Agriculture Conservation Programs: A Scorecard

Agriculture Conservation Programs: A Scorecard

Order Code RL32940
Agriculture Conservation Programs: A Scorecard
Updated May 9, 2008
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Renée Johnson
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Agriculture Conservation Programs: A Scorecard
Summary
The Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency in
the U.S. Department of Agriculture currently administer 20 programs and
subprograms that are directly or indirectly available to assist producers and
landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural lands. The number,
scope, and overall funding of these programs have all grown with each recent farm
bill. This growth can cause confusion over which problems and conditions each
program addresses, and specific program characteristics and performance. Policy
responses to this proliferation of programs are likely to be seen in the forthcoming
omnibus farm bill. The programs are:
! Agricultural Management Assistance Program
! Conservation Operations; Technical Assistance (CTA)
! Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
! CRP — Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
! CRP — Farmable Wetlands Program
! Conservation Security Program
! Emergency Conservation Program
! Emergency Watershed Program
! Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
! EQIP — Innovative Grants
! EQIP — Ground and Surface Water Conservation
! EQIP — Klamath River Basin
! Farm and Ranchland Protection Program
! Grassland Reserve Program
! Resource Conservation and Development Program
! Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
! Watershed Rehabilitation Program
! Watershed Surveys and Planning
! Wetland Reserve Program
! Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
This tabular presentation provides basic information introducing each of the
programs. The information about each program includes:
!
brief program description;
!
national participation levels;
!
states with the greatest participation;
!
participation priorities specified in law;
!
FY2008 estimated spending;
!
FY2009 Administration budget request;
!
authorization expiration date;
!
backlog or other measures of continuing interest;
!
major amendments in the 2002 farm bill; and
!
statutory authority.
This report will be updated periodically.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conservation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Agricultural Management Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Conservation Operations (CO) — Technical Assistance (CTA) . . . . . . . . . 4
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CRP — Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) . . . . . . . . . . 6
CRP — Farmable Wetlands Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Conservation Security Program (CSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Emergency Conservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Emergency Watershed Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
EQIP — Innovative Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
EQIP — Ground and Surface Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
EQIP — Klamath River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Grassland Reserve Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Resource Conservation and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Watershed Rehabilitation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Watershed Surveys and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Wetland Reserve Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Agriculture Conservation Programs:
A Scorecard
Introduction
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently administer
20 programs and subprograms that directly or indirectly provide technical and
financial assistance to producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation
on agricultural lands.1 With each recent farm bill, enacted in 1985, 1990, 1996, and
2002, Congress has responded to the potential adverse effects of agricultural
activities on the physical landscape by increasing the number, scope, and overall
funding of conservation programs. Reorganizing these programs to reduce the total
number by combining similar programs is a likely outcome in the forthcoming
omnibus farm bill.2
One result of the growth of conservation programs since 1985 is that these
programs now attract attention from groups and individuals that had not necessarily
had an interest in conservation policy, and may be confused about which problems
and conditions each program addresses and specific program characteristics and
performance. These people often ask questions about which programs may be used
to respond to a specific resource problem, why several programs appear to address
a single problem, or which agency administers a program.
USDA provides technical and cost share assistance to attract interest and
encourage participation. Participation in all USDA conservation programs is
voluntary. These programs protect soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources
on privately owned agricultural lands to limit environmental impacts of production
activities both on and off the farm, while maintaining or improving production of
food and fiber. Some of these programs center on improving or restoring resources
1 The number of programs can be determined in several different ways, as two of the larger
ones, the Conservation Reserve and the Environmental Quality Reserve Programs have
several subprograms, some created in legislation and others created by administrative action.
This report is limited to subprograms created by Congress. In addition to these 20 programs,
Congress has authorized a large number of other small (in terms of spending levels)
discretionary programs, usually with a specific geographic focus (examples from the 2002
farm bill include the Great Lakes and the Delmarva Peninsula), and programs that have
never been funded or implemented (examples include the Environmental Easement Program
and the Office of Agriculture Environmental Quality). These programs are not identified
or presented in this report.
2 This is an updated and revised edition of a report originally written by Jeffrey A. Zinn,
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Sciences, and Industry Division and
Tadlock Cowan.

CRS-2
that have been degraded, while others create conditions to will limit degradation in
the future. Of the 20 programs, 16 are administered by NRCS and four are
administered by FSA. However, both agencies, as well as other agencies, mostly in
USDA, work closely to implement many of them.
All of these programs, with the exception of the Conservation Security Program
(CSP), respond to existing resource problems. Some of them address these problems
by paying landowners to retire land from production for multi-year periods, using
easements and long-term agreements. Many programs also have a particular resource
focus, such as cropland, wetlands, or grasslands, or focus on a specific physical
condition, such as floods or drought. Others address problems by assisting producers
in installing conservation practices that are designed to maintain or improve resource
conditions in ways that enhance the environmental and economic performance of a
farm. These practices may be structural (e.g., constructing terraces or an animal
waste management facility), land management (e.g., contour farming, nutrient
management), or vegetative (e.g., filter strips, tree planting). The CSP is different
because it pays producers to maintain conservation practices that are already in place
and provides financial incentives and technical assistance to expand on their
conservation efforts.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) each include subprograms enacted by Congress (as well
as other initiatives based on administrative actions). For the CRP, those subprograms
are the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), the Farmable Wetlands
Program, and the new Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (FSA
began implementing this program in 2007, enacted in December 2005 in P.L. 109-
148; it is not included in this report). Acreage enrolled in these subprograms is
considered to be within the CRP, and therefore counts against the current overall
program enrollment cap of 39.2 million acres. The three EQIP subprograms address
development of innovative approaches to conservation, surface and groundwater
conservation, and water use challenges in the Klamath River basin. The innovative
grants subprogram is funded using a portion of the overall annual funding authorized
for EQIP, while the water conservation and Klamath River subprograms have
specified funding levels that are treated as being in addition to EQIP funding.

