The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally called the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—funds all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), excluding the U.S. Forest Service. For FY2021, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 7610 on July 13, 2020 (including H.Rept. 116-446). Funding for USDA was included in a four-bill minibus appropriations bill (H.R. 7608, Division B) that passed the House on July 24, 2020. The Senate Appropriations Committee released a draft bill and explanatory statement on November 10, 2020.¹ Neither the Senate Appropriations Committee nor the full Senate acted on this draft bill. In the absence of an enacted full-year appropriation, FY2021 began under a continuing resolution (P.L. 116-159), which lasted until December 11, 2020. Four additional continuing resolutions were enacted before December 27, 2020, when Congress passed and the President signed into law the FY2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-260). Agriculture and related agencies are included under Division A.

This report provides a brief overview of the conservation-related provisions in the FY2021 Agriculture appropriations act. For a general analysis of the FY2021 appropriations for agriculture, see CRS Report R46437, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2021 Appropriations.

Conservation Appropriations

USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners with natural resource concerns. These include working lands programs, land retirement and easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most conservation programs, and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).²

Most conservation program funding is mandatory, obtained through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $6.2 billion of CCC budget authority for conservation in FY2021).³ The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334) reauthorized most mandatory conservation programs through FY2023. Other conservation programs—mostly providing technical assistance—operate with discretionary funding provided in annual appropriations (about $1 billion annually).

The FY2021 appropriation generally maintained FY2020 levels for discretionary conservation programs. The Trump Administration's FY2021 request proposed a decrease for discretionary conservation funding from the FY2020 enacted levels and reductions in funding for mandatory conservation programs. Most of these proposed reductions in funding were not included in the FY2021 appropriation.

Discretionary Conservation Programs

Conservation Operations

NRCS administers all of USDA's discretionary conservation programs. The largest program and the account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The CO account primarily funds Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), which provides conservation planning and implementation assistance from field staff placed in almost all counties within the United States and its territories. Other components of CO include the Soil Survey, Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting, and Plant Materials Centers (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conservation Operations Appropriations, by Function

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on appropriations acts. Notes: CTA = Conservation Technical Assistance, PMC = Plant Materials Centers, and Other = Grazing Lands Conservation Initiatives, watershed projects, rescissions, and other congressionally directed funds. Depending on the legislative text, some programs included in Other during one year may be accounted for in CTA in another year.

Technical assistance for conservation currently is funded through both mandatory and discretionary sources, with CO being the primary account receiving discretionary funding from annual appropriations. The Trump Administration's FY2021 budget requested $830.2 million for CO, similar to the $829.6 million enacted for FY2020. The FY2021 budget proposed the consolidation of mandatory and discretionary accounts to pay for conservation technical assistance.⁴ USDA has proposed consolidating funding through multiple Administrations, but Congress has never adopted this approach (see "Funding for Technical Assistance" section, below). The FY2021 appropriation increases CO funding in FY2021 by $3 million from FY2020 and directs CO funding for a number of conservation programs (Table 1). Language in H.Rept. 116-466 for H.R. 7610 further directs funding to selected activities (Table 4).

Funding for Technical Assistance

NRCS is the current federal provider of technical assistance for agricultural conservation.⁵ NRCS provides technical assistance at the request of the landowner to conserve and improve natural resources. The assistance includes technical expertise combined with knowledge of local conditions and is provided through a network of federal staff throughout the United States.

The CTA program within CO funds much of the conservation technical assistance provided by NRCS. Funds support salaries and expenses for NRCS staff, technology development, conservation system design, compliance reviews, grants to partners for additional technical assistance capacity, and resource assessment reports. Total funding for CO has fluctuated in recent years. In some cases, such fluctuation is the result of an Administration's request. In other cases, funding changes reflect national budget dynamics that are not unique to CO (e.g., reductions caused by sequestration in FY2013 and funding increases through budget agreements in FY2014-FY2021). In inflation-adjusted dollars, CO has declined over the past 20 years (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conservation Operations Appropriated Funding (FY1999-FY2021)

Source: CRS using historical appropriations and Office of Management and Budget, Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2025, February 2020, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hist10z1_fy21.xlsx. Note: The blue line is funding in nominal dollars, whereas the inflation-adjusted red line is calculated using the gross domestic product price deflator in FY2021 dollars.

The other side of agricultural conservation assistance is financial assistance. Financial assistance provides direct payments to landowners to implement certain conservation practices or to conserve and protect natural resources on private land. Most programs that provide financial assistance are authorized through omnibus farm bills and receive funding from mandatory sources—thus, they do not require an annual appropriation.

In addition to technical assistance provided through CTA and CO, technical assistance is also part of farm bill conservation programs, which are funded through a program's mandatory authorization. Most technical assistance activities within mandatory programs support the delivery of some level of financial assistance as part of a contract or agreement. These activities could include providing designs, standards, and specifications needed to install approved conservation practices and activities.

