conservation systems to the
scheduled, (2) in response to an FSA request, and (3) in
land upon request
response to a whistleblower complaint
•
Make determinations for highly erodible soil map units and
•
Provide assistance for conservation system revisions for
the predominance of highly erodible land in a field
USDA participant reinstatement
•
Determine whether land meets wetland criteria and
•
Provide FSA with information for making tenant exemption
whether a wetland exemption applies (see those listed
determinations and provide conservation planning
above)
assistance to the tenant
•
Determine qualifications for temporary variances from the
•
Provide FSA with information for making good faith
requirements of a conservation system
exemptions
•
Identify NRCS error or misinformation
•
Apply a conservation system that meets the soil reduction
and/or improvement criteria.
a.
As outlined in USDA Farm Service Agency, Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Provisions,
FSA Handbook 6-CP (revision3), Washington, DC, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/6-cp.pdf.
b. As outlined in USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Food Security Act Manual, Fifth Edition,
M_180_NFSM_510, November 2010.

Congressional Research Service
21

---

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Author Contact Information

Megan Stubbs

Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707


Congressional Research Service
22

---