Sponsored Listings
Free
Trial Issue - E/The Environmental Magazine:
A 10-time Independent Press Awards winner and nominee, E is chock full of
everything environmental -- from recycling to rainforests, and from the global
village to our own backyards.
Questia: Search over 400,000 books and journals at Questia online.
FastWeb
Free Scholarship Search: Find free
money for college or an advanced degree.
Jeffrey A. Zinn, Congressional Research Service
Updated July 8, 2003
Soil and Water Conservation
Soil
and water conservation remains a prominent topic in farm policy in the 108 th
Congress as the Administration
implements provisions in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107- 171). This farm bill
increased spending and expanded the scope of the conservation effort, especially
in Title II, which reauthorized and amended most existing conservation programs
and enacted several new ones through FY2007. Other titles also contained some
conservation provisions.
The
Congressional Budget Office estimated that conservation spending would increase
$9.2 billion in new mandatory budget authority above the April 2001 baseline
through FY2007. Funding is growing for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (from $200 million annually to $1.3 billion in FY2007), the Farmland
Protection Program (from a total of $35 million to $125 million annually
starting in FY2004), and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (from a total of
$50 million to $85 million annually starting in FY2005). 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).
Several
new programs are expanding the scope of the conservation effort. The largest of
these, the Conservation Security Program, will provide payments to producers who
apply conservation practices on working lands. Oth-er new programs will retire
grasslands, ad-dress surface and ground water conservation needs, address
conservation issues in certain regions, permit approved third parties to
supplement federal capabilities to provide conservation assistance, and (in the
forestry title) replace existing programs with a new assistance program.
Two agencies in the Department of Agriculture are implementing most of these programs, which continue to be based on providing incentives to attract voluntary participants. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides technical assistance and administers many of the smaller cost-sharing programs, and the Farm Service Agen-cy administers the most expensive program (the CRP) and emergency programs. As both agencies implement the farm bill, controversies continue to arise when the Administration’s interpretation of the law’s intent differ from that of interested Members of Congress. Three major issues that have been raised since the May2002 enactment are: (1) how to fund technical assistance in support of the mandatory programs because of an OMB determination that would not allow this assistance to be fully funded as part of each program by the CCC; (2) how to implement the Conservation Security Program; and (3) how to implement the third party provider provisions.
The
107th Congress
addressed the first issue in FY2003 appropriations, and the 108 th
Congress is considering a
legislative proposal (H.R. 1907) and additional action in the FY2004
appropriations. The House Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee with
conservation responsibilities focused on this issue at a June 4 oversight
hearing, and other similar hearings are possible. In addition, appropriators
will continue to have some influence on implementation through their actions on
agriculture appropriations in FY2004 and beyond.
BACKGROUND
AND ANALYSIS
Conservation
of soil and water resources has been a public policy issue for more than 60
years, an issue repeatedly recast as new problems have emerged or old problems
have resurfaced. Two themes involving farmland productivity dominated the debate
until 1985. One was to reduce the high levels of soil erosion, and the other was
to provide water to agriculture in quantities and quality that enhance farm
production.
Congress
responded repeatedly to these themes by creating new programs or revising
existing ones. These programs were designed to reduce resource problems on the
farm. These programs combined voluntary participation with technical,
educational, and financial assistance incentives. By the early 1980s, however,
concern was growing, especially among environmentalists, that these programs
were not adequately dealing with environmental problems resulting from
agricultural activities (especially off the farm). Publicized instances of
significant problems, especially soil erosion rates said to rival the dust bowl
era, increased awareness and intensified the policy debate.
Congress
responded, in a watershed event, by enacting four major new conservation
programs in the conservation title of the 1985 Food Security Act. One of these
programs, the Conservation Reserve (CRP), greatly increased the federal
financial commitment to conservation and targeted federal funds at some of the
most severe problems by retiring land under multi-year contracts. The other
three, sodbuster, conservation compliance, and swampbuster, created a new
approach to conservation, by halting producer access to many federal farm
program benefits if they did not meet conservation program requirements for
highly erodible lands and wetlands.
Provisions
enacted in the next farm bill, in 1990, reflected a rapid evolution of the
conservation agenda, including the growing influence of environmentalists and
other non-agricultural interests in the formulation of conservation policy, and
a recognition that agriculture was not treated like other business sectors in
many environmental laws. Congress expanded this agenda to address groundwater
pollution, water quality, and sustainable agriculture, and allowed for the use
of easements, as well as amending existing programs. Amendments to the CRP
reflect these changes; its earlier focus on highly erodible land shifted to give
greater emphasis to environmental concerns.
Prior
to the Republican congressional takeover in 1994, conservation policy
discussions centered on: (1) how to build from conservation initiatives enacted
in previous farm bills; (2) how to secure more dependable funding for programs
at a time when reducing the federal deficit was a major priority; and (3) how to
incorporate new concepts for resource management at scales larger than
individual farms, called landscapes, watersheds or ecosystems. The takeover
shifted the focus to identifying ways to make the conservation compliance and
swampbuster programs less intrusive on farmer activities. It also reduced the
influence of environmental interests in developing conservation policy. The 1996
farm bill included a wide ranging conservation title drafted by the Senate
Agriculture Committee staff. The enacted bill gave considerable attention to
wildlife. (For an overview of conservation provisions in the 1996 farm bill, see
CRS Report 96-330, Conservation Provisions in the Farm Bill: A Summary.)
The role of conservation has continued to evolve since 1996. The debate over conservation in the 2002 farm bill was framed in terms of: (1) increasing funding; (2) creating new programs and addressing new issues; (3) providing more conservation on land that is in production; and (4) using funding for conservation programs to meet world trade obligations. Specific conservation provisions amending old programs enacted in Title II are discussed below, followed by new programs, then implementation activities. (Other provisions that could be categorized as conservation can be found in many titles, especially those addressing research, forestry, and energy.) For detailed information about the enacted provisions in Title II, including how they compare with the House and Senate-passed bills and prior law, see CRS Report RL31486, Conservation Title of the 2002 Farm Bill: A Comparison of New Law with Bills Passed by the House and Senate, and Prior Law. The Administration had little formal involvement in the development of this farm bill, beyond issuing principles it should meet on September 19, 2001. Principles for conservation included:
-
-
Accommodate new and emerging environmental concerns;
-
Design and adopt a portfolio approach to conservation policies;
-
Reaffirm market-oriented policies;
-
Ensure compatibility of conservation and trade policies;
-
Coordinate conservation and farm policies; and
-
Recognize the importance of collaboration with conservation partners.
This document is not necessarily endorsed by the Almanac of Policy Issues. It is being preserved in the Policy Archive for historic reasons.