.

Conservation Compliance and
U.S. Farm Policy

Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
May 29, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42459

c11173008

.
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
agricultural conservation provisions designed to reduce farm 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.
In April 2015, USDA issued an interim final rule amending conservation compliance regulations
in response to changes made in the 2014 farm bill. The levels of interest and debate generated by
the changes to conservation compliance in the 2014 farm bill are likely to continue with
implementation, raising additional questions and oversight in Congress. Recent concerns about a
growing backlog of wetland determinations in the northern plains and approaching compliance
deadlines for crop insurance policyholders have been raised. Additionally, 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
c11173008

Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy
.

Contents
Recent Developments: 2015 Interim Final Rule .............................................................................. 1
Conservation Compliance Today ..................................................................................................... 1
Sodbuster ................................................................................................................................... 2
Swampbuster ............................................................................................................................. 3
Sodsaver .................................................................................................................................... 5
Affected Program Benefits ........................................................................................................ 6
Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 7
Issues for Congress .......................................................................................................................... 8
Wetland Determinations ............................................................................................................ 8
2014 Farm Bill Implementation ................................................................................................ 9
Crop Insurance .................................................................................................................... 9
Wetland Mitigation Banking and Violations ..................................................................... 11
Erosion and Conversion Rates ................................................................................................. 11
Oversight ................................................................................................................................. 13
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Figures
Figure 1. Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland .................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Soil Erosion on Cropland by Year .................................................................................. 13

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 ................................................................................................................ 21
Table B-1. FSA, NRCS, and RMA Responsibilities Administering Conservation
Compliance on Highly Erodible Land ........................................................................................ 23

Appendixes
Appendix A. A Brief Legislative History of Conservation Compliance ........................................ 16
Appendix B. FSA, NRCS, and RMA Responsibilities .................................................................. 23

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
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.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79) added federal crop insurance subsidies
to 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. Compliance violations
related to the loss of federal crop insurance premium subsidies now have separate considerations
from violations related to 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.
Recent Developments: 2015 Interim Final Rule
On April 24, 2015, USDA published an interim final rule (2015 rule) implementing the 2014 farm
bill’s changes to conservation compliance.3 The rule made three main amendments: (1) applied
conservation compliance provisions to federal crop insurance premium subsidies, (2) modified
easement provisions related to wetland mitigation banks, and (3) amended provisions related to
agency discretion for certain violations. Changes made by the rule are discussed further in the
“Issues for Congress” section.
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).”4
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.”5 Since the enactment of the 1985 farm bill,
each succeeding farm bill has amended the compliance provisions. For a brief history of the farm

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 USDA Office of the Secretary, “Conservation Compliance,” 80 Federal Register 22873-22885, April 24, 2015.
4 H.Rept. 99-271, p. 84.
5 Ibid., p. 88.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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.7
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.6
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.
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

6 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.
7 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
c11173008




.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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 years8 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.
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

8 A reinsurance year is a 12-month period that begins on July 1.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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—wetlands
Converted wetland
Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies,
converted after February 7, 2014.
violation impacting
unless exemption applies or required mitigation
five or more acres.
actions are taken.

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 or
conducts the required mitigation actions.
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 or required mitigation
actions are taken.
New Insurance Policies—wetlands
Any converted
Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies,
converted after February 7, 2014, but
wetland violation.
if prior conversions are not mitigated within
before a new insurance policy or plan is
two reinsurance years.
made available for the first time.
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;
• 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
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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.9 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 provisions remained unchanged in the 2014 farm bill. The conference report (H.Rept. 113-333),
however, included language encouraging USDA to use a wetland mitigation ratio not to exceed 1-to-1 acreage.
The 2014 farm bill also provided $10 million in mandatory funding for mitigation banking efforts. Based on the 2015
rule published in the Federal Register, USDA wil implement a “prioritized and competitive mitigation banking program
through an Announcement of Program Funding that focuses on agricultural wetlands.”10 To date, no announcement of
funding has been made.

