Mandatory Funding for Agriculture Conservation Programs

Mandatory Funding for Agriculture
Conservation Programs
Jeffrey A. Zinn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized large increases in
mandatory funding for several agricultural conservation programs. Most of these^th
programs expire in FY2007, and the 110 Congress is likely to address future funding
levels in a farm bill. Since FY2002, Congress has acted, through the appropriations
process, to limit funding for some of these programs below authorized levels. It limited
total funding for all the programs to 97.6% of the authorized total in FY2003, and the
percentage declined annually to 87.3% in FY2006. Program supporters decry these
growing limitations as reductions that compromise the intent of the farm bill. Others
counter that, even with the limitations, overall conservation funding has grown
substantially, from almost $3.1 billion in FY2003 to almost $3.8 billion in FY2006.
This report reviews the funding history of the programs since the 2002 farm bill was
enacted. It will be updated periodically.
Introduction
A major issue in the upcoming farm bill debate is likely to be funding for
conservation programs. Current authorization for mandatory funding for most of these
programs, under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171),
expires at the end of FY2007. Mandatory funding means that the amount authorized by
Congress is available unless limited to smaller amounts in the appropriations process; if
appropriators do not act, the amount that was authorized is provided to the program.
These mandatory funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity
Credit Corporation, a financing institution for many agriculture programs, including
commodity programs and export subsidies.
While most conservation programs currently are authorized using mandatory
funding, discretionary funding is used for six conservation programs. For discretionary
programs, appropriators decide how much funding to provide each year in the annual
agriculture appropriations bill, subject to any maximum limit set in law. Conservation
program advocates prefer mandatory funding over discretionary funding. They believe
that it is generally easier to protect authorized mandatory funding levels from reductions

during the appropriations process than to secure appropriations each year. However, since
FY2002, Congress has limited funding for some of the mandatory programs each year
below authorized levels in annual appropriations acts. Advocates for these programs
decry these limitations as significant changes from the intent of the farm bill, which
compromise the programs’ ability to provide the anticipated magnitude of benefits to
producers and the environment. Others, including those interested in reducing
agricultural expenditures or in spending the funds for other agricultural purposes, counter
that, even with these reductions, overall funding has grown substantially.
Mandatory Conservation Funding Before 2002
Congress provided mandatory funding for selected conservation programs for the
first time in the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127).¹ Prior to 1996, all conservation programs
had been funded as discretionary programs. Conservation program advocates viewed
mandatory funding as a much more desirable approach, and Congress agreed, enacting
provisions that moved some conservation programs from discretionary to mandatory
funding. Some advocates viewed this change in funding as a major achievement in the
1996 farm bill. Amounts authorized for these programs at the time may seem modest
when compared with today’s levels. Programs funded with mandatory funding, and their
authorized levels under the 1996 law, included the following:
^!Conservation Reserve Program (a maximum of 36.4 million acres at any
time through FY2002, with no dollar amount specified);
^!Wetland Reserve Program (a maximum of 975,000 acres at any time
through FY2002, with no dollar amount specified);
^!Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($130 million in FY1996, and
$200 million annually thereafter through FY2002);
^!Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (a total of $50 million between
FY1996 and FY2002);
^!Farmland Protection Program (a total of $35 million with no time span
specified); and
^!Conservation Farm Option ($7.5 million in FY1997, increasing each year
to a high of $62.5 million in FY2002).
The 2002 Farm Bill
The 2002 farm bill greatly expanded mandatory funding for conservation,
authorizing the annual funding levels shown in Table 1. Mandatory funding was
provided both for expiring programs that were reauthorized and for new programs created
in the legislation. The increase in authorized funding levels was widely endorsed for many
reasons. Conservation supporters had long been seeking higher funding levels, and this
was another significant step in that effort. An argument that proved particularly persuasive
in this farm bill debate was documentation of large backlogs of interested and eligible
producers who were unable to enroll because of a lack of funds. Demand to participate
in some of the programs exceeded the available program dollars several times over, and
some Members reasoned that higher funding was warranted to satisfy this demand.

¹ The one exception to this statement is that the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198) authorized
mandatory funding for the Conservation Reserve Program in FY1986 and FY1987.

Funding for FY2002 is not included in Table 1, as the FY2002 appropriations
legislation was enacted on November 28, 2001, six months before the 2002 farm bill.
Program funding decisions had to be based on prior legislation. Indeed, by the time this
farm bill was enacted, the FY2003 appropriations process was well along.² However, the

2002 farm bill did authorize money in FY2002 for several mandatory programs.

