June 21, 2017
Farm Bill Primer: The Conservation Title
The conservation title of a farm bill generally contains a
reductions will have on a new farm bill’s baseline. While
number of reauthorizations, amendments, and new
most producers are in favor of conservation programs, it is
programs that encourage farmers and ranchers to
unclear how much of a reduction in other farm program
voluntarily implement resource-conserving practices on
spending they would be willing to support to expand or
private land. Starting in 1985, farm bills have greatly
maintain these efforts.
broadened the range of topics considered to be
conservation. While the number of conservation programs
Select Farm Bill Conservation Programs
has increased and techniques to address resource problems
continue to emerge, the basic approach has remained
Working lands programs allow private land to remain in
unchanged: financial and technical assistance supported by
production while implementing various conservation practices to
education and research programs.
address natural resource concerns specific to the area.
Conservation Program Portfolio
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and Agricultural
Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Management Assistance (AMA).
(USDA), these programs can be grouped into the following
Land retirement programs provide payments to private
categories based on similarities: working land programs,
agricultural landowners for temporary changes in land use and
land retirement programs, easement programs, partnership
management to achieve environmental benefits.
programs, conservation compliance, and other overarching
provisions (see text box and CRS Report R40763,
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)––includes the
Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs).
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Farmable
Wetland Program, and Transition Incentives Program.
Other types of conservation programs—such as watershed
Easement programs impose a permanent or long-term land
programs, emergency land rehabilitation programs, and
use restriction that is voluntarily placed on the land in exchange
technical assistance—are authorized in other non-farm-bill
for a payment.
legislation. Most of these programs have permanent
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and
authorities and receive appropriations annually through the
Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP).
discretionary appropriations process. These programs are
Partnership programs create opportunities to target and
not generally addressed in the context of a farm bill unless
leverage existing conservation program funding for specific areas
amendments to the program are proposed.
and resource concerns.
Title II of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill; P.L.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
113-79) reauthorized, repealed, consolidated, and amended
Conservation compliance prohibits a producer from
a number of conservation programs. Most of the farm bill
receiving select federal farm program benefits (including
conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory
conservation assistance and crop insurance premium subsidies)
funding (i.e., they do not require an annual appropriation)
when conservation program requirements for highly erodible
and include authorities that expire with other farm bill
lands and wetlands are not met.
programs at the end of FY2018.
Highly erodible land conservation (Sodbuster), wetland
Budget and Baseline
conservation (Swampbuster), and Sodsaver.
Other conservation programs and provisions include
The conservation title is one of the larger non-nutrition
Conservation Innovation Grants, the Grassroots Source Water
titles of the farm bill, accounting for 6% of the total
Protection Program, Voluntary Public Access, and the Habitat
projected 2014 farm bill cost, or $58 billion of the total
Incentive Program.
$956 billion in 10-year mandatory funding authorized
(FY2014-FY2023). Budgetary constraints may be an
important consideration in the debate over conservation in a
Program Backlog
new farm bill as was the case during debate on the 2014
Arguments for expanding conservation programs in earlier
farm bill, which was influenced in part by the demand for
farm bills proved particularly persuasive in light of
fiscal restraint. Ultimately the 2014 farm bill reduced the
documentation that large backlogs of interested and eligible
conservation title by $3.97 billion over 10 years, or 24% of
producers were unable to enroll because of a lack of funds.
the total farm bill reductions. In addition to a reduction in
Debate on a new farm bill could see similar arguments, as
mandatory authorization, the conservation title continues to
demand to participate in many of the conservation programs
be affected by budgetary dynamics such as sequestration
exceeds the available program dollars several times over.
and reductions through annual appropriations (see CRS
Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture
In FY2016, 27% of the applications received for EQIP and
Program Spending). It remains uncertain what impact these
39% of the applications received for AMA were funded.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Farm Bill Primer: The Conservation Title
The FY2016 CRP general sign-up resulted in 1.9 million
funding than previous years and others receiving less.
acres offered for enrollment and 411,000 acres accepted
Potentially smaller budget baselines and large application
(22%). Easements under ACEP also faced a limited
backlogs could make it more difficult for Congress to target
acceptance rate, with agricultural land easements enrolling
areas or resources in a new farm bill, although support for
14% of applications and wetland reserve easements
this generally continues.
accepting 16% of offers in FY2016. The new RCPP also
experienced high demand, accepting 88 of the 147 projects
Compliance Requirements
proposed (60%) in FY2017 and 84 of the 265 project
The Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill, P.L. 99-
proposed (32%) in FY2016. Large, ongoing backlogs could
198) created the highly erodible lands conservation and
provide a case for additional funding, while other policy
wetland conservation compliance programs, which tied
mechanisms could be proposed to reduce demand.
various farm program benefits to conservation standards.
