FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural
March 19, 2021
Conservation
Megan Stubbs
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for
Specialist in Agricultural
the Forest Service. The FY2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-260, Division A)
Conservation and Natural
includes funding for conservation programs and activities at USDA.
Resources Policy

Agricultural conservation programs include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Most
conservation program funding is mandatory and is authorized in omnibus farm bills. Other

conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—operate with discretionary funding through
annual appropriations. The FY2021 appropriation includes funding levels similar to those provided in FY2020 for
discretionary conservation programs and generally does not follow the Trump Administration’s proposed reductions to
discretionary and mandatory conservation programs.
The largest discretionary conservation program is the Conservation Operations (CO) account, which funds conservation
planning and implementation assistance on private agricultural lands across the country. The CO account is administered by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and funds more than half of the agency’s total staff positions. The
FY2021 enacted appropriation increases funding for CO by $3.1 million above FY2020 levels to $832.7 million.
A decline in funding for CO over the past 10 years has resulted in reduced NRCS staffing levels. Much of the conservation
technical assistance provided by NRCS is funded through the Conservation Technical Assistance program within CO. Funds
are used to support salaries and expenses for NRCS staff, technology development, conservation syst em design, compliance
reviews, grants to partners for additional technical assistance capacity, and resource assessment reports. Reductions in staff
could affect NRCS’s ability to provide technical assistance and administer farm bill conservation programs to farmers and
ranchers.
The recently created Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center is responsible for various administrative
services for three USDA agencies, including NRCS. The FPAC Business Center receives $231.3 million in the FY2021
appropriation—$24.8 million more than in FY2020. In FY2019, Congress realigned funding from NRCS discretionary and
mandatory program accounts and NRCS staff to the Business Center. It is unclear how the transfer of NRCS positions and
funding to the FPAC Business Center has impacted the agency’s overall operations relative to the decline in CO funding. The
explanatory statement of the FY2021 appropriation directs USDA to report to Congress on the efficiencies gained through
the Business Center’s creation, along with other staffing plans.
Other discretionary spending is primarily for watershed programs. The largest—Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
(WFPO)—is funded at $175 million in FY2021, which is the same WFPO funding level included in FY2020. The FY2021
appropriation also funds other discretionary water-related programs, such as the Watershed Rehabilitation Program ($10
million), Water Bank program ($4 million), and wetland mitigation banking ($5 million).
Most mandatory conservation programs are authorized in omnibus farm bills and do not require an annual appropriation.
However, previous Congresses reduced mandatory conservation program funding through Changes in Mandatory Program
Spending (CHIMPS) in the annual agricultural appropriations law every year between FY2003 and FY2018. The Trump
Administration requested CHIMPS to two mandatory conservation programs for FY2021; neither of these proposed
reductions to mandatory conservation programs is included in the enacted FY2021 appropriation.
Agriculture appropriations bills may also include policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry
out the appropriations. In the FY2021 appropriations act, these range from waiving specific programmatic requirements to
requiring reports to Congress.
Congressional Research Service

FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

he Agriculture appropriations bil —formal y cal ed the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—funds al of the
T U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), excluding the U.S. Forest Service. For FY2021,
the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 7610 on July 13, 2020 (including H.Rept.
116-446). Funding for USDA was included in a four-bil minibus appropriations bil (H.R. 7608,
Division B) that passed the House on July 24, 2020. The Senate Appropriations Committee
released a draft bil and explanatory statement on November 10, 2020.1 Neither the Senate
Appropriations Committee nor the full Senate acted on this draft bil . In the absence of an enacted
full-year appropriation, FY2021 began under a continuing resolution (P.L. 116-159), which lasted
until December 11, 2020. Four additional continuing resolutions were enacted before December
27, 2020, when Congress passed and the President signed into law the FY2021 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-260). Agriculture and related agencies are included under Division
A.
This report provides a brief overview of the conservation-related provisions in the FY2021
Agriculture appropriations act. For a general analysis of the FY2021 appropriations for
agriculture, see CRS Report R46437, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2021 Appropriations.
Conservation Appropriations
USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners
with natural resource concerns. These include working lands programs, land retirement and
easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most conservation programs, and
the Farm Service Agency (FSA), which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).2
Most conservation program funding is mandatory, obtained through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bil s (about $6.2 bil ion of CCC budget
authority for conservation in FY2021).3 The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm
bil ; P.L. 115-334) reauthorized most mandatory conservation programs through FY2023. Other
conservation programs—mostly providing technical assistance—operate with discretionary
funding provided in annual appropriations (about $1 bil ion annual y).
The FY2021 appropriation general y maintained FY2020 levels for discretionary conservation
programs. The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request proposed a decrease for discretionary
conservation funding from the FY2020 enacted levels and reductions in funding for mandatory
conservation programs. Most of these proposed reductions in funding were not included in the
FY2021 appropriation.

