Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of Current Law with Farm Bills Passed by the House and Senate

Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of Current Law with Farm Bills Passed by the House and Senate

Order Code RL31255
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of
Current Law with Farm Bills
Passed by the House and Senate
Updated February 28, 2002
Jeffrey A. Zinn
Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Resource Conservation Title: Comparison of Current
Law with Farm Bills Passed by the House and Senate
Summary
The most recent farm bill is the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127), popularly called the FAIR Act. Most conservation
authorities in the FAIR Act expire at the end of FY2002. Both chambers of
Congress have passed different versions of a new farm bill that will include future
conservation programs and policies. There is pressure on the conference committee
from supporters of agriculture to resolve these differences quickly before farmers
make spring planting decisions. The FY2002 budget resolution, currently in effect,
provides an additional $73.5 billion dollars in budget authority over the next 10 years
for all agricultural spending, on top of the current baseline of about $97 billion, and
the Administration often has stated that it will support that level of budget authority.
The House approved H.R. 2646 on October 5, 2001, after several days of
debate. Perhaps the most contentious issue was an alternative conservation proposal,
called the Kind-Boehlert amendment, which would have transferred an additional $1.9
billion annually from commodity to conservation programs. It was defeated. The
Senate approved S.Amdt. 2471, offered by Senator Daschle, after several days of
debate at the end of the first session and early in the second session. The Daschle
Amendment includes all the conservation provisions in S. 1731, a clean bill filed by
the Senate Agriculture Committee, and other proposals. During the Senate debate
several amendments to conservation amendments were adopted.
This report compares Title II of H.R. 2646 and Title II of S.Amdt. 2471 with
current law in two tables. The first table compares the provisions to current law. The
second table compares proposed annual funding levels for each program.
Provisions in the conservation titles of the two bills have many similarities. Both
bills would extend most existing conservation programs that expire at the end of
FY2002. Both would greatly increase total conservation budget authority above
current levels, and fund almost all the programs through the Commodity Credit
Corporation. Funding for some programs, such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program and the Farmland Protection Program, would increase
significantly. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the current baseline for all
mandatory conservation programs through FY2011 to be $21.4 billion. H.R. 2646,
according to CBO, would increase this to $37.2 billion, while S.Amdt. 2471 would
increase it to $42.7 billion. (CBO assumes the legislation is in effect for 10 years and
is not amended.)
Key differences include the period of authorization. H.R. 2646 provides
authorization through FY2011, while S.Amdt. 2471 provides authorization through
FY2006. The House bill primarily reauthorizes existing programs, usually at lower
funding levels than the Senate bill, and enacts few new programs, while the Senate bill
makes more numerous and significant changes to existing programs and to
conservation policies, and also creates many more new programs.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 1. Comparison of Current Resource Law with Provisions in Title II of
Farm Bills Passed by House and Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP) . . . . 4
B. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
E. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
F. Farmland Protection Program (FPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
G. Other Programs (Including Technical Assistance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
H. New Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 2. Comparison of Current Resource Conservation Funding with
Proposed Funding in Farm Bills Passed by House and Senate . . . . . . . . . . 21

Resource Conservation Title:
Comparison of Current Law with
Farm Bills Passed by the House and Senate
Introduction
Resource conservation programs were first enacted in the 1930s to reduce the
effects of soil erosion on crop production, then expanded in the 1940s and 1950s to
help landowners manage water resources and control floods. The approach to
conservation that developed with these earliest programs has changed little; it is based
on voluntary participation. Participants are attracted by combination of financial,
technical and educational assistance, and results from related research.
Starting with the omnibus farm bill in 1985, Congress rapidly expanded
conservation programs beyond erosion control and water management, and beyond
the goal of improving crop production. Programs now also protect and restore
wetlands and wildlife habitat, and recognize the need to improve air and water quality,
for example. Since the most recent farm bill was enacted in 1996, new issues
emerged, including: the role that agriculture might play in producing energy from
biomass and in sequestering carbon; protection and restoration of grasslands;
reduction of non point water pollution caused by large confined animal feeding
operations; and additional attention to other “off-farm” impacts. Addressing these
issues will continue to expand the breadth of the resource conservation effort. The
effort will also grow as new conservation tools are added, such as easements which
protect resource values while keeping the land under the control of the farmer.
The expanded conservation effort is reflected in funding levels. Conservation
activities at USDA received a total of just over $1 billion in FY1985; they now
receive more than $3 billion annually. Most of this growth has been for land
retirement and easements (e.g., the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve
Programs), while the other activities have grown little in real terms. The 1996 farm
bill moved funding for five conservation programs from discretionary funding, subject
to the annual appropriations process, to mandatory funding through the CCC.
Funding of mandatory conservation programs totaled just over $2 billion in FY2001,
according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Numerous programs are scheduled to expire at the end of FY2002. During
several days of hearings in 2001, the agriculture committees explored program and
policy options. Farm groups generally suggested increasing funding for existing
programs and reducing conservation impediments to farm operations. Other interest
groups, while supporting some of the farmer proposals, recommended more
substantial changes, including new programs and major shifts in policy.

CRS-2
This report consists of two tables. Table 1 lists current resource conservation
law or policy in the first column, and compares these with provisions in the
conservation titles of both bills. Current law or policy is identified by the section in
law where it can be found, and for each bill, the sections where the provisions can be
found are identified. Table entries also note where proposed provisions would move
a program to a different section of law, which S.Amdt. 2471 would do to several
programs. While this table does include funding for each program in both proposals,
Table 2 pulls all the funding information together in one place.
Table 1 identifies only current conservation law and policy that one or both bills
would amend in the conservation title. While this is a large portion of the
conservation effort, it is far from the entire effort. Programs such as Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations, administered by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) would not be directly amended by either set of proposals.
Some provisions that might be considered to be conservation topics are found
in other titles, such as the forestry and research titles, and are therefore not included
in this comparison. For example, in the Senate bill:
! amendments to the Forestry Incentive Program, administered by NRCS, which
provides cost-sharing assistance on small private nonindustrial forest lands are
placed in §804, in the forestry title;
! a provision to reduce incentives to convert uncultivated land to crops by
making that land ineligible for certain farm program benefits immediately, is
placed in §170, in the commodity program title (this provisions is similar to
“super sodbuster” in earlier law) ; and
! a provision that the makes violators of swampbuster and conservation
compliance ineligible for crop insurance payments, is placed in §1014, the
miscellaneous provisions.
The table does not include any analysis of the proposed program and policy
changes, or any assessment of their probable effects. Many of these proposals would
likely have significant effects because of: their scope or scale; the places and natural
resources that they could affect; and approaches that implementing agencies choose
to follow in undertaking changed responsibilities. Some of these proposals have gone
through a lengthy gestation period, such as Senator Harkin’s proposed Conservation
Security Program, while others have been extensively analyzed in assessments by
others, such as the Grasslands Reserve Program proposal, championed by the Nature
Conservancy. Less information is available about other proposals. These proposals
include small or limited programs, such as the Cranberry Acreage Reserve, programs
of limited geographic scope, such as the Southern High Plains groundwater
conservation program, and proposals that appeared near the end of the farm bill
process to address an issue that emerged recently, such as the Klamath Basin
provisions, all in the Senate bill.
Table 2 lists, by conservation program, funding/enrollment levels authorized
under current law in the first column, and compares these with proposed
funding/enrollment levels for both bills. All conservation programs in the House bill
would be authorized through 2011, while all conservation programs in the Senate bill
would be authorized through FY2006, unless noted. As currently proposed, most
programs would be first funded in FY2002, although a few would not start until