Spending Limits on Mandatory Appropriations Since FY2002
In each year since FY2002, annual agriculture appropriations acts have capped
funding for some of the mandatory conservation programs below authorized levels. The
programs that are limited and the amounts of the limitations change from year to year.
One program, the Wetland Reserve Program, has been capped in enrolled acres, which
appropriators translate into savings based on average enrollment costs. Table 1 compares
the authorized spending level for each of the programs with the amount that Congress
actually provided through the appropriations process. It does not include any mandatory
conservation programs enacted since the 2002 farm bill, including the Conservation
Reserve Program Technical Assistance Account (enacted in P.L. 108-498), the Healthy
Forest Reserve (enacted in P.L. 108-148), and the Emergency Forestry Conservation
Reserve Program (enacted in P.L. 109-148).
Many of the spending reductions originate in the Administration’s budget request.
Since the farm bill states that the Secretary “shall” spend the authorized amounts for each
program each year, Congress must act to limit spending to a lesser amount. The mix of
programs and amounts of reduction in the Administration request have varied from year
to year. Congress has concurred with the Administration request some years for some
programs. Starting in FY2003, the requested reductions in mandatory funding below the
authorized levels (shown in the table), are as follows:
^!In FY2003, the request was submitted before the farm bill was enacted,
and did not include any requests to reduce funding levels.
^!In FY2004, the request was to limit the Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP) to 200,000 acres ($250 million), limit the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) to $850 million, limit the Ground and Surface
Water Program (GSWP) to $51 million, limit the Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program (WHIP) to $42 million, limit the Farmland Protection
Program (FPP) to $112 million, limit the Conservation Security Program
(CSP) to $19 million, and eliminate funding for the Watershed
Rehabilitation and Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA)
Programs.
^!In FY2005, the request was to limit the WRP to 200,000 acres ($295
million), EQIP to $985 million, WHIP to $59 million, FPP to $120
million, and CSP to $209 million, and eliminate funding for the
Watershed Rehabilitation and AMA Programs.

² In addition, during the FY2001 appropriations process, Congress had provided one-time
funding to several conservation programs beyond what had been authorized in the 1996 farm bill.
These one-time appropriations were congressional and Administration responses to a
combination of forecasts of federal budget surpluses and high demand to participate in the
programs.