1 T he Senate Appropriations Committee released subcommittee drafts at U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
“Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process, Produce Bipartisan Results,” November 10, 2020, at
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-
bipartisan-results.
2 For more information on individual conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A
Guide to Program s.
3 T he CCC is a mandatory funding mechanism for agriculture programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). For more information on the CCC, see CRS Report R44606, The Com m odity Credit Corporation
(CCC).
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5

FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Discretionary Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations
NRCS administers al of USDA’s discretionary conservation programs. The largest program and
the account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The CO account
primarily funds Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), which provides conservation planning
and implementation assistance from field staff placed in almost al counties within the United
States and its territories. Other components of CO include the Soil Survey, Snow Survey and
Water Supply Forecasting, and Plant Materials Centers (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conservation Operations Appropriations, by Function

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on appropriations acts.
Notes: CTA = Conservation Technical Assistance, PMC = Plant Materials Centers, and Other = Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiatives, watershed projects, rescissions, and other congressional y directed funds. Depending on
the legislative text, some programs included in Other during one year may be accounted for in CTA in another
year.
Technical assistance for conservation currently is funded through both mandatory and
discretionary sources, with CO being the primary account receiving discretionary funding from
annual appropriations. The Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget requested $830.2 mil ion for
CO, similar to the $829.6 mil ion enacted for FY2020. The FY2021 budget proposed the
consolidation of mandatory and discretionary accounts to pay for conservation technical
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 6 link to page 15 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 9 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

assistance.4 USDA has proposed consolidating funding through multiple Administrations, but
Congress has never adopted this approach (see “Funding for Technical Assistance” section,
below). The FY2021 appropriation increases CO funding in FY2021 by $3 mil ion from FY2020
and directs CO funding for a number of conservation programs (Table 1). Language in H.Rept.
116-466 for H.R. 7610 further directs funding to selected activities (Table 4).
Table 1. FY2019-FY2021 Discretionary Agricultural Conservation Funding
(budget authority in thousands of dol ars)

FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
House-
Senate
Enacted
Admin.
passed
committee
P.L. 116-
Program
P.L. 116-6
P.L. 116-94 Request
H.R. 7608
draft
260
Conservation Operations
Conservation Technical
Assistance
725,926
735,628
729,476
732,846
736,921
734,255
Watershed Projectsa,b
5,600
5,600
0
0
3,469
3,000
Soil Survey
74,685
74,987
80,014
79,665
75,911
79,444
Snow Survey
9,400
9,400
11,108
11,715
9,515
9,488
Plant Material Center
9,481
9,481
9,588
9,559
9,559
9,540
Total Conservation
Operationsc
819,492
829,628
830,186
833,785
831,906
832,727
Watershed Operations
150,000
175,000
0
155,000
175,000
175,000
Watershed Projectsa
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
Watershed Rehabilitation
Program
10,000
10,000
0
12,000
0
10,000
Water Bank
4,000
4,000
0
0
4,000
4,000
Total NRCS Discretionaryc
983,492
1,018,628
830,186
1,000,785
1,010,906
1,021,727
Source: CRS, using appropriations text and report tables.
Notes: Amounts are nominal discretionary budget authority in thousands of dol ars unless labeled otherwise.
Italics indicate funding that is shown within other accounts. Excludes amounts in supplemental appropriations
acts and proposed rescission language. The Senate did not formal y introduce an FY2021 appropriations bil . The
“Senate committee draft” column is included for il ustrative purposes only.
a. In FY2019 and FY2020, separate funding levels are provided for select watershed projects with a primary
purpose of providing water to rural communities from within Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA). In
the FY2021 enacted appropriation, this language was moved to the Watershed Operations account.
b. Language was included in the FY2021 Senate draft and enacted appropriation, directing funding from CTA
to watershed projects authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78 -534). While similar in
nature, they are for distinctly different Watershed Projects. For additional discussion, see the “Watershed
Programs” section.
c. As stated in table note “a” and “b,” funding for Watershed Projects may not be included within funding for
CTA or Watershed Operations. Funding included within other accounts is denoted in italics. Therefore,
depending on the column, the Conservation Operations account or total Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Discretionary level may not total.