CRS-3
FY2003. The conservation titles in these bills contain numerous proposed changes
in policy that do not involve funding levels or options; these changes, which in some
instances include how the funds are to be allocated, are identified in table 1. New
smaller programs that would be funded using a portion of funds authorized for a
larger program are included, and the relationship between the new recipient programs
and the larger source programs are identified.
The entry for each program notes whether the proposal would require mandatory
or discretionary funding. (Mandatory funding is provided through the borrowing
authority of USDA‘s Commodity Credit Corporation, while discretionary funding
requires an annual appropriation.) A large majority of conservation funding (although
not a majority of all active conservation programs) already is mandatory, and the
portion of all funding using the CCC would increase under both bills.

Funding levels for many of the programs would increase from year to year.
Higher funding levels in out-years will allow the administering agencies to “ramp up”
their efforts. Given the large magnitude of proposed increases from current levels,
“ramping up” is widely viewed as having the potential to result in more efficient and
effective implementation.

Table 2 provides the official estimates in budget authority prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO has estimated the baseline budget
authority for all mandatory programs, by year, and increases above that baseline for
both bills over the next 10 years. For each entry in H.R. 2646 that is mandatory
spending, estimated budget authority through FY2006 and FY2011 are included, and
for each entry in S.Amdt. 2471 that is mandatory spending, estimated budget
authority through FY2006 is included. (Most authorizations in this bill expire after
FY2006.)
To summarize the CBO estimates, the total increase in budget authority to
implement the conservation title of H.R. 2646 would be $6.788 billion through
FY2006 and $15.787 billion through FY2011. For S.Amdt. 2471, it estimates a total
increase of $11.776 billion through FY2006. (It also estimates that the total increase
would be $21.303 billion through FY2011 if no further changes were made through
FY2011.) These increases are a significant portion of the $73.5 billion increase in
budget authority authorized in the FY2002 budget agreement for all spending in
programs under the jurisdiction of the agriculture committees.
For several programs, participation is limited by acres permitted to be enrolled,
rather than a cap on funding levels. For these programs, CBO must estimate both the
average cost per acre and the rate at which land would be enrolled. CBO has
developed the following cost estimates for these acreage-based programs:
! For the CRP, $50 per acre annually for regular enrollment, and $100 per acre
for the continuous enrollment option and the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP);
! For the proposed Grasslands Reserve Program, $15 to $20 per acre annually;
! For the WRP, $1000 per acre; and
! For the proposed Water Conservation Program, $1,500 per acre, or for the
leasing option, $150 per acre (increasing by 2% to 3% per year).

CRS-4
Table 1. Comparison of Current Resource Law with Provisions in Title II of Farm Bills
Passed by House and Senate
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
A. Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP)
1. Purpose and Programs. Authorizes program
No provisions.
Renames ECARP the Comprehensive Conservation
through long term contacts and acquisition of
Enhancement Program (CCEP)and places new name
easements, to be implemented through the
throughout §1230. [§207(a)]
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands
Amends §1230(a) to reflect changed placement of
Reserve Program (WRP), and Environmental Quality
conservation programs in 1985 FSA. CCEP includes:
Incentive Program (EQIP). [§1230(a) of the 1985
Conservation Reserve Program; Wetlands Reserve
FSA as amended by §331 of the 1996 FAIR]
Program; Environmental Quality Incentives Program;
Good Faith protection provisions added as §755 of
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; a new Grasslands
the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations. [§1230A]
Reserve Program; and a revised Conservation of Private
[Note: ECARP is an umbrella under which the CRP,
Grazing Lands Program.[§211(a)]
WRP, and EQIP are placed.]
Repeals §1230A. [§207(c)] [Note: §1230A is replaced
with new good faith provisions in §1244(a), discussed
below in subsection H and found in §204 of this bill.]
2. Priority Areas. Permits the Sec. to designate
Repeals §1230(c). [§201(2)]
Adds a new subsection giving priority to areas where
watershed, multistate areas, or areas of special
projects could be completed most rapidly. [§211(b)]
environmental sensitivity for enhanced conservation
assistance through the CRP, WRP, and EQIP. [§
1230(c) of the 1985 FSA as amended by §331 of the
1996 FAIR]
B. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
1. Period of Authorization and Purposes.
Reauthorizes CRP through FY2011.
Reauthorizes CRP through FY2006. [§212(a)]
Authorizes program through FY2002, and states the
[§211(a)]
purposes are to conserve and improve soil and water
Adds wildlife resources to the purposes of the
resources. [§1231 (a) of the 1985 FSA as amended
program. [§211(b)]
by §322(a)(1) of the 1996 FAIR]
2. Eligibility. Makes certain highly erodible land,
Repeals the limit on enrolling marginal
Makes eligible land that has a cropping history for 3 of
marginal pastureland, and other cropland eligible.
pastureland to less than 10% of the total
the 6 years preceding enactment (and land enrolled in
[Section 1231(b) of the 1985 FSA]
enrolled acres, expands the definition of other
the CRP on that date), and adds a new subsection that
eligible cropland to include threats to soil and
makes land enrolled under the continuous signup and the
air quality, and makes eligible land in
buffer initiative eligible for the regular program.

CRS-5
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
production for at least 4 years that would
[§212(b)]
contribute to conservation of ground and
surface water. [§212(a)]
Adds a new §231(i) that requires balance
between soil erosion, water quality, and
wildlife habitat when reviewing bids, with
implementing regulations to be issued within
180 days of enactment. [§212(d)]
3. Enrollment Ceiling. Authorizes enrollment
Raises ceiling to 39.2 million acres. [§212(b)]
Raises ceiling to 41.1 million acres. [§212(c)] [Note:
ceiling at 36.4 million acres. [§1231(d) of the 1985
§215(a), water conservation, lowers the CRP enrollment
FSA as amended by §332(b) of the 1996 FAIR.]
ceiling from 41.1 million acres to 40.0 million acres,
then adds 500,000 acres for a new pilot program,
bringing the total to 40.5 million acres.]
4. Duration of Contract. Allows CRP contracts for
No provisions.
Amends §1231(e)(2) to allow the Sec. to extend
some land devoted to hardwood trees, shelter belts,
contracts on hardwood forests for up to 15 years, and
wind breaks, or wildlife corridors to be longer than
limits annual payments to 50% of the original contract
the 10 to 15 years allowed for other contracts.
amount. New contracts can be from 10 to 30 years in
[§1231(e)(2) of the 1985 FSA]
length. [§212(d)]
5. Conservation Priority Areas. Requires the Sec.
Allows land enrolled under this subchapter to
Gives priority to areas where designation would lead to
to establish, at the request of a state, priority
be eligible to reenroll in the CRP. [§212(c)]
the most rapid completion of projects. [§212(b)]
watersheds in specified and other areas where
enrollment would “maximize water quality and
habitat benefits.” [§1231(f) of the 1985 FSA]
6. Enrollment Subcategories. Authorizes a
Expands the pilot program to all states and
Deletes “pilot”, reauthorizes the program through
500,000 acre pilot program, with enrollment limited
limits enrollment in any state to 150,000
FY2006, and increases the maximum size of eligible
to 150,000 acres in any state for small wetlands(less
acres. [§215]
sites from 5 acres to 10 acres (but only up to 5 acres are
than 5 acres) and buffers in 6 specified upper
eligible for payments). [§212(e)]
Midwestern states. [A new §1231(h), enacted in Title
XI of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L.
106-387]

