Funding Levels for Conservation Programs in the 2007 Farm Bill

Funding Levels for Conservation Programs in the 2007 Farm Bill

Order Code RL34178
Funding Levels for Conservation Programs
in the 2007 Farm Bill
Updated May 6, 2008
Renée Johnson
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Funding Levels for Conservation Programs
in the 2007 Farm Bill
Summary
Future funding levels for USDA programs, including conservation programs,
are among the most contentious issues Congress is addressing in the 2007 farm bill
debate. The 110th Congress has adopted a “pay-as-you-go” approach government-
wide, so that any increase in mandatory funding in one area has to be offset either by
equivalent spending reductions in other programs or by revenue increases. Further
constraining farm bill funding is the decline in the baseline from which future
agriculture funding is projected because of high market prices, which are lowering
projected outlays under the current structure of commodity programs.
In this funding environment, the many interests that are vigorously seeking new
or additional funding for topics addressed in the farm bill other than commodity
payments are finding this challenge to be daunting. The competition for increased
funding is amplified by the fact that it involves not only conservation, which is
discussed in this report, but also specialty crops, energy, and other areas.
Under the House-passed version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419), spending for
conservation programs would remain at current levels or increase from the FY2007
authorized level, with one notable exception. This exception is the Conservation
Security Program, where funding for additional enrollment would be suspended until
FY2012. The largest increases would occur in the Wetland Reserve Program and the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, according to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO). In its analysis dated October 15, it concluded that conservation would
grow by $4.52 billion through FY2012 for mandatory funding, and an additional
$1.25 billion in discretionary funding would also be authorized for this time period.
Under the Senate-passed version (H.R. 2419, amended), a larger number of the
conservation programs would remain at current funding levels. The bulk of
additional funding would go to the Wetland Reserve Program and a new
Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program. CBO, in an analysis dated October
24, concludes that conservation would grow by $4.78 billion in mandatory funding
by the end of FY2012.
This report consists of largely of two tables. The first table summarizes the
annual funding provisions, by program, in (1) current law, (2) the House-passed
version of H.R. 2419, and (3) the Senate-amended version of H.R. 2419. The second
table compares FY2007 authorized and actual funding levels for programs authorized
in the 2002 farm bill with FY2008 and FY2012 funding levels that would be
authorized in the House and Senate bills. Table 1 includes new conservation
programs that would be authorized for the first time in either bill. Table 2 is limited
to existing programs that would be reauthorized in a new farm bill.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
List of Tables
Table 1. Agriculture Conservation Funding: A Comparison of Current Law
with Future Funding in the House- and Senate-Passed Farm Bills . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. Comparison of FY2007 Funding Level Under Current Law
with FY2008 and FY2012 Funding Levels Under the House- and
Senate-Passed Farm Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Funding Levels for Conservation Programs
in the 2007 Farm Bill
Introduction1
Future funding levels for USDA programs, including conservation programs,
are among the most contentious issues Congress is addressing in the 2007 farm bill
debate. The 110th Congress has adopted a “pay-as-you-go” approach government-
wide, so that any increase in mandatory funding authorized in one area must be offset
either by equivalent reductions in other programs or by revenue increases. Further
constraining farm bill funding is the decline in the baseline from which future
agriculture funding is projected because of high farm commodity market prices,
which are lowering projected outlays under the current structure of commodity
programs. In this funding environment, many interests are vigorously defending at
least a continuation of current funding levels in the next farm bill, and the
competition for new or additional funding, not only for conservation, which is the
topic of this report, but also for specialty crops, energy, and other topics addressed
by the farm bill, is intense.
These considerations led the House Agriculture Committee to consider two
alternative funding levels for several conservation programs as the subcommittee and
full committee acted on these proposals, depending on how much money would be
made available.2 It was only as the bill reached the House floor that the authorization
levels for programs were determined. Since additional funds were made available
through actions by the House Budget Committee, the House-passed version of the
farm bill (H.R. 2419) would increase funding for the larger conservation programs
(with one notable exception), provide level funding to most of the smaller ones, and
authorize funding for several new ones.3 The exception is the Conservation Security
Program, where provisions in H.R. 2419 would suspend additional enrollment until
FY2012.
Supporters of conservation are concerned that the overall rate and amount of
growth of conservation spending in H.R. 2419 would be insufficient and that
additional enrollment into the Conservation Security Program should be funded
before FY2012. Many of the alternative proposals that were offered in the House
1 This report is an updated and revised version of a report originally written by former CRS
specialist Jeffrey A. Zinn.
2 For more information on House development and consideration of farm bill legislation,
see CRS Report RL33934, Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in the 110th
Congress.
3 For basic information about the entire suite of current agriculture conservation programs,
see CRS Report RL32940, Agriculture Conservation Programs: A Scorecard.

