The conservation title of a farm bill generally contains reauthorizations, amendments, and new programs that encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily implement resource-conserving practices on private land. Starting in 1985, farm bills have broadened the conservation agenda to include addressing multiple natural resource concerns, such as soil health, water quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat. Although the number of conservation programs has increased and techniques to address resource problems continue to emerge, the basic approach to agricultural conservation has not changed: provide financial and technical assistance to implement conservation systems supported by education and research programs.

As Congress begins the process of authorizing the next farm bill, areas of possible interest in the conservation title may include funding for programs, climate strategies for the agricultural sector, the backlog of unfunded applications, program participation by historically underserved producers, and technical assistance.

Current Conservation Portfolio

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers conservation programs through either the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Agricultural conservation programs can be grouped into the following five categories: working lands programs, land retirement programs, easement programs, partnership and grant programs, and conservation compliance (see text box).

Other types of conservation programs—such as watershed programs, emergency land rehabilitation programs, and technical assistance—are authorized in nonfarm-bill legislation. Most of these programs have permanent authorities and receive appropriations annually through the discretionary appropriations process. These programs generally are not addressed in farm bill legislation unless amendments to the program are proposed.

Title II (Conservation) of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334) reauthorized and amended portions of most conservation programs with a focus on the large-cost programs, namely the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding (i.e., they do not require an annual appropriation) and include authorities that expire with other farm bill programs at the end of FY2023. For additional information on conservation programs in the 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45698, Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill.

Working Lands Programs

Working lands conservation programs implement various conservation practices to address natural resource concerns specific to an area while allowing private land to remain in production. Program participants receive some form of conservation planning and technical assistance to guide their decision on the most appropriate practices to apply, given the natural resource concerns and land condition. Participants receive federal financial support to defray a portion of the cost to install or maintain the vegetative, structural, or management practices agreed to in the terms of the program contract.

The two main working lands programs are EQIP and CSP; combined, they account for more than half of all conservation program funding. EQIP funds a percentage of the cost to implement approved conservation practices according to a conservation plan. EQIP participants can address resource concerns on all or a portion of their operation through one or more EQIP contract that pays upon completion of the practice(s). CSP provides annual and cost-share payments for adopting new conservation practices and continuing existing conservation efforts. CSP contracts are for five years with the possibility of renewal. CSP requires enrollment of a producer's entire operation.

Land Retirement Programs

Land retirement programs authorize USDA to make payments to private landowners to voluntarily retire land from production for less-resource intensive uses. The primary land retirement program is CRP. The program provides financial compensation (i.e., annual rental rate, incentive payments, and cost-share) for landowners to voluntarily remove land from agricultural production for an extended period, typically 10-15 years, for the benefit of soil and water quality improvement and wildlife habitat. CRP enrolls land through three types of enrollment options—general, continuous, and grasslands. CRP includes numerous subprograms and pilot programs that redirect portions of CRP to specific conservation goals, resource concerns, and land uses. Enrollment in CRP is limited to a national cap on the total number of acres allowed in the program in a given year.

Easement Programs

Easement programs impose a permanent or long-term land-use restriction on the land in exchange for a government payment. The primary conservation easement program is the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), which provides financial and technical assistance through two types of easements—agricultural land easements (ALE) and wetland reserve easements (WRE). ACEP-ALE limit nonagricultural uses on productive farm or grasslands by entering into partnership agreements with eligible entities to purchase permanent easements from willing landowners. ACEP-WRE protect and restore wetlands through 30-year easements, contracts, or permanent easements.

Partnership and Grant Programs

The farm bill authorizes agricultural conservation programs that provide grant or partnership opportunities to leverage federal funding with private funding to achieve specific conservation objectives or target specific geographic regions. The primary partnership program is the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), in which USDA enters into agreements with eligible partners to deliver conservation projects in specific geographical areas. Within an RCPP project, producers enter into contracts and agreements with USDA to carry out eligible conservation activities similar to other conservation programs (e.g., EQIP, CSP, and ACEP).