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.

9 16 U.S.C. 3822(f).
10 USDA Office of the Secretary, “Conservation Compliance,” 80 Federal Register 22873-22885, April 24, 2015.
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
c11173008

.
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 following final determination and after all
administrative appeals.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

.
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
conservation compliance and USDA determines that the tenant has made a good faith effort to comply with restoration
or mitigation requirements and the landowner continues to refuse to comply, then the denial of benefits may be limited
to the farm that is the basis of the ineligibility. The 2015 rule clarified that because federal crop insurance policies are
not constructed on a “farm” basis, tenant relief provisions will be achieved through a prorated reduction of premium
subsidies on all of a person’s policies and plans of insurance. Similarly, a landlord’s premium subsidy on all policies
and plans of insurance will be prorated in the same manner when a landlord is in violation because of the actions (or
inactions) of their tenant or sharecropper (7 CFR 12.9).
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Table 3. Summary of Conservation Compliance Status Reviews
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total Tracts Reviewed
20,474
18,704
22,210
24,309
23,677
Total Acres Reviewed (approx.)
3 million
3.3 million
2.8 million
3.6 million
3.6 million
Tracts Out of Compliance
277
344
530
744
680
Both Highly Erodible Land and Wetland
177
167
372
401 464
Conservation Violations
Wetland Conservation Violation Only
100
177
158
343
216
Percentage Out of Compliance
1.4%
1.8%
2.4%
3.1%
2.9%
Number of States Recording Non-Compliance
30
28
32
30
34
Variances or Exemptions Issued
726
732
887
1,081
1,354
Source: USDA, NRCS, complied by CRS.
The Risk Management Agency (RMA) at USDA administers the federal crop insurance program
and has limited responsibilities with conservation compliance implementation. RMA and
associated approved insurance providers16 are prohibited from making any eligibility
determinations regarding conservation compliance.17 Implementation duties are limited to
providing approved insurance agents with compliance related records and notifying FSA and
NRCS of cases of misrepresentation, fraud, or schemes and devices where appropriate.
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 114th Congress continues to review the implementation of farm programs,
issues related to conservation compliance could be debated.
Wetland Determinations
Beginning in the 2000s, weather events and expanded production in the northern plains states
resulted in an increased number of wetland determination requests from producers in order to
remain in compliance with wetland conservation provisions. NRCS has sole responsibility for
making wetland determinations, and the growing number of requests has resulted in a backlog.
This backlog has continued to grow in recent years with over 4,000 pending wetland
determinations in the Prairie Pothole region,18 including 2,000 requests in South Dakota alone.

16 Insurance policies for the federal crop insurance program are sold and completely serviced through 18 approved
private insurance companies known as approved insurance providers. For additional information on how federal crop
insurances is administered, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background.
17 16 U.S.C. 3821(c)(4)(C).
18 Prairie potholes are depressional wetlands that fill with snowmelt and rain in the spring. Some of these wetlands are
temporary, and some are permanent. Most of the prairie potholes are located in portions of Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa and make up the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. The northern plains
location of these wetlands is ideal habitat for migratory waterfowl and provides natural flood control for snow melt and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

