January 9, 2015
Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs
in Appropriations Law
Federal spending for agricultural conservation programs
The Origin of CHIMPS
(which assist agricultural producers with correcting and
preventing natural resource concerns) generally takes two
The rise in the number of agricultural programs with
forms: (1) discretionary spending provided through annual
mandatory budget authority from the authorizing
appropriations acts, and (2) mandatory spending authorized
committees has not gone unnoticed or untouched by
and paid for in multiyear legislation (e.g., farm bills).
appropriators. In recent years, appropriations bills have
Historically, mandatory agricultural funding was reserved
reduced some mandatory program spending below
for the farm commodity programs, but it has expanded in
authorized levels. These reductions, estimated by the
recent years to include conservation, rural development,
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), are commonly
research, and bioenergy programs. This expansion has
referred to as “changes in mandatory program spending”
generated both concern and support. Some consider the
(CHIMPS). CHIMPS can offset discretionary spending that
expansion to be beyond the scope of the authorizing
otherwise would be above discretionary budget caps.
committee’s jurisdiction, while others prefer the stability of
mandatory funding to that of the appropriations process.
CHIMPS = Changes In Mandatory Program Spending
Mandatory Conservation Spending
Similarly, authorizing committees also have reduced
Large backlogs of interested and eligible producers led to
mandatory spending levels from their initially enacted
new and expanded farm bill conservation programs with
levels. Authorizers may make such reductions either to
mandatory spending authority beginning in the mid-1980s.
offset spending increases for other mandatory programs
Currently, the level of mandatory spending for conservation
within their jurisdiction or to get credit for budget
is roughly five times that of discretionary conservation
reconciliation requirements. Authorizing committee
spending (Figure 1).
CHIMPS are not discussed in this document.
Figure 1. Spending on USDA Conservation Programs
CHIMPing Conservation
Mandatory conservation spending generally has increased
annually. Nonetheless, the full potential of authorized
mandatory conservation spending has not been realized
because many conservation programs have been reduced or
capped through annual appropriations acts since FY2003.
At the Administration’s Request
Many conservation program CHIMPS are at the request of
the Administration. Both the Bush and Obama
Administrations have requested reductions in recent years
(Figure 2). The mix of programs and amount of reduction
varies from year to year.
Through Appropriations Law

Source: CRS, updated from George A Pavelis, Douglas Helms, and
When appropriators limit mandatory spending, they usually
Sam Stalcup, “Soil and Water Conservation Expenditures by USDA
do not change the text of the authorizing law. Their action
Agencies, 1935-2010,” USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
has the same effect as changing the law, but only for the
Service (NRCS), Historical Insights Number 10, Washington, DC, May
one year to which the appropriation applies. Appropriators
2011. Not adjusted for inflation.
put limits on mandatory programs by using language such
as: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79)
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
reauthorized mandatory spending for a number of
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section [ ... ]
agricultural conservation programs through FY2018.
of Public Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ].”

www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---

Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs in Appropriations Law
Figure 2. Mandatory Conservation Program Funding
Budgetary scoring methods have also led to what some
argue as “double counting” for CHIMPS of authorizations
that do not expire after one year (authorizations “to remain
available until expended”). For example, the Dam Rehab
program is currently authorized to receive $153 million to
remain available until expended. CHIMPS only apply for
the current fiscal year and do not typically change or
permanently cancel the statutory funding authority.
Therefore the full amount of funding (minus any
sequestration) is restored the following fiscal year and can
be reduced again. Thus, successive years’ CHIMPS can be
greater than the original authorization.
Figure 3. CHIMPS to Conservation Programs in
Appropriations Law

Source: CRS.
Notes: Reductions from authorized levels include CHIMPS and
sequestration. FY2014 includes CHIMPS prior to enactment of the
2014 farm bill. FY2015 includes sequestration estimates.
Budget Sequestration—A Further Reduction
Budget sequestration continues to impact a number of
mandatory programs and reduces the authorized level
available to programs. During the 2014 farm bill debate,
sequestration reduced the overall baseline prior to the bill’s
enactment. Sequestration combined with the farm bill’s
other reductions resulted in a net reduction of over $6
billion over 10 years for mandatory conservation programs.

The 2013 budget agreement (P.L. 113-67) stopped
Source: CRS.
sequestration for discretionary accounts, but continues to
Notes: Does not include sequestration. FY2008 and FY2014 include
impact mandatory programs. The enacted FY2015
CHIMPS prior to enactment of the 2008 and 2014 farm bil s. CSP =
appropriation includes sequestration estimates, making the
Conservation Stewardship Program, WRP = Wetlands Reserve
CHIMPS to conservation seem less than previous years
Program (now authorized as the Agricultural Conservation Easement
(Figure 3). However, the overall impact to conservation
Program, or ACEP).
programs (CHIMPS + sequestration) is similar to previous
Finally, conservation advocates contend that these CHIMPS
years––a reduction from the authorized level.
are significant changes from the intent of the authorizing
Concluding Thoughts
law (farm bill), undercutting many of the programs that
generated political support for the farm bill's initial passage.
Initially, CHIMPS in appropriations law were fiercely
They also point out that savings generated from
opposed by conservation advocates. And while
conservation CHIMPS are not necessarily used for other
conservation programs continue to have broad support
conservation or environmental activities. Those interested
against CHIMPS, the outcry has lessened slightly to include
in reducing agricultural expenditures counter that even with
a certain level of acceptance. Some believe that the
these reductions, overall funding for conservation has not
agriculture committees might anticipate some level of
been reduced since it is still increasing over time, albeit not
CHIMPS when they establish spending levels in an
as much as authorized.
omnibus farm bill.
More Information
Additionally, CHIMPS are not uniform among programs.
For more analysis, see CRS Report R43669, Agriculture
Some programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program
and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations; and CRS
(CRP), have not been reduced by appropriators in recent
Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture
years, while others, such as the Environmental Quality
Program Spending.
Incentives Program (EQIP), have been repeatedly reduced
below authorized levels (reductions total $2.8 billion from
Megan Stubbs, mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
FY2004 through FY2015, Figure 3). Other programs, such

as the Watershed Rehabilitation Program (Dam Rehab), are
rarely allowed to spend their mandatory authority.
IF10041
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---