April 11, 1996
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
in the 1996 Farm Bill: A Summary
Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
This report briefly reviews the setting in which the farm bill was passed, then
describes the provisions in Title III -- Conservation. For a comparison of conservation
provisions in the House and Senate-passed bills, S. 1541 and H.R. 2854 respectively, see
CRS Report 96-165, Conservation Provisions in S. 1541 and H.R. 2854: A Comparison,
and for a summary and comparison of selected provisions throughout the farm bill with
previous law, see CRS Report 96-304, The 1996 Farm Bill: Comparison of Selected
Provisions with Previous Law.
Passing the 1996 Farm Bill
Pressure grew quickly for Congress to pass farm legislation after President Clinton
vetoed the omnibus reconciliation proposal (H.R. 2491) on December 6, 1995. It included
an agricultural title and conservation provisions. With many provisions of the 1990 farm
law expiring or about to expire, farmers wanted to know their federal commodity program
options as they started to make 1996 planting decisions. Farm program supporters feared
the potential negative budgetary and political consequences of farm programs reverting to
permanent legislation if commodity prices should drop, causing federal commodity
program costs to grow.
The Senate and House each passed omnibus farm legislation in February, and the
conference committee completed its work quickly. Both Chambers approved the
conference committee report on March 27. The conference committee deleted four
conservation proposals that had been included in the Senate bill, but not in the House bill.
These proposals would have made Water Bank Program contracts a part of the
Conservation Reserve Program; established pilot projects to restore closed drainage
systems, expanded the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Small Watershed
Program, and established a nutrient waste management program for dairy producers
funded by an assessment on milk. The President signed the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 into law on April 4 (P.L. 104-127).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
The conservation title, as enacted, contains some provisions supported by
environmental interests and others supported by agricultural interests. As in the
conservation title enacted in the 1990 farm law, Congress was able to incorporate some,
but not all the goals of the major interests, from environmental to commodity
organizations. During the debate, especially early on, it appeared that agricultural interests
would prevail, but when Congress completed its deliberations, the conservation title
addressed a broad array of issues. The conservation title probably included more
initiatives than any of these interests anticipated when the debate started.
These provisions more fully integrate resource conservation and environmental
concerns with agricultural policies, continuing a trend that started with the 1985 farm law
and continued with the 1990 farm law. Provisions in this title change the resource
conservation effort in significant ways that go beyond individual programs.
! Total funding for conservation is estimated to grow by about $300 million per year;
! A majority of the conservation funding will be entitlements; and
! The conservation agenda is broadened by adding wildlife considerations to many
programs and by further elevating non point source pollution.
Sections 301 through 317 amend the highly erodible land (conservation
compliance) provisions in numerous ways that provide greater producer flexibility.
Among these changes, to be implemented within 90 days, are:
! providing that all market transition payments are subject to compliance;
! providing violators up to one year to come meet compliance requirements;
! developing expedited variances (not to exceed 30 days) for weather, pest, or
! allowing third parties to measure residue, and requiring that residue measurements
take into account the top two inches of soil;
! allowing producers to self-certify compliance when applying for benefits;
! allowing producers to modify plans while maintaining the same level of treatment;
! allowing local county committees to permit relief if a conservation system causes
a producer undue economic hardship;
! directing USDA employees who observe compliance violations while providing
other assistance to inform the producer of the necessary corrective action within 45
! authorizing a wind erosion pilot project to review the use of wind erosion factors.
Sections 321 through 326 amend wetland conservation (swampbuster) provisions
in numerous ways that provide greater program flexibility. Among these changes, to be
implemented within 90 days, are:
! expanding the definition of agricultural lands used in the interagency Memorandum
of Agreement (the MOA defines Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
responsibilities on these wetlands), to include pasturelands, rangelands, and tree
farms, but not commercial forest operations;
! 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 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); and
! repealing required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Section 331 extends the Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve (ECARP)
through 2002 and adds a new program within the ECARP framework; the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP, discussed below). The Secretary is allowed to
designate priority areas for concentrated assistance to meet environmental laws and
conservation needs. Assistance may be based on the significance of the natural resource
problems, and on practices that maximize environmental benefits for dollars expended.
Sections 332 and 341 make the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) an
entitlement financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and extend program
authority through 2002. Maximum enrollment at any time will be 36.4 million acres.
Producers with participating lands enrolled at least 5 years before this enactment can
terminate their contracts at any time, with 60 days' notice, if they enrolled lands that do not
contain high environmental values or high erosion potential. Conservation requirements
on land returning to production can not exceed those placed on similar nearby lands.
Implementing regulations are to be issued in 90 days.
Sections 333 and 341 make the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) an entitlement
financed by the CCC and extend program authority through 2002. Enrollment is limited
to 975,000 acres. Eligibility is expanded to include land that maximizes wildlife benefits
and wetlands values and functions. After October 1, 1996, enrolled land is to be 1/3 in
permanent easements, 1/3 in 30-year easements, and 1/3 in restoration cost-share
agreements; and 75,000 acres are to be enrolled in temporary easements before permanent
easements can again be used. Permanent easements offer a higher percentage cost share
(75% to 100%); the other two forms of participation are eligible to receive 50% to 75%.
The specific role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is replaced by consultation with
state technical committees in restoration planning. Implementing regulations are to be
issued in 90 days.