CRS-2
would have addressed these concerns in different ways, including increasing funding
to certain programs by providing additional funds more rapidly or providing a larger
total amount over the life of this farm bill; none of these alternatives were adopted
during floor consideration.
The bill passed by the Senate (H.R. 2419, amended) provides small increases
or level funding for most programs, while creating a major new program, the
Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program. This new program combines
aspects of two existing programs, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program. It also authorizes a number of new small
programs as “carve-outs” within larger existing programs. Supporters of conservation
had raised the same concern about the overall rate and the amount of growth for
conservation spending in this bill while it was being considered on the floor as they
did with the House version. A large group of conservation and environmental
organizations lobbied the Senate to authorize at least $4.5 billion in additional
mandatory funding.
One way to frame the funding challenge in the current policy setting is to
consider farm bill funding at three distinct but interrelated levels. At the largest
level, which considers the entire federal budget, this challenge involves determining
the portion of the federal budget that will be allocated to agriculture. Questions at
this level were largely answered through the FY2008 budget resolution (S.Con.Res.
21), which assumes spending will continue at the current level, and reserves $20
billion for new spending if comparable budget offsets are identified.
The middle level considers the allocation of funds throughout the array of
eligible agricultural programs. Among the issues at this level are how much of the
available funds will be allocated to the traditional commodity programs; whether any
of the funds that have been allocated to commodity programs should be reallocated
to other titles of the farm bill, especially at this time of high market prices; and how
the funds that are not allocated to commodity programs are to be divided among all
the many other activities and responsibilities in the agriculture portfolio, one of
which is conservation.
The smallest level is the allocation of funds within each activity area in
agriculture, such as conservation. Within the suite of conservation programs, funding
decisions are based on many considerations, such as what approaches to conservation
should be funded (retiring land or installing conservation practices on land in
production, for example); which programs should receive discretionary rather than
mandatory funding; how backlogs of interest in enrolling in programs might be
addressed; and how funds will be allocated among producers to implement
conservation and the activities that support conservation, including providing
technical assistance and administrative support.
Table 1 compares funding levels for programs authorized in the conservation
title under current law with future funding under the House-passed and Senate-passed
farm bills. It also includes new programs that either bill would authorize. In both
chambers, several alternative bills and amendments were considered but not adopted.
However, aspects of these bills and amendments influenced the contents of the
legislation as passed, especially in the House bill.