CRS-6
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
7. Duties of Owners and Operators. Sets limits on
Allows certain economic uses of enrolled
Adds a new subsection that allows irrigated land to be
commercial uses of lands in the CRP, but allows the
lands if consistent with soil, water, and
enrolled through the buffer initiative or the CREP at the
Sec. to permit harvesting or grazing under very
wildlife conservation. These uses include
irrigated land rate. [Section 212(f)]
limited circumstances. [§1232(a)(7) of the 1985 FSA
managed grazing and haying (with reduced
Allows participants to plant native prairie grasses on
as amended by the 1990 FACTA]
payments), siting of wind turbines, and
enrolled marginal pastureland, to permit harvesting or
Sets a goal of planting 1/8 of the land enrolled each
harvesting biomass to produce energy (with
grazing for maintenance purposes on lands enrolled
year to trees or habitat. [§1232(c) of the 1985 FSA]
reduced payments). Deletes subsections (c)
through the buffer initiative or the CREP, and adds a
Allows alley-cropping. [§1232(d) of the 1985 FSA]
and (d). [§213]
new subsection that makes crop production on other
highly erodible land a violation of a CRP contract
unless it has a cropping history or was a building site
when it was purchased. [§212(g)]
Adds a new subsection that permits wind turbines on
CRP land (except land enrolled in the continuous
enrollment), with payments reduced based on the
diminished value for CRP. [§212(h)]
8. Payments. Lays out the terms and conditions for
No provisions.
Adds a new subsection to provide enrollment and cost
CRP payments. [§1234 of the 1985 FSA as amended
sharing payments to producers who enroll land in the
by §1434(a) of the 1990 FACTA)
buffer initiative or through a CREP. [§212(i)]
Payments for easements limited to $50,000 per year.
Exempts payments for land enrolled in the buffer
[§1239C(f) of the 1985 FSA]
initiative or through a CREP from the payment limit
for easements. [§212(j)]
9. County Enrollment Limits. Limits enrollment in
Repeals the provision allowing the Sec. to
Exempts land enrolled under the continuous signup
the CRP and WRP to 25% of county cropland, and
exceed the county enrollment limit if operators
from county enrollment limit. [§212(k)]
limits easements to 10%; limits may be exceeded if it
are having difficulty meeting compliance
would not adversely affect the local economy or if
requirements. [§244(a)]
operators are having difficulty meeting compliance
requirements. [§1243(b) of the 1985 FSA as
amended by §341 of the 1996 FAIR.]
10. Funding and Administration. Provides
Reauthorizes mandatory funding through
Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006,
mandatory funding through the CCC. [§1241(a) of
FY2011. [§241]
and includes funding for technical assistance in support
the 1985 FSA as amended by §341 of the 1996
of this program. [§211(c)]
FACT]

CRS-7
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
11. Study of Economic Effects. No provisions.
No provisions.
Requires the Sec. to report to the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees on the economic and social
effects of the CRP on rural communities within 270
days of enactment. Specifies 3 components of the
analysis. [§212(l)]
C. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
1. Enrollment. The 1990 FACTA adds a new
Allows enrollment of up to 150,000 acres per
Authorizes WRP enrollment through calendar year
§1237 to the 1985 FSA establishing the WRP and
calendar year starting in 2002, with any acres
2006. [§214(c)] Sets a maximum enrollment ceiling of
capping enrollment at 975,000 acres. [Section 1438]
up to the annual limit that are not enrolled can
2,225,000 acres, and an annual enrollment ceiling of
Enrollment allowed through calendar year 2002.
be enrolled in succeeding years, through
250,000 acres, of which up to 25,000 acres can be
[§333(b)(1) of the 1996FAIR]
FY2011. [§221(a)]
enrolled in the new Wetland Reserve Enhancement
Enrollment ceiling increased from 975,000 acres to
Authorizes enrollment through FY2011.
Program. [§214(b)]
1,075,000 acres. [§808 of the FY2001 Agriculture
[§221(c)}
Appropriations (P.L. 106-387)]
2. Enrollment Options. Requires 1/3 enrollment
Deletes the 1/3 requirement, and the
Creates a new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program
each using permanent easements, 30 year easements,
distinction between permanent and temporary
that allows agreements with state and local government,
and long-term agreements. [§1237(b) of the 1985
easements. [§221(b]
and non-governmental organizations to restore wetlands
FSA as amended by §333(a) of the 1996 FAIR]
on land in or eligible to be enrolled in the WRP.
[§214(d)]
3. Easements and Agreements. Describes the
Replaces the 4 specific prohibitions with a
No provisions.
general terms of easements and agreements. Prohibits
general statement to allow only changes
altering habitat, spraying chemicals and mowing, any
permitted in the plan. It deletes subsection
activity that degrades the land, and any other activity
(e), which distinguishes 3 lengths of
that counters the purpose of the easement, unless
easements, and subsection (h), which can
permitted in the plan. [§1237A of the 1985 FSA as
require wetlands to be restored if there is no
amended by §333(d)(1) of the 1996 FAIR]
easement. [§222]
4. Secretarial Duties, including Technical
Deletes subsection (d), which requires the Sec.
Amends §1237C(a) to provide funds from the CCC for
Assistance. Describes how cost sharing and technical
to give priority to using permanent easements.
technical assistance in support of the WRP. [§214(a)]
assistance will be provided; and how priorities will be
[§223]
Amends §1237C(a)(2) to add monitoring and
set for determining which bids to accept. [§1237C of
maintenance to the types of technical assistance
the 1985 FSA]
provided to participants. [§214(e)]