This report provides basic information, primarily drawn from agency budget
presentations and websites, about each program using a consistent format. This
information should help respond to basic questions and resolve many common
sources of confusion about the purposes of the program, program participation and
policy topics. Further information about all of these programs can be found on the
NRCS website at [http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/] and on the “conservation
programs” page of the FSA website at [http://www.fsa.usda.gov]; and in written
responses to questions published later each year in hearing records of the House and
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.
Both NRCS and FSA post extensive information on most programs on their
website in several formats, including basic descriptions, questions and answers, and
charts, tables, and maps that show participation and other characteristics. Website
information appears to be designed for both program participants and others who
want to learn more about the programs. The appropriations records provide more
detailed information about program activities and accomplishments during the past

CRS-3
year, and anticipated adjustments to program administration or implementation in the
next year. While the programs are listed alphabetically in this report, they are listed
by size in the table below, based on USDA’s estimated available spending levels in
2008, to convey a sense of their relative magnitude. The estimated total for these 20
conservation programs in FY2008 is $4.961 billion.
Program
FY2008 Est.
Program
FY2008 Est.
Spending
Spending
(in millions)
(in millions)
1. Conservation Reserve
$1,759
11. EQIP — Ground and Surface
$60
Program (CRP)
Water Conservation Program
2. Environmental Quality
$1,000
12. Resource Conservation &
$52
Incentives Program (EQIP)
Development Program
3. Conservation Operations;
$712
13. Watershed Rehabilitation
$22
Technical Assistance
Program
4. Wetland Reserve Program
$455
14. CRP — Farmable Wetlands
$21
Program
5. Conservation Security
$381
15. Agricultural Management
$10
Program
Assistance Program
6. CRP — Conservation
$139
16. EQIP — Innovative Grants
Up to $20
Reserve Enhancement Program
Program
(from EQIP)
7. Farm and Ranchlands
$97
17. Emergency Watershed
$4.6
Protection Program
Program
8. Wildlife Habitat Incentive
$85
18. Grassland Reserve Program
$0
Program
9. Emergency Conservation
$75
19. EQIP — Klamath River
$0
Program
Basin
10. Watershed and Flood
$67
20. Water Surveys and Planning
$0
Prevention Operations
A majority of the programs, 14, are mandatory spending, funded through
USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation. Congress authorizes mandatory programs
at specified funding levels each year (or acreage enrollment levels for the
Conservation Reserve, Wetlands Reserve, and Grasslands Reserve Programs). They
are funded at these levels unless Congress limits funding to a lower amount through
the appropriations or legislative process (or puts a ceiling on acreage that can be
enrolled). Discretionary programs are funded each year through the annual
appropriations process. In recent years, Congress generally has made more
significant adjustments (almost always reductions) in funding for discretionary
programs than for mandatory programs from year to year.
If one is interested in learning more about how to apply to participate any of
these programs, a good place to start is the local NRCS or FSA county offices, which
are usually co-located. For more general information about the programs over a
larger area, such as program priorities within a state, one should contact the state

CRS-4
office of the agency. Contact information at the state level for both agencies can be
found on the agency website, at the addresses identified above.
Conservation Programs
Agricultural Management Assistance Program
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by the NRCS, provides cost-sharing
assistance under contracts of 3 to 10 years to producers in 15 specified states
where participation in the federal crop insurance program has been historically
low. Producers use this assistance to construct or improve water management and
irrigation structures, plant trees, control soil erosion, practice integrated pest
management, practice organic farming, develop value-added processing, and enter
into futures, hedging, or options contracts to reduce production, price or revenue
risk.
National participation
Not applicable. Eligible states are: CT, DE, MD, MA, ME, NV, NH, NJ, NY, PA,
RI, UT, VT, WV, and WY.
Leading states
In FY07, NRCS allocated $5 million to accelerate implementation of contracts.
Currently, 1,119 contracts are being implemented.
Participation priorities
Uses listed in law (see program description), but no priorities are specified.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$10.0 million.
FY2009 Administration
$0 ($10 million authorized)
request
Authorization expires
Permanent authorization ($10 million annually after FY07).
Backlog/interest
A backlog of 263 applications was pending at the end of FY07, down from a
backlog of 892 applications in FY05. These contracts would enroll more than
6,583 acres at a cost of $2.1 million.
Major 2002 farm bill
Designated 15 eligible states; authorized funding of $20 million annually from
amendments
FY03 through FY07, and $10 million in subsequent years.
Statutory authority
Authorized in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, title I, §133 (P.L. 106-
224) as §524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act; amended by §2501 of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171). (7 U.S.C. 1524).
Conservation Operations (CO) — Technical Assistance (CTA)
Program description
CTA is a discretionary NRCS program. It is more than 80% of all spending in the
CO account, and funds technical support to provide conservation planning and
implementation assistance through field staff placed in almost all counties. This
assistance is provided to producers and land owners who voluntarily apply natural
resource conservation systems, consisting of one or more practices, on private and
other non-federal lands. (Other components of CO include the Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative, soil surveys, snow surveys, and plant material centers.)
National participation
CTA is estimated at $735.5 million and 6,096 staff years for FY08, according to
the FY09 budget notes. (Total CO funding was $861.5 million and 7,094 staff
years.)
Leading states
No data published for the CTA subset in FY08, but for total CO funding, TX
received $46.9 million, CA received $21.3 million, and IA received $24.4 million.