According to recent testimony, NRCS continues to chip away at the backlog by redirecting staff
and resources to the Prairie Pothole region states with a goal of eliminating the backlog within
three years.19 Budget restrictions are cited as the primary obstacle for reducing the backlog
sooner.20
In November 2014, NRCS proposed changes to the offsite methods used to make wetlands
determination in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.21 The proposal would allow
the four Prairie Pothole states to make wetland determinations based primarily on the use of aerial
photography, rather than on-site visits. The proposal was met with opposition from a number of
wildlife and conservation organizations that expressed concern that the off-site methods may not
accurately account for seasonal and temporary wetlands, and that additional analysis should be
conducted to ensure the determination methods are at least as accurate as the previous methods.22
In response, NRCS officials say the new process will be faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more
consistent across the four states.23
2014 Farm Bill Implementation
On April 24, 2015, USDA published an interim final rule (2015 rule) amending conservation
compliance regulations in accordance with changes made in the 2014 farm bill.24 The rule made
three main amendments: (1) applied conservation compliance provisions to federal crop insurance
premium subsidies, (2) modified easement provisions related to wetland mitigation banks, and (3)
amended provisions related to agency discretion for certain violations. The level of interest and
debate generated by the changes to conservation compliance in the 2014 farm bill is likely to
continue as USDA proceeds with implementation.
Crop Insurance
The majority of changes made by the 2015 rule are in response to the 2014 farm bill’s addition of
federal crop insurance subsidies to 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. The changes and deadlines for compliance are correlated to the changes made in the
2014 farm bill and described in Table A-1. How compliance is calculated, where compliance
provisions apply, and traditional exemptions and variances were not amended by the rule.

(...continued)
spring rains.
19 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Farmers and Fresh Water: Voluntary
Conservation to Protect Our Land and Waters
, testimony of Jason Weller, Chief of the NRCS, 113th Cong., 2nd sess.,
December 3, 2014.
20 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, The Agricultural Act of 2014
Implementation After One Year
, testimony of Tom Vilsack, Secretary of USDA, 114th Cong., 1st sess., February 24,
2015.
21 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Notice of Proposed Changes to Section I of the Iowa, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota State Technical Guides,” 79 Federal Register 65615, November 5, 2014.
22 Letter from 29-90 Sportsmen’s Club, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Friends of the Big Sioux, et al.
to Jason Weller, Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, February 3, 2015, http://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=NRCS-2014-0013-0084.
23 Whitney Forman-Cook, “Mapping Changes Could Put Wetlands at Risk, USDA told,” AgriPulse, February 6, 2015.
24 USDA Office of the Secretary, “Conservation Compliance,” 80 Federal Register 22873-22885, April 24, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Producers must continue to self-certify their compliance with the sodbuster and swampbuster
provisions, and approved conservation plans currently in place will remain valid.
Changes in the 2014 farm bill are not expected to have a significant impact on USDA’s
implementation of conservation compliance.25 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.26 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. The cost-benefit analysis associated with the interim final rule estimates that between
16,000 and 25,000 persons or entities will be affected by the changes and less than a third of
those producers will need a conservation plan to comply with the new requirements.27
The first approaching deadline following the 2014 farm bill is on June 1, 2015.28 To remain
eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies, producers are required to certify their compliance
with sodbuster and swampbuster provisions using a form known as an AD-1026. According to
RMA, letters were mailed in December 2014 to producers who were enrolled in the crop
insurance program but did not have a current AD-1026 compliance form on file with FSA.29
Follow-up letters and postcards have also been sent. Notification was also given to crop insurance
providers, alerting them to incomplete records.30 Examples of additional outreach efforts by
USDA include radio broadcasts, direct calls to producers, town hall meetings, and stakeholder
coordination. According to USDA, the June 1 deadline is firm and will not be extended. The
Department plans to use the month of June to reconcile data prior to the start of the reinsurance
year, which begins July 1.31 Specialty crop producers expressed concern earlier in May that a
backlog of forms were not entered into the FSA system, thus potentially affecting their eligibility
for the crop insurance premium subsidy.32 In response, USDA has assured producers that any
delay in entering completed AD-1026 forms should not affect eligibility as long as the completed
form is submitted before the June 1 deadline. As the deadline approaches, interested producers,
agricultural organizations, conservation groups, and congressional offices are following the
impact of implementation closely.