4 T he amount of funding for technical assistance from mandatory funding sources generally is not reported; therefore, it
is unknown whether the Administration’s FY2021 proposal to consolidate funding from mandatory and discretionary
sources would represent an increase or decrease in overall funding for conservation technical assistance.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 7

FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Funding for Technical Assistance
NRCS is the current federal provider of technical assistance for agricultural conservation.5 NRCS
provides technical assistance at the request of the landowner to conserve and improve natural
resources. The assistance includes technical expertise combined with knowledge of local
conditions and is provided through a network of federal staff throughout the United States.
The CTA program within CO funds much of the conservation technical assistance provided by
NRCS. Funds support salaries and expenses for NRCS staff, technology development,
conservation system design, compliance reviews, grants to partners for additional technical
assistance capacity, and resource assessment reports. Total funding for CO has fluctuated in
recent years. In some cases, such fluctuation is the result of an Administration’s request. In other
cases, funding changes reflect national budget dynamics that are not unique to CO (e.g.,
reductions caused by sequestration in FY2013 and funding increases through budget agreements
in FY2014-FY2021). In inflation-adjusted dollars, CO has declined over the past 20 years (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2. Conservation Operations Appropriated Funding
(FY1999-FY2021)

Source: CRS using historical appropriations and Office of Management and Budget, Table 10.1—Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2025, February 2020, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/hist10z1_fy21.xlsx.
Note: The blue line is funding in nominal dol ars, whereas the inflation-adjusted red line is calculated using the
gross domestic product price deflator in FY2021 dol ars.

5 T he statutory authority to provide conservation technical assistance is derived from the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-46; 16 U.S.C. §590 et seq.).
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 11 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

The other side of agricultural conservation assistance is financial assistance. Financial assistance
provides direct payments to landowners to implement certain conservation practices or to
conserve and protect natural resources on private land. Most programs that provide financial
assistance are authorized through omnibus farm bil s and receive funding from mandatory
sources—thus, they do not require an annual appropriation.
In addition to technical assistance provided through CTA and CO, technical assistance is also part
of farm bil conservation programs, which are funded through a program’s mandatory
authorization. Most technical assistance activities within mandatory programs support the
delivery of some level of financial assistance as part of a contract or agreement. These activities
could include providing designs, standards, and specifications needed to instal approved
conservation practices and activities.
General y, technical assistance prior to a producer entering into a contract for financial assistance
is considered to be part of CTA. After a producer signs a contract for financial assistance,
technical assistance is funded from the individual mandatory program rather than CTA. Once the
financial assistance contract is complete, most mandatory program funds are no longer available
to support ongoing assistance in maintaining the conservation plans, practices, and activities
implemented under the financial assistance program.
Since the mid-1990s, Congress and various Administrations have proposed changes to how
technical assistance is funded. The Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget request proposed to
transfer funding from mandatory conservation programs and discretionary appropriations to a
consolidated account dedicated to technical assistance for farm bil conservation programs.
Similar proposals were included in the FY2018-FY2021 (Trump) and FY2014-FY2017 (Obama)
presidential budget requests but were not adopted by Congress.
NRCS Staffing Levels
The CO account funds more than half of NRCS staff; other smal er discretionary programs and
mandatory conservation programs account for the remainder. A decline in CO funding, therefore,
correlates to a decline in the number of NRCS staff. In recent years, the total number of
permanent positions at NRCS that are funded by CO has declined through FY2020. A growing
number of unfil ed positions at the agency has further magnified this reduction in staff (see
Figure 3).
The Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center has also impacted NRCS
staffing and funding levels (for more information on the Business Center, see the “Farm
Production and Conservation Business Center” section). In FY2019, Congress realigned funding
and staff from the three FPAC agencies to the Business Center, including the transfer of
approximately 882 staff years from NRCS to the Business Center (over 9% of effective NRCS
staff years at that time). The transfer of funding and functions were a part of the Business
Center’s goal of achieving efficiencies within the FPAC mission area.
The FY2021 enacted appropriation provides $231.3 mil ion in discretionary funding for the FPAC
Business Center. This is $24.8 mil ion more than Congress provided in FY2020. This increase
appears to include at least a portion, and possibly al , of the FY2021 Trump Administration’s
requested transfer of $5.9 mil ion and 39 staff years from CO to the FPAC Business Center. Given
the preexisting decline in CO-funded technical assistance staff years, it is difficult to measure the
effect of the continued transfer of NRCS positions to the FPAC Business Center on the agency’s
overal operations and its ability to provide technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. Also
unclear is the extent to which the Business Center’s creation may have contributed to the decrease
in NRCS staffing levels and the increase in total unfil ed NRCS positions.
Congressional Research Service