CRS-5
Participation priorities
None specified in law. The NRCS program description in the FY0 budget notes,
states, in part, “The natural resource conservation systems help control erosion,
improve water, soil, and air quality, protect farmlands and other land uses that
support wildlife habitat, and cultivate partnerships among federal, state and local
entities to implementing conservation measures.” NRCS national priorities in
FY07 included reducing soil erosion, assisting producers with comprehensive
nutrient management programs, reducing non-point pollution and ground water
contamination, reducing air emissions and soil erosion, and promoting habitat
conservation.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$735.5 million.
FY2009Administration
$680.8 million.
request
Authorization expires
Permanent authorization, no amount specified.
Backlog/interest
None specified.
Major 2002 farm bill
No direct changes. However, other provisions affect this program, including
amendments
retaining a cap on total funding for technical assistance provided through
mandatory programs, and allowing NRCS to approve qualified individuals and
entities, referred to as third parties, to provide some types of technical assistance.
Statutory authority
Authorized in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended
(P.L. 74-46). (16 U.S.C. 590a-g, 16 U.S.C. 590q)
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Program description
The CRP is a mandatory program administered by FSA, assisted by NRCS, that
provides annual rental payments, usually over 10 years, to producers to replace
crops on highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land with long-term
resource conserving plantings. Bids to enroll land are solicited during a limited
time period, then compared using an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). Those
with the highest EBI scores are accepted. Imbedded in the CRP are several small
and more focused programs that bypass the general bidding process, some
established in law and others established administratively, to address specific
resource topics, including more concentrated resource problems in a portion of a
state, protection of small isolated agricultural wetlands, and improvement of
habitat for upland game birds. All lands that qualify for these subprograms are
automatically accepted.
National participation
760,875active contracts on 427,263 farms are currently enrolling 34.7 million
acres, according to FSA’s March 2008 monthly program summary. There was no
general sign-up in FY2007 and FY2008.
Leading states
In terms of acres, the leading states are TX (3.94 million acres), MT (3.31 million
acres), and ND (3.03 million acres). In terms of contracts, the leading states are IA
(106,069 contracts), IL (78,734 contracts), and MN (62,626 contracts).
Participation priorities
None specified in law from among the many types of eligible land that are
identified. Priorities established by FSA using an EBI which rates 5 factors
(erosion, water quality, wildlife, air quality, and enduring benefits) plus cost when
deciding which bids will be accepted. The EBI has been modified from signup to
signup. States may ask the Secretary to designate conservation priority areas in
watersheds. Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Long Island Sound are specified
as possibilities because of “special environmental sensitivity.”
FY2008 spending (est.)
$1.759 billion (based on the estimated number of acres that will be enrolled).
Program authorized on calendar year basis.

CRS-6
FY2009 Administration
$1.854 billion (based on the estimated number of acres that will be enrolled and
request
includes the emergency forestry program). Program authorized on calendar year
basis.
Authorization expires
December 31, 2007. Both House and Senate farm bills would reauthorize the
program, although the cap of 39.2 million acres is expected to be reduced.
Backlog/interest
In the last general signup (8/30/04 - 9/24/04), FSA accepted 19,732 offers to enroll
1.19 million acres from 26,080 offers to enroll 1.67 million acres, according to
data posted on the FSA website. Land currently under contract for the 2008 crop
year, 34.7 million acres is down 2.1 million acres from last year’s 36.8 million
acres. States with the largest decline are North Dakota and South Dakota, with
declines of 362,000 acres and 264,000 acres, respectively). Results of FY07
re-enrollment and extension (REX) offer for general sign-up contracts originally
set to expire between 2007 and 2010 show contracts on 23.0 million acres. 83% of
the 27.8 million eligible acres will be extended or re-enrolled under new contracts.
The new contract expiration schedule shows that 2.6 million acres expired
September 30, 2007, some of which have been re-enrolled as continuous sign-up
contracts.
Major 2002 farm bill
Raised enrollment ceiling from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres; liberalized
amendments
economic uses of enrolled lands; required that eligible land must have been planted
4 of the 6 years preceding enactment.
Statutory authority
Authorized in §1231-§1235 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L.99-198);
amended by §2101 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-171). (16 U.S.C. 3831-3835a)
CRP — Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
Program description
This subprogram of the CRP is a mandatory program administered by the FSA,
assisted by NRCS, that partners with states at their request. States propose
substate areas, such as a watershed, where environmental or resource concerns are
more concentrated and can be addressed by enrolling up to 100,000 acres. States
contribute 20% of the funding so that larger payments can be made, thereby
encouraging greater participation.
National participation
46,681 contracts on 31,148 farms have enrolling a total of 790.705 acres,
according to FSA’s March 2008 monthly program summary.
Leading states
Currently, 32 states participate, with 195,759 acres enrolled in PA, 127,134 acres
enrolled in IL, and 92,244 acres in OH. The most contracts are in PA (10,343),
followed by OH (9,9551), and IL (6,635).
Participation priorities
None specified beyond those that apply to the general CRP (see entry above).
FY2008 spending (est.)
$139 million
FY2009 Administration
Unspecified acreage subset of CRP.
request
Authorization expires
September 30, 2007. Both House and Senate farm bills would reauthorized the
program.
Backlog/interest
Not applicable since any eligible land can be enrolled at any time; participation has
been much higher in some states than in others, but that is due, reportedly, to how
the program is promoted. Average rental payments are higher than for acreage
under the general sign-up process.