CRS-3

Provisions in current law authorizing conservation funding for all but two
programs expire in FY2007. The two exceptions are the Conservation Security
Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program; expiration dates for
both programs are noted in the table entries. Almost all programs authorized in both
bills would expire in FY2012, except for the Conservation Security Program in the
House-passed bill, where funding is authorized through FY2017.
This table presents only the approved funding levels in the House- and Senate-
passed farm bills; it does not identify any other policy changes.4 In some instances,
these policy changes, if enacted, could alter how the program funds are actually
spent, where they are spent, or the conservation benefits that result. Finally, this table
is limited to the contents of the conservation title. Some provisions in other titles
address conservation topics. Which provisions one might consider to be a part of the
agriculture conservation effort depends, in part, on one’s definition of conservation.
Titles where these provisions can be found include the forestry and energy titles, but
only the conservation title is addressed here.
Table 2 provides data to explore the question of whether conservation funding
is increased under the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2419, and if so, by
how much. This table shows that in the House bill, three programs would increase:
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program would increase by a total of about
$2.0 billion between FY2008 and FY2012; the Farm and Ranchland Protection
Program would increase by a total of $510 million between FY2008 and FY2012;
and the Grasslands Reserve Program would increase by a total of $430 million over
the same time period. During the same time period, the acreage goals would remain
the same for the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program
(39.2 million acres and 250,000 acres per year, respectively), and funding for the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, as well as the renamed Ground and Surface
Water Program would remain unchanged.
The Senate-passed bill would create a new Comprehensive Stewardship
Incentives Program, which would receive a total of more than $2 billion between
FY2008 and FY2012 to enroll 13.3 million acres annually a an average cost of $19
per acre. Other programs would be reauthorized at the same or slightly changed
funding levels.
The Congressional Budget Office issued a detailed comparison of the House bill
and the CBO baseline of March, 2007 on October 11, 2007. It found that total
conservation funding — both mandatory and discretionary — would increase by a
total of $5.77 billion between FY2008 and FY2012. More specifically, mandatory
conservation funding would increase by a total of $4.52 billion. All mandatory
programs would either remain at the current baseline or grow with one exception.
The exception, as noted above, is the Conservation Security Program, where funding
would decrease by a total of slightly more than $700 million. CBO estimates that
4 Two of these, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, are
authorized by number of acres that can be enrolled rather than dollar amounts. A third, the
Grasslands Reserve Program, is authorized by both acreage and dollar amounts.

CRS-4
most of the increase, a total of almost $4 billion would occur in two programs, the
Wetlands Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. For
the Wetlands Reserve Program, this increase is created by reestablishing the current
annual enrollment cap for an additional five years. For discretionary programs, many
of which are new or have not been funded recently, H.R. 2419 would authorize a
total of $1.25 billion in new appropriations.
The CBO estimated the Senate farm bill (S.Amdt. 3500) on November 11, 2007,
as the Senate began deliberations. This estimate is limited to mandatory spending.
It found that mandatory spending would increase by a total of $4.78 billion between
FY2008 and FY2012. Almost $4 billion in this increase would be accounted for in
the new Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program and the extension of the
Wetland Reserve Program annual enrollment cap, and much of the remainder would
come from new small programs within larger programs targeted to a specific place
or topic.
It is important to remember that the authorized amount sets an upper limit on
mandatory funding, and Congress has often acted subsequently through the
appropriations process to allow less funding than was authorized.5 However, with
the exception of the Conservation Security Program, for which Congress has reduced
the authorized funding level several times since enactment in 2002, most of these
reductions have been for modest dollar amounts. Even if the reductions are modest,
for some of the smaller conservation programs, they may be, nonetheless, a
significant portion of the authorized level. The largest reductions most years
between FY2003 and FY2007, by dollar amounts, have been in the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, and the largest reductions by lowering acreage
enrollment ceilings have been in the Wetlands Reserve Program.6
5 For more information on authorized spending levels and actual funding levels for each
mandatory conservation program each year under provisions in the 2002 farm bill, see CRS
Report RS22243, Mandatory Funding for Agriculture Conservation Programs.
6 For more information on the conservation provisions in the House-passed farm bill, see
CRS Report RL34060, Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill.