5

FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Figure 3. Total Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Staffing
(FY1999-FY2021)

Source: CRS from annual USDA explanatory notes.
Notes: A staff year is equivalent to one ful -time person working for one year. EOY = end of year.
Watershed Programs
The FY2021 appropriation includes funding for watershed activities, including Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)—a program that assists state and local organizations with
planning and instal ing measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage.6 The
appropriation maintains WFPO funding at $175 mil ion, the same as appropriated in FY2020. The
FY2021 Administration request proposed no funding.
The WFPO program consists of projects built under two authorities—the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534).
The vast majority of the projects (referred to as P.L. 566 projects) have been built pursuant to the
authority of P.L. 83-566, which authorizes the chief of the NRCS to approve construction of
smal er watershed projects.7 Congressional approval is needed for larger P.L. 566 projects. The
Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized 11 specific projects, referred to as P.L. 534 projects, which
are much larger and more expensive than P.L. 566 projects.

6 For additional information, see CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater,
Drinking Water, and Water Supply Infrastructure.
7 In general, no P.L. 566 project may exceed 250,000 acres, and no structure may exceed 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater
detention capacity or 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 6 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Since FY2014, Congress has directed a portion of CO funds to selected WFPO activities. The
enacted FY2021 appropriation includes similar directive language but shifts a portion of the
directed language to the WFPO account (see Table 1). The enacted appropriation directs $3
mil ion of CO to P.L. 534 projects and $10 mil ion to select P.L. 566 projects related to providing
water to rural communities. The $3 mil ion from the CO account would be in addition to the $175
mil ion for the program as a whole, whereas the $10 mil ion would be from within the $175
mil ion total. The Senate committee draft proposed $3.5 mil ion from CO for P.L. 534 projects
and did not include directive language within the WFPO account. The House-passed bil did not
include the CO language but did include $12 mil ion for select P.L. 566 projects under WFPO.
The Trump Administration’s request included no funding for WFPO.
The FY2021 appropriation also includes $10 mil ion for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program––
$2 mil ion less than the FY2020 level. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program repairs aging dams
built by USDA under WFPO. The Trump Administration’s request and Senate draft included no
funding for FY2021, while the House-passed bil included $12 mil ion.
The 2018 farm bil provides $50 mil ion annual y in permanent mandatory funding for WFPO
and Watershed Rehabilitation activities. The mandatory funding is in addition to discretionary
funding provided through annual appropriations.8
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs are general y authorized in omnibus farm bil s and receive
funding from the CCC—thus, they do not require an annual appropriation.9 The 2018 farm bil
reauthorized mandatory funding for many of the agricultural conservation programs through
FY2023.10 Because most of these programs are classified as mandatory, nonexempt spending,
they are reduced annual y by sequestration.11
President Trump’s FY2021 budget requested a reduction of $40 mil ion annual y to the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and the elimination of the Conservation
Stewardship Program. Both programs were reauthorized to receive mandatory funding in the
2018 farm bil through FY2023. The FY2021 appropriation does not reduce these or other
mandatory farm bil conservation programs.