CRS-7
Major 2002 farm bill
None.
amendments
Statutory authority
Authorized in §1231of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L.99-198); amended by
§2101 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171). (16
U.S.C. 3831)
CRP — Farmable Wetlands Program
Program description
This 1 million acre subprogram of the CRP is a mandatory program administered
by the FSA, assisted by NRCS, to enroll small isolated agricultural wetlands.
Eligible wetlands must be smaller than 10 acres, with a maximum of 5 acres
eligible for payments. Eligible lands include wetlands that were cropped 3 of the
preceding 10 years, and buffers sufficient to protect them, on which the hydrology
will be restored and a vegetative cover established.
National participation
11,555 contracts on 9,208 farms have enrolled a total of 179,793 acres, according
to FSA’s March 2008 monthly program summary.
Leading states
In terms of acres, the leading states are IA (73,242 acres), SD (42,618 acres), and
MN (39,528 acres). The largest number of contracts are in IA (4,558), followed
by MN (2,886) and SD (2,513).
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$21 million
FY2009 Administration
Unspecified acreage subset of CRP.
request
Authorization expires
September 30, 2007.
Backlog/interest
Not applicable since any eligible land can be enrolled at any time; participation
has been much higher in some states than in others, but that is due, reportedly, to
how the program is promoted.
Major 2002 farm bill
Increase overall size from 500,000 acres in 6 specified states to 1 million acre
amendments
national program, with no more than 100,000 acres in a state; in accepting
contracts, “ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, an equitable balance among
the conservation purposes of soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat.”
Statutory authority
Authorized in Title XI of Agriculture and Related Agency appropriations, 2001
(P.L. 106-387) as §1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L.99-198); amended
by §2101 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171).
(16 U.S.C. 3831)

CRS-8
Conservation Security Program (CSP)
Program description
This mandatory funded program administered by NRCS provides financial and
technical assistance for improvements in conserving environmental resources on
farmland that meets soil and water quality criteria standards of NRCS. CSP
supports producers who are already implementing and maintaining substantial
conservation systems to protect soil, water, air, and wildlife, or who will adopt
more sustainable systems as part of the program. The maximum annual assistance
through CSP increases with each of 3 progressive tiers of participation, each
requiring greater conservation. Only producers in specified watersheds can
participate each year. CSP was initially implemented in 18 watersheds in FY04,
and the number of watersheds eligible in subsequent signups has been determined
by the amount of funding available.
National participation
Three sign-ups (FY04, FY05, FY06) in 298 watersheds resulted in a total of
19,323 contracts on 15.7 million acres: 2,188 contracts on 1.88 million acres in 18
watersheds for FY04; 12,787 contracts on 10.24 million acres in 220 watersheds in
FY05; 4,423 contracts on 3.6 million acres in FY06. There were no sing-ups in
FY07. A new sign-up on 51 new watersheds runs to May 2008.
Leading watersheds
The largest number of contracts (281) and enrolled acres (152,388) from the FY04
(states)
signup were in the Blue Earth Watershed (IA and MN), and the largest total
payment ($5.173 million) was in the Umatilla Watershed (OR). For FY05, the
largest number of contracts were in IA (1,970), the largest number of enrolled
acres are in OR (977,026 acres), and the largest total payment is in OR ($15.7
million). For the FY06 sign-up, Oklahoma had the largest number of contracts
(440), and Nebraska had the largest acreage (320,894) and largest payment ($5.0
million).
Participation priorities
None specified in law. NRCS gives a priority to watersheds where agricultural
runoff is a major source of pollution.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$381.7 million. (Current law limits total CSP spending to $1.954 billion for FY06
through FY10, and $5.650 billion for FY06 through FY14.)
FY2009 Administration
$360 million.
request
Authorization expires
September 30, 2011. Senate farm bill would create a new “Conservation
Stewardship Program.” House bill would authorize a “New Conservation Security
Program.”
Backlog/interest
There have been three sign-ups in 298 watersheds. A new sign-up will run until
May 2008 and encompass 51 new watersheds. In eligible watersheds, all working
farmland can be enrolled, regardless of crop grown. There are no data on the
NRCS website on applicants in eligible watersheds who were rejected.
Major 2002 farm bill
Program initially authorized in Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 as
amendments
an entitlement (spending has been capped in subsequent legislation).
Statutory authority
Authorized in §2001 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-171) as §1238-§1238C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L.99-198). (16
U.S.C. 3833-3838c)