CRS-4
Table 1. Authorized and Actual Funding Levels for Mandatory Conservation Programs, FY2003-FY2007
(figures in millions; limited to programs enacted in or amended by provisions in the 2002 farm bill)
^Program^FY²⁰⁰³^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^A^u^t^h^.^A^c^t^ua^l^A^ut^h.^A^c^t^u^a^l^A^u^t^h^.^A^c^t^u^a^l^A^u^t^h^.^A^c^t^ua^l^A^ut^h.^A^c^t^u^a^l^a
ⁿ^s^ervati^oⁿ^R^e^s^{erve Program}^b^{39.2 m}ⁱ^l^.^No^lim^it^{39.2 m}ⁱ^l^.^No^lim^it^{39.2 m}ⁱ^l^.^No^lim^it^{39.2 m}ⁱ^l^.^No^lim^it^{39.2 m}ⁱ^l^.
^acres^($1,821)^acres^($1,798)^acres^($1,828)^acres^($1,993)^acres
^($1,821)^($1,798)^($1,828^($1,993)^($2,187)
ⁿ^s^ervati^oⁿ^S^ecu^ri^{ty Program}^c^$0^$0^$53^$41^$282^$202^{$331 $259}^$373^h
^vironm^{ental Q}^u^{ality I}ⁿ^centive^$700^$695^$1,000^$975^{$1,200 $1,017}^{$1,200 $1,017}^$1,270^h
^o^{und a}^{nd Surf}^a^{ce Wa}^t^{er P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^$45^$45^$60^$51^{$60 $51}^{$60 $51}^$60
^am^ath^Rⁱ^{ver Bas}ⁱⁿ^Program^d^$12^$12^$19^$19^$10^$10^$8^$8^$6
^e^$38^$38^$57^$57^$128^$128^$54^$54^$0
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RS22243}^as^s^l^an^d^s^R^e^s^{erve Program}
^g/wⁱ^l^d^lⁱ^f^{e Hab}ⁱ^{tat I}ⁿ^cen^ti^{ve Program}^$30^$30^$60^$42^{$85 $46}^{$85 $43}^$85
^s^.or^l^aⁿ^d^Protecti^oⁿ^Program^$100^$100^$125^$112^{$125 $112}^{$100 $74}^$97
^le^ak^e^tl^an^d^s^R^e^s^{erve Program}^b^250,000^245,833^250,000^189,144^250,000^154,500^250,000^150,000^250,000
^://wiki^acres^acres^acres^acres^acres^acres^acres^acres^acres
^h^ttp^($314)^($309)^($354)^($285)^($344)^($275)^($392)^($250)^($403)
^a^nagem^e^{nt As}^sⁱ^s^t^ance^f^{$20 $1}^$14^$14^$14^$14^$14^$5^$14
^t^{ershed Reha}^bilit^a^t^io^{n Pro}^g^r^a^m^g^$45^$0^$50^$0^{$55 $0}^{$60 $0}^$65
ⁱ
^om^as^s^Program^$14^$14^$14^$14^$14^$14^$14⁰
^T^A^L^(%^{of total}^au^th^ori^zed^th^at^$3,139^$3,065^$3,604^$3,357^$4,145^$3,697^$4,311^$3,759^$4,560
^{s pro}^vⁱ^ded)^(97.6%⁾^(93.1%⁾^(89.2%⁾^(87.23%
⁾
^h^{ese am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s w}^{ill b}^e^f^illedⁱⁿ^af^ter^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^legⁱ^slatioⁿ^f^o^r^th^{ese f}ⁱ^{scal y}^ear^{s is en}^acted^.
^f^o^rm^ationⁱⁿ^th^{e appropr}^iation^s^proces^s^u^s^es^acres^rath^er^th^an^dollars^{; cos}^t^s^{are es}^tim^{ated bas}^e^{d on}^en^{rolled acres}^du^rin^g^fⁱ^s^cal^y^{ear. F}^Y^{2006 an}^{d F}^Y^{2007 are C}^B^O^es^tⁱ^m^at^es^,
^an^{d do n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e th}^{e Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^Fores^t^ry^C^oⁿ^s^erv^a^tion^R^e^s^e^rv^{e P}^r^og^ram^,^es^tim^{ated to s}^p^en^{d $21 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2006 an}^{d $110 m}^illi^onⁱⁿ^F^Y^2007.
^{ce th}^{is is a cap}^p^e^d^en^titlem^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^to^{tal sp}^en^dⁱⁿ^g^o^v^er¹⁰^y^ear^{s, th}^{e au}^th^o^r^ized^am^o^uⁿ^t^{s ar}^{e CB}^{O estim}^{ates o}^f^sp^en^dⁱⁿ^g^.
ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^is^prog^ram^is^s^p^ecifⁱ^{ed as}^{$50 m}^illion^,^{to be}^m^a^{de av}^{ailable “}^a^s^s^oon^as^{practicable af}^{ter th}^{e date of}^en^actm^en^t.”
^r^o^g^r^a^m^ha^{s b}^o^t^{h t}^o^t^a^l^sp^eⁿ^dⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^t^o^t^a^l^a^c^r^e^a^g^e^lⁱ^mⁱ^t^s^,^wⁱ^t^h^o^u^t^sp^e^cⁱ^fyⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^y^a^nnua^l^l^e^ve^l^s^fo^r^eⁱ^t^h^e^r^fundⁱ^{ng o}^r^eⁿ^r^o^l^l^meⁿ^t^.
^r^og^ram^am^en^{ded in}^{FY2004 appropriation}^s^m^a^kⁱⁿ^g^{$14 m}^illion^av^{ailable f}^o^{r con}^s^erv^a^tion^a^nnua^l^l^y^,^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^e^r^e^m^aⁱⁿ^d^e^r^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^fo^r^o^t^he^r^p^u^r^p^o^s^e^s^.
^r^o^g^r^a^m^also^{is autho}^r^ized^to^r^{eceive d}ⁱ^scr^e^tio^nar^y^f^und^{ing thr}^o^ugh^{annual ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatio^ns.
^u^th^{orized am}^ouⁿ^t^s^redu^{ced to th}^es^e^lev^e^ls^by^R^econ^c^iliation^A^c^{t of}^{2005 (P}^.L^{. 109-}^{148) an}^{d, f}^o^{r C}^S^P^,^by^low^e^{r f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^lev^e^{ls in}^ear^lier^y^ear^s.
^r^og^ram^w^{ill be tran}^s^f^{erred to R}^u^{ral Dev}^e^lopm^en^{t by}^March^{1, 2006.}