The provision has since been amended numerous times to
Working Land or Land Retirement
remove certain benefits and add others. Most recently, the
Land retirement programs (e.g., CRP) provide producers
2014 farm bill added crop insurance premium subsidies as a
with financial incentives to temporarily remove from
program benefit that could be denied if conservation
production and restore environmentally sensitive land. In
standards were not met. In 2015, USDA issued a
contrast, working lands programs (e.g., EQIP) allow land to
requirement that to remain eligible for crop insurance
remain in production and provide producers with financial
premium subsidies, producers must certify their compliance
incentives to adopt resource-conserving practices. Over
with the conservation compliance provisions through a
time, high commodity prices, changing land rental rates,
standard form. Following the 2015 deadline, USDA
and new conservation technologies have led to a shift in
reported a 98.2% certification rate, suggesting that those not
farm bill conservation policy toward an increased focus on
certified were likely no longer farming or had filed forms
conservation working lands programs. Some of this shift
with discrepancies that may still be reconciled. Despite this
had already occurred in the last decade and was continued
high compliance rate, many view the conservation
in the 2014 farm bill as the percentage of mandatory
compliance requirements as burdensome, and they continue
program funding for land retirement programs declined
to be unpopular among producer groups. Since its
relative to working lands programs. With lower commodity
introduction in the 1985 farm bill, conservation compliance
prices, a new farm bill could shift this focus again,
has remained a controversial issue, and debate will likely
potentially increasing funding for land retirement programs.
continue.
Most conservation and wildlife organizations support both
land retirement and working lands programs, but the
Reporting Requirements
appropriate “mix” continues to be debated. That said, it is
Federal grant recipients must comply with government-
likely that environmental interests would not support a
wide financial management policies and reporting
reduction in one without an increase in the other.
requirements when receiving federal grants and agreements.
Many of these reporting requirements are not new for
Targeting and Partnerships
USDA programs and have been in place for a number of
Interest is increasing in programs that partner with state and
years. Interested stakeholders raised concerns when a
local communities to target conservation funding to local
number of the USDA conservation programs were
areas of concern. A number of these partnership programs
designated as grants (rather than direct payments) under a
were repealed in the 2014 farm bill and replaced with the
2010 regulation. This designation triggered the use of a
new RCPP. The program receives $100 million annually in
Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and
mandatory funding and redirects 7% of the funding from
System for Award Management (SAM) registration. The
other programs—EQIP, ACEP, CSP, and HFRP—to
DUNS number requirement and SAM registration do not
partnership agreements. Now in its fourth year of project
affect individuals or entities that apply for conservation
selection, RCPP has received considerable interest. Some
programs using a Social Security Number. Rather, it applies
praise the program’s ability to leverage non-federal funding
only to those applying as an entity with a Taxpayer
and incorporate the use of other state and local partners in a
Identification Number or Employee Identification Number.
targeted effort. Others question whether the program
redirects funds to areas with the greatest established support
The initial adjustment to this requirement affected
rather than those with the greatest resource concerns.
thousands of conservation contract participants and
generated considerable interest in Congress. Additional
The 2014 farm bill largely removed references that targeted
anecdotal evidence of concerns with these requirements has
geographic and natural resource concerns (e.g., wildlife)
also been presented to Congress, including delayed
from the conservation title. Some such were removed
applications, privacy concerns, and reduced program
through repeal and replacement (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay
participation.
Watershed Program was repealed and replaced with RCPP)
while others were consolidated (e.g., the Wildlife Habitat
Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and
Incentives Program was consolidated into EQIP). These
Natural Resources Policy
measures largely made the conservation programs
geographically and resource neutral while providing
IF10679
substantial discretion to USDA to allocate funding. This
shift resulted in some states and regions receiving more
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Farm Bill Primer: The Conservation Title
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10679 · VERSION 2 · NEW