CRS-5
Table 1. Agriculture Conservation Funding: A Comparison of Current Law with Future Funding
in the House- and Senate-Passed Farm Bills
(programs authorized through FY2012 unless otherwise noted)
Program and Provisions in Current Law
H.R. 2419, the House-Passed Farm Bill
H.R. 2419 (amended), the Senate-Passed
(FY2002 - FY2007, unless otherwise noted)
Farm Bill
Existing Programs
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Provides
No change in total acres; numerous other changes could alter
No change in total acres; numerous other
mandatory funding to enroll up to 39.2 million acres at any
enrollment patterns in the future. (Sec. 2101)
changes could alter enrollment patterns in the
time through calendar year 2007, of which up to 1 million
future; adds new sub-programs for flooded
acres is in a program for small isolated wetlands. (Sec.
farmland and wildlife habitat. (Secs. 2311-
1231 of 1985 Food Security Act)
2313)
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): Provides mandatory
Enroll up to 3.605 million acres in total, and enroll 250,000
Enroll 250,000 acres each fiscal year, with no
funding to enroll up to 2.275 million acres in total through
acres each fiscal year, with no more than 10,000 of that total in
enrollment after FY2012; authorizes a
calendar year 2007; up to 250,000 acres each calendar
floodplain easements; numerous other changes could alter
Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program;
year. (Sec. 1237 of 1985 Food Security Act)
future enrollment patterns. (Sec. 2102)
other changes could alter future enrollment
patterns. (Secs. 2321-2323)
Healthy Forests Reserve Program: No provisions in
No provisions.
Move program to conservation title; authorizes
conservation title.
“such sums as are necessary” from FY2008
through FY2012. (Sec. 2331)
Conservation Security Program (CSP): Authorized to
All existing contracts to remain in effect for full term; no new
Provides $2.3 billion to administer contracts
spend up to $1,954 million in mandatory funding between
contracts after September 30, 2007. (Sec. 2103)
entered into before the date this farm bill is
FY2006 and FY2010, and $5,650 million between
Authorizes $1,454 million for FY2007 through FY2012, and
enacted. (Sec. 2401)
FY2006 and FY2015. (Sec. 1241 of 1985 Food Security
$1,927 million for FY2007 through FY2017 for funding for
Replaced by new Comprehensive Stewardship
Act.)
contracts signed before 9/30/07 and in effect before a new farm
Incentives Program. (see below, under new
bill is enacted. For contracts dated after 10/1/12, $5.1 billion
programs)
is authorized from FY2012 through FY2017. (Sec. 2401)
All existing contracts to remain in effect for
full term; no new contracts after date of
enactment (Sec. 2391)

CRS-6
Program and Provisions in Current Law
H.R. 2419, the House-Passed Farm Bill
H.R. 2419 (amended), the Senate-Passed
(FY2002 - FY2007, unless otherwise noted)
Farm Bill
Farmland Protection Program (FPP): Provides $50
Renames program Farm and Ranchland Protection Program.
Provides $97 million annually for FY2008
million in mandatory funding in FY2002; $100 million in
Provides $125 million in FY2008, $150 million in FY2009,
through FY2012. (Sec. 2401)
FY2003; $125 million in FY2004 and FY2005; $100
$200 million in FY2010, $240 million in FY2011and $280
million in FY2006; and $97 million in FY2007. (Sec.
million in FY2012. (Sec. 2401)
1241 of 1985 Food Security Act)
Grasslands Reserve Program: Enroll 2 million acres in
Enroll an additional 1.34 million acres (eliminates mandatory
Provides $240 million in total from FY2008
total. (Sec. 1238N of 1985 Food Security Program);
funding cap). Up to 10% of the land enrolled each year can be
through FY2012 (eliminates acreage cap).
provides up to a total of $254 million in mandatory
land that is enrolled in the CRP if it meets certain requirements.
(Sec. 2401)
funding through FY2007. (Sec. 1241 of 1985 Food
(Sec. 2104)
Security Act)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP):
Provides $1,250 million in FY2008, $1,600 million in FY2009,
Provides $1,270 million in FY2008 and
Provides mandatory funding of $400 million in FY2002;
$1,700 million in FY2010, $1,800 million in FY2011, and
FY2009, and $1,300 million in FY2010
$700 million in FY2003;
$2,000 million in FY2012. (Sec. 2401)
through FY2012. (Sec. 2401)
$1,000 million in FY2004; $1,200 million in FY2005 and
Of the total each year, at least 5% is reserved for beginning
Authorizes new subprogram to assist
FY2006; $1,270 million in FY2007-09; and $1,300
farms and at least 5% is reserved for socially-disadvantaged
producers who wish to convert to organic
million in FY2010. (Sec. 1241 of 1985 Food Security Act)
and limited resource farmers. (Sec. 2105)
production, with no amount specified. (Sec.
2360)
Authorizes new Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Conservation Program, funded with additional
funds that total $165 million between FY2008
and FY2012. (Sec. 2361)
EQIP — Conservation Innovation Grants: Funded
Provides, from funds made available for EQIP, $30 million in
No change in funding from current law.
using an unspecified portion of EQIP funding. (Sec.
FY2008, $35 million in FY2009, $50 million in FY2010, $60
1240H of 1985 Food Security Act) (In FY2006, almost
million in FY2011, and $75 million. Requires funds be
$26 million was provided.)
allocated as follows: $5 million annually for organic and
specialty crop producers; $5 million annually for a new
comprehensive conservation pilot planning program; $10
million annually for competitive grants for innovative
approaches to conservation that provide environmental and
resource conservation benefits; and the remainder for air
quality improvements to help producers meet regulatory
requirements. (Sec. 2105)