CRS-8
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
5. Changes in Ownership. Limits program entry if
Replaces 1990 acquisition date in
No provisions.
ownership changes occurred during the previous
§1237E(a)(2) with provision to make eligible
year, and specifies terms under which easements can
at any time land acquired through foreclosure
be modified or terminated. [§1237E of the 1985
where the previous owner exercised a right of
FSA]
redemption. [§224]
6. Funding. Funding from the CCC is authorized to
Reauthorizes mandatory funding through
Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006,
implement the WRP. [§1241(a) of the 1985 FSA]
FY2011. [§241]
and includes funding for technical assistance in support
of this program. [§211(c)]
D. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
1. Program Purposes. Identifies 4 programs that
Deletes reference to the programs that were
Specifies that EQIP is to promote production and
EQIP replaces. Specifies that EQIP maximize
replaced; replaces the purpose of responding
environmental quality while maximizing environmental
environmental benefits per dollar spent while meeting
to environmental threats with the purpose of
benefits per dollar spent by assisting producers to meet
4 purposes. [§334 of the 1996 FAIR adds §1240 to
providing environmental benefits; and expands
6 specified purposes. [§213(a)]
the 1985 FSA]
the benefits to include air quality. [§231]
2. Definitions. Defines “eligible land”, “land
Adds non-industrial private forest land to
Adds definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher”,
management practice”, “livestock”, “producer”, and
“eligible land”, and replaces the notion of
“comprehensive nutrient management”, “innovative
“structural practice”. [§1240A of the 1985 FSA]
posing an environmental threat with the notion
technology”, “managed grazing”, “maximum
of providing environmental benefits in that
environmental benefits per dollar expended”, “practice”,
definition; and “producer” is expanded to
and “program”. [§213(a)]
include non-industrial private forestry. [§232]
3. Program Administration. Authorizes EQIP
Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2011;
Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2006; adds
through 2002; eligible practices include structural and
authorizes contracts of 1 to 10 years; repeals
comprehensive nutrient management planning to the list
land management practices; authorizes contracts of 5
requirement that structural practices be
of eligible practices; allows the Sec. to provide
to 10 years; provides cost-share of not more than 75%
selected to maximize environmental benefits
conservation education to producers; authorizes
for structural practices; prohibits cost sharing to large
per dollar spent; deletes limitation on
contracts of 3 to 10 years; limits producers to 1 contract
livestock operations to construct animal waste
payments to large livestock operations to
for structural practices to manage livestock nutrients
management facilities; provides incentive payments
construct animal waste management facilities;
through FY2006; limits large confined livestock
for land management practices; provides funding (not
and adds a new provision to make incentive
operators to 1 contract over authorization period for a
to exceed projected costs) for technical assistance;
payments at an amount and rate to encourage
waste storage or treatment facility; authorizes
and lists types of private sources to provide technical
multiple land management practices, with
application and evaluation procedures for selecting
assistance. [§1240B of the 1985 FSA]
emphasis on payments for practices that
applicants; prohibits bidding down; limits cost sharing
address “residue, nutrient, pest, invasive
payments to 75% (up to 90% for limited resource and
species, and air quality management.”
beginning farmers, or to address a natural disaster);

CRS-9
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
[§233]
prohibits duplicate cost sharing payments for the same
practice; eliminates (by not including) the limitation on
cost-sharing with large confined livestock operations for
waste management facilities; permits incentive
payments for technical assistance to certified individuals
to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans;
and specifies circumstances for terminating contracts.
[§213(a)]
4. Evaluation of Offers. Requires Sec. to give
Replaces these provisions with general
Adds higher priority also to be given for special projects
higher priority to assistance in priority areas,
language about aiding farmers to comply with
initiated by a new partnership program to address
maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent, or
environmental laws and encourage
environmental issues placed in §1243(f), and to
are in watersheds, regions, or conservation priority
conservation, maximizing the benefits of using
innovative technologies for structural or land
areas where states or localities are active partners.
manure and other soil amendments, and
management practices. [§213(a)]
[§1240C of the 1985 FSA]
encouraging sustainable grazing systems.
[§234]
5. Duties of Producers. Lists 5 duties; one is a
No provisions.
Almost identical to current law, except gives the Sec.
prohibition against practices that counter the purposes
greater latitude in determining the appropriate penalty
of EQIP. [§1240D of the 1985 FSA]
for violations. [§213(a)]
6. Program Plan. Lists the general contents of plans
Replaces mention of management and
Almost identical to current law. [§213(a)]
producers are required to submit to the Sec. to
structural practices with providing greater
participate. [§1240E of the 1985 FSA]
environmental benefits. [§235]
7. Secretarial Duties. Assigns 5 duties to the Sec;
Deletes incentive payments from
Almost identical to current law, except that it deletes
one is to provide technical assistance and cost-share
implementing structural and land management
(by not including) the duty of providing an eligibility
or incentive payments for structural and land
practices. [§236]
assessment. [§213(a)]
management practices; another is to prepare an
eligibility assessment. [§1240F of the 1985 FSA]
8. Payment Limits and Timing. Limits payments to
Limits payments to $50,000 annually and
Limits total payments under all contracts to $30,000
$10,000 annually and $50,000 per contract; specifies
$200,000 per contract; repeals language
annually, $90,000 for 3 year contracts, $120,000 for 4
the annual limit can be exceeded to maximize the
allowing annual limits to be exceeded to
year contracts, and $150,000 for a contract of 4 years
environmental benefits per dollar spent; and delays
provide maximum environmental benefit per
or more. The Sec. can waive the annual limit to
federal expenditures until the year after the contract
dollar spent, and provisions to delay federal
increase environmental benefits. Deletes provisions to
has been signed. [§1240G of the 1985 FSA]
expenditures until the year after the contract
delay federal expenditures until the year after the
has been signed. [§237]
contract has been signed. [§213(a)]

CRS-10
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
9. Other Provisions. Lays out temporary transition
Replaces current language in §1240H with
Replaces current language in §1240H with provisions
provisions as EQIP replaces 4 repealed programs.
provisions that provide $30 million, in
that provide $100 million annually from EQIP funds,
[§1240H of the 1985 FSA]
FY2002, $45 million in FY2003, and $60
starting in FY2003, for competitive innovative matching
million annually in FY2004-11 from the CCC
grants and specifies examples to include market systems
for cost share payments and low interest loans
for pollution reduction, promoting carbon sequestration
to encourage ground and surface water
in soil and other Best Management Practices, and
conservation. [§238]
protecting drinking water quality; permits funds from
other sources; limits funding to 50% of cost; funds
unobligated by April 1 each year can be spent on other
EQIP purposes. Adds new program as §1240I for
groundwater conservation in the southern high plains to
improve irrigation efficiency and reduce water use using
EQIP funds. ($15 million in FY2003, $25 million in
FY2004-5, $35 million in FY2006, and $0 in FY2007)
Adds new pilot programs for drinking water suppliers,
and provides incentives to reduce nutrient loads in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed using EQIP funds as
§1240J. ($10 million in FY2003, $15 million in
FY2004, $20 million in FY2005, $25 million in
FY2006, and $0 in FY2007) [§213(a)]
10. Funding and Administration. Provides $200
Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through
Provides: $.5 billion in FY2002; $1.3 billion in
million annually through FY2002 from the CCC for
FY2011. [§241]
FY2003; $1.45 billion in FY2004-5; $1.5 billion in
EQIP, with 50% of the total going to practices related
Provides: $.2 billion in FY2001; $1.025
FY2006; and $.85 billion in FY2007. Provides funding
to livestock production. [§1241 of the 1985 FSA as
billion in FY2002-3; $1.2 billion in FY2004-
for technical assistance from the CCC. [§241(b)]
amended by several annual agricultural
6; $1.4 billion in FY2007-9; and $1.5 billion
Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006,
appropriations laws]
in FY2010-11. [§242]
and includes funding for technical assistance in support
Reauthorizes the livestock provision through
of this program. [§211(c)]
FY2011. [§243]
E. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
1. Period of Authorization. Provides a total of $50
Reauthorizes funding from the CCC at: $25
Moves WHIP to §1240M of the 1985 FSA,
million from the CCC (from CRP funding) by the end
million in FY2002; $30 million in FY2003-4;
reauthorizes funding from the CCC at: $50 million in
of FY2002. [§387(c) of the 1996 FAIR]
$35 million in FY2005-6; $40 million in
FY2002; $225 million in FY2003; $275 million in
FY2007; $45 million in FY2008-9; and $50
FY2004; $325 million in FY2005; $355 million in
million in FY2010-11. [§ 252]
FY2006; and $50 million in FY2007. All funding is to