Other grant programs, such as Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) and On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials, offer competitive grants to support the development of innovative tools, approaches, practices, and technologies on agricultural land. The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program offer grants to states for wildlife control and recreation activities.

Conservation Compliance

The Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill; P.L. 99-198) created the highly erodible lands conservation and wetland conservation compliance programs, which tied various farm program benefits to conservation standards. This provision has been amended numerous times to remove certain farm program benefits and add others. The 2018 farm bill made few changes to compliance requirements.

Funding for Conservation

The majority of farm bill conservation programs are funded through USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) as mandatory spending.¹ Mandatory spending can be thought of as multiyear appropriations in authorizing legislation (e.g., a farm bill). These authorizations do not require an annual appropriation. Mandatory conservation programs receive either a statutorily authorized level of funding (e.g., $1.75 billion available for a conservation program during a fiscal year) or an acreage allotment (e.g., enroll up to 32 million acres nationally). Mandatory funds from the authorizing law are available unless they are expressly reduced to smaller amounts by a subsequent act of Congress, usually initiated in the appropriations process or by the authorizing committees.

The conservation title is one of the larger non-nutrition titles of the farm bill. It accounts for 7% of the total projected 2018 farm bill cost at enactment, or $60 billion of the total $867 billion in 10-year mandatory funding it authorized (FY2019-FY2028). Spending for agricultural conservation programs generally increased from $2.3 billion in FY2002 to over $5.1 billion in total outlays in FY2022 (unadjusted for inflation). Annual projected outlays beyond FY2026 are projected to plateau around $6 billion (Figure 1) assuming programs are reauthorized with no changes.²

In addition to funding authorized in the 2018 farm bill, Congress provided nearly $17 billion for selected farm bill conservation programs in the reconciliation bill commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA; P.L. 117-169). Funding in the IRA was primarily directed toward EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP and is available until expended through FY2031.³

Figure 1. Farm Bill Conservation Program Mandatory Spending, FY2002-FY2033 Outlays in billions of dollars (actuals adjusted for inflation through FY2022)

Sources: CRS using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline data, FY2001-FY2023; and Office of Management and Budget, Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product [GDP] and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2028, March 2023. Notes: FY2002-FY2022 include actual spending levels adjusted for inflation to 2022 dollars using the GDP price deflator. FY2023-FY2032 are projected spending levels in current year dollars. Chart does not include sequestration or savings from repealed programs.

Potential Issues for the Next Farm Bill

Budget and Baseline Issues

Budgetary constraints and baseline funding may affect conservation in the next farm bill. Most conservation programs authorized in farm bills receive mandatory funding. The conservation title has experienced both increases and decreases in recent farm bills but generally remains about 7% of total mandatory spending in the bill.⁴ Overall, the 2018 farm bill was budget neutral over the 10-year baseline; the conservation title was one of three titles that experienced a reduction in mandatory program funding.⁵ The majority of this reduction came from changes to CSP. If Congress chooses to expand the conservation title in the next farm bill, under current budget rules, it would need to pay for the expansion with offsets from other sources or farm bill titles. Conversely, reductions to the conservation title could serve as offsets for other congressional priorities.

Conservation Programs with No Baseline

Nineteen provisions in the 2018 farm bill received mandatory budget authority but are not assumed to receive such funding in the budget baseline beyond the original expiration of the 2018 farm bill (FY2023).⁷ Of these 19 provisions, three are for programs within the conservation title (Table 1). These three programs received $130 million in mandatory funding in the 2018 farm bill. Under current budget rules, if policymakers want to continue these programs they would need to pay for them with offsets.