CRS-7
Program and Provisions in Current Law
H.R. 2419, the House-Passed Farm Bill
H.R. 2419 (amended), the Senate-Passed
(FY2002 - FY2007, unless otherwise noted)
Farm Bill
EQIP — Ground and Surface Water Conservation
No provision. It would be replaced by a new Regional Water
Provides mandatory funding of $65 million
Program: Mandatory funding of $25 million in FY2002;
Enhancement Program in Sec. 2106; see below in new
annually in FY2008 through FY2012, and $60
$45 million in FY2003; and $60 million in FY2004
programs.
million annually thereafter. Funding is in
through FY2007. Funding is in addition to funding
addition to funding authorized for EQIP. (Sec.
authorized for EQIP. (Sec. 1240I of 1985 Food Security
2359)
Act)
EQIP — Klamath Basin: $50 million in mandatory
Makes the Klamath Basin 1 of the 5 identified water quality
Not identified in the EQIP provisions
funding, to be made available as soon as practicable.
and water quantity priority areas in the Regional Water
generally, or Ground and Surface Water
Funding is in addition to funding authorized for EQIP.
Enhancement Program. The 5 priority areas may receive up to
component of EQIP.
(Sec. 1240I of 1985 Food Security Act)
50% of the amount made available for this program. (Sec.
2106)
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP): Provides
Extends $85 million annual funding level through FY2012.
Extends $85 million annual funding level
mandatory funding of $15 million in FY2002; $30 million
(Sec. 2401)
through FY2012. (Sec. 2401)
in FY2003; $60 million in FY2004; and $85 million in
FY2005-07. (Sec. 1241 of 1985 Food Security Act)
Regional Equity: Ensures that a total of at least $12
Ensures that a total of at least $15 million is provided annually
Ensures that a total of at least $15 million is
million is provided annually to every state for a
from FY2008 through FY2012. (Sec. 2404)
provided annually from FY2008 through
combination of CRP, WRP, and CSP. (Sec. 1241 of 1985
FY2012. (Sec. 2402)
Food Security Act)
Agricultural Management Assistance: Provides
Does not amend overall funding level; allocates 50% of
Reauthorizes program through FY2012. (Sec.
mandatory funding of $20 million annually in FY2003
funding to NRCS for conservation, 40% to the Risk
2601)
through FY2007, and $10 million annually thereafter.
Management Agency, and 10% to the Agricultural Marketing
(Sec. 524 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act)
Service. (Sec. 2201)
Healthy Forest Reserve Program: Authorizes $25
No provision in conservation title. (Forestry title provision
Authorizes “such funds as are necessary”
million in discretionary funding in FY2004 and such sums
provides $10 million annually for FY2008 through FY2012,
annually for FY2008 through FY2012.
as necessary in FY2005 through FY2008. (Title V of the
with funds to be available until expended (Sec. 8101))
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003)