CRS-11
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
remain available until spent. Provides funding for
technical assistance from the CCC. [§217(g)]
2. Establishing WHIP. No provisions.
No provisions.
Requires consultation with STCs to establish WHIP.
[§217(b)]
3. Cost-sharing Payments. Authorizes cost sharing
No provisions.
Requires the Sec. to use at least 15% of the cost-sharing
payments for several approved purposes. [§387(b)]
funds on endangered and threatened species. [§217(c)]
4. Participation Related to Public Lands. No
No provisions.
Makes individuals and organizations leasing public
provisions.
lands eligible for grants. [§217(e)]
Allows funds to be used on public lands if they will
benefit private lands. [§217(f)]
5. Pilot Program. No provisions.
No provisions.
Allows the Sec. to use up to 15% of the funds to enroll
land for at least 15 years to protect “essential plant and
animal habitat.” [§217(d)]
F. Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
1. Funding Level. Provides up to a total of $35
Provides up to $50 million annually through
Moves the FPP to §1238H-J of the 1985 FSA and
million from the CCC by FY2002. [§388(c) of the
FY2011 from the CCC. [§ 253(b)]
requires that the program be administered by NRCS
1996 FAIR]
[§218(a)]
Repeals §388 of the 1996 FAIR. [§218(c)]
Reauthorizes funding from the CCC at: $150 million in
FY2002; $250 million in FY2003; $400 million in
FY2004; $450 million in FY2005; $500 million in
FY2006; and $100 million in FY2007. Provides
funding for technical assistance from the CCC; limits
the federal share to 50%, and limits the portion of the
non federal share provided by the landowner or in inkind
goods and services to 25%; prohibits bidding down.
[§218(b)]
2. Eligible Land. Makes between 170,000 acres and
Deletes the maximum and minimum acreage
Same as §253(a); and also defines eligible land to
340,000 acres eligible if the soil is prime, unique or
limits, and makes historic and archaeological
include cropland, rangeland, grassland, pasture land and
productive, and an offer is pending from a state or
sites eligible. [§253(a)]
forest land that is part of an agricultural operation.
local government to limit non agricultural uses.
[§218(a)]
[§388(a) of the 1996 FAIR]
3. Conservation Planning. Requires a conservation
No provisions.
Identical to current law. [§218(a)]

CRS-12
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
plan if the land is highly erodible; the Sec. can require
conversion of land to a less intensive use in the plan.
[§388(b) of the 1996 FAIR]
4. Eligible Participants. Makes eligible any state or
Expands eligibility to also include federally
Identical to §253(c). [§218(a)]
local agency that has made an offer to purchase a
recognized Indian tribes, and non profit
conservation easement. [§388(a) of the 1996 FAIR]
organizations that meet specified
qualifications. [§253(c)]
5. New Program Options. No provisions.
No provisions.
Allows up to $10 million to be spent annually to provide
matching grants for market development, and technical
assistance to participants. [§218(a)]
G. Other Programs (Including Technical Assistance)
1. Resource Conservation and Development
Permanently reauthorizes program, and makes
Permanently reauthorizes program, and makes
Program (RC&D). Provides assistance to encourage
numerous other, mostly minor or technical
numerous other, mostly minor or technical amendments.
and improve the capacity of state and local
amendments. [§254]
[§216]
governments and non profits in rural areas to develop
[Note: Many of the changes in the two bills
[Note: Many of the changes in the two bills are different
and implement conservation programs. Authorized
are different from each other, but they do not
from each other, but they do not change the basic intent
through FY2002. [Title III of the Bankhead-Jones
change the basic intent or operation of the
or operation of the program.]
Farm Tenant Act as amended by §1528-§1538 of the
program.]
1981 AFA]
2. Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
Authorizes $15 million annually in “FY2002
No provisions.
Provides financial and technical assistance to
and each succeeding year” to fund the Small
rehabilitate water structures that are nearing or past
Watershed Rehabilitation Program. [§257]
the end of their design life. Authorizes
appropriations of: $5 million in FY2001; $10 million
in FY2002; $15 million in FY2003; $25 million in
FY2004; and $35 million in FY2005. [Authorized in
§313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse
Improvement Act of 2000]
3. Conservation of Private Grazing Lands.
Adds encouraging the use of sustainable
Moves the program to a new §1240P of the 1985 FSA,
Provide coordinated technical, educational, related
grazing systems to the list of activities for
makes numerous other, mostly minor, changes, and
assistance to preserve and enhance privately-owned
which assistance can be provided. [§251]
authorizes$60 million annually through FY2006.
grazing lands; authorizes 2 demonstration districts,
[§217(a)]
and authorizes $20 million in FY1996, $40 million in
Repeals provisions establishing program in §386 of the
FY1997, and $60 million in FY1998 and each
1996 FAIR. [§217(b)]

CRS-13
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
subsequent year. [§386 of the 1996 FAIR]
4. Technical Assistance. Allows persons who need
Allows producers to seek assistance from
Adds a new §1244(f) to the 1985 FSA requiring the
and apply a conservation compliance plan to obtain
third parties, who have the specified expertise,
Sec. to create a certification program for third parties to
technical assistance from approved sources other than
and requires the Sec. to develop a system for
provide technical assistance, specifies standards for
NRCS; the Sec. must document a rejection of
approving qualified third parties who provide
certification, permits the Sec. to repay landowners who
assistance from those sources [§1243(d) of the 1985
technical assistance to EQIP participants
use third parties, and establishes an advisory committee
FSA]
within 6 months of enactment. [§244(b)]
for the certification program. [§204]
5. State Technical Committees (STC). Creates
No provisions.
Expands membership in STCs to include expertise in
STCs , lists the composition, outlines responsibilities
forestry, restates its responsibilities to mesh with other
to include providing “information, analysis, and
changes this legislation makes to conservation
recommendations” on implementing conservation
programs, and makes subcommittees and local working
provisions (including several specified topics) to the
groups working on STC business exempt from FACA.
state conservationist, and exempts the STC from
[§220]
FACA meeting requirements. [§1261 of the 1985
FSA]
6. Repeals of Authorized Programs and Activities.
Repeals provisions: creating the Wetlands
Repeals numerous conservation programs in current law
No provisions.
Mitigation Banking Program [§1222(k) of the
and reauthorizes them in other sections of farm law, as
1985 FSA]; exempting CRP payments from
noted in the entries above.
any limits under the 1985 FSA, the 1990
FACTA, and the 1949 AA [§1234(f)(3)];
protecting the base history of land enrolled in
the CRP [§1236 of the 1985 FSA]; exempting
WRP payments from any limits under the
1985 FSA, the 1990 FACTA, and the 1949
AA [§1237D(c)(3)] and; creating the
Environmental Easement Program [§1239 of
the 1985 FSA], the Conservation Farm
Option [§1240M of the 1985 FSA], and the
Tree Planting Initiative [§1256 of the 1985
FSA]. [§261]
Repeals the National Natural Resources
Conservation Foundation [§351-§360 of the
1996 FAIR]. [§262]
H. New Programs