CRS-9
Emergency Conservation Program
Program description
This discretionary program, administered by FSA, with technical assistance
provided by NRCS, provides emergency funding and technical assistance to
producers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters (hurricanes,
floods, wind, and erosion are examples) by activities such as removing debris, and
by implementing emergency water conservation measures in response to severe
droughts.
National participation
Participation varies widely and unpredictably from year to year. In FY2005, more
than half the outlays were in response to hurricanes, with the remainder being
divided among other types of natural disasters. Funds went to 46 states and
territories in FY07. Amounts are often earmarked to specific locations.
Leading states
In FY07, FL received $17.6 million, MN received $14.8 million and TX received
$6.6 million, according to the FY09 budget notes.
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$74.7 million (Since this program is almost always funded in emergency
supplemental appropriations legislation in response to specific natural disasters
that have occurred, additional funding is possible before 9/30/08.)
FY2009 Administration
$0. The Administration’s farm bill proposal would combine this program and the
request
Emergency Watershed Protection program into a new Emergency Landscape
Restoration Program.
Authorization expires
Permanent authorization.
Backlog/interest
Not applicable.
Major 2002 farm bill
None.
amendments
Statutory authority
Authorized in the Emergency Conservation Measures (P.L. 85-88); amended by
§401 of the Agriculture Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-334). (16 U.S.C. 2201-2204)
Emergency Watershed Program
Program description
This discretionary program, administered by NRCS, provides technical and
financial assistance to reduce hazards to life and property in watersheds that have
been damaged by natural disasters. Assistance includes disaster cleanup and
recovery activities, and purchasing easements in flood plains that will benefit
natural resources such as wetlands, while reducing the risk of exposure to future
natural disasters.
National participation
In FY05, $354.5 million was distributed in 38 states. In FY06, Congress
appropriated two supplementals totaling $351 million for the 2005 hurricane
recovery efforts.
Leading states
In FY07, KS received $3.6 million, MO received $3 million, and OK received $4
million, according to the FY09 budget notes. (Spending responds to the
distribution of natural disasters, and changes greatly from year to year.)
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
An FY07 supplemental appropriated $10.7 million. $0 funding is estimated for
FY08. Since this program is almost always funded in emergency supplemental
appropriations additional legislation in response to specific natural disasters is
possible before 9/30/08.

CRS-10
FY2009 Administration
$0. The Administration’s farm bill proposal would combine this program and the
request
Emergency Conservation Program into a new Emergency Landscape Restoration
Program
Authorization expires
Permanent authorization.
Backlog/interest
Not applicable.
Major 2002 farm bill
None.
amendments
Statutory authority
Authorized in the Emergency Conservation Measures (P.L. 85-88); amended by
§402 - §403 of the Agriculture Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-334). (16 U.S.C.
2202-2204)

Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by NRCS and funded by the Commodity
Credit Corporations, , provides cost share payments to producers and land owners
to plan and install structural, vegetative, and land management practices on eligible
lands to alleviate conservation problems, with 60% of the funds targeted to
livestock producers. EQIP is to be administered in an environmentally-beneficial
and cost-effective manner.
National participation
In FY07, EQIP allocated $1.005 billion for 41,700 contracts covering 17.1 million
acres, according to data in the FY09 budget notes.
Leading states
In FY07, the most contracts were signed in TX (5,099), followed by MS (2,367)
and NE (1,712). The largest allocation was paid to TX ($89.1 million), followed
by CA ($62.1 million) and CO ($40.2 million).
Participation priorities
The law states that applications that encourage cost-effective conservation
practices or address national conservation priorities are to be given greater
consideration. Also, in determining the amount and rate of incentive payments,
practices that promote residue, nutrient, pest, invasive species or air quality
management may be accorded “great significance.” Current priorities are reducing
non-point pollution, conserving ground and surface water, improving air quality,
reducing soil erosion, and promoting at-risk habitat conservation.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$1.0 billion.
FY2009 Administration
$1.050 billion. Administration’s farm bill proposal calls for a revised EQIP
request
program and streamlines existing water conservation programs into a new
Regional Water Enhancement Program. Funding for EQIP would be increased by
$4.25 billion FY2002-2017.
Authorization expires
September 30, 2010.
Backlog/interest
In FY07, 41,700 contracts were accepted and the remaining 40,535 applications
went unfunded. The total estimated cost to eliminate this backlog would be $865
million. The most unfunded applications were submitted in OK (3,772), followed
by TX (3,078). In terms of cost, the largest amount was in MT ($55.7 million),
followed by CA ($55.1 million), according to information in the FY09 budget
notes.

CRS-11
Major 2002 farm bill
Specified that the goals of EQIP are to “promote agricultural production and
amendments
environmental quality as compatible goals, and to optimize environmental
benefits...”; allowed cost sharing with large confined livestock operations for waste
management facilities (which had previously been prohibited); limited payments to
a total of $450,000; authorized competitive innovative matching grants; allocated
60% of funding each year to practices related to livestock production.
Statutory authority
Authorized in subtitle D of Title III (§331-336) of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127) as §1240-§1240I of the
1985 Food Security Act (P.L.97-198); amended by §2301 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171). (16 U.S.C. 3839aa - 3839aa90)
EQIP — Innovative Grants
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by NRCS, awards competitive grants to
state and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, tribes, and individuals
to implement conservation. The program was implemented in FY04. Examples of
eligible projects identified in the 2002 farm bill include “market systems for
pollution reduction” and “innovative conservation practices, including the storing
of carbon in the soil.”
National participation
In FY04, 41 recipients received a total of $14.3 million, and in FY05, 103
recipients received a total of $22.1 million. Up to $20 million was made available
for awards in FY06, with $5 million of the total again going to the Chesapeake Bay
watershed states. For FY07, up to $20 million was made available and 52 awards
were made.
Leading states
Not applicable.
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
Unspecified subset of EQIP. In FY08, up to $15 million is available for natural
resource concerns, up to $5 million is available for the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
and up to $5 million is available for technology.
FY2009 Administration
Unspecified subset of EQIP. For the past 4 years, approximately $20 million of
request
EQIP’s CCC funding has been available for the grants program. Administration’s
farm bill proposal would increase funding to $100 million annually.
Authorization expires
September 30, 2010.
Backlog/interest
None identified.
Major 2002 farm bill
Program initially authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
amendments
2002.
Statutory authority
Authorized in §2301 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-171) as §1240H of the 1985 Food Security Act (P.L. 97-198). (16 U.S.C.
3839aa8)
EQIP — Ground and Surface Water Conservation
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by NRCS, funds contracts with producers
to improve irrigation and water use efficiency on irrigated cropland, and reduce
water consumption on agricultural operations in areas severely affected by
drought. This program is available only for conservation measures that “results in
a net savings in groundwater or surface water resources in the agricultural
operation...”