CRS-8
Program and Provisions in Current Law
H.R. 2419, the House-Passed Farm Bill
H.R. 2419 (amended), the Senate-Passed
(FY2002 - FY2007, unless otherwise noted)
Farm Bill
Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program:
No provision.
No provision.
Authorizes such sums as are necessary in discretionary
funding annually from FY2002 through FY2007. (Sec.
2601-2604 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002)
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program: Provides
Provides mandatory funding of $50 million annually from
Authorizes “such sums as are necessary” for
mandatory funding of $45 million in FY2003, $50 million
FY2009 through FY2012, and authorizes discretionary funding
FY2008 through FY2012. (Sec. 2604)
in FY2004, $55 million in FY2005, $60 million in
of $85 million annually from FY2007 through FY2012. (Sec.
FY2006, $65 million in FY2007, and $0 in FY2008; and
2203)
authorizes to be appropriated discretionary funding of $45
million in FY2003, $55 million in FY2004, $65 million in
FY2005, $75 million in FY2006, and $85 million in
FY2007. (Sec. 14 of the Watershed Prevention and Flood
Protection Act)
Conservation of Private Grazing Lands: Authorizes
Extends authorization through FY2012 at $60 million per year.
Extends authorization through FY2012 at $60
appropriations of $60 million annually between FY2002
(Sec. 2108)
million per year. (Sec. 2392)
and FY2007. (Sec. 1240M of the 1985 Food Security Act)
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and
Extends authorization through FY2012 at $5 million per year.
Extends authorization through FY2012 at $5
Sediment Control: Authorizes appropriations of $5
(Sec. 2109)
million per year. (Sec. 2395)
million annually between FY2002 and FY2007. (Sec.
1240P of the 1985 Food Security Act)
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program:
Provides $20 million annually through FY2012, and a one-time
Authorizes appropriations of $5 million
Authorizes appropriations of $5 million annually between
“infusion” of $10 million. (Sec. 2107)
annually between FY2008 and FY2012. (Sec.
FY2002 and FY2007. (Sec. 1240O of the 1985 Food
2394)
Security Act)

CRS-9
Program and Provisions in Current Law
H.R. 2419, the House-Passed Farm Bill
H.R. 2419 (amended), the Senate-Passed
(FY2002 - FY2007, unless otherwise noted)
Farm Bill
Partnerships and Cooperation: Authorizes up to 5%
Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative: Authorizes
Partnerships and Cooperation. Up to 10% of
annually from funding for several programs, including
up to 10% annually through FY2012 of the funding for each of
the funding each year for EQIP and several
CRP, WRP, CSP, and EQIP, to be set aside to fund this
three specified conservation programs (CSP, EQIP, and WHIP)
smaller programs is to be set aside to fund this
program, with any funds unallocated as of April 1 of a
to be set aside to fund this program, with any funds unallocated
program (at least 75% is to go to intrastate
fiscal year to be used to carry out other activities under
as of April 1 of a fiscal year to be used to carry out other
projects and less than 25% is to go to
each of those programs. (Sec. 1243 (f))
activities under each of those programs. (Sec. 2403)
multistate projects), with any unallocated
funds as of April 1 of a fiscal year to be used
to carry out other activities under each of those
programs. (Sec. 2405)
Proposed New Programs
No provision.
Market-Based Approaches to Conservation: Authorizes a
Authorizes “such sums as are necessary” for
total of $50 million to be appropriated, with no years specified,
FY2008 through FY2012. (Sec.2406)
and appropriated amounts to remain available until expended.
(Sec. 2407)
See EQIP: Ground and Surface Water Conservation
EQIP: Regional Water Enhancement Program: Provides
See EQIP: Ground and Surface Water
Program, above.
$60 million annually. Provides up to 50% of funds to 5
Conservation Program, above.
identified priority areas and limits administrative expenses to
3% of funds made available. (Replaces Ground and Surface
Water Conservation Program) (Sec. 2106)
No provision.
Chesapeake Bay Program for Nutrient Reduction and
See Chesapeake Bay provision added to EQIP,
Sediment Control: Authorizes $10 million in FY2008, $15
above.
million in FY2009, $30 million in FY2010, $40 million in
FY2011, and $55 million in FY2012, with the federal share of
any single project to be less than $5 million. (Sec. 2301)
No provision.
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program:
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat
Authorizes $20 million to be annually appropriated from
Incentive Program. Authorizes $20 million
FY2008 through FY2012 to provide public access for wildlife-
annually through FY2012 to provide grants
dependent recreation. (Sec. 2302)
land owners to provide public access for
wildlife-dependent recreation. (Sec. 2399)