Supplemental Funding

The IRA provided an additional $17 billion in budget authority for farm bill conservation programs.⁸ Funding in the IRA was primarily directed toward EQIP ($8.0 billion), CSP ($3.1 billion), ACEP ($1.3 billion), and RCPP ($4.7 billion) and is available until expended through FY2031.⁹ Program funds are directed to climate change-related conservation practices that improve soil carbon; reduce nitrogen losses; or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production.¹⁰ The IRA also provided additional funding for conservation programs and activities typically conducted through nonfarm bill authorities, including conservation technical assistance ($1.0 billion), the carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions quantification program ($300 million), and administrative expenses ($100 million).

The funding provided in the IRA for conservation programs is supplemental and in addition to mandatory funding authorized to the conservation programs as part of the farm bill baseline (Figure 2). Unlike the farm bill authorized funding for agricultural conservation, IRA funding is temporary and may not be expended beyond FY2031.¹¹ The additional IRA funding is expected to influence the farm bill debate for conservation funding, though the actual impact is uncertain.

Figure 2. Conservation Program Funding: Farm Bill and Inflation Reduction Act FY2022-FY2033

Source: CRS using Congressional Budget Office (CBO), "CBO's February 2023 Baseline from Farm Programs," February 2023. Notes: ACEP = Agriculture Conservation Easement Program; CRP = Conservation Reserve Program; CSP = Conservation Stewardship Program; EQIP = Environmental Quality Incentives Program; IRA = Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169); and RCPP = Regional Conservation Partnership Program. "Other" includes mandatory spending for the Agricultural Management Assistance, Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program, Grassroots Source Water Protection, Feral Swine Eradication, Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, Watershed Rehabilitation, and reductions from the transfer of amounts to the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center.

Additional supplemental funding was also provided for the NRCS watershed programs in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title I). The IIJA provided $500 million to the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) program, $118 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, and $300 million for the Emergency Watershed Protection program.¹² The watershed programs were enacted outside of farm bill legislation and historically receive annual appropriations. The 2018 farm bill, however, authorized $50 million in permanent annual mandatory funding for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Similar to the IRA funding, the IIJA funding is supplemental and outside of the farm bill baseline. Unlike the IRA funding, USDA has announced the obligation of over $719 million of the IIJA funding, making it less likely to be rescinded or repurposed for other farm bill spending.¹³

Figure 3. Farm Bill Conservation Program Budget Authority by Type 2002, 2008, 2014, and 2018 farm bills

Source: CRS using CBO baseline data, FY2001-FY2023. Notes: Figure includes mandatory funding for farm bill authorized conservation programs. The 2002, 2008, and 2014 farm bill charts cover the period after enactment to the next bill's passage and are adjusted for reductions, rescissions, and sequestration. The 2018 farm bill chart is based on the CBO estimate of budget authority for the life of the farm bill (FY2018-FY2023). Funding for conservation education, extension and research, and discretionary spending are not included.

Shifts in Funding for Conservation Programs, by Category

The overall farm bill baseline can limit the total funding available to write a farm bill; however, how this total funding is divided by title and program can vary with congressional priorities. The amount of funding authorized in the conservation title increased with each farm bill until the 2018 farm bill (Figure 1). How that funding has been allocated to different conservation program types has shifted over time (Figure 3).

Since the 2002 farm bill, land retirement programs, namely CRP, make up a smaller percentage of the conservation title portfolio. In contrast, funding has increased for working lands programs (i.e., EQIP and CSP) as well as partnership programs (i.e., RCPP). Supplemental funding from the IRA that funded EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP but not CRP further magnifies this shift in programs. Some of this shift can be attributed to external factors that can affect participation, such as high commodity prices that can cause interest in land retirement programs to decline. Other factors, such as advances in conservation technology can increase interest in working lands programs that allow land to remain in production while achieving environmental goals. The increased use of partnership programs that leverage federal funding could continue depending on congressional support. If spending limits restrict the overall size of the conservation title then debate could center on the mix of conservation program funding that makes up the conservation title portfolio.