^!In FY2006, the request was to limit the WRP to 200,000 acres ($321
million), EQIP to $1.0 billion, WHIP to $60 million, FPP to $84 million,
Biomass Research and Development to $12 million, and CSP to $274
million, and eliminate funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation and
AMA Programs.
^!In FY2007, the request is to limit EQIP to $1.0 billion, GSWP to $51
million, WHIP to $55 million, FPP to $50 million, Biomass Research
and Development to $12 million, and CSP to $342 million, and eliminate
funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation and AMA Programs.
Discussion
While Congress has reduced funding for some mandatory conservation programs,
either in support of an Administration request or on its own, the reductions did not exceed
10% of the total until FY2005. However, the gap between authorized levels and actual
amounts continues to grow. As a percentage, this gap has grown from 2.4% of the total
authorized amount in FY2003 to 12.7% in FY2006. Even with these changes, however,
actual total funding has risen almost $720 million over the same four-year time period,
which is an increase of almost 25% from the FY2003 authorization.³
Reductions have not been uniform among programs. The largest mandatory
program, the CRP, has not been limited in any way by appropriators since the 2002 farm
bill was enacted. The second-largest program, EQIP, has absorbed the largest reductions
from authorized levels, totaling $396 million between FY2003 and FY2006. Funding for
a third program, the CSP, has been amended four times since 2002. As initially enacted,
it was the first true conservation entitlement program; that is, any individual who met the
eligibility requirements would be accepted into the program. Congress has capped CSP
and then repeatedly reduced the cap to fund other activities, usually disaster assistance.
More generally, the table shows that reductions have varied from year to year and
program to program since 2002. At one extreme, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program
has received no mandatory funding in any year (it is one of the five conservation programs
authorized to receive discretionary appropriations as well, and those have been provided),
and at the other extreme, the CRP has not been limited in any way. Some of the programs
have unusual characteristics that affect how they are treated for budget purposes, as noted
in the table footnotes. For example, the Grasslands Reserve and Klamath River Basin
Programs each have a total authorized level that is not subdivided by fiscal year in the
authorizing legislation. For those programs, the amount that was spent each year (not the
remaining lifetime authorization) is included for purposes of calculating the percentage
by which funding is reduced.
As a result of the many variations in how these programs are authorized (some in
acres and others in dollars, and some as a total amount and others by year), there are
several alternative ways to calculate the annual and total reduction from the authorized
level. However, all of these calculations lead to the same general set of observations.
First, overall funding for the suite of mandatory agriculture conservation programs has

³ If the full authorized amount had been provided in FY2006, the increase would have been more
than 35% from the FY2003 authorized amount.

been reduced each year. Second, the magnitude by which this suite of programs is being
reduced has been growing each year. Third, these reductions may still be significant to
current or potential beneficiaries of those program. Fourth, even with the reductions,
overall funding for the group of mandatory programs has continued to rise. Finally,
funding for the discretionary agricultural conservation programs varies more from year
to year, with much larger percentage reductions than the mandatory programs in some
years. Greater variation in funding for discretionary programs supports the view of
conservation proponents that using the mandatory approach has been a more successful
and predictable approach to conservation program funding in recent years. (For more
information on each of these programs, see CRS Report RL32940, Agriculture
Conservation Programs: A Scorecard, by Jeffrey A. Zinn and Tadlock Cowan.)
Concluding Observations
When considering whether reductions in mandatory funding for conservation
programs compromise the conservation effort, three points are relevant. First, a measure
of how conservation funding is viewed in relation to other agriculture funding was
provided in the FY2006 reconciliation process, which required the agriculture committees
to reduce total USDA mandatory program funding by $3.0 billion over five years,
including a reduction of $176 million in FY2006. Conservation provided $934 million
of those savings, with no reductions for FY2006. This amount is about 25% of the total
reduction that was enacted, $3.7 billion over five years. The savings came from lowering
caps on spending for CSP and EQIP in future years (which also required authorizing them
beyond FY2007), and eliminating unspent funds for the Watershed Rehabilitation
Program carried over from earlier years. Part of the debate was whether conservation is
being asked to bear a disproportionate share of these reductions. (For more information,
see CRS Report RS22086, Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation.)
Second, it appears highly likely that reductions to mandatory program spending at
the current scale will continue. Reductions have been in every administration request and
annual appropriations bill since FY2003. It is less certain, however, whether these
reductions will continue to grow as a percentage of the total. Future change will depend
on both congressional support for conservation specifically, and broader pressures that
influence overall federal spending. It is likely that the affected programs and the
magnitude of the reductions will continue to vary from year to year, making it difficult to
forecast the future based on the past.
Third, supporters of conservation programs may look for ways to address the
challenge of spending reductions in the next farm bill. However, several broader forces
may make it difficult to authorize higher funding levels or to protect current funding
levels for these conservation programs. One force may be broad efforts to control federal
spending. A second force may be competition among various agriculture constituencies
for limited funds; the FY2006 reconciliation process provided an indication of how
Congress will treat conservation when it must make decisions based on this competition.
A third force may be limits on the capacity of federal conservation agencies, at current
staffing levels and with the current approaches, to plan and install all the conservation
practices that additional funding would support, and it seems likely that increasing staff
levels in federal agencies to provide more conservation will not be an option.