8 For additional discussion of changes made in the 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45698, Agricultural Conservation
in the 2018 Farm Bill.
9 In the past, Congress has used annual agriculture appropriations acts to reduce mandatory conservation programs
through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS), which occurred every year from FY2003 to FY2017. T he
FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141) marked the first appropriation since FY2002 that did not
include CHIMPS to conservation programs, thus allowing all mandatory conservation programs to use their full
authorized level of funding, minus sequestration. For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10041, Reductions to
Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Program s in Appropriations Law.
10 For authorized funding levels for mandatory conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural
Conservation: A Guide to Program s.
11 For additional discussion on sequestration, see Appendix C of CRS Report R46437, Agriculture and Related
Agencies: FY2021 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12 link to page 12 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Farm Production and Conservation Business Center
The FPAC mission area was created in 2017 as part of a larger departmental reorganization.12
FPAC includes NRCS, FSA, the Risk Management Agency (RMA), and a new FPAC Business
Center. The FPAC Business Center is responsible for the financial management, budgeting,
human resources, information technology, acquisitions/procurement, strategic planning, and other
customer-oriented operations of three agencies—NRCS, FSA, and RMA.13 Congress reduced
funding for NRCS, FSA, and RMA in FY2019 to realign funding and staff to the FPAC Business
Center.14
The FY2021 appropriation includes $292 mil ion for the FPAC Business Center. The FY2021
enacted level is $9.1 mil ion more than the enacted FY2020 appropriation of $282.8 mil ion and
$12.3 mil ion less than the Trump Administration’s requested level of $304.3 mil ion (see Table
2). According to the Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget request, the proposed increase in
funding is mostly the result of increased salary costs; it also reflects the shifting of funds and
personnel from NRCS geospatial and public affairs activities ($5.9 mil ion, 39 staff years), FSA
salaries and expenses associated with the Food for Peace program (P.L. 83-480, also known as
P.L. 480), and CCC Export Loan programs ($430,000, 4 staff years).15
The explanatory statement of the FY2021 appropriation cites concerns related to the Business
Center’s delays in fil ing critical vacancies, potential y resulting in delayed deployment of
conservation and commodity programs. The explanatory statement also states that Congress does
not support the co-location of FPAC agency state offices into General Services Administration
locations if it is not in the best interest of USDA employees, customers, and taxpayers. The
statement directs USDA to produce a report to the Appropriations Committees within 90 days of
enactment on proposed co-locations of FPAC agency state offices, associated cost-saving
benefits, and anticipated improvements in customer service.
USDA did not deliver a previously required FY2020 report to Congress on the center’s efficiency
gains, the metrics by which such gains are measured, and its hiring acceleration and
reorganization plans. The report was due February 2020, but USDA did was not provide it
according to the FY2021 explanatory statement. The House report (H.Rept. 116-446) expressed
support for the FPAC digital records initiative that seeks to reduce paper-based forms at the field
office level. The House report also expressed concern over large unspent funding balances in the
FPAC mission area at the end of FY2019.

12 For additional information on the background of the Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center, see
CRS Report R45406, FY2018 and FY2019 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation . USDA, “ Secretary Perdue
Announces Creation of Undersecretary for T rade,” press release, May 11, 2017, at https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/
reorganizing-usda.
13 USDA, 2020 President’s Budget—Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, 2019, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/23bc2020notes.pdf.
14 CRS In Focus IF11452, Staffing Trends in the USDA Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Mission Area .
15 USDA, 2021 President’s Budget—Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, p. 25-7.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Table 2. FPAC Business Center Funding, FY2020 and FY2021
(dol ars in thousands)

FY2020
FY2021
Admin.
House-passed Senate
Enacted P.L.

P.L. 116-94
Request
H.R. 7608
draft
116-260
Discretionary

FPAC Business Center
$206,530
$243,602
$232,194
$232,511
$231,302
Transfer from ACIF (farm
loans)a
$16,081
—
—
—
—
Mandatory