CRS-10
Program and Provisions in Current Law
H.R. 2419, the House-Passed Farm Bill
H.R. 2419 (amended), the Senate-Passed
(FY2002 - FY2007, unless otherwise noted)
Farm Bill
No provision.
Farmland Resource Information: Funded using at least
No funding provision.
$400,000 annually, but not more than 0.5% of the funds
provided to the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program
annually. Sec. 2503)
No provision.
Muck Soil Conservation: Authorize $50 million in
No provision.
appropriations annually from FY2008 through FY2012. (Sec.
2303)
No provision.
Pilot Peanut Program for Four-Year Crop Rotation.
No provision.
Authorizes up to $10 million per year for FY2008 through
FY2012. (Sec. 2504)
No provision.
No provision.
Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives
Program. Authorizes new program combining
aspects of the Conservation Security Program
and the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program and authorizes an enrollment of 13.3
million acres each fiscal year, at an average
annual cost of $19 per acre, and with direction
on how acreage is to be allocated to each state.
(Sec. 2341).
No provision.
No provision.
Discovery Watershed Demonstration
Program. Authorizes “such sums as are
necessary” for a new demonstration program
in the Upper Mississippi watershed to promote
effective approaches for reducing the loss of
nutrients into surface waters. (Sec. 2397)

CRS-11
Program and Provisions in Current Law
H.R. 2419, the House-Passed Farm Bill
H.R. 2419 (amended), the Senate-Passed
(FY2002 - FY2007, unless otherwise noted)
Farm Bill
No provision.
No provision.
Emergency Landscape Restoration
Program. Authorizes “such sums as are
necessary” annually between FY2008 and
FY2012 , to remain available until spent, to
restore certain lands and resources “adversely
affected by natural catastrophic events.” Sec.
2398)
No provision.
No provision.
Agriculture Conservation Experienced
Services Program. Authorizes use of funds
from EQIP and two other to provide grants to
employee experts over 55 to provide technical
assistance. (Sec. 2602)

CRS-12
Table 2. Comparison of FY2007 Funding Level Under Current Law with FY2008 and FY2012 Funding Levels
Under the House- and Senate-Passed Farm Bills
Programa
FY2007 authorized spending under
H.R. 2419: FY2008 spending/FY2012
H.R. 2419 (amended): FY2008
current law /FY2007 actual spending
spending
spending/FY2012 spending
Conservation Reserve Program
Up to 39.2 million acres at any time (No
Up to 39.2 million acres at any time/Up to
Up to 39.2 million acres at any time/Up to
dollar amount specified)/$2,187 million
39.2 million acres (No dollar amount
39.2 million acres (No dollar amount
specified annually or overall)
specified annually or overall)
Wetlands Reserve Program
250,000 acres per year (No dollar amount
250,000 acres per year/250,000 acres per year
250,000 acres per year/250,000 acres per
specified)/$250 million to enroll 150,000
(No dollar amount specified annually or
year (No dollar amount specified annually
acres
overall)
or overall)
Farmland (Farm and Ranchland)
$97 million/$74 million
$150 million/$280 million
$97 million/$97 million
Protection Program
Agricultural Management
$14 million/$0
$5 million/$5 million
$10 million/$10 million
Assistance
Grasslands Reserve Program
$0/$0 (entire 2002 farm bill allocation of
Enroll an additional 1.34 million acres in total
A total of $254 million between FY2008
$254 million had been spent to enroll just
(No dollar amount specified annually or
and FY2012
over 1 million acres before FY2007)
overall)
Environmental Quality
$1,270 million/$1,017 million
$1,250 million/$2,000 million
$1,270 million/$1,300 million
Incentives Program
Ground and Surface
$60 million/$51 million
$60 million/$60 million
$65 million/$65 million
Water/Regional Water Quality
Enhancement Program
Wildlife Habitat Incentives
$85 million/$43 million
$85 million/$85 million
$85 million/$85 million
Program
Watershed Rehabilitation
$65 million in mandatory funding and $85
$85 million discretionary and $0
Discretionary funding of such sums as
Program
million in discretionary funding /$0 in
mandatory/$85 million discretionary and $50
may be necessary.
mandatory funding and $32 million in
million mandatory funding
discretionary funding.
a. The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is not included in the table because the authorized funding levels in current law and in H.R. 2419 are for multi-year periods. The Natural
Resource Conservation Service estimates that CSP spending in FY2007 will total $374 million.