CRS-12
National participation
Not applicable. A total of 32 states located either over the high plains aquifer or
severely impacted by drought received funds to implement EQIP contracts to
“improve irrigation and water use efficiency on currently irrigated cropland.” In
FY07, producers entered into 2,072 contracts on approximately 354,000 acres to
improve irrigation and water use efficiency on irrigated cropland.
Leading states
States receiving the largest obligations in FY07 were CA ($11.5 million), TX
($6.7 million), and NE ($6.1 million).
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
($60 million authorized, to be in addition to overall EQIP funding).
FY2009Administration
Administration’s farm bill proposal calls for a revised EQIP program and
request
streamlines existing water conservation programs into a new Regional Water
Enhancement Program (RWEP). In addition to cost-share funds under EQIP, the
RWEP would add $175 million annually to coordinate and fund large-scale water
conservation projects.
Authorization expires
September 30, 2007. House and Senate farm bills would modify the program and
increase authorized funding.
Backlog/interest
None identified.
Major 2002 farm bill
Program initially authorized in Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
amendments
Statutory authority
Authorized in §2301 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-171) as §1240I of the 1985 Food Security Act (P.L. 97-198). (16 U.S.C.
3839aa9)
EQIP — Klamath River Basin
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by NRCS, focuses on improving the
efficiency of water use associated with agricultural operations in the Klamath
River basin of OR and CA.
National participation
Not applicable as program operates only in portions of OR and CA.
Leading states
In FY07, CA received $3.7 million and OR received $4.0 million. Funds in FY07
and in pervious years were used to complete irrigation management plans on
37,209 acres and to apply conservation practices on 84,497 acres.
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$0. Authorized at $50 million FY02-FY07.
FY2009 Administration
$0. Administration’s farm bill proposal calls for a revised EQIP program and
request
streamlines existing water conservation programs into a new Regional Water
Enhancement Program (RWEP). In addition to cost-share funds under EQIP, the
RWEP would add $175 million annually to coordinate and fund large-scale water
conservation projects, including Klamath.
Authorization expires
September 30, 2007. House farm bill authorizes a new Regional Water
Enhancement Program that prioritizes Klamath. The Senate measure also gives
priority to Klamath in its provision for a Partnerships and Cooperation Program.
Backlog/interest
None identified.
Major 2002 farm bill
Program initially authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
amendments
2002.

CRS-13
Statutory authority
Authorized in §2301 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-171) as §1240I of the 1985 Food Security Act (P.L. 97-198). (16 U.S.C.
3839aa9)
Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by NRCS, provides funds to state, tribal,
and local governments, and non-governmental organizations to help them purchase
conservation easements from willing sellers to limit conversion of farmland to
nonagricultural uses.
National participation
From the program’s inception in 1996 through FY07, $511.8 million was spent to
acquire 1,914 easements on 389,395 acres. Approximately 536,936 acres on 2,764
farms with an estimated easement value of $1.63 billion have or will have
easement contracts in the near future, according to the FY09 budget notes. (The
length of time from when a land owner first offers to sell an easement to when it is
recorded with the deed to the land can be considerable.)
Leading states
In FY07, the largest amount has been spent in NJ ($4.7 million), followed by DE
($3.1 million), and PA ($3.0 million). The most easements have been acquired in
MA and VT (33 each), followed by PA (27). The largest number of acres acquired
under easement are in VT (7,486 acres), followed by KS (6,761 acres) and WY
(4.229).
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$97 million.
FY2009 Administration
$0. The Administration’s farm bill proposal calls for a new Private Lands
request
Protection Program that would encompass the FRPP and invest an additional $90
million annually into the various land conservation programs.
Authorization expires
September 30, 2007.
Backlog/interest
The FY2009 budget notes state that “The demand for the program has exceeded
available funds by approximately 200 percent.”
Major 2002 farm bill
Expanded the list of eligible lands to include cropland, rangeland, grassland,
amendments
pastureland, incidental forest land, and archeological and historic sites; expanded
eligibility to include Indian tribes and qualified non-profit organizations.
Statutory authority
Authorized in §388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 as §1238H-§1238J of the 1985 Food Security Act (P.L. 97-198); amended
by §2503 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171)
(16 U.S.C. 3838i)

