[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE'S NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE AND FARM
SERVICE AGENCY

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
__________

MAY 23, 2023
__________

Serial No. 118-13

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-530 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina,
BARRY MOORE, Alabama Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

______

Parish Braden, Staff Director

Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology

JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER,
MIKE BOST, Illinois Virginia, Ranking Minority Member
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
KAT CAMMACK, Florida ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN S. DUARTE, California ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
MARK ALFORD, Missouri JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Alford, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from Missouri,
submitted letter............................................... 47
Baird, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Spanberger, Hon. Abigail Davis, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia, opening statement.................................... 3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5

Witnesses

Cosby, Terry, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Supplementary material....................................... 49
Submitted questions.......................................... 75
Ducheneaux, Zach, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Supplementary material....................................... 49
Submitted questions.......................................... 81

Submitted Material

Kiernan, Tom, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Rivers, submitted letters...................................... 50

HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE'S NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE AND FARM
SERVICE AGENCY

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2023

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James R.
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Baird, Lucas, Miller of
Illinois, Cammack, Finstad, Duarte, Alford, Thompson (ex
officio), Miller of Ohio, Spanberger, Budzinski, Sorensen,
Tokuda, Vasquez, and Costa.
Staff present: Adele Borne, John Busovsky, Patricia
Straughn, Erin Wilson, John Konya, Kate Fink, Amar Nair, and
Dana Sandman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. BAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM INDIANA

The Chairman. Good morning and thank you for joining this
Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation
Service and from the Farm Service Agency. After brief opening
remarks, Members will receive testimony from our witnesses, and
then the hearing will be open to questions. In consultation
with the Ranking Member, and pursuant to Rule XI(e), I want to
make the Members of the Subcommittee aware that other Members
of the full Committee may join us today.
With that, I am going to make my opening statement, and
just want to say good morning again. It is a pleasure for me to
be here, and I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing to
discuss the implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill, and the
conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, better known as the NRCS, and the Farm
Service Agency, which is FSA. Today's hearing is an opportunity
for Members of this Committee to engage directly with NRCS and
FSA on implementation of the current farm bill and hear what we
should consider as we move forward with the reauthorization
process.
Our farm bill conservation programs, and the conservation
delivery system, is a proven model and it is critical for
addressing the many natural resource concerns of farmers,
ranchers, and landowners. Farm bill conservation programs are
voluntary, and they are incentive-based, providing direct
benefits to both the environment and the producer alike.
Another effective component of the farm bill's conservation
programs is that many of them are locally-led. This allows
flexibility in popular programs such as the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, better known as EQIP, and the
Conservation Stewardship Program, CSP. I am hopeful that as we
move forward with the 2023 Farm Bill, we can build on positive
reforms of the last few farm bills, protect the essential
conservation programs, and ensure that Title II programs always
remain producer-first.
In recent years conservation programs have received more
attention because of the climate-related co-benefits they
provide. I recognize the importance of these co-benefits, but I
also think that we shouldn't completely reorient Title II
programs towards any one natural resource concern. The
Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) provided significant
new funding for the four conservation programs with climate-
specific funding requirements in place, meaning they must
sequester carbon or directly reduce emissions. Despite the
initial price tag of nearly $20 billion, the Congressional
Budget Office predicts that the Department will spend roughly
$15.3 billion over the authorized period. This funding comes on
top of the $3.1 billion the Administration authorized through
the Climate-Smart Commodities Program, which was funded by the
Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, and was created with no
Congressional authority.
I believe that as we conduct our review of the 2018 Farm
Bill's conservation title, we must examine this enormous influx
in funding, and how these dollars are being allocated by USDA.
While many conservation programs are oversubscribed, additional
funding can't get out the door unless we have the boots on the
ground and the available technical assistance providers. And
this is why I was proud to introduce the Increased TSP Access
Act of 2023 (H.R. 3036) with Ranking Member Spanberger, which
will address the Technical Service Provider shortages.
Finally, as we look at the farm bill's conservation
programs, we must ensure that Title II programs will always be
voluntary, incentive-based, producer-first, and locally-led.
With that, I look forward to today's discussion, and would like
to welcome our witnesses, Mr. Terry Cosby, Chief of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service--very glad to have you with us--
and Mr. Zach Ducheneaux, Administrator for the Farm Service
Agency. Thank you both for your service and for being here this
morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in Congress
from Indiana
Good morning. Welcome everyone to today's hearing to discuss
implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill, and conservation programs
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and
the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
Today's hearing is an opportunity for Members of this Committee to
engage directly with NRCS and FSA on implementation of the current farm
bill and hear what we should consider as we move forward with the
reauthorization process.
Our farm bill conservation programs and the conservation delivery
system is a proven model and is critical for addressing the many
natural resource concerns before farmers, ranchers, and landowners.
Farm bill conservation programs are voluntary and incentive-based,
providing direct benefits to both the environment and the producer
alike.
Another effective component of the farm bill's conservation
programs is that many of them are locally-led. This allows for
flexibility in popular programs such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP).
I am hopeful that as we move forward with the 2023 Farm Bill, we
can build on positive reforms of the last few farm bills, protect the
essential conservation programs, and ensure that Title II programs
always remain producer-first.
In recent years, conservation programs have received more attention
because of the climate-related co-benefits they provide. I recognize
the importance of these co-benefits, but I also think that we shouldn't
completely reorient Title II programs towards any one natural resource
concern.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided significant new funding for
four conservation programs with climate-specific funding requirements
in place, meaning they sequester carbon or directly reduce emissions.
Despite the initial price tag of nearly $20 billion, the
Congressional Budget Office predicts that the Department will spend
roughly $15.3 billion over the authorized period. This funding comes on
top of the $3.1 billion the Administration authorized through the
Climate-Smart Commodities Program, which was funded by the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) and was created with no Congressional
authority.
I believe that as we conduct our review of the 2018 Farm Bill's
conservation title, we must examine this enormous influx in funding and
how these dollars are being allocated by USDA.
While many conservation programs are oversubscribed, additional
funding can't get out the door unless we have the boots on the ground
and the available technical assistance providers. This is why I was
proud to introduce the Increased TSP Access Act of 2021 with Ranking
Member Spanberger, which will address the Technical Service Provider
shortages.
Finally, as we look at the farm bill's conservation programs, we
must ensure that Title II programs will always be voluntary, incentive-
based, producer-first, and locally-led.
With that, I look forward to today's discussion and would like to
welcome our witnesses: Mr. Terry Cosby, Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Mr. Zach Ducheneaux, Administrator of the
Farm Service Agency.
Thank you both for your service and for being here this morning.
With that, I will yield to Ranking Member Spanberger for any opening
remarks she would like to make.

