CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

What It Is: Long-term land retirement program specifically targeted to remove highly erodible cropland from production. The government pays farmers an annual rental rate and shares a portion of the cost of establishing a cover, including trees. (See Long-Term Land Retirement, Soil Bank in Domestic Farm Programs section.)

Objective: To reduce erosion, improve water quality, and reduce surplus production.

Experience: The 1985 farm bill authorized the retirement of 40-45 million acres of highly erodible cropland. Highly erodible lands are defined as having three times the level of erosion that is considered necessary to sustain production (3T) or a minimum of about 15 tons per acre annually. By 1992, 35.4 million acres had been enrolled in the program at an average annual rental rate of about $49 per acre. The 1990 farm bill extended the CRP program to place greater emphasis on retiring land having direct impacts on water quality. The CRP is included in the Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP), which is under the Agricultural Resources Conservation Program (ARCP) in the 1990 farm bill. The 1990 farm bill provided protection to CRP payments from sequestration by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings). The CRP is jointly supported by environmentalists and farmers.

Consequences:

• Reduces soil erosion.

• Improves water quality.

• Increases wildlife habitat.

• Reduces crop production.

• Increases commodity prices.

• Lowers commodity stocks.

• Increases commodity price variability.

• Increases tree acreage.

• Reduces economic activity in rural communities.

What It Is: ACP payments up to 3500/year are made to farmers to offset a portion of the costs associated with specific farming practices designed, for example, to conserve the soil or improve water quality. Related to the ACP program is the Conservation Technical Assistance program (CTA), which provides technical assistance to farmers in designing conservation and environmental practices such as terracing or contour farming. The Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) has similar objectives and provisions to ACP and CTA.

Objective: To reduce soil erosion and enhance water quality.

When Used: ACP and CTA have their origin in the Dust Bowl days of the early 1930s, specifically 1936. While originally enacted to support and expand conservation practices, the ACP program was subsequently broadened to encompass output enhancing practices such as the application of lime, construction of water tanks, and subsidization of pothole drainage programs. This expansion came under fire in the 1970s as unneeded subsidies and in the 1990s as being contrary to environmental interests such as maintaining wetlands and even reducing erosion. These factors, combined with budget cuts, resulted in a reorientation of the ACP program back to its original soil conservation objectives.

Consequences:

• Reduces soil erosion.

• Enhances farmland productivity and acreage in crops.

• Reduces waterfowl and wildlife habitats under the old program.

• Enhances farm income.

• Perserves water supplies.

What It Is: Farming method, measure or practice that a producer could be required to implement as a matter of regulation or as a condition for receiving farm program benefits. (See Conservation Compliance.)

Objective: To improve the environment by improving water and air quality and reducing soil erosion, pesticide use, and animal waste runoff.

When Used: First authorized by implication in the 1985 farm bill when farmers were required to implement conservation compliance plans with a goal of reducing the level of erosion to T (the level at which the productivity of the soil is indefinitely maintained). More recently, best management practices are proposed to be required under the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act (see Conservation Compliance).

Experience: While BMPs may serve to achieve their desired objectives, farmers and ranchers feel that they represent an infringement on their right to farm. Considerable difficulty is encountered in specifying best management practices that apply to individual farming conditions.

Consequences:

• Reduces soil erosion.

• Improves water quality.

• Reduces farmer/rancher freedom of choice in production.

• Increases cost of production.

• Increases food prices.

• Reduces conflict with environmental interests once they are accepted and practiced.

• Reduces incentive to participate in farm programs if required as a condition for eligibility.

Policy Area: Conservation and Environment

What It Is: Conservation compliance requires that farmers had to develop and file with ASCS/USDA a conservation plan for farming on all highly erodible land by January 1, 1990, and must fully implement that plan by January 1, 1995. Farmers who did not file and do not implement satisfactory conservation plans will be ineligible for farm program benefits, including deficiency payments, price support loan provisions, and disaster payments. In addition, they may not be eligible for new loans from Farmers Home Administration or for participation in federal crop insurance, and they may lose their CRP payments. Sodbuster discourages bringing highly erosive land into production. If this land is brought into production, it must be covered by an approved conservation plan or be subject to penalty.

Objective: To farm highly erodible cropland and reduce the level of soil erosion to T through appropriate conservation measures approved by the Soil Conservation Service. T is a soil loss tolerance value indicating the maximum level of soil erosion that will permit a crop productivity to be sustained indefinitely. The T requirement can be relaxed whenever local SCS/ASCS officials judge that it would cause severe economic hardship or be pragmatically impossible to achieve.

When Used: Enacted as a provision of the 1985 farm bill with the support of environmentalists and as a condition for enactment of the bill.

Experience: Conservation plans were developed in considerable haste after the enactment of the 1985 farm bill and delayed announcement of complex regulatory procedures. Conflict arose in some areas over the farming practices under which T could reasonably be achieved, with some resulting relaxation of conservation plan provisions. Since the conservation plans were often developed with considerable haste, questions exist over whether their provisions can be met realistically. SCS/ASCS will face a major decision on the conditions under which conservation plans can be modified and/or enforced by January 1, 1995. The 1990 farm bill provides for graduated losses in farm program benefits up to $5,000 for producers who violated the conservation compliance and sodbuster provisions but acted in good faith and had no prior violations.

Consequences:

• Reduces soil erosion.

• Reduces water runoff.

• Improves water quality.

• Increases costs of production.