Programmatic Issues

Climate Change and Carbon Markets

Current agriculture sector strategies for addressing climate change, through both adaptation and mitigation, rely on the delivery of voluntary conservation technical assistance and financial support programs. Most farm bill conservation programs are designed to address multiple concerns through locally adaptable practices. Thus, no existing conservation program is specific to climate change adaptation or mitigation, but most programs can integrate adaptation to changes in climate within their current structure.

As part of the next farm bill, Congress may evaluate how well farm bill conservation programs assist producers in achieving climate change-related goals and how additional funding provided through the IRA could affect achievement of these goals. The IRA provided $17 billion in additional funding for EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP (see Figure 2). Funding is directed to conservation practices and enhancements that achieve climate change-related goals and prioritize mitigation activities. For example, funding provided to EQIP is required to be for one or more agricultural conservation practices or enhancements that USDA determines would directly improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions, associated with agricultural production.¹⁴ Investments in measuring and monitoring the effects of the NRCS conservation practices funded through the working lands programs have resulted in the identification of a suite of conservation practices that may deliver quantifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, increases in carbon sequestration, or both.¹⁵ NRCS refers to these as "climate-smart mitigation activities."¹⁶ From FY2018 through FY2022, NRCS practice data indicate that approximately $2.6 billion has been obligated to NRCS identified climate-smart mitigation activities.¹⁷ This is roughly 35% of all reported program obligations during the same period.¹⁸

In addition to the increased funding provided in the IRA, the 117^th Congress debated and enacted legislation related to carbon markets and the role agriculture could play in them. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (FY2023 appropriation; P.L. 117-328) included two new provisions. The first provision requires USDA to establish a greenhouse gas technical assistance provider and third-party verifier program.¹⁹ The role of agriculture in carbon markets has produced a variety of perspectives, including support for and opposition to a USDA role in standardizing voluntary carbon markets for agriculture and forestry.²⁰ This debate could carry into the next farm bill, including what role the conservation title could play in assisting producers to generate carbon credits or support carbon markets. The second provision in the FY2023 appropriation amends the farm bill conservation title requiring USDA to establish contribution accounts for public-private partnership projects.²¹ These projects can address natural resource priorities, including but not limited to climate change and carbon sequestration, and leverage existing conservation program funds.

Congress may also assess USDA initiatives related to climate change, including the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities. In September 2022, USDA announced the selection of 70 projects, totaling $2.8 billion in funding, in the initiative's first funding pool.²² USDA announced a second funding pool in December 2022 and included an additional 71 projects totaling $325 million.²³ The initiative finances partnerships that implement climate-smart production practices; measure, quantify, and verify greenhouse gas benefits associated with climate-smart practices; and develop markets that promote the resulting climate benefits.²⁴ How USDA implements these climate-focused initiatives and pilot projects may influence development of the conservation title.

Unfunded Applications and Interest

Arguments for expanding conservation programs in earlier farm bills were persuasive in light of evidence that large numbers of unfunded, eligible applications were unable to enroll in conservation programs due to a lack of funds. Debate on a new farm bill could see similar arguments. Demand to participate in many of the conservation programs exceeds available program dollars several times over in some programs.

Acceptance rates and backlogs for conservation programs vary by program and program type. In general, working lands programs continue to experience low acceptance rates, whereas recent sign-ups under land retirement programs have had higher acceptance rates. For example, in FY2022, USDA funded 56% of eligible program applications received for EQIP, an increase from FY2021 and FY2020, which funded 54% and 44% of eligible applications respectively.²⁵ By comparison, the 2022 CRP general sign-up had nearly 2.3 million acres offered for enrollment and almost 2.1 million acres were accepted (90%).²⁶ Policy issues beyond funding levels can affect application acceptance rates. Large, ongoing backlogs of unfunded applications could provide a case for additional funding, whereas other policy mechanisms could be proposed to reduce demand.