The Chairman. And with that, I will yield to Ranking Member
Spanberger for any opening remarks that she would like to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA

Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Chairman Baird. I appreciate the
opportunity to hear from these two witnesses about USDA's
conservation work, and I thank you for hosting this hearing.
Thank you for being here today, Chief Cosby and Administrator
Ducheneaux. I almost don't recognize you without your hat on.
Thanks for being here.
Last month I convened a farm bill summit in my district to
hear directly from Virginia crop and livestock producers, farm
groups, and conservation organizations about their priorities
as we work to craft and advance this year's farm bill. We had
over 100 people in attendance and heard from a wide range of
commodities and perspectives. And I would like to thank
Administrator Ducheneaux for attending, for sharing his
thoughts about FSA's important work, answering some questions
of my constituents, and, most importantly, listening to
Virginia's farmers, their questions and their feedback.
Throughout the day farmers shared the value of NRCS
conservation programs to their operations. They explained that
these programs are critical for their ability to fund and start
conservation projects on their land and receive payments for
protecting land, among other benefits of these programs.
Farmers also shared some of the challenges that they
experienced in enrolling in these programs. One Virginia farmer
shared that he spent over a year waiting to enroll in EQIP due
to the program being oversubscribed, and a shortage of
Technical Service Providers in the area, which resulted in a
long wait to get a TSP to come out to his operation and help
develop the plan that he needed to enroll.
In the last year we have made historic investments in
meeting producers' demand for these programs through additional
funding, and this is an important step to make sure these funds
are there for farmers who want to enroll in these, as the
Chairman said, voluntary conservation programs. And now we need
to focus on making it easier for farmers to enroll in these
programs.
Among the opportunities to strengthen these programs is the
bipartisan bill, that I am proud to co-lead with Chairman
Baird, the Increased TSP Access Act, which will help boost the
number of Technical Service Providers to provide assistance to
America's farmers and ranchers. And I want to thank Chairman
Baird for his leadership and partnership on this legislation,
and I look forward to other opportunities where this
Subcommittee can strengthen NRCS conservation programs in a
bipartisan basis.
In closing, I look forward to learning more about NRCS and
FSA's work, hearing from you both today, hearing what my
colleagues are hearing from the producers in their districts,
and our discussion about how the farm bill can help support
your important missions and our shared goals in moving
conservation forward. These programs are popular across all
regions and commodities, so we must continue to work with
partners to leverage these resources to help farmers, ranchers,
and foresters continue their work as the original
conservationists that they are. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back and next we have
the Chairman of the entire Agriculture Committee, Mr. ``GT''
Thompson, and I open the floor for any remarks he would like to
make. ``GT''?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Thompson. Well, I thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking
Member Spanberger. I really appreciate today's hearing and the
opportunity to hear from Chief Cosby and Administrator
Ducheneaux. Conservation has always been a high priority for
me. I am proud of the great work the Committee has done in the
past on this important title, and I am hopeful that we will
make further improvements in the 2023 Farm Bill. Historically,
we start with the question of what is working and what can be
improved, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on
that very concept.
In addition to that question, I have serious concerns
whether the Department can effectively and efficiently
administer an unprecedented and uncoordinated increase in
funding showered on you by this Administration and the past
Democratic Congress. With the IRA funding, I believe we must
have a bipartisan, bicameral discussion on the best way to
administer this funding. We must admit that some of the funding
is unrealistic and would be better used by bringing it into the
baseline and spread out over a more realistic timeframe. I also
think we must remove the climate restrictions and let the
locally-led model continue without limitation.
As I did last fall, let me briefly summarize some of my
priorities. We can't prioritize one natural resource concern
over all others, and we shouldn't prioritize one solution above
all others. Our system of conservation delivery works because
it is voluntary, incentive-based, and are locally-led. That
locally-led component is important because different regions
have different local natural resource concerns that need to be
addressed. Second, we need to emphasize working lands. There is
a reason why EQIP is the most popular and effective program at
getting conservation on the ground.
Third, we need to encourage innovative solutions through
the conservation title. Agriculture has always relied on
science, and technology, and innovation, and we should
encourage that throughout the farm bill. Whether that is
through innovations like precision agriculture, or innovative
ideas like soil health grants to the states, we need to think
innovatively. Fourth, we need to encourage more work with the
private-sector and look to expand technical capacity where we
can. Legislation such as Chairman Baird's and Ranking Member
Spanberger's Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 are critical to
addressing this issue.
Fifth, we should be supporting working forests in the
conservation title. We should encourage forestlands to be a
part of Title II and reforms to allow for better management of
our National Forests. And finally, as I said at the beginning,
we need to look at what is working and what needs improvement.
We need to look at ways to simplify and modernize our programs.
A lot of the stakeholder input I hear is that RCPP and CRP need
to be evaluated and improved to ensure the original principles
of the programs continue to be fulfilled.
With that, I very much appreciate today's hearing, and
welcome our witnesses. Chief Cosby and Administrator
Ducheneaux, thank you for being here today, and we look forward
to your testimony and today's conversation. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Thank you, Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Spanberger. I
appreciate today's hearing and the opportunity to hear from Chief Cosby
and Administrator Ducheneaux.
Conservation has always been a high priority for me. I'm proud of
the great work the Committee has done in the past on this important
title and I'm hopeful that we will make further improvements in the
2023 Farm Bill.
Historically, we start with the question of what is working and
what can be improved, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
on that very concept. In addition to that question, I have serious
concerns whether the Department can effectively and efficiently
administer an unprecedented and uncoordinated increase in funding
showered on you by this Administration and the past Democratic
Congress.
With the IRA funding, I believe we must have a bipartisan,
bicameral discussion on the best way to administer this funding. We