Transfer from CCC
(conservation)
$60,228
$60,228
$60,228
$60,228
$60,228
Transfer from P.L. 480
program (international food
aid)b
—
$112
$112
—
$112
Transfer from CCC Export
Loan programsb
—
$318
$318
$318
$318
Total FPAC Business Center
$282,839
$304,260
$292,852
$293,057
$291,960
Source: CRS, using appropriations text and report tables.
Notes: FPAC = Farm Production and Conservation, ACIF = Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, CCC =
Commodity Credit Corporation, and P.L. 480 refers to P.L. 83-480 and the Food for Peace program. Amounts
are nominal discretionary budget authority in thousands of dol ars. Excludes amounts in supplemental
appropriations acts and proposed rescission language.
a. According to the FY2021 Administration’s budget request, the elimination of the ACIF transfer in FY2021
reflected the FPAC Business Center’s lack of involvement in the administration of farm loans.
b. Prior to FY2021, transfers from P.L. 480 and CCC Export Loan Programs were provided in the Salaries and
Expenses account of the Farm Service Agency. As of FY2021, these functions have been transferred to the
FPAC Business Center.
The FY2021 appropriation directs a transfer of funds to the FPAC Business Center from other
accounts, including mandatory conservation programs, international food aid, and export loan
accounts.16 If the amount shifted would have been used for NRCS administrative or technical
assistance had the Business Center not been created, then this transfer could result in NRCS
effectively receiving less in total funding. In total, the direct appropriation and transfer of funds
would provide the FPAC Business Center with $292 mil ion in FY2021 (see Table 2).
Policy-Related Provisions
In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bil may also include
policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out an appropriation.
These provisions may have the force of law if they are included in the text of an appropriations
act, but their effect is general y limited to the current fiscal year (see Table 3). Policy-related

16 While not specified in the FY2021 House-passed appropriation and Senate draft, the Administration’s FY2021
request to transfer $60.2 million to the FPAC Business Center from mandatory conservation programs would be
divided as follows: $8.3 million from the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, $21.2 million from the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and $30.7 million from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. None of
the funds is proposed to come from the Conservation Reserve Program.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 13 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

provisions in appropriations acts general y do not amend the U.S. Code, nor do they have long-
standing effects.
For example, the WFPO program has historical y been cal ed the “smal watershed program”
because no project may exceed 250,000 acres, and no structure may exceed 12,500 acre-feet of
floodwater detention capacity or 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity. The FY2021 enacted
appropriation includes a policy provision that waives the 250,000-acre project limit when the
project’s primary purpose is something other than flood prevention.17 This provision does not
amend the WFPO authorization and therefore is effective only for the funds provided during the
current appropriation year.18
Table 3 compares some of the policy provisions in the Farm Production and Conservation
Programs (Title II) and General Provisions (Title VII) titles of the FY2020 and FY2021
Agriculture appropriations bil s related to conservation. Many of these provisions were also
included in past years’ appropriations acts. The table is divided by agency and account according
to their location within the FY2020 and FY2021 acts.
Table 3. Selected Conservation Policy Provisions in the FY2020 and FY2021
Appropriations Acts
FY2020
FY2021
Enacted, P.L. 116-94
Enacted, P.L. 116-260
Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center
FPAC Business Center. Directs the transfer of $60.2
Same as FY2020 enacted (Title II).
mil ion from mandatory conservation program accounts
to the Business Center account (Title II).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Conservation Operation (CO). Directs $5.6 mil ion
Similar language but moved under Watershed
of CO to Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
Operations line—see below (Title II).
(WFPO) projects providing water to rural communities
(Title II).
No comparable provision.
Directs $3 mil ion of CO to projects authorized under
the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Title II).
Watershed Operations. Limits the application of the
Same as FY2020 enacted (Title II).
250,000-acre limitation in WFPO to activities for which
the primary purpose is flood prevention
(Title II).
Directs $70 mil ion of available funds to be al ocated to
Similar to FY2020 enacted, but it decreases level to
projects that commence promptly, address select
$65 mil ion (Title II).
regional priorities, or are authorized under the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (Title II).

17 T he appropriation for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in P.L. 116-260 states, “Provided, T hat
for funds provided by this Act or any other prior Act, the limitation regarding the size of the watershed or subwatershed
exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand acres in which such activities can be undertaken shall only apply for
activities undertaken for the primary purpose of flood prevention (including structural and land treatment measures).”
T he underlying limitation referred to is 16 U.S.C. §1002.
18 T he provision would apply to the $175 million in FY2021 and any funds previously provided. Since Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) funding is available until expended, it is possible that the waiver could carry
forward into future fiscal years but only for funds made available in , or prior to, FY2021.
Congressional Research Service