CRS-14
Grassland Reserve Program
Program description
This mandatory program, jointly administered by NRCS and FSA, and working
with USDA’s Forest Service, uses long-term rental agreements and easements to
help land owners and producers restore and protect grasslands while maintaining
them in a condition suitable for grazing using common management practices.
National participation
The program has enrollments in 50 states. In FY07, $3.0 million was obligated to
new rental agreements in 17 states covering 76,333 acres to limited resource
farmers. In addition, 47 easements were signed in Kansas protecting 22,000 acres
according to the FY09 budget notes.
Leading states
In FY06 (the most recent data), the most approved applications were in MO (43),
followed by ND (17) and OK and MN (16 each). The most acres were approved
in SD (18,044 acres), followed by OK (16,033) and MT (14,314 acres).
Participation priorities
None identified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$0.
FY2009 Administration
$0. The Administration’s farm bill proposal calls for a new Private Lands
request
Protection Program that would encompass the GRP and invest an additional $90
million annually into the various land conservation programs.
Authorization expires
September 30, 2007.
Backlog/interest
In FY05, 7,412 applications were submitted to enroll 5.0 million acres; 1,219
applications enrolling 385,000 acres were accepted. The backlog of unfunded
applications totaled more than $1.1 billion, according to the FY06 budget notes,
and continued to grow.
Major 2002 farm bill
Program initially authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
amendments
2002.
Statutory authority
Authorized in §2401 of the of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-171) as §1238N-§1238Q of the 1985 Food Security Act (P.L. 97-198).
(16 U.S.C. 3838n - 3838q)
Resource Conservation and Development Program
Program description
This discretionary program, administered by NRCS, provides support in the form
of NRCS staff coordinators, to authorized multi-county areas. Coordinators assists
state and local units of government and non-profits to develop and carry out
programs to conserve and improve natural resources and the use of land, and
improve conditions in rural America.
National participation
375 authorized areas encompass approximately 2,693 counties, more than 85% of
the national total, and more than 77% of the U.S. population, according to the
FY09 budget notes.
Leading states
Not applicable.
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$52.3 million for technical assistance. $0 for financial assistance.
FY2009 Administration
$52.3 million for technical assistance. $0 for financial assistance. A Program
request
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) judged the program “duplicative.”
Authorization expires
Permanent authorization of “such sums as are necessary.”

CRS-15
Backlog/interest
Another 38 application areas covering 231 additional counties have applied for the
Secretary’s designation.
Major 2002 farm bill
Permanently reauthorized program, and amended it in its entirety, making
amendments
numerous, mostly minor or technical amendments.
Statutory authority
Enacted in §31 and §32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (P.L. 89-796);
Amended in its entirety in §2504 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (P.L. 107-171). (16 U.S.C. 3451 - 3459)
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
Program description
This discretionary program, administered by NRCS, combines two separate
authorizations under which more than 11,000 structures have been built in more
than 1,500 active and completed projects. The P.L. 534 Flood Prevention
Operations Program authorizes 11 projects, while the P.L. 566 Small Watershed
Operations Program authorizes watershed projects generally. Projects may be
authorized for any of 8 purposes; almost all projects have flood control as an
authorized purpose. Under P.L.566, NRCS provides technical and financial
assistance to plan and install projects on private lands, in cooperation with local
sponsors, states, and other public agencies. The small watershed project costs are
shared with local partners. Projects are limited to a maximum size, including
25,000 acre feet of total capacity and 250,000 acres in extent. Projects above a
specified size require congressional committee authorization.
National participation
A total of 397 projects are active or completed under P.L. 534, and 1,363 are
active or completed under P.L. 566, according to the FY09 budget notes. No new
P.L. 566 projects were authorized for FY07.
Leading states
In FY06 (the latest available data), the largest allocation went to MO ($11.3
million), followed by HI ($8.0 million) and TX ($6.4 million). In FY05 (the latest
data available), the greatest number of active and completed projects are in IA
(179 projects encompassing 3.2 million acres), followed by TX (170 projects
encompassing 23.3 million acres) and MS (166 projects encompassing 8.7 million
acres).
Participation priorities
None specified in law.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$211.2 million.
FY2009 Administration
$0.
request
Authorization expires
Permanent authorization, no amount specified.
Backlog/interest
NRCS identifies a total of $1.42 billion in unfunded federal commitments for
authorized projects; the greatest value of unfunded commitments are in TX ($293
million) and OK ($234 million), according to the FY09 budget notes.
Major 2002 farm bill
None.
amendments
Statutory authority
Enacted in the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 534), as amended, and the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-566), as amended. (33
U.S.C. 701b-1 and 16 U.S.C. 1000, et. seq.)

CRS-16
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
Program description
This program, with funding authorized through both discretionary and mandatory
funds and administered by NRCS, provides technical and financial assistance for
planning, design, and implementation to rehabilitate aging watershed dam projects
(including upgrading or removing dams) to communities to address health and
safety concerns. Small watershed project dams have a 50-year design life, and 448
reached or exceeded that time span by the end of 2005. By the end of 2015, this
number will exceed 3,800, according to the FY07 budget notes.
National participation
FY07 was the sixth year of funding for the program. As of September 30, 2007, a
total of 160 projects have been funded in 25 states with 64 dams rehabilitated
according to the FY09 budget notes. In FY07, 94 rehabilitation projects in 24
states were funded, including 26 new projects.
Leading states
The largest number of projects are in OK (40), MS (19), and WI and Texas (14
each); The most completed projects are in OK (15), WI (11), MS (9).
Participation priorities
None specified in law. The Secretary is directed to develop a system for ranking
rehabilitation requests.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$22.3 million in discretionary funding and $0 in mandatory funding ($85 million in
discretionary funding and $0 million in mandatory funding authorized).
FY2009 Administration
$5.9 in discretionary funding and $65 million in mandatory funding. Funding is
request
part of the Administration’s farm bill proposal for improving national water
conservation efforts.
Authorization expires
Mandatory and discretionary funding expired September 30, 2007.
Backlog/interest
In FY07, funds were not available to address 18 additional requests for projects.
Major 2002 farm bill
Authorized both mandatory and discretionary funding levels each year; made
amendments
funding “no year” funding (meaning that discretionary funding is available until
spent, rather than until the end of the fiscal year for which it is appropriated, and
mandatory funding that is limited in the annual appropriations process is counted as
savings each year until it is made available). 2006 reconciliation legislation (P.L.
109-171) cancelled prior year funds that were available in FY07.
Statutory authority
Enacted in §313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-472) as §14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act; as
amended by §2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. (16
U.S.C. 1012)
Watershed Surveys and Planning
Program description
This discretionary program, administered by NRCS, funds investigations and
surveys of river basins as the basis for developing coordinated water resource
programs in upstream watersheds. Plans address ways to respond to water quality,
flooding, water and land management, and sedimentation problems, and are
prepared in cooperation with federal, state and local agencies.
National participation
In FY07, $6.1 million was were provided to 39 states, according to the FY09
budget notes.
Leading states
In FY07, the greatest spending was in national headquarters ($991,342) followed
by CA ($529,290) and WY ($461,637).
Participation priorities
None specified in law. Agency priorities are stated in general terms and basically
restate the major missions of NRCS (erosion control and fish and wildlife
concerns, for example).