Sections 334, 336, and 341 combine the functions of four cost-sharing programs to
create a new entitlement, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The
four programs (Great Plains Program, Agricultural Conservation Program, Water Quality
Incentives Program, and Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program) are terminated
in section 336. EQIP is to be implemented within 180 days. Annual funding is $200
million starting in FY1997 (Funding in FY1996 is $130 million as the terminated programs
received appropriations totaling more than $70 million.) EQIP supports structural and
land management practices through technical and educational assistance, and cost-sharing
and incentive payments. A plan is required to participate. Half the funding each year will
address problems associated with livestock production. Payments per contract are limited
to $10,000 annually, and to $50,000 over the life of the contract (5 to 10 years);
exceptions to the annual limit are permitted. Cost-sharing payments are not to exceed
75% of the projected practice cost, taking into consideration payments received from state
or local government. Large livestock operations, to be defined by the Secretary, can not
use these payments to construct animal waste management facilities.
Section 335 creates a new 10-year Conservation Farm Option, as a pilot program,
for producers participating in the 7-year market transition program. A plan is required to
participate. Annual payments are based on estimated benefits from conservation
programs. Market transition payments do not appear to be affected by participation in this
program. This option will receive increasing funding each year, starting at $7.5 million in
FY1997 and growing to $62.5 million in FY2002. Total funding is $197.5 million over
Section 341 amends conservation funding and administration. In addition to the
funding provisions described above, it also directs the Secretary to minimize duplication
of conservation planning efforts required under CRP, WRP, EQIP, and compliance.
Limits on enrollment per county are set, including no more than 25% of the county
cropland enrolled in the CRP and WRP combined unless the Secretary determines that
there will be no adverse effect on the local economy and producers are having difficulties
meeting compliance requirements. Producers are permitted to obtain technical assistance
from approved sources other than NRCS in developing conservation plans.
Section 342 expands membership in the State Technical Committees to include
agricultural producers, representatives from agribusiness and non-profit groups, and
interested individuals with demonstrated expertise. Committees are required to give notice
and hold open meetings. New responsibilities assigned to committees include to establish
procedures for evaluating petitions on new conservation practices and to establish
priorities for state initiatives under EQIP.
Section 343 requires that all future revisions in state technical guides (the documents
that describe how compliance, swampbuster, and CRP are to be implemented), be subject
to public notice and comment.
Sections 351 through 360 establish a Natural Resources Conservation Foundation
as a non-profit corporation to promote and assist conservation efforts, especially the
activities of NRCS. The Foundation can accept gifts and raise money to sustain its efforts,
which can include promotion of partnerships and conducting research and demonstrations.
Up to $1 million per year for 3 years (FY1997 through FY1999) is appropriated to serve
as "seed money."
Sections 371 through 374 is a forestry subtitle. Appropriations are authorized
through 2002 for the Office of International Forestry and the Forestry Incentives Program.
The Secretary is authorized to make grants under the Forest Legacy Program in response
to a request from a participating state. Also, cooperative work on units of the National
Forest System is authorized.
Section 381 amends the purposes of the Commodity Credit Corporation to include
conservation, giving the Secretary discretion to use CCC funds for conservation purposes.
Section 382 creates floodplain easements as an option under the Emergency
Watershed Protection Program.
Section 383 reauthorizes the Resource Conservation and Development Program
Section 384 repeals report publication requirements for completed soil surveys.
Section 385 permits the Secretary to contract with market transition program
participants to retire frequently flooded cropland. Participants receive up to 95% of their
projected program payments, and must agree to comply with swampbuster and
conservation compliance, as well as to forego future disaster payments. Funding comes
from the CCC, but is available only if appropriated for this program.
Section 386 establishes a new private grazing lands program, based on providing
coordinated technical and educational assistance to maintain and improve resource
conditions. Participation is voluntary. Appropriations are authorized at $20 million in
FY1996, $40 million in FY1997, and $60 million annually thereafter. The Department can
establish two grazing management demonstration districts, following specified procedures.
Sections 387 authorizes a new cost sharing program to develop and implement
wildlife habitat improvement management plans. The program would be administered by
the NRCS, in coordination with state technical committees. Up to $50 million in funds
allocated to the CRP between today and 2002 could be used to implement this program.
Eligible lands would include upland habitat, wetlands, habitat for rare and endangered
species, and fish habitat.
In addition, in several other sections of the conservation title give greater recognition
to protection of wildlife and habitat.
Section 388 authorizes the Secretary to purchase farmland protection easements on
between 170,000 and 340,000 acres of prime or unique or other productive soils using up
to $35 million from the CCC. Eligible lands must be subject to a pending offer from a
state or local government, making this program available only to places operating farmland
Section 389 imposes an 18 month moratorium, prohibiting the Forest Service from
placing conditions on permit renewals that would require retention of bypass flows on
federal lands while a task force studies 5 specified aspects of this issue. The task force
is to be established within 60 days, and is to report to Congress within 1 year.
Section 390 requires the Treasury to provide $200 million through the Secretary of
Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior on July 1, 1996 to acquire lands as part of
federal efforts to restore the Everglades ecosystem. Funds must be spent by December
31, 1999. The Secretary of the Interior can transfer these funds to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the state of Florida, or the South Florida Water Management District to
carry out the purposes of this provisions.
In addition, the federal government is authorized to sell excess or surplus property
(excluding lands protected for conservation purposes) in Florida to raise up to an
additional $100 million to be dedicated to this restoration effort. These additional funds
can only be spent to acquire property if Florida provides funds equal to half the appraised
value. The Secretary of the Interior is to report on the feasibility of applying this approach
for resource protection nationwide within one year of enactment.
Section 391 establishes an agricultural air quality research oversight committee, to
review the accuracy of agricultural air quality data, and to coordinate agricultural air
quality activity in the Department. The committee is to be chaired by the Chief of the
NRCS. Members will include representatives from Department of Agriculture agencies
and industry, and other experts in the field.