must admit that some of the funding is unrealistic and would be better
used by bringing it into the baseline and spread out over a more
realistic timeframe. I also think we must remove the climate
restrictions and let the locally-led model continue without limitation.
As I did last fall, let me briefly summarize some of my priorities.
We can't prioritize one natural resource concern over all others and we
shouldn't prioritize one solution above all others. Our system of
conservation delivery works because it is voluntary, incentive-based,
and programs are locally-led. That locally-led component is important
because different regions have different local natural resource
concerns that need to be addressed.
Second, we need to emphasize working lands. There is a reason why
EQIP is the most popular and effective program at getting conservation
on the ground.
Third, we need to encourage innovative solutions throughout the
conservation title. Agriculture has always relied on science,
technology, and innovation, and we should encourage that throughout the
farm bill. Whether that is through innovations like precision
agriculture or innovative ideas like soil health grants to the states,
we need to think innovatively.
Fourth, we need to encourage more work with the private-sector and
look to expand technical capacity where we can. Legislation such as
Chairman Baird's and Ranking Member Spanberger's Increased TSP Access
Act of 2023 are critical to addressing this issue.
Fifth, we should be supporting working forests in the conservation
title. We should encourage forestlands to be part of Title II and
reforms to allow for better management of our National Forests.
Finally, as I said at the beginning, we need to look at what's
working and what needs improvement. We need to look at ways to simplify
and modernize our programs. A lot of the stakeholder input I hear is
that RCPP and CRP need to be evaluated and improved to ensure the
original principles of the programs continue to be fulfilled.
With that, I again appreciate today's hearing and welcome our
witnesses. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, thank you for
being here today. We look forward to your testimony and today's
conversation.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chair would
request that other Members submit their opening statements for
the record, so that the witnesses may begin their testimony and
ensure that there is ample time for questions.
Our first witness of the day is Mr. Terry Cosby, who is the
Chief of the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.
And, I really wish you all had the opportunity and time to read
the background and resume of our witnesses today. I think we
are very fortunate to have their expertise here, and so I
appreciate you being here. And, with that, Mr. Cosby, if you
would like to begin, you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF TERRY COSBY, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Cosby. Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Spanberger, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you about the critical support that
conservation programs provide for American agriculture as you
consider a new farm bill. My name is Terry Cosby, and I am
honored to serve as the Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, NRCS. I have spent the past 42 years of
my career at NRCS engaging with agriculture producers in rural
communities, helping them to invest in the land that they work.
My great-grandfather purchased our family farm in Tallahatchie
County, Mississippi in the late 1800s, and the importance of
conservation has been handed down through generations with that
family land.
The 2018 Farm Bill made it clear that voluntary
conservation programs are critical to the continued viability
of production agriculture. It also provides new incentives for
producers, and also creates new agricultural opportunities in
urban communities. The practices and systems supported through
our voluntary farm conservation programs provide critical
benefits for climate mitigation, climate adaptation, enhanced
wildlife habitat, improved water quality, and water
conservation to help agriculture producers make their
operations more resilient.
As we continue to work with producers to implement the 2018
Farm Bill, we are also excited about the historic, once in a
generation opportunity we have through the Inflation and
Reduction Act to increase the number of producers who can
participate in NRCS programs. NRCS moved quickly with our re-
implementation, announcing the availability of Fiscal Year 2023
funding on February 13th. Producers applying to implement
climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices and systems
through EQIP and CSP can now be funded through IRA, with sign-
ups and priorities continuing to be set at the local and state
level.
For ACEP we held a targeted national signup that
prioritized grasslands in areas of highest risk for conversions
and wetland soils high in organic carbon. The recent released
RCPP funding opportunity included farm bill and IRA funds for
Fiscal Year 2023. In order to effectively implement the IRA,
NRCS is expanding capacity, streamlining program delivery,
improving customer service, leveraging partnerships, and
advancing equity. As part of this effort, we saw public
feedback through a request for information, receiving over 450
comments from individuals, organizations, and producer groups.
We are putting these recommendations to work, and we will
continue to identify and adapt additional changes based on
public feedback in Fiscal Year 2024 and in future years.
Additionally, NRCS has stood up several teams to make our
programs more efficient and producer friendly. The RCPP team,
with input from stakeholders and employees, recently rolled out
changes to this program, including simplifying technical
assistance language, streamlining workforce process to reduce
implementation timelines, including additional flexibility for
easements to use covered programs, and emphasizing
participation by underserved producers and landowners.
Likewise, the ACEP team is streamlining workflow processes,
improving efficiencies in appraisals, appraisal reviews, and
boundary surveys timelines, expanding eligible entity
certification, and delegating approval authority to state
offices, which reduces the need for waivers.
To improve qualifications of greenhouse gas benefits of IRA
practices, the agency is forming strong collaboration across
USDA with its external partners. This will also improve the
agency's ability to track trends through the USDA GHG Inventory
and Assessment Program. NRCS's implementation of the IRA funds
on top of its record of timely and equitable implementation of
the bipartisan infrastructure law (Pub. L. 117-58). The BIL
provided $918 million to NRCS programs to rehab aging dams,
protect and restore wetlands, and provide recovery from natural
disasters. NRCS prioritized serving communities impacted by
severe weather, as well as underserved communities, including
Tribes.
NRCS's accomplishment would not be possible without our
more than 10,000 employees in every state and Territory across
the country. Agency employees work incredibly hard to connect
with farmers, ranchers, forestland owners, Tribes, and partners
to implement our many programs and initiatives. I am honored to
lead so many dedicated conservationists in my role, and I
appreciate Congress's support for NRCS and our work to build
resilient agriculture operations, combat climate change, ensure
equity, and support voluntary conservation on working lands. I
look forward to our discussion today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cosby follows:]