10

FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

FY2020
FY2021
Enacted, P.L. 116-94
Enacted, P.L. 116-260
See Conservation Operation line above that directs $5.6
Similar to FY2020 enacted but increases level to $10
mil ion of CO to WFPO projects providing water to
mil ion and directs funding from WFPO, not CO
rural communities (Title II).
(Title II).
Watershed Rehabilitation. Directs $5 mil ion to
No comparable provision.
states with high-hazard dams that have incurred fatal
flooding events (Title II).
Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA).
Same as FY2020 enacted (§707).
Al ows AMA funds to remain available until expended
(§707).
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Provides
No comparable provision.
$1 mil ion for a CRP bottomland hardwood tree pilot
program (§758).
Water Bank. Provides $4 mil ion for the Water Bank
Same as FY2020 enacted (§749).
program (§759).
Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative
Similar to FY2020 enacted but increases funding to $7
Production. Al ocates $5 mil ion for the establishment
mil ion (§754).
of the office within NRCS (§768).
Wetland Mitigation Banking. Al ocates $5 mil ion
Similar to FY2020 enacted but adds priority to areas
available until FY2022 for farm bil mitigation banks
with a significant number of individual wetlands and
(§779).
conservation compliance requests (§763).
No comparable provision.
Experienced Services Program. Al ows the use of
WFPO, Watershed Rehabilitation, and Emergency
Watershed Protection program funds to provide
technical assistance through the Agricultural
Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) program,
a part-time employment program for retirees (§786).
Source: CRS, compiled from enacted and passed appropriations.
Notes: These policy changes are relevant only for the fiscal year cited.
Beyond the text of the appropriations act, the explanatory statement that accompanies the final
appropriations—and the House and Senate report language that general y accompanies the
committee-reported bil s—may also provide policy instructions. These documents do not have the
force of law but often explain congressional intent, which Congress expects the agencies to
follow. The committee reports and explanatory statement may need to be read together to capture
al of the congressional intent for a given fiscal year.
According to the FY2021 explanatory statement, the House report (H.Rept. 116-446) carries the
same weight as the explanatory statement.19 In FY2021, the Senate did not formal y introduce an

19 According to the FY2021 explanatory statement, “Unless otherwise noted, the language set forth in H.Rept. 116-446
carries the same weight as language included in this explanatory statement and should be complied with unless
specifically addressed to the contrary in this explanatory statement. While some language is repeated for emphasis, it is
not intended to negate the language referred to above unless expressly provided herein.” T he explanatory statement for
the FY2021 agriculture appropriations is in House, Congressional Record, vol. 166, book III (December 21, 2020), at
https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/12/21/CREC-2020-12-21.pdf-bk3.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 17 link to page 17 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Agriculture appropriations bil or report language.20 Therefore, Table 4 does not include the draft
Senate report language.
Many of these provisions have been included in past years’ appropriations acts. Some provisions
in report language and bil text address conservation programs that are not authorized or funded
within the annual appropriations (i.e., mandatory spending for farm-bil -authorized programs).
Table 4 is divided by the administering agency and by account, according to the location of each
provision within the two reports.
Table 4. Selected Conservation Policy Provisions in FY2020 and FY2021
Appropriations Explanatory Statements
Enacted, Explanatory Statement for Div. A of
House Report H.Rept. 116-446 for H.R. 7610a
P.L. 116-260b
Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation Business Center
CLEAR30 Expansion. Directs Natural Resources
No comparable provision.
Conservation Service (NRCS) to report the feasibility
of expanding the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) pilot known as CLEAR30, through the Lake
Erie Basin Project.
Watershed Projects. Directs a report on the status Similar to House report but located under NRCS. Also
of al USDA watershed projects that remain
encourages USDA to address delayed Watershed and
incomplete due to lack of funds and encourages
Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) projects,
prioritization of projects that are over 50% complete.
specifical y projects related to rural drinking water
supplies.
Farm Service Agency
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Similar to House report but encourages USDA to
(CREP). Encourages the use of dryland farming on
revise the draft programmatic environmental
new or modified CREP projects with current irrigated
assessment for CRP to al ow dryland agriculture uses
agriculture.
on CREP acres.
No comparable provision.
State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE).
Encourages USDA to enrol CRP acres in SAFE
practices.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Farmers.gov. Directs $2.5 mil ion of Conservation
Same as House report.
Technical Assistance (CTA) to the farmers.gov
Customer Experience Portal.
Composting. Encourages NRCS to create a
No comparable provision.
composting practice within the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) and Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
Conservation Data Report. Directs USDA to
No comparable provision.
conduct a study on conservation practice data
col ection across al USDA agencies.