Funding and Program Expiration

For many conservation programs, program authority is permanent. Therefore, it is the authority to receive funding that is of most interest since funding authority could affect the program's operation the most if that authority were to expire. Discretionary spending is authorized through the farm bill for some conservation programs. However, since most appropriations law allows the continued operation of a program where only appropriation action has occurred, it is generally the programs that rely on mandatory funding that are most impacted when funding authority expires.²⁷ Without reauthorization or an extension, these mandatorily funded programs would cease to operate or undertake new activities following the expiration of funding authority.

Most farm bill authorized conservation programs have program and funding authority that runs for the duration of the farm bill, typically four to six years in duration.²⁸ Many of the programs authorized in the 2018 farm bill were authorized through FY2023. The IRA extended certain conservation programs and their funding authority through the IRA's 10-year budget window—through FY2031. This has resulted in some conservation programs expiring at the end of FY2023 and others at the end of FY2031. Table 2 includes the expiration date of most farm bill conservation programs by type of funding authority—mandatory or discretionary.

The IRA extended only certain policy provisions within the funded conservation programs. Therefore, some programs that are extended through FY2031 contain policy provisions that expire at the end of FY2023. Without reauthorization or extension, policy provisions expiring in FY2023 would no longer apply to funds provided for the overall program that continues. For example, under EQIP, the following policy provisions were either extended through FY2031 or will expire at the end FY2023:

Expires in FY2023

• Livestock funding. Requires 50% of funding be used for payments related to livestock practices.
• Payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments to $450,000 per person or legal entity for the duration of the 2018 farm bill.
• Organic payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments related to organic production to $140,000 per person or legal entity for the duration of the 2018 farm bill.

Extended to FY2031

• Wildlife habitat funding. Requires 10% of funding be used for payments related to wildlife habitat.
• Air quality funding. Requires $37.5 million annually be used for payments for air quality concern practices.
• On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials. Requires that $25 million annually be used to carry out on-farm conservation innovation trials.

Historically Underserved Producers

Beginning with the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 farm bill; P.L. 107-171), programs within the conservation title of farm bills have included provisions providing preference to select farmers and ranchers. The type of agricultural producers receiving preference has expanded over time to include beginning, socially disadvantaged, limited resource, and veteran farmers and ranchers—collectively referred to as historically underserved.²⁹ Some of the conservation programs, namely EQIP, CSP, and RCPP, include additional incentives or designated funding levels for these producers. Many of these provisions were reauthorized in the 2018 farm bill and some were extended as part of the IRA. For example, annually 5% of EQIP and CSP funds are allocated to beginning farmers or ranchers and another 5% to socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers with preference given to veterans.³⁰ This allocation originated in the 2008 farm bill, was reauthorized in in the 2014 and 2018 farm bills, and extended by the IRA through FY2031.³¹

According to available data (Table 3), participation by historically underserved producers varies by program. Both EQIP and CSP include specific incentives for historically underserved farmers and ranchers, such as higher cost-share rates, advanced payment options, and funding set-asides. In the absence of additional information, it is unclear to what extent these additional incentives contribute to the participation rates of historically underserved, and to what extent other factors, such as the total amount of funding available for a program and program's purpose, are influential.³²

Other provisions, such as those included in CRP, provide land access to selected individuals through the Transition Incentives Program (TIP). TIP facilitates the transfer of CRP acres from a retiring owner to a beginning, socially disadvantaged, or veteran producer to return land to production. In exchange, the retiring owner receives up to two additional years of annual CRP rental payments following expiration of the CRP contract. The 2018 farm bill limited TIP to $50 million for the duration of the farm bill (FY2019-FY2023), including $5 million for outreach.