CRS-17
FY2008 spending (est.)
$0.
FY2009 Administration
$0.
request
Authorization expires
Permanent authorization, no amount specified.
Backlog/interest
None specified.
Major 2002 farm bill
None.
amendments
Statutory authority
Enacted in §6 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-
566), as amended. (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009)
Wetland Reserve Program
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by NRCS, funds purchase of long-term
agreements and easements (30 year and permanent) to assist land owners in
protecting and restoring wetlands. It provides technical and financial assistance,
and emphasizes restoration to original natural conditions where possible.
National participation
Through 2007, 1.92 million acres had been enrolled, with easements perfected on
1.58 million acres. In 2007, more than 149,000 acres were enrolled in 821 projects,
at a cost of $247.8 million, according to the FY07 budget notes.
Leading states
In 2007, 13,528 acres were enrolled in FL, 8,669 acres were enrolled in NC, and
7,195 acres were enrolled in MS. In 2007, $49.6 million was spent in FL, $14.3
million in NC, and $19.9 million in MS, according to the NRCS website.
Participation priorities
Priority given to permanent easements over shorter terms, and to easements that
provide greater benefits in “protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory birds
and other wildlife.”
FY2008 spending (est.)
Enrollment limited to 150,000 acres, which will cost an estimated $250.2 million.
Authorized to enroll 250,000 acres annually with no annual spending limit specified
(measured in calendar years).
FY2009 Administration
Would reauthorize the program in the Omnibus farm bill and raise the total
request
enrollment cap to 3.5 million acres, but maintain the fiscal year enrollment goal of
250,000 acres. The proposed increase in acreage would cost $2.125 billion over 10
years. Also proposes consolidating floodplain easement function of the Emergency
Watershed Program into WRP.
Authorization expires
December 31, 2007. Both House and Senate farm bills propose reauthorizing the
program.
Backlog/interest
In FY05, 3,204 unfunded easement applications would have enrolled 461,704 acres
at an estimated cost of $653 million. The most applications were from AR (376),
followed by MN (371). The most land was in AR (81,893 acres), followed by MN
(59,276 acres). The cost of the easements was greatest in AR ($76 million),
followed by IA ($62 million), according to the NRCS Website. The FY09 budget
notes state that in FY2007 123 of 317 cost share applications were funded; 72 of
266 30 year agreements were funded, and 626 of 1,775 permanent easements were
funded.
Major 2002 farm bill
Increased enrollment ceiling from 1.075 million acres to 2.275 million acres in
amendments
total, and 250,000 acres annually, “to the maximum extent practicable.”

CRS-18
Statutory authority
Enacted in §1438 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-624) as §1237 - §1237F of the 1985 Food Security Act (P.L. 198);
amended by §2201-2204 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
(16 U.S.C. 3837 - 3837c)
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
Program description
This mandatory program, administered by NRCS, provides technical and financial
assistance to eligible participants to develop upland and wetland wildlife,
threatened and endangered species, fish and other types of wetland habitat in an
environmentally beneficial and cost effective manner.
National participation
Since the program’s inception in FY98, more than 25,600 agreements have enrolled
in over 4 million acres. In FY07, more than 350,000 acres were enrolled through
more than 2,100 agreements, according to the FY09 budget notes.
Greatest participation
In FY07, the largest number of contracts were in KS (132), followed by MS (119),
and KY (108). The largest numbers of enrolled acres were in AZ (68,032 acres),
OR (34,280 acres), and OK (26,504 acres). The greatest spending was in NH ($2.5
million), followed by AK ($2.2 million) and HI ($2.2 million).
Participation priorities
WHIP priorities for FY07 were to promote restoration of important wildlife habitat,
promote wildlife habitat of at-risk species, reduce the impact of invasive species on
wildlife habitat,; and promote declining aquatic wildlife species habitat.
FY2008 spending (est.)
$85 million.
FY2009 spending (prop.)
$0. Administration’s farm bill proposal would consolidate WHIP into a new
comprehensive EQIP program.
Authorization expires
September 30, 2007.
Backlog/interest
In FY2007, WHIP had 3,242 unfunded applications at a total cost of $55.7 million.
OK had the most unfunded applications (579), followed by GA (186) and VT
(138). RI had the highest cost for these applications ($9.6 million), followed by
OK ($5.7 million) and ME ($4.2 million), according to the NRCS website.
Major 2002 farm bill
Required consideration of regional wildlife issues; authorized pilot program using
amendments
up to 15% of funds to enroll land in contracts of at least 15 years.
Statutory authority
Enacted in §387 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-127) as §1240N of the 1985 Food Security Act (P.L. 99-198); amended
by §2502 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002 (P.L. 107-171). (16
U.S.C. 3839bb-1)