25 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)).”
26 Producers new to conservation compliance would also receive priority when requesting technical assistance from
USDA (16 U.S.C. 3841(c)(2)).
27 USDA Office of the Secretary, “Conservation Compliance,” 80 Federal Register 22873-22885, April 24, 2015.
28 USDA - Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, "General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk Protection
Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations; and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic
Provisions," 79 Federal Register 37155-37166, July 1, 2014.
29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk
Management, Farm Bill, Implementing the Agricultural Act of 2014: Commodity Policy and Crop Insurance, 114th
Cong., 1st sess., March 26, 2015.
30 Ibid.
31 "USDA: Don't expect conservation compliance deadline to be extended," Agri-Pulse, May 27, 2015, p. 12, Volume
11, Number 21.
32 Letter from John Keeling, Executive Vice President & CEO National Potato Council, Tom Nassif, President Western
Growers Association, and Mike Stuart, President Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, et al. to Tom Vilsack, USDA
Secretary, May 11, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Wetland Mitigation Banking and Violations
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. The 2015 rule amends regulations related to wetland mitigation
banking and defining wetland conservation violations.
Wetland mitigation banking is a type of wetlands mitigation whereby a wetland is created,
enhanced, or restored, and “credit” for those efforts is sold to others as compensation for the loss
of impacted wetlands elsewhere. While wetland mitigation banks are not new, challenges related
to access and cost have prevented agricultural producers from utilizing this option for mitigation.
The 2014 farm bill changes the wetland mitigation banking provision to allow for third parties to
hold wetland mitigation easements, rather than USDA itself. The 2014 farm bill also created a
permanent wetland mitigation banking program and provided $10 million in mandatory funding.
USDA is expected to implement the program through an announcement of funding at a later date.
Other changes in the 2015 rule were not
The “T” Factor
directed by the 2014 farm bill, including a
Soil erosion occurs for a variety of natural and manmade
clarification regarding wetland conservation
reasons. An evaluation of different soil types and
violations. According to the rule, there are two
surrounding conditions (e.g., soil depth, slope, etc.)
types of wetland conservation violations with
allows soil scientists to determine what an “acceptable”
two different consequences. The first type is
rate of soil erosion is for a given area. This is commonly
violations for production on converted
referred to as “T” or soil loss tolerance rate. T is the
maximum rate of annual soil loss that will permit crop
wetland, which can result in a graduated
productivity to be sustained economical y and indefinitely
penalty determined by USDA, rather than a
on a given soil. Erosion is considered to be greater than
denial of all benefits.33 The second type is a
T if either the water (sheet and ril ) erosion or the wind
conversion of wetland to production, which
erosion rate exceeds the soil loss tolerance rate. The
higher the T value, the more soil erosion can be
can result in a denial of all benefits.34
tolerated.
According to USDA, previous language was
used by producers who converted a wetland to
The use of T is one of the bases for identifying highly
erodible land associated with conservation compliance.
argue that USDA has discretion to issue a
The erodibility index for a soil is determined by dividing
graduated penalty similar to that of production
the potential average annual rate of erosion for each soil
on converted wetlands rather than a full denial
by its predetermined soil loss tolerance (T) value.1 T is
of benefits. It is unclear what level of
also used as one of the criteria for planning soil
confusion existed prior to this change and
conservation systems required by conservation
compliance. Conservationists focus on reducing soil loss
what impact, if any, this clarification will have
to or below T by applying practices, such as terraces,
on determining wetland compliance violations
contour strips, grassed waterways, and residue
and associated appeals in the future.
management.
The use of T has been and will likely remain
Erosion and Conversion Rates
controversial. Some soil scientists have suggested that
the current values of T far exceed the actual soil
The reduction in soil erosion from highly
formation rates and therefore are not truly “sustainable”
erodible land conservation continues, but at a
(Craig Cox, Andrew Hug, and Nils Bruzelius, Losing
slower pace than following enactment of the
Ground, Environmental Working Group, April 2011).
1985 farm bill (Figure 2). The leveling off of
Despite these concerns, T remains the only commonly
used standard by which soil erosion is measured.
reduced erosion leaves several broad policy