Generally, technical assistance prior to a producer entering into a contract for financial assistance is considered to be part of CTA. After a producer signs a contract for financial assistance, technical assistance is funded from the individual mandatory program rather than CTA. Once the financial assistance contract is complete, most mandatory program funds are no longer available to support ongoing assistance in maintaining the conservation plans, practices, and activities implemented under the financial assistance program.

Since the mid-1990s, Congress and various Administrations have proposed changes to how technical assistance is funded. The Trump Administration's FY2021 budget request proposed to transfer funding from mandatory conservation programs and discretionary appropriations to a consolidated account dedicated to technical assistance for farm bill conservation programs. Similar proposals were included in the FY2018-FY2021 (Trump) and FY2014-FY2017 (Obama) presidential budget requests but were not adopted by Congress.

NRCS Staffing Levels

The CO account funds more than half of NRCS staff; other smaller discretionary programs and mandatory conservation programs account for the remainder. A decline in CO funding, therefore, correlates to a decline in the number of NRCS staff. In recent years, the total number of permanent positions at NRCS that are funded by CO has declined through FY2020. A growing number of unfilled positions at the agency has further magnified this reduction in staff (see Figure 3).

The Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center has also impacted NRCS staffing and funding levels (for more information on the Business Center, see the "Farm Production and Conservation Business Center" section). In FY2019, Congress realigned funding and staff from the three FPAC agencies to the Business Center, including the transfer of approximately 882 staff years from NRCS to the Business Center (over 9% of effective NRCS staff years at that time). The transfer of funding and functions were a part of the Business Center's goal of achieving efficiencies within the FPAC mission area.

The FY2021 enacted appropriation provides $231.3 million in discretionary funding for the FPAC Business Center. This is $24.8 million more than Congress provided in FY2020. This increase appears to include at least a portion, and possibly all, of the FY2021 Trump Administration's requested transfer of $5.9 million and 39 staff years from CO to the FPAC Business Center. Given the preexisting decline in CO-funded technical assistance staff years, it is difficult to measure the effect of the continued transfer of NRCS positions to the FPAC Business Center on the agency's overall operations and its ability to provide technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. Also unclear is the extent to which the Business Center's creation may have contributed to the decrease in NRCS staffing levels and the increase in total unfilled NRCS positions.

Figure 3. Total Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Staffing (FY1999-FY2021)

Source: CRS from annual USDA explanatory notes. Notes: A staff year is equivalent to one full-time person working for one year. EOY = end of year.

Watershed Programs

The FY2021 appropriation includes funding for watershed activities, including Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)—a program that assists state and local organizations with planning and installing measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage.⁶ The appropriation maintains WFPO funding at $175 million, the same as appropriated in FY2020. The FY2021 Administration request proposed no funding.

The WFPO program consists of projects built under two authorities—the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534). The vast majority of the projects (referred to as P.L. 566 projects) have been built pursuant to the authority of P.L. 83-566, which authorizes the chief of the NRCS to approve construction of smaller watershed projects.⁷ Congressional approval is needed for larger P.L. 566 projects. The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized 11 specific projects, referred to as P.L. 534 projects, which are much larger and more expensive than P.L. 566 projects.

Since FY2014, Congress has directed a portion of CO funds to selected WFPO activities. The enacted FY2021 appropriation includes similar directive language but shifts a portion of the directed language to the WFPO account (see Table 1). The enacted appropriation directs $3 million of CO to P.L. 534 projects and $10 million to select P.L. 566 projects related to providing water to rural communities. The $3 million from the CO account would be in addition to the $175 million for the program as a whole, whereas the $10 million would be from within the $175 million total. The Senate committee draft proposed $3.5 million from CO for P.L. 534 projects and did not include directive language within the WFPO account. The House-passed bill did not include the CO language but did include $12 million for select P.L. 566 projects under WFPO. The Trump Administration's request included no funding for WFPO.

The FY2021 appropriation also includes $10 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program––$2 million less than the FY2020 level. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program repairs aging dams built by USDA under WFPO. The Trump Administration's request and Senate draft included no funding for FY2021, while the House-passed bill included $12 million.

The 2018 farm bill provides $50 million annually in permanent mandatory funding for WFPO and Watershed Rehabilitation activities. The mandatory funding is in addition to discretionary funding provided through annual appropriations.⁸

Mandatory Conservation Programs

Mandatory conservation programs are generally authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive funding from the CCC—thus, they do not require an annual appropriation.⁹ The 2018 farm bill reauthorized mandatory funding for many of the agricultural conservation programs through FY2023.¹⁰ Because most of these programs are classified as mandatory, nonexempt spending, they are reduced annually by sequestration.¹¹

President Trump's FY2021 budget requested a reduction of $40 million annually to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and the elimination of the Conservation Stewardship Program. Both programs were reauthorized to receive mandatory funding in the 2018 farm bill through FY2023. The FY2021 appropriation does not reduce these or other mandatory farm bill conservation programs.