CRS-14
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
1. Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP).
Places GRP in §1238 of the 1985 FSA,
Places GRP in §1238N-P of the 1985 FSA, creating a 2
A. Reserve Size. No provisions.
creating a 2 million acre grasslands reserve,
million acre grasslands reserve, of which up to 500,000
split evenly between restored grasslands and
acres will be native grasslands in tracts of 40 acres or
virgin (never cultivated) grasslands.
less. §1238N sets minimum size for enrolled parcels at
§1238(b)(1) sets minimum size for enrolled
40 contiguous acres east of the 98th meridian and 100
parcels at 50 contiguous acres east of the 90th
contiguous acres west of the 98th meridian [§219(a)]
meridian and 100 contiguous acres west of the
90th meridian. [§255(a)]
B. Eligible Lands. No provisions.
Defines eligible land to include natural grass
Same definition of eligible land as in H.R. 2646, except
and shrub land that has a potential to serve as
that it also allows incidental additional land that is
important plant or animal habitat, or has been
necessary for the administrative efficiency of an
historically dominated by natural grass or
easement to be enrolled. [§219(a)]
shrubland. [§255(a)]
C. Enrollment Options. No provisions.
Spends at least 2/3 of funds on contracts of 10
Allows permanent easements, 30 year easements, the
to 20 years, and the remainder on 30 year or
longest easements allowed by state law, and 30 year
permanent easements. [§255(a)]
rental agreements. §1238Q allows Sec. to delegate
easements to state agencies, private conservation
organizations and land trusts. [§219(a)]
D. Permitted and Prohibited Uses of Enrolled Lands.
Permits contract holders to use common
Similar to H.R. 2646 for permitted and prohibited uses
No provisions.
grazing practices, and permits haying and
of enrolled lands. [§219(a)]
mowing outside the bird nesting season, but
prohibits all agricultural production (except
hay) and almost all practices that require
disturbing the land surface in §1238(A)(b).
[§255(a)]
E. Ranking Criteria for Bids. No provisions.
Requires the Sec. to develop ranking criteria
Requires Sec. to work with STCs in developing ranking
for reviewing applications, with emphasis on
criteria, and to give priority to grazing operations,
support for native vegetation, grazing
maintaining or restoring biodiversity, and land under the
operations, and plant and animal diversity,
greatest threat of conversion. [§219(a)]
and to set the terms for restoration. [§255(a)]
F. Payment Levels. No provisions.
Describes how payment levels are to be set for
Describes how payment levels are to be set for each
each form of participation, sets cost sharing
form of participation, provides that rental agreements be
payments for restoration at 90% for virgin
reviewed and adjusted at least once every 5 years, limits
grasslands and 75% for restored grasslands,
cost-sharing payments to 75% for restoration, and

CRS-15
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
and provides technical assistance. [§255(a)]
provides technical assistance. [§219(a)]
G. Penalties for Violation. No provisions.
No provisions.
Describes the roles of the Sec. and the landowner in
implementing restoration agreements, and lists the
penalties for violations, and allows periodic site
inspections. [§219(a)]
H. Funding. No provisions.
Amends §1241 of the 1985 FSA to provide a
Amends §1241 of the 1985 FSA to provide such sums
total of $254 million through the CCC
as necessary from the CCC to implement the GRP.
through FY2011to implement the GRP.
[§219(b)]
[§255(b)]
2. Farmland Stewardship Program. No
Adds this program as a new §1239 to the
provisions.
1985 FSA. It is to be administered by NRCS
“to more precisely tailor and target” current
conservation programs, using program
funding on a watershed basis, where possible.
Participation requires matching funds, and
can involve other agencies. Participants
submit a management plan and are
encouraged to use easements to implement
conservation management. [§256]
[Note: No appropriations are authorized, so
all funding would come from existing
programs]
3. Conservation Security Program (CSP). No
No provisions.
Conservation Security Program (CSP). Authorizes a
provisions
CSP in §1238– §1238B of the 1985 FSA. Defines 22
terms and lists 13 program purposes. To participate,
producers must have an approved plan for eligible
lands, which are any “private agricultural land” except
land in the CRP and WRP, or that has not been in
production at least 3 of the preceding 10 years.
Producers can receive an advance payment when they
enroll, base payments, and bonus payments for certain
practices. Practices required for each of 3 tiers of
participation are specified, and minimum requirements
for each will be determined at the state level and

CRS-16
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
approved by the Sec. Land in an approved plan will be
enrolled in a contract between FY2003 and FY2006;
Tier 1 contracts will be 5 years; Tier II and III contracts
will be 5 to 10 years, and contracts can be renewed.
Total annual payments are limited to $20,000 for Tier I,
$35,000 for Tier II, and $50,000 for Tier III. Specified
practices are ineligible. One state pilot programs is
authorized after October 1, 2004. [§201]
Amends §1241 of the 1985 FSA by adding a new
subsection (c) to provide “such funds as are necessary”
from the CCC through FY2006. [§202]
Allows implementation to start on the date of enactment.
[§206]
4. Partnerships and Cooperation. No provisions.
No provisions.
Adds a new §1242(f) to the 1985 FSA to allow special
projects as recommended by a state conservationist,
which can respond to meeting the requirements of three
specified federal environmental laws or addressing
watersheds or other areas with significant environmental
problems. Participants agree to a plan to adjust
implementation of conservation programs to increase
environmental benefits. Funding uses 5% of EQIP
funds annually, with any unused funds to go to other
EQIP activities that year. [§203]
5. Watershed Risk Reduction Program. No
No provisions.
Authorizes $15 million annually through FY2006 to
provisions.
implement a new program to purchase floodplain
easements at §1240N of the 1985 FSA. [§217(a)]
6. Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment
No provisions.
Authorizes $5 million annually through FY2006 to
Control Program. No provisions.
implement a new soil erosion and sediment control
program for the Great Lakes basin at Section 1240O of
the 1985 FSA. [§217(a)]
7. Water Conservation Program. No provisions.
No provisions.
Reduces CRP enrollment ceiling from 41.1 million acres
to 40.0 million acres. [§215(a)]
Authorizes two new programs. One will allow up to
500,000 acres to be enrolled in state CREPs to