20 T he Senate Appropriat ions Committee released subcommittee drafts at U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
“Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process, Produce Bipartisan Results,” November 10, 2020, at
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-
bipartisan-results.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17 link to page 17 FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Enacted, Explanatory Statement for Div. A of
House Report H.Rept. 116-446 for H.R. 7610a
P.L. 116-260b
Soil Health Initiative. Directs $1 mil ion of
Similar to House report, but specifical y directs $1
Conservation Operation (CO) to the Soil Health
mil ion from the Soil Surveys program amount.
Initiative linking soil health and cover crop
management.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Similar to House report but specifical y directs NRCS
(RCPP). Encourages NRCS to provide additional
to maintain select critical conservation areas under
CTA funds to RCPP critical conservation areas to
RCPP and leverage resources to achieve the goals of
address planning backlogs.
the 2015 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
No comparable provision.
(EQIP). Directs NRCS to increase EQIP outreach in
distressed watersheds.
Forestry Study. Directs NRCS to study the water
No comparable provision.
quality effect of managed forestry practices.
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). Supports NRCS’s
No comparable provision.
soil erosion prevention efforts related to HABs.
Requires NRCS to coordinate HAB efforts with other
federal partners, and complete a report to Congress.
Mississippi River. Urges USDA to participate in the
No comparable provision.
development of a Mississippi River restoration and
resiliency strategy.
Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative
No comparable provision.
Production. Of the $7 mil ion provided for the
office, $1 mil ion is directed to a community compost
and food waste reduction pilot program.
Resource Conservation and Development
No comparable provision.
Councils (RC&Ds). Encourages NRCS to continue
working with RC&Ds.
Sage Grouse Initiative. Supports the initiative.
No comparable provision.
Soil and Food Nutrients. Directs NRCS to
No comparable provision.
undertake regional studies of soil components and
their impact on the nutrient content of fruits and
vegetables.
Federal Lands Soil Health Study. Directs USDA
Similar to House report but in addition to an analysis,
to conduct an analysis of soil health on federal lands,
the statement specifical y directs $3.8 mil ion of CO to
including the impact of grazing, wildfire, recreation,
maintain the soil survey, including on federal and tribal
and invasive species on soil.
lands.
Soil Quality in Select Watersheds. Directs NRCS Similar to House report but directs NRCS to analyze
to conduct an evaluation of watershed and cropland
the feasibility of evaluating watershed and cropland
projects under the Conservation Effects Assessment
projects under CEAP.
Project (CEAP).
No comparable provision.
Soil Health Planning. Encourages USDA to dedicate
more CTA funding to measuring and testing carbon
levels, healthy soil planning, and soil carbon
sequestration planning.
No comparable provision.
Wetlands Mitigation. Encourages USDA to use a 1-
to-1 acre ratio for wetlands mitigation requirements.
Congressional Research Service

13

FY2021 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

No comparable provision.
Drought. Directs NRCS to give priority to areas with
major drought response plans, agreements, or
programs designed to result in conservation of surface
water or groundwater.
No comparable provision.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP). Urges NRCS to develop EQIP guidance with
input from acequias and land grant-mercedes.
No comparable provision.
Program Duplication. Directs NRCS to report to
Congress on program duplication identified in inspector
general reports.
No comparable provision.
Watershed Operations. Provides direction on
technical assistance for WFPO projects.
Source: CRS.
Notes: These policy provisions clarify congressional intent for the specific fiscal year cited. The explanatory
statement that accompanies the final FY2021 appropriation indicates that unless otherwise noted, the House
report language carries the same weight as language in the explanatory statement. Therefore, a notation of “no
comparable provision” in the enacted column does not vacate a described provision. Rather, the House report
and explanatory statement should be read together to capture al of the congressional intent for the fiscal year.
For additional information on the programs identified in this table, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural
Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
a. The House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 7610 with accompanying report H.Rept. 116-446.
The bil was incorporated into a minibus H.R. 7608, which passed the House and was later incorporated
into what became P.L. 116-260 with its own explanatory statement.
b. The explanatory statement for FY2021 agriculture appropriations is in House, Congressional Record, vol. 166,
book III (December 21, 2020), at https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/12/21/CREC-2020-12-21.pdf-bk3.

Author Information

Megan Stubbs

Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy

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 n ot 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.

Congressional Research Service
R46728 · VERSION 1 · NEW
14