Prepared Statement of Terry Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Spanberger, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about
the continued value that conservation programs provide for American
agriculture. In implementing the programs authorized by the 2018 Farm
Bill, USDA has worked alongside producers to support and strengthen
agriculture, protect, and enhance our shared natural resources, build
resiliency, and mitigate climate change.
My name is Terry Cosby, and I am honored to serve as the Chief of
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), where I have spent
the past 42 years engaging with agricultural producers and rural
communities, helping them to invest in the lands that they work. My
great-grandfather purchased our family land in Tallahatchie County,
Mississippi in the late 1800s, and the importance of conservation has
been handed down through generations with that family land.
The 2018 Farm Bill made it clear that voluntary conservation
programs are critical to the continued viability of production
agriculture. It also provided new incentives for producers and created
new agricultural opportunities in urban communities.
The ongoing success of the farm bill conservation programs has led
to greater opportunity to make financial and technical assistance
available to agricultural producers and communities. Producer demand
for voluntary conservation continues to result in our programs being
oversubscribed. This is further driven by the opportunities available
through voluntary conservation to respond and build resiliency in the
face of devastating natural disasters while also reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and increasing carbon sequestration to help mitigate
climate change.
Recognizing the important role that conservation and watershed
programs, including the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Watershed
and Flood Prevention Operations Program, and the Emergency Watershed
Protection Program, can play in addressing critical needs across the
country, Congress provided much needed additional resources through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) as well as generational investments
provided by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to implement and quantify
the impacts of climate-smart conservation. These additional funds will
continue to support producers and communities in making long-term
conservation and infrastructure investments that enhance natural
resources, enable them to adapt to and mitigate climate change impacts,
and support increase resiliency. At NRCS, we are working to meet the
needs of our customers across the country and ensure effective and
efficient implementation of these laws while building upon the
investments contained in the 2018 Farm Bill. We are achieving this
while wisely using the resources entrusted to us by the Congress to
deliver on the President's promise to grow the economy from the bottom
up and middle out.
Farm Bill Program Implementation
NRCS staff successfully implemented the programs and authorities
provided under the 2018 Farm Bill and have continued to engage and
support agricultural producers in ways that protect and enhance our
shared natural resources.
NRCS administers a wide range of voluntary conservation programs to
support private landowners. Most are authorized by the farm bill,
including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program (ACEP), Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG), and the
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). These financial
assistance and easement programs make it possible to implement the
conservation plans that result from Conservation Technical Assistance
(CTA) work.
NRCS also provides technical assistance, conservation planning, and
support for conservation practice implementation for the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA).
NRCS conservation programs are carried out through USDA's most
extensive network of over 2,400 service centers providing direct
assistance to individual farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, and
other private landowners to restore and improve our natural resources.
Key priorities for the implementation of these programs and practices
are decided at the local level, with input from Local Working Groups
and State Technical Committees, to ensure local needs are addressed
through NRCS's voluntary programs.
NRCS provides technical assistance at no cost to the producers we
serve with the goal of giving our customers personalized advice and
information, based on the latest science and research, to help them
make informed decisions. The CTA Program is NRCS's conservation