Each successive farm bill has added to the type of producers included as historically underserved and/or the provisions allocating incentives or funding to a particular group. Additional incentives could be sought for historically underserved producers in the upcoming farm bill. Similarly, additional flexibilities for groups under the current definition of historically underserved could be sought. For example, some tribal nations are seeking an expansion of alternative funding arrangements under EQIP and CSP through which funding can be directly provided to tribes.³³ Environmental interest groups are seeking increased conservation funding in the next farm bill, including priority for the needs of historically underserved producers.³⁴

Technical Assistance

Technical assistance is provided as part of all farm bill conservation programs, primarily by NRCS.³⁵ This assistance provides conservation knowledge to producers and landowners and includes information, technical expertise (e.g., engineering, biological, and agronomic), and a local delivery system (e.g., county offices) for assisting landowners and users to conserve and use natural resources.³⁶ At the landowner's request, NRCS provides technical assistance through a network of federal staff located throughout the United States, that serve as technical conservation experts with knowledge of local conditions. Other USDA and non-USDA agencies also may provide technical assistance to address resource concerns, though this assistance may not necessarily be in connection with farm bill programs.³⁷

Technical assistance for agricultural conservation is funded through both mandatory and discretionary sources (see Figure 4). The Conservation Operations account is the primary discretionary account that funds NRCS technical assistance activities through the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program.³⁸ 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.

Figure 4. FY2023 Total Estimate of NRCS Technical Assistance, by Program Budget authority in millions of dollars

Source: Figure created by CRS using USDA, FY2024 Budget Explanatory Notes—Natural Resources Conservation Service, p. 31. Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding. NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service; ACEP = Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; CSP = Conservation Stewardship Program; EQIP = Environmental Quality Incentives Program; GHG = Greenhouse Gas; IRA = Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169); PMC = Plant Material Centers; and RCPP = Regional Conservation Partnership Program. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79) repealed and consolidated several farm bill conservation programs. The repealed and consolidated programs are no longer authorized, but have valid contracts that continue to require technical assistance. These programs are referred to as Expired Farm Bill Programs and include Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, Grassland Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Other Farm Bill Programs include the NRCS portion of Agricultural Management Assistance, Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot, and Healthy Forest Reserve Program.

Technical assistance is also funded through the farm bill conservation programs that receive mandatory funding. 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 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 mandatory program.

Increased mandatory funding for the farm bill conservation programs, therefore generally require a corresponding increase in discretionary funding since technical assistance prior to a financial assistance contract generally is funded through discretionary spending accounts (i.e., CTA). For example, the IRA which increased farm bill conservation programs, provided additional funding for CTA.³⁹ Proposals to further increase conservation programs in the next farm bill without an increase in discretionary spending accounts could hinder implementation. Additionally, Congress could consider how technical assistance is currently funded and whether additional changes could be made to the current accounting structure.

Watershed Programs

While originally enacted as stand-alone legislation and not typically amended through a farm bill, increased interest in the USDA watershed programs could drive further amendments or funding in the next farm bill. USDA provides assistance for watershed activities under three primary programs that are administered by NRCS. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) program authorizes NRCS to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local organizations to plan and install measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage and to conserve, develop, and utilize land and water resources.⁴⁰ The Watershed Rehabilitation Program funds rehabilitation projects for dams previously constructed under WFPO in order to bring them into compliance with applicable safety and performance standards or to decommission the dams so they no longer pose a threat to life and property.⁴¹ The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program provides technical and financial assistance to reduce hazards to life and property in watersheds damaged by natural disasters.⁴²

The 2018 farm bill authorized $50 million annually in permanent mandatory funding for WFPO and Watershed Rehabilitation Program activities. The mandatory funding is in addition to discretionary funding usually provided through annual appropriations. All three watershed programs were provided additional funds through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58).⁴³ These additional funds have renewed interest from local project sponsors in the watershed programs and could result in expanded congressional interest during the next farm bill debate.

Conservation Compliance

The Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill; P.L. 99-198) created the highly erodible lands conservation and wetland conservation compliance programs, which tied various farm program benefits to conservation standards. This provision has been amended numerous times to remove certain farm program benefits and add others. The 2018 farm bill made relatively few changes to compliance requirements. Some view these conservation compliance requirements as burdensome, and they are unpopular among producer groups. Conservation compliance has remained a controversial issue since its introduction in the 1985 farm bill, and debate on its existence and effectiveness is likely to continue.