• Lowers producer returns.

• Encourages producers to consider long-term land retirement in the CRP.

• Reduces participation in farm programs. If price and income supports are eliminated, conservation compliance provisions could be implemented only with the assistance of ACP payments or overt regulation.

• Eliminates economic incentives for new highly erosive land being brought into production.

Policy Area: Conservation and Environment

What It Is: Three- to five-year voluntary incentive agreement with landowners to implement plans to protect water quality. Lands eligible for the program are those associated with public water sources, shallow groundwater, and cropland with the potential for nonpoint source pollution affecting endangered species habitats and other sensitive areas. Participants are paid up to $3,500 per person, per year to implement water quality protection plans. Participants may continue to farm the enrolled land, but they must report nutrient and pesticide use to the SCS. The 1990 farm bill, which created the AWQPP under the Agricultural Resources Conservation Program (ARCP), calls for enrolling one million acres in the AWQPP by 1995.

Objective: To enhance water quality in agricultural areas.

When Used: First authorized in the 1990 farm bill.

Experience: Program was not funded in 1991. It was pilot tested in selected counties in the U.S. during 1992.

Consequences:

• Preserves/improves water quality.

• Provides incentives to farmers for nutrient record keeping.

• Does not reduce crop production.

What It Is: Long-term program to retire cropland presently enrolled in the CRP or WRP, cropland containing riparian corridors important for wildlife habitat, or cropland that is environmentally sensitive. Participants agree to create and record deed restrictions on enrolled land that will permanently restrict land use to conform to a natural resource conservation management plan on the easement. Payments equal to the loss in value of land due to the presence of the easement, up to $250,000 per person, may be made. These payments can be made over time but may not exceed $50,000 per person per year. Cropland base is permanently retired.

Objective: To permanently remove environmentally sensitive cropland from production.

When Used: First authorized in the 1990 farm bill.

Experience: Too early to tell.

Consequences:

• Preserves wetlands.

• Preserves grasslands created by the CRP.

• Protects water quality in agricultural areas.

• Protects habitats for endangered species.

• Reduces crop production.

• Increases price and price variability for commodities if widely adopted.

• Reduces value of land enrolled in the program.

• Reduces producer flexibility for land enrolled.

What It Is: No net loss specifies that if an individual decides to convert wetlands to farming or development, the same acreage must be replaced as wetlands elsewhere. (See Swampbuster.)

Objective: To discourage the reduction of wetland areas and acreages.

When Used: First established as a national goal by President Bush in 1990 budget message to the Congress. Implemented in the swampbuster provisions of the 1990 farm bill.

Experience: Reduced wetland conversion. Questions have arisen from environmental interests whether the quality of restored wetlands is the same as originally existed.

Consequences:

• Discourages wetlands from being brought into production.

• Conserves land and water resources.

• Retards increases in production.

• Restricts increases in the supply of cropland, thus supporting prices of land in production.

• Reduces current values of affected land that could be brought into crop production.

• Improves water quality and habitat for fish, shellfish, and wildlife.

• Allows farmers some opportunity to adjust operation by draining one area and restoring another.

What It Is: Swampbuster denies farm program benefits for wetlands brought into production. Converting a wetland to make production possible invokes loss of farm program benefits that cannot be restored until the converted wetland is restored. Conversion of a wetland can occur by draining, tilling, or simply planting an agricultural crop in a designated wetland. A minimal effect clause exempts conversions when minimal effects are determined on the hydrological or biological properties of the wetland. This clause also allows wetland restoration to mitigate a wetland loss -- applying the no net loss concept. Graduated penalties in the form of lost program benefits of up to $10,000 exist for violations, with a good faith restoration allowed on the first violation. (See No Net Loss.)

Objective: To discourage the conversion of wetlands and implement a no net loss policy.

When Used: Enacted originally as a provision of the 1985 farm bill with the support of both environmentalists and farm organizations. The 1985 farm bill contained a so- called "drop dead" provision which meant a loss of all farm program benefits on the whole farm for a small wetland conversion. The 1990 farm bill instead implemented the graduated penalty structure with the good faith restoration clause.

Experience: Appears to have brought a halt to clearing and draining of fragile lands by producers who currently participate in the farm program.

Consequences:

• Discourages wetlands from being brought into production.

• Conserves land and water resources.

• Retards increases in production.

• Restricts increases in the supply of cropland, thus supporting prices of land in production.

• Reduces current values of affected land that could be brought into crop production through drainage.

• Improves water quality and habitat for fish, shellfish, and wildlife.

• Allows farmers some opportunity to adjust operation by draining one area and restoring another.

What It Is: Permanent or 30-year easement for lands restored by farmers and ranchers to wetland status or to prevent the conversion of existing wetlands. Like CRP, participants are paid an annual rental rate per acre over a period of 5 to 20 years. The goal of the program is to enroll one million acres by 1995. The WRP is a title under the Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP), which is part of the Agricultural Resources Conservation Program (ARCP) in the 1990 farm bill. Land enrolled in the WRP must forfeit its existing cropland base and allotment history.

Objective: To expand and preserve wetland acreage.

When Used: First authorized in the 1990 farm bill.

Experience: Too early to tell.

Consequences:

• Preserves wetlands.

• Improves water quality.

• Retains farmer's freedom to enter the program.

• Increases habitat for fish, wildlife, and waterfowl.

• Reduces production to the extent that existing cropland is enrolled in the program.