Soil and Water Conservation Issues

Publication Date: February 2006

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Type:

Abstract:

Soil and water conservation continue to be prominent farm policy topics in the 109th Congress as the Administration administers an array of current programs and starts to prepare for the next farm bill. The last farm bill, enacted in 2002, increased spending and expanded the scope of the conservation effort by reauthorizing and amending many conservation programs and enacting new ones.

Examples of increased spending in the 2002 farm bill include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (from $200 million annually before FY2002 to $1.3 billion in FY2007) and the Farmland Protection Program (from a total of $35 million to $125 million annually starting in FY2004). Enrollment ceilings were raised for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (from 1,075,000 acres to 2,275,000 acres).

New programs efforts expanded the scope of the conservation effort. The largest of these, the Conservation Security Program (CSP), provides payments to producers who address natural resource concerns on private lands in specified locations. Other new programs conserve grasslands, address surface and ground water conservation needs and conservation issues in certain regions, permit approved third parties to provide conservation assistance, and provide grants to support innovative conservation technologies.

Two Department of Agriculture agencies implement most agriculture conservation programs, which attract voluntary participants by providing financial and technical incentives. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance and administers most programs, and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers the most expensive program currently (the CRP) and an emergency program.

Implementation controversies have arisen since 2002, especially when Members disagree with the Administration's interpretation of the law. One of these, how to fully fund technical assistance in support of the mandatory programs, was resolved with legislation enacted in late 2004 (P.L. 108-498). The second, implementing the CSP, continues as Congress has repeatedly limited funding, and NRCS has responded by limiting program eligibility to specified watersheds.

The House and Senate Agriculture Committee's conservation subcommittees both held oversight hearings in 2004. In 2005, the Senate subcommittee held hearings on endangered species on July 26 and the Conservation Reserve Program on July 27. The House Agriculture Committee is starting to hold field hearings to gather farm bill input.

Appropriators continue to influence conservation topics through their actions. For FY2006, they made cuts in several mandatory programs, while rejecting cuts to discretionary programs proposed by the Administration. They provided almost $500 million to the two emergency conservation programs and created a new forestry program in response to numerous hurricanes. Longer-term cuts were enacted in reconciliation legislation, but they do not reduce funding in FY2006. Reconciliation legislation also reduced funding for all discretionary conservation programs by 1%.