CRS-17
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
contribute to the restoration os a water course or lake,
and permit leasing or purchasing water rights. Priority
given to places where more than 20% of the cost would
be paid from non federal sources and promotes any of 4
specified benefits for fish, wildlife, and plants.
Protection of state water laws are specified. Eligible
states are Nevada, California, New Mexico,
Washington, Oregon, Maine, and New Hampshire;
others can apply to participate. [§215(b)]
Authorizes new Water Conservation Program in
§1240R of the 1985 FSA. NRCS will provide cost
sharing assistance to increase irrigation efficiency,
convert production to less water-intensives crops, and
acquire water rights. Protection of state and other water
laws required. Nebraska and South Dakota are
ineligible, while the same seven states as in the program
above are eligible, and others may apply. Authorizes
funding from the CCC at $25 million in FY2002, $52
million in FY2003, and $100 million annually in
FY2004 through FY2006, with $5 million allocated
each year to monitoring activities. [§215(c)]
8. Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
No provisions.
Authorizes a new program in §1240Q of the 1985 FSA
No provisions.
to appropriate $5 million annually through FY2006 to
use technical assistance capabilities of state rural water
associations that operate wellhead or groundwater
protection programs. [§217(a)]
9. Organic Agriculture Research Trust Fund. No
No provisions.
Provides $45 million from the CCC in FY2003, to
provisions.
remain available until spent and to accrue interest, in
FY2003 to establish a new research fund on organic
products. [§231]
10. National Organic Research Endowment
No provisions.
Establishes a National Organic Research Endowment
Institute. No provisions.
Institute to develop and implement a plan for research
on organic products using the trust fund (established in
§231). [§232]

CRS-18
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
11. Cranberry Acreage Reserve. No provisions.
No provisions.
Authorizes purchase of permanent easements on
wetlands and buffers that are part of a cranberry
operation from willing sellers. Authorizes $10 million
annually for this activity. [§261]
12. Klamath Basin. No provisions.
No provisions.
Authorizes the Sec. to create a federal task force
(membership specified) to develop a coordinated federal
effort to manage water resources in this basin, with 6
duties specified. In addition to using existing programs,
the Task Force will establish a grant program to carry
out its responsibilities. [§262(a) and (b)]
The task force will issue an initial report within 180
days of enactment, a draft 5-year plan to implement its
duties within 60 days thereafter, and a final plan within
1 year of enactment. Eight items to be considered in the
plan are specified. [§262(c)]
Consultation with specified non-federal entities is
required. [§262(d)]
Authorizes a total of $175 million from the CCC from
FY2003 through FY2006, and specifies that $15 million
is to go to specified tribes in Oregon and $15 million to
specified tribes in California. Funds may not be
obligated after September 30, 2006. [§262(e)]
13. Administrative Requirements for
No provisions.
Adds a new §1244(a) to the 1985 FSA giving the Sec.
Conservation Programs
the option of granting relief to conservation program
A. Relief for Good Faith Actions
participants who act in good faith under a contract, and
are subsequently determined to be in violation. Types
of relief and exceptions are specified. [§204]
B. Assistance for Limited Resource Producers. No
No provisions.
Adds a new §1244(b) which provides necessary funds
provisions.
from the CCC to assist certain limited resource, socially
disadvantaged, and beginning producers, and Indian
tribes to participate in conservation programs by
providing “education, outreach, monitoring, evaluation,
and related services.” The Sec. may contract with other
entities to provide these services. Adds a new §1244(c)

CRS-19
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
allowing the Sec. to provide incentives to these
producers(except socially-disadvantaged ones) to
participate in conservation programs. [§204]
C. Data Collection and Program Evaluation.
No provisions.
Adds a new §1244(d) which requires the Sec. to collect
data that would permit evaluation of conservation
programs. [§204]
D. Mediation. No provisions.
No provisions.
Adds a new §1244(e) which requires the Sec. to provide
mediation services when an adverse decision is made
about a conservation program. [§204] [Note: §1244(f),
on technical assistance, is discussed above, in entry
G4.]
E. Privacy of Personal Information (Confidentiality).
No provisions.
Adds a new §1244(g) to prohibit the Sec. from releasing
No provisions.
personal information about individuals related to
conservation programs, except in aggregate. [§204]
F. Tribal Lands. No provisions.
No provisions.
Adds a new §1244(h) which requires the Sec. to
cooperate with a tribal government when carrying out
conservation programs on tribal lands. [§204]
G. Regional Equity of Conservation Spending. No
No provisions.
Requires that each state receive at least $12 million
provisions.
annually from FY2002 through FY2006, for
conservation programs. Of the total, $5 million is to be
used for EQIP, and $7 million is to be used for other
conservation programs, with any portion not obligated
by April 1of the fiscal year to be reobligated to other
specified programs. [§241]
14. Assessment of Conservation Programs. No
Assessment of Conservation Programs. Requires the
provisions.
Sec. to develop a plan to better coordinate and
consolidate the implementation of conservation
programs to insure funding of highest priorities while
accounting for regional variation. [§ 205(a)]
Requires the Sec. to provide the plan (and
recommendations) to both agriculture committees within
180 days of enactment. [§205(b)]
Requires the Sec. to provide a plan (with a cost
estimate) for updating the national conservation
program required by the Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act of 1977 to both agriculture
committees within 180 days of enactment, and to report

CRS-20
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
to both committees on the status of plan implementation
by April 30, 2005. [§205(c)]
Requires the Sec. to revise conservation technical
standards within 180 days of enactment , and to update
them at least once every 5 years. [§205(d)]

CRS-21
Table 2. Comparison of Current Resource Conservation Funding with Proposed Funding in Farm Bills
Passed by House and Senate
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
CRP capped at 39.2 million acres; mandatory
CRP capped at 41.1 million acres (the Water
Capped at 36.4 million acres; mandatory
funding authorized through 2011. (CBO estimates
Conservation Program would reduce it to 40.0 million
spending authorized through FY2002. (16
increase in budget authority of $574 million
acres, and then adds a .5 million acre pilot program,
U.S.C. 3831-3836, and 3841)
through FY2006, and $1.517 billion through
making the final total 40.5 million acres.) Mandatory
FY2011.)
funding authorized through FY2006. (CBO estimates
increase in budget authority of $931 million through
FY2006.)
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Capped
WRP capped at 150,000 acres per calender year,
WRP capped at total enrollment of 2.225 million acres,
at 1,075,000 acres in total with no annual
and any acres within that cap not used in a given
with annual (calendar year) enrollment limited to 250,000
enrollment goal or limit; mandatory spending
year can be enrolled in subsequent years;
acres, of which up to 25,000 acres can be enrolled in a
authorized through FY2002. (16 U.S.C. 3837-
mandatory funding authorized through 2011.
new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program; mandatory
3837f, and 3841)
(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of
funding is authorized. (CBO estimates increase in budget
$859 million through FY2006, and $1.726 billion
authority of $1.383 billion through FY2006.)
through FY2011.)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
EQIP mandatory funding authorized at:
EQIP mandatory funding authorized at:
(EQIP) Authorized at $130 million in
$0.200 billion in FY2001;
$0.50 billion in FY2002;
mandatory spending in FY 1996, and $200
$1.025 billion in FY2002 and 3;
$1.30 billion in FY2003;
million annually in FY1997 through FY2002.
$1.200 billion in FY2004 through 6;
$1.45 billion in FY2004 and 5;
(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3839aa-8, and 3841)
$1.400 billion in FY2007 through 9; and
$1.50 billion in FY2006; and
$1.500 billion in FY2010 and 11.
$0.85 billion in FY2007.
(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of
Includes new programs for Partnerships and Cooperation
$4.650 billion through FY2006, and $10.850
at 5% of annual EQIP authorization, Conservation
billion through FY2011. (Excludes a new Ground
Innovation Grants at $100 million per year, Southern
and Surface Water Conservation Program,
Plains Groundwater Conservation at $15 million in
discussed below and estimated separately by
FY2003 and increasing to $35 million in FY2006, and a
CBO))
pilot program for drinking water suppliers in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed at $10 million in FY2003 and
increasing to $25 million in FY2006. (CBO estimates
increase in budget authority of $5.227 billion through
FY2006.)