Farm Production and Conservation Business Center

The FPAC mission area was created in 2017 as part of a larger departmental reorganization.¹² FPAC includes NRCS, FSA, the Risk Management Agency (RMA), and a new FPAC Business Center. The FPAC Business Center is responsible for the financial management, budgeting, human resources, information technology, acquisitions/procurement, strategic planning, and other customer-oriented operations of three agencies—NRCS, FSA, and RMA.¹³ Congress reduced funding for NRCS, FSA, and RMA in FY2019 to realign funding and staff to the FPAC Business Center.¹⁴

The FY2021 appropriation includes $292 million for the FPAC Business Center. The FY2021 enacted level is $9.1 million more than the enacted FY2020 appropriation of $282.8 million and $12.3 million less than the Trump Administration's requested level of $304.3 million (see Table 2). According to the Trump Administration's FY2021 budget request, the proposed increase in funding is mostly the result of increased salary costs; it also reflects the shifting of funds and personnel from NRCS geospatial and public affairs activities ($5.9 million, 39 staff years), FSA salaries and expenses associated with the Food for Peace program (P.L. 83-480, also known as P.L. 480), and CCC Export Loan programs ($430,000, 4 staff years).¹⁵

The explanatory statement of the FY2021 appropriation cites concerns related to the Business Center's delays in filling critical vacancies, potentially resulting in delayed deployment of conservation and commodity programs. The explanatory statement also states that Congress does not support the co-location of FPAC agency state offices into General Services Administration locations if it is not in the best interest of USDA employees, customers, and taxpayers. The statement directs USDA to produce a report to the Appropriations Committees within 90 days of enactment on proposed co-locations of FPAC agency state offices, associated cost-saving benefits, and anticipated improvements in customer service.

USDA did not deliver a previously required FY2020 report to Congress on the center's efficiency gains, the metrics by which such gains are measured, and its hiring acceleration and reorganization plans. The report was due February 2020, but USDA did was not provide it according to the FY2021 explanatory statement. The House report (H.Rept. 116-446) expressed support for the FPAC digital records initiative that seeks to reduce paper-based forms at the field office level. The House report also expressed concern over large unspent funding balances in the FPAC mission area at the end of FY2019.

The FY2021 appropriation directs a transfer of funds to the FPAC Business Center from other accounts, including mandatory conservation programs, international food aid, and export loan accounts.¹⁶ If the amount shifted would have been used for NRCS administrative or technical assistance had the Business Center not been created, then this transfer could result in NRCS effectively receiving less in total funding. In total, the direct appropriation and transfer of funds would provide the FPAC Business Center with $292 million in FY2021 (see Table 2).

Policy-Related Provisions

In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bill may also include policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out an appropriation. These provisions may have the force of law if they are included in the text of an appropriations act, but their effect is generally limited to the current fiscal year (see Table 3). Policy-related provisions in appropriations acts generally do not amend the U.S. Code, nor do they have long-standing effects.

For example, the WFPO program has historically been called the "small watershed program" because no project may exceed 250,000 acres, and no structure may exceed 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity or 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity. The FY2021 enacted appropriation includes a policy provision that waives the 250,000-acre project limit when the project's primary purpose is something other than flood prevention.¹⁷ This provision does not amend the WFPO authorization and therefore is effective only for the funds provided during the current appropriation year.¹⁸

Table 3 compares some of the policy provisions in the Farm Production and Conservation Programs (Title II) and General Provisions (Title VII) titles of the FY2020 and FY2021 Agriculture appropriations bills related to conservation. Many of these provisions were also included in past years' appropriations acts. The table is divided by agency and account according to their location within the FY2020 and FY2021 acts.

Beyond the text of the appropriations act, the explanatory statement that accompanies the final appropriations—and the House and Senate report language that generally accompanies the committee-reported bills—may also provide policy instructions. These documents do not have the force of law but often explain congressional intent, which Congress expects the agencies to follow. The committee reports and explanatory statement may need to be read together to capture all of the congressional intent for a given fiscal year.

According to the FY2021 explanatory statement, the House report (H.Rept. 116-446) carries the same weight as the explanatory statement.¹⁹ In FY2021, the Senate did not formally introduce an Agriculture appropriations bill or report language.²⁰ Therefore, Table 4 does not include the draft Senate report language.

Many of these provisions have been included in past years' appropriations acts. Some provisions in report language and bill text address conservation programs that are not authorized or funded within the annual appropriations (i.e., mandatory spending for farm-bill-authorized programs). Table 4 is divided by the administering agency and by account, according to the location of each provision within the two reports.