33 16 U.S.C. 3821(a)(2).
34 16 U.S.C. 3821(d).
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

questions, 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 should encourage additional reductions in erosion. Some environmental and conservation
groups have asked Congress to tighten compliance requirements as one way of reducing soil
erosion. Many agricultural groups, however, prefer additional financial incentives through
voluntary conservation programs, such as EQIP.
According to USDA’s Natural Resource Inventory, in 2010, 94 million acres (26% of all
cropland) was eroding above soil loss tolerance (T) rates (see text box).35 This compares to 169
million acres (40% of cropland) in 1982. Between 1982 and 2010, farmers reduced total cropland
soil erosion by 41% (Figure 2). The bulk of this reduction 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).36 Another 31%, or 365 million tons, reduced could be attributed to land use changes,
including CRP enrollment.37

35 USDA, NRCS, Summary Report: 2010 National Resources Inventory, September 2013, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1167354.pdf
36 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.
37 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.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008





.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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.38 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
United States experienced a net wetlands gain of about 250,000 acres.39 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.
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 2003,40 which found that many NRCS field offices were not

38 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.
39 USDA, RCA Appraisal: Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, Washington, DC, July 2011,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044939.pdf.
40 U.S. GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA needs to better ensure protection of highly erodible cropland and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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.41 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%.42
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.”43
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.
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

(...continued)
wetlands, GAO-03-418, April 2003, http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/237878.pdf.
41 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.
42 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.
43 H.Rept. 110-627.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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 increase 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
15
c11173008

.
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.44 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.45 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.46
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.47 The other conservation

44 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.
45 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summary of Appraisal, Parts I and II, and Program Report, GPO 1980 633-
769/460, 1980.
46 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.
47 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
16
c11173008

.
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
17
c11173008

.
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 contracts48 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;

48 Producer flexibility contracts are now referred to as direct payments.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008

.
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.49 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.

49 Mandatory funding is made available by multiyear authorizing legislation and does not require annual appropriations
or subsequent action by Congress.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008

.
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.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

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]

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)]
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Prior Law
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)
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]
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
22
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Appendix B. FSA, NRCS, and RMA Responsibilities
Table B-1. FSA, NRCS, and RMA 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 conservation
terms and conditions of an agreement between the landlord
and wetland conservation)
and the tenant or sharecropper

Determine whether an individual, joint venture, or entity is a

Notify new owners and operators of a tract of previous
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 provisions

Determine whether proceeds of a farm program loan made,
(i.e., was converted from native vegetation, such as grassland,
insured, or guaranteed by FSA-Farm Credit will be used for a
rangeland, or woodland, to agricultural production after
purpose that will contribute to excessive erosion on highly
December 23, 1985)
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 conservation
compliance operations
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 with

Consult with NRCS about determinations of third-party
conservation compliance requirements
conversion

Determine the accuracy of a producers certification according

Make determinations of ineligibility for certain program
to the spot-check procedures
benefits, as violations are discovered
NRCS Responsibilitiesb

Provide technical assistance for conservation planning when

Complete compliance reviews that are (1) regularly scheduled,
requested, and applying conservation systems to the land upon
(2) in response to an FSA request, and (3) in response to a
request
whistleblower complaint

Make determinations for highly erodible soil map units and the

Provide assistance for conservation system revisions for
predominance of highly erodible land in a field
USDA participant reinstatement

Determine whether land meets wetland criteria and whether a

Provide FSA with information for making tenant exemption
wetland exemption applies (see those listed above)
determinations and provide conservation planning 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
RMA Responsibilitiesc

Provide the applicable information regarding determinations

Not make any determination of eligibility regarding
made by NRCS and FSA to the appropriate approved
compliance with highly erodible land or wetland provisions
insurance providers
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008

.
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy

Source: Compiled by CRS.
a. As outlined in USDA Farm Service Agency, Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Provisions,
FSA Handbook 6-CP (revision 4), Washington, DC, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/6-
cp_r04_a04.pdf.
b. As outlined in USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Food Security Act Manual, Fifth Edition,
M_180_NFSM_510, November 2010.
c. As outlined in 7 CFR 12.6(f).

Author Contact Information

Megan Stubbs

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


Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008