CRS-22
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
WHIP mandatory funding authorized at:
WHIP mandatory funding authorized at:
Authorized through FY2002 at a total of $50
$25 million in FY2002;
$50 million in FY2002;
million in mandatory spending from the funds
$30 million in FY2003 and 4;
$225 million in FY2003
made available to implement the CRP. (16
$35 million in FY2005 and 6;
$275 million in FY2004
U.S.C. 3836a)
$40 million in FY2007;
$325 million in FY2005;
$45 million in FY2008 and 9; and
$355 million in FY2006, and
$50 million in FY2010 and 11.
$100 million in FY2007.
(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of
(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of $1.23
$155 million through FY2006, and $385 million
billion through FY2006.)
through FY2011.)
Farmland Protection Program (FPP).
FPP mandatory funding authorized at no more than
FPP mandatory funding authorized at:
Authorized to enroll between 170,000 acres and $50 million annually, and the enrollment limits are
$150 million in FY2002;
340,000 acres through FY2002, with total
eliminated. (CBO estimates increase in budget
$250 million in FY2003;
mandatory funding of $35 million. (16 U.S.C.
authority of $250 million through FY2006, and
$400 million in FY2004;
3830)
$500 million through FY2011.)
$450 million in FY2005;
$500 million in FY2006; and
$100 million in FY2007.
Not more than $10 million annually goes to a new Market
Viability Program, and the upper and lower enrollment
limits are eliminated. (CBO estimates increase in budget
authority of $1.750 billion through FY2006.)
Ground and Surface Water Conservation
WCP mandatory funding authorized at:
No provisions.
Program (WCP) (New program, within EQIP,
$30 million in FY2002;
that would provide cost-share payments and
$45 million in FY2003; and
low interest loans to encourage groundwater
$60 million in FY2004 through 11.
conservation.)
(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of
$255 million through FY2006, and $555 million
through FY2011.)
Resource Conservation and Development
RC&D is authorized permanently to spend such
Same as H.R. 2646.
Program (RC&D) Authorized such
discretionary funds as may be necessary.
discretionary funds as may be necessary
through FY2002. (16 U.S.C. 3453-3461)

CRS-23
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) (New
GRP is capped at 1.0 million acres of “restored
GRP is capped at 2 million acres, with up to 500,000
program that would pay landowners to retire
grassland” and 1.0 million acres of “virgin
acres of native grasslands. GRP mandatory funding
grasslands for multi-year periods.)
grassland”, and funding is capped at $254 million
authorized at “such sums ...as are necessary.” (CBO
in total mandatory spending through FY2011.
estimates increase in budget authority of $44 million
(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of
through FY2006.)
$45 million through FY2006, and $254 million
through FY2011.)
Farmland Stewardship Program (FSP) (New
No appropriation or spending amounts are
No provisions.
program that would provide assistance through
specified, and funding is to come from other
existing conservation programs and require
specified conservation programs. (CBO estimates
matching assistance from other sources to
no new funding under this authority through
implement farmland stewardship agreements.)
FY2011.)
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
Authorizes appropriations of $15 million annually
No provisions.
Authorized discretionary funding at:
in discretionary spending “for FY2002 and each
$10 million in FY2002;
succeeding year.”
$15 million in FY2003;
$25 million in FY2004; and
$35 million in FY2005.
(16 U.S.C. 1012)
Conservation Security Program (CSP) (New
No provisions.
CSP mandatory funding authorized at “such funds as are
program that would make payments to farmers
necessary”. (CBO estimates increase in budget authority
based on which of three levels of conservation
of $387 million through FY2006.)
they practice)
Watershed Risk Reduction Program. (New
No provisions.
Authorizes appropriations of $15 million annually from
program that would implement projects and
FY2002 through FY2006.
activities, including purchase of floodplain
easements, to reduce the risks caused by natural
disasters. )
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion
No provisions.
Authorizes appropriations of $5 million annually from
and Sediment Control (New program that
FY2002 through FY2006.
would provide conservation assistance to
control sediment and soil erosion.)
Conservation of Private Grazing Lands.
No provisions.
Authorizes appropriations of $60 million annually from
Authorized discretionary funding at $20 million
FY2002 through FY2006.
in FY1996; $40 million in FY1997; and $60
million in “each subsequent fiscal year.” (16
U.S.C. 2005b)

CRS-24
Current Law/Policy
Farm Bill Passed by House
Farm Bill Passed by Senate
Grassroots Source Water Protection
No provisions.
Authorizes appropriations of $5 million annually from
Program. (New program to supplement
FY2002 through FY2006.
technical assistance capabilities.)
Organic Agricultural Research Trust Fund.
No provisions.
Mandatory funding authorized at $45million in FY2003
(New program that would establish a fund to be
to establish trust fund. (CBO estimates increase in
invested in organic research.)
budget authority of $45 million in FY2003.)
Cranberry Acreage Reserve Program. (New
No provisions.
Authorizes total appropriation of $10 million.
program that would fund purchase of
permanent easements on eligible land.)
Klamath Basin. (New program that would
No provisions.
Mandatory funding authorized at a total of $175 million
create an interagency task force to develop a
between FY2003 and FY2006, with $15 million of that
plan to address specified topics about water
amount to go to specified Indian tribes in California and
shortages and resource restoration, and provide
$15 million to go to specified Indian tribes in Oregon.
implementing grants.)
Any funds unallocated by April 1of each year are to be
reallocated to specified conservation programs. No funds
to be obligated after FY2006. CBO estimates increase
in budget authority of $175 million through FY2006.)
CREP Pilot Program and Water Benefits
No provisions.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program authorized
Program. (Two new programs to promote
at up to 500,000 acres in approved states. Water
water conservation in approved states.)
Benefits Program mandatory funding authorized at;
$25 million in FY2002;
$52 million in FY2003;
$100 million in FY2004;
$100 million in FY2005; and
$100 million in FY2006.
(CBO estimates increase in budget authority of $604
million through FY2006.)