planning program, helping to develop and deliver conservation
technologies and practices to private landowners, conservation
districts, Tribal Nations and other organizations. Through CTA, NRCS
works with landowners and managers to develop conservation plans that
outline the specific conservation activities to voluntarily conserve,
maintain, and improve natural resources. CTA funding is also used to
help agricultural producers comply with Highly Erodible Land
Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) compliance
provisions, in addition to other Federal, state, Tribal, and local
environmental regulations. Additional funds for technical assistance
are provided as part of the financial assistance programs to assist
producers in implementing conservation program contracts. NRCS also has
a process for certifying Technical Service Providers (TSPs), non-
government entities who can provide conservation assistance to
producers and thereby expand NRCS's technical capacity. NRCS also
enters into cooperative agreements with non-government partners who can
further assist producers by providing technical assistance.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): In Fiscal Year
(FY) 2022, NRCS enrolled 31,856 EQIP contracts providing over $1.28
billion on 9.6 million acres. Additionally, through the EQIP
Conservation Incentive Contracts option, offered in FY 2022 in all
states, we enrolled 696 contracts providing $50.5 million in
conservation assistance.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP): In FY 2022, through CSP
Classic, NRCS enrolled 5,332 CSP contracts providing over $436 million
on 9.5 million acres. Additionally, we renewed 2,628 CSP contracts on
3.3 million acres. Also, under CSP, in FY 2022, we enrolled 772
contracts on 48,884 acres in the CSP Grassland Conservation Initiative.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP): In August 2022,
NRCS announced new projects under the RCPP Classic and Alternative
Funding Arrangement (AFA) components. $197 million in new investments
was announced for a total of 41 RCPP Classic and AFA projects. There
are 400 active RCPP projects that have more than 2,000 partners.
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP): During FY 2022,
$352 million was obligated to enroll 351 new ACEP easements totaling
181,115 acres. In FY 2022 NRCS closed 260 ACEP easements totaling over
109,449 acres. Additionally, we invested $24.8 million in eight Wetland
Reserve Enhancement Partnership projects to enable conservation
partners to assist NRCS with acquiring and restoring private wetlands.
Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG): In FY 2021, NRCS awarded $40
million to conservation partners for 37 new projects under the CIG
program. These projects support widespread adoption and evaluation of
innovative conservation approaches in partnership with producers and
can address critical priorities including nutrient management, climate-
smart agriculture, adaptation, and resilience to support drought
related efforts. The Soil Health Demonstration Trial component of CIG
focuses exclusively on conservation practices implementation and
systems that improve soil health. For FY22, we invested $40 million in
31 projects, which was announced on April 6, 2023.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): In FY 2022, NRCS provided
conservation planning and technical assistance on over 5 million acres
for over 64,000 new or renewed CRP contracts across the nation.
Technical assistance includes, but is not limited to, field visits to
verify practice eligibility on the landscape, conservation planning,
CRP practice survey and design, practice installation, operation and
maintenance of practices and practice management. NRCS provides
technical assistance for emergency use of CRP such as haying and
grazing. NRCS is also working with the Farm Service Agency and selected
partners to support CRP Monitoring, Assessment and Evaluation projects.
Conservation Compliance: In FY 2022, NRCS completed over 35,700
highly erodible land determinations and over 18,800 certified wetland
determinations. NRCS also completed approximately 21,200 compliance
status reviews in 2022.
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Implementation
The IRA represents the single largest investment in climate and
clean energy solutions in American history. This is a historic, once-
in-a-generation investment and opportunity for this country and for the
rural and agricultural communities that USDA serves.
The IRA invests nearly $20 billion in NRCS's oversubscribed
conservation programs. These investments mean that more producers will
have access to conservation assistance. This includes:

$8.45 billion for EQIP

$4.95 billion for RCPP

$3.25 billion for CSP

$1.4 billion for ACEP

$1 billion for CTA Program

$300 million to measure, evaluate, quantify carbon
sequestration and greenhouse gas emission reductions from
conservation investments

These additional funds are important investments for farmers,
ranchers and private forest landowners to increase the resilience of
their operations and implement mechanisms to quantify greenhouse gas
emission reductions and increased carbon storage in the nation's soils
and trees. These funds are on top of otherwise available program
funding, and the voluntary, incentive-based approach is targeted to
support climate mitigation.
We are working towards improvements on implementation based on
feedback from our customers, partners, and employees. Staff are in the
process of addressing the public comments and streamlining our programs
to ensure they are easier and more accessible. A few examples are:

Feedback from stakeholders included, but was not limited to:

Staffing Capacity--recommendations were made to
strengthen and expand agency partnerships and increase
technical assistance funds

Climate-Smart Practices--requests that the agency
prioritize practices that provide the most co-benefits;
expand scope of practices; prioritize indigenous
communities; increase innovative practices, such as
investment in technological advancements

Equity--requests that the agency remove or reduce
match requirements for ACEP and RCPP for Historically
Underserved landowners; improve the agency's application
process; increase and improve agency engagement with Tribal
communities; increase the visibility of advance payment
options; continue to invest in land access for heirs'
property owners and new and beginning farmers and ranchers

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)--the agency
has several teams that are charged with developing a roadmap
for a simplified and streamlined program, anticipated by fall
2023.

Some anticipated changes include:

One announcement covers farm bill funding (RCPP Classic
and Alter-
native Funding Arrangements (AFA)) and IRA funding--up to
$500M.

Simplifies Technical Assistance language.

Streamlining workflow processes to reduce implementation
timelines.

Additional flexibility for easements to use covered
programs.

Emphasis on historically underserved producers and
landowners.

Emphasis on locally-led projects with collaboration at
the state level.

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)--the
agency is reducing implementation timelines for easement
programs by improving streamlined workflow processes,
efficiency in appraisals and appraisal reviews, boundary survey
timeline, expansion of eligible entity certification, and
delegation of approval authority to the state office, which
reduces the need for waivers.

Measuring, Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying (MMRV)--To
achieve the IRA quantification effort, the agency is forming
strong collaborations between USDA and external partners to
advance the quantification of greenhouse gas (GHGs) and carbon
sequestration. This will improve the agency's ability to
quantify the benefits from conservation activities and track
trends through the USDA GHG Inventory and Assessment Program.

Stakeholder engagement meeting is scheduled for May
11th to update them on agency progress.

NRCS is moving forward with FY 2023 implementation, while also
continuing to further expand capacity for the years ahead. On February
13, 2023, USDA announced the availability of $850 million in FY 2023
IRA funding for EQIP, CSP, ACEP and RCPP. Producers applying to
implement climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices and systems
through EQIP and CSP can now be funded through IRA, with sign-ups and
priorities continuing to be set at the state and local level. Funding
is provided through a competitive process and will also include
opportunities to respond to unmet demand. For FY 2023, NRCS will
prioritize ACEP Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE) for grasslands
in areas of highest risk for conversion to non-grassland uses to
prevent the release of soil carbon stores. NRCS will prioritize ACEP
Wetlands Reserve Easements (ACEP-WRE) for lands that contain soils high
in organic carbon. For both ACEP-ALE and ACEP-WRE, applications for the
first round of the IRA funding cycle closed on March 17, 2023. The
agency received 49 ACEP-ALE applications, with an estimated funding
request of $42,307,682 and 213 ACEP-WRE applications, with an estimated
funding request of $132,240,070. NRCS will expand options for ACEP in
FY 2024 and beyond as the funding levels increase.
Option 1
NRCS plans to roll out the next RCPP funding opportunity this
spring, which will include IRA funds for FY 2023. The announcement
targets IRA funds to maximize climate benefits.
Other opportunities for agreements and partnerships at the state
level will be announced for FY 2023 in the coming months, as state-
level partnerships are a core component of expanding capacity and
outreach to bring new participants in the door.
Option 2
NRCS recently announced the FY 2023 RCPP funding opportunity for up
to $500 million, for RCPP Classic and RCPP Alternative Funding
Arrangements (AFA) this did include IRA funds. The announcement targets
IRA funds to maximize climate benefits. The funding announcement
included the first step in improving the RCPP program and ongoing
efforts at USDA to streamline conservation programs.
To effectively implement the provisions of IRA, NRCS is developing
strategies to expand capacity through hiring, target funding,
streamline program delivery, leverage partnerships, advance equity, and
quantify outcomes. As part of this effort, NRCS published a Federal
Register Request for Information (RFI) in the Fall of 2022, requesting
public input on various aspects of IRA implementation. Through the RFI,
NRCS solicited feedback on how to maximize benefits for climate
mitigation, streamline and improve program delivery to increase
efficiencies, and expand program access for producers, especially
underserved producers. NRCS utilized initial RFI feedback for FY 2023
and will continue to identify and adopt additional changes based on
public feedback in FY 2024 and in future years.
Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry
NRCS is leveraging our conservation programs and tools to address
climate change mitigation and adaptation, while continuing to take a
comprehensive approach to natural resource conservation and ensuring
that underserved and urban producers receive the support they need to
meet their voluntary conservation goals.
Agriculture, forestry, and rural America are both uniquely affected
by climate change and positioned to be a meaningful part of the
solution. The Biden-Harris USDA, under Secretary Vilsack's leadership,
has embarked upon a department-wide effort to enact climate-smart
agriculture, forestry, and rural clean energy policies that are
voluntary, flexible, and led by producers. All along the way, NRCS is
ensuring that science and rigorous monitoring underpin our work, and
that underserved communities and small- and medium-sized farmers
participate in and benefit from this important department-wide effort.
We know voluntary conservation works, and we are committed to
working with farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, and partners to
leverage our resources to increase climate resilience, sequester carbon
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance agricultural productivity,
support rural economies, and maintain critical environmental benefits
through voluntary conservation efforts. USDA's work on climate change
is:

Focused on partnerships--with agriculture, forestry, Tribes,
businesses, and communities;

Voluntary and incentive-based;

Focused on creating new opportunities and markets for
agriculture and forestry;

Focused on ensuring rural America plays a key role in our
transition to cleaner sources of energy;

Leveraging and enhancing the quantification of climate
mitigation benefits; and

Farmer, rancher, and private forest landowner-led.

Climate-Focused Conservation Investments: Many of NRCS's existing
practices have climate mitigation benefits, making them climate-smart
agriculture and forestry practices. Working closely alongside our
partners and those we serve, NRCS has been supporting the
implementation of these practices within existing conservation programs
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon. Many of these
mitigation practices also provide other environmental co-benefits as
well as critical climate adaptation benefits to help agricultural
producers make their operations more resilient to climate change. In
2022, NRCS:

Invested $197 million for 41 locally-led projects through
the RCPP that address climate change, improve water quality,
combat drought, enhance soil health, support wildlife habitat
and protect agriculture;

Announced $35 million in funding through CIG to help
agricultural producers adopt innovative conservation practices
and mitigate the effects of climate change on their operations;

Expanded the EQIP Conservation Incentive Contracts option to
nationwide availability with a $50.9 million investment,
building on the $10 million program pilot investment in 2021.
Provided over $309 million of EQIP funds for producers directly
tied to climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices.
Provided over $192 million of CSP funds for producers directly
tied to climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices.
Provided $8 million in regional projects to support and expand
the monitoring of soil carbon on working agricultural lands and
assess how climate-smart practices are affecting carbon
sequestration;

Invested up to $12 million in partnerships that expand
access to conservation technical assistance for livestock
producers and increase the use of conservation practices on
grazing lands through the Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative;

Provided new opportunities to improve nutrient management,
including through an initiative referred to as Act Now, which
features an expedited application process for key conservation
programs, a ranking threshold for pre-approval and a
streamlined enrollment process. NRCS instituted outreach
campaigns focused on the economic benefits of nutrient
management and on the nutrient management planning process.

Additionally, NRCS established new agreements with key
partners who have existing capacity to support nutrient
management planning and technical assistance.

As an example of the impact of our farm bill conservation programs
on climate mitigation, EQIP and CSP together delivered more than 27
million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e)
in estimated emissions reductions in 2020. CTA, which provides our
nation's farmers, ranchers and forestland owners with the knowledge and
tools they need to conserve, maintain and restore the natural resources
on their lands and improve the health of their operations for the
future, has led to an additional 54 million metric tonnes of
CO2 equivalent reductions in 2020. USDA is continuing to
expand our ability to measure, monitor, report on, and verify climate
mitigation outcomes, including through additional investments provided
through the Inflation Reduction Act.
In line with the whole-of-government approach to address climate
change, NRCS also utilized its conservation programs in partnership
with other Federal agencies to further its climate goals related to
both mitigation and adaptation, including:

Investing $25 million as part of a collaboration with the
Department of [the] Interior's (DOI) WaterSmart Initiative to
help farmers and ranchers in three new priority areas and 37
existing priority areas conserve water and build drought
resilience in their communities, assisting communities and
producers in 12 Western states. This builds on a $21 million
investment in FY 2021;

Announcing over $1 billion in disaster relief funds for
post-wildfire and hurricane recovery with the Forest Service
through 41 projects, including 17 new projects, that will bring
together agricultural producers, forest landowners, and
national forests and grasslands to improve forest health using
available farm bill conservation programs and other
authorities;

Supporting new Sentinel Landscapes to strengthen military
readiness and address climate change and other natural resource
challenges together with Department of Defense (DOD) and
Department of [the] Interior (DOI);

Contributing to the Drought Resilience Interagency Working
Group to improve drought-stricken communities' longer-term
resilience to drought through financial and technical
assistance; and

Through the Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership
NRCS and Forest Service funded 14 new projects in FY 2023 and
awarded funding towards 25 existing projects. This continued
partnership builds upon Fiscal Year 2022 investment of more
than $48 million ($18 million of which was from NRCS and $30
million from the Forest Service), for projects that will
mitigate wildfire risk, protect water quality, improve wildlife
habitat, restore forest ecosystems and ultimately contribute to
USDA's efforts to combat climate change. Staff are currently
working with Forest Service on solicitation for FY2024
projects.

Adaptation and Resilience: NRCS is implementing the NRCS Climate
Change Adaptation Plan, released in 2022, which identifies key actions
for addressing climate change vulnerabilities within NRCS's mission,
operations, and infrastructure. We will continue to improve the climate
literacy of staff throughout the agency, as we did with 23 tailored
``Climate Conversation'' training sessions delivered in partnership
with the USDA Climate Hubs, a series of Regional Climate Town Halls for
all national, state, and field staff, and ongoing contributions to the
Climate Hubs and continued support for resource and tool development in
2023. In addition, we are working to improve science and technology for
understanding, measuring, and tracking climate-related impacts and
outcomes of NRCS practices and programs. This includes actively working
with subject area experts to evaluate and update the list of climate-
smart mitigation activities as needed.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Implementation
The BIL is a historic piece of legislation that allows NRCS to
address a broader portfolio of priority watershed needs across the
nation and U.S. Territories. BIL provided $918 million for Watershed
Programs administered by NRCS, including $118 million for the Watershed
Rehabilitation (REHAB) Program, $500 million for the Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) Program, and $300 million for the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). REHAB helps project
sponsors rehabilitate aging dams that are reaching the end of their
design lives and/or no longer meet Federal or state standards. NRCS
provides technical and financial assistance to local project sponsors
to rehabilitate aging dams that protect lives, property, and
infrastructure. WFPO helps units of Federal, state, local and Tribal
governments (project sponsors) to protect and restore watersheds up to
250,000 acres. NRCS offers financial and technical assistance through
this program for erosion and sediment control; watershed protection;
flood prevention; water quality improvements; rural, municipal and
industrial water supply; water management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement; and hydropower sources. EWP offers vital recovery options
for local communities to help people reduce hazards to life and
property caused by major storms, wildfires, floods, and other natural
disasters. Through this program, NRCS provides technical and financial
assistance to state, local, and Tribal governments for flooding and
erosion protection that threaten life and property.
In implementing BIL, NRCS has prioritized providing ongoing relief
to communities impacted by severe weather events such as wildfires,
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. NRCS has also
prioritized carrying out projects in limited resource areas or for
underserved communities, including Tribal communities, where there is a
severe need for watershed infrastructure to protect entire communities
from floods, natural disasters, and other watershed-related resource
concerns.
By the end of FY 2022, NRCS had invested a total of $803 million of
BIL funds into watershed programs. $589.5 million of these funds went
to 240 projects in 39 states for WFPO and REHAB. $213.7 million of
these funds went to 26 EWP projects, which included $133 million of BIL
funding to cover 100 percent of the cost of post-wildfire recovery
efforts in communities impacted by the Hermits Peak and Calf Canyon
wildfire in New Mexico. NRCS, in cooperation with local sponsors, will
use EWP program BIL funds to implement much-needed aerial seeding--a
successful post-wildfire conservation practice that helps reduce soil
erosion, restore ground cover and establish native plant species.
Drought
Producers around the country experienced drought in the last year.
This is especially a challenge in the western United States. Water
supply in sufficient quantity and quality is declining in many areas of
the West as it is increasingly threatened by growing demand and the
impacts of climate change. Declining water supply threatens working
land resources that sustain agricultural productivity and environmental
quality in these areas. These interrelated threats increase challenges
encountered by water resource managers and producers, but also increase
the importance for NRCS to deliver conservation assistance where it can
make a greater impact.
For this reason, NRCS has developed the Western Water and Working
Lands Framework (Framework) for Conservation Action, which will support
NRCS leaders across 17 western states in collaborating with partners
and effectively delivering conservation assistance to address priority
issues related to water. This is based off a landscape approach and
other frameworks that NRCS has developed in recent years, including the
Great Plains Grasslands Biome Framework, the Sagebrush Biome Framework,
the Northern Bobwhite, Grasslands, and Savannas Framework, and the
Landscape Conservation Initiative. NRCS released the Western Water
Framework on February 13, 2023. The Framework identifies six major
management challenges related to Western water conservation:

Forecasting water supply

Sustaining agricultural productivity

Protecting groundwater availability

Protecting surface water availability

Managing and restoring rangelands and forestlands

Responding to disruptions from catastrophic events

The Framework also identifies available NRCS programs and resources
to address these challenges, including data collection and forecasting
of water supplies, disaster recovery assistance, efficient water use
like precision agriculture, or supporting landscape and watersheds
across the Department's climate-smart agriculture work. For example,
NRCS uses EQIP funds to help farmers and ranchers implement practices
that conserve scarce water resources, reduce wind erosion on drought-
impacted fields and improve livestock access to water. EQIP assistance
may also be available for emergency animal mortality disposal from
natural disasters and other causes.
While we look at immediate relief and flexibilities that producers
need in the short term, we are also addressing drought resilience and
asking hard questions about the programs, tools and authorities NRCS
may need to appropriately assist producers navigating drought and
climate change in the future.
Additionally, many public and private sector organizations have
technical or financial resources to help address water and land
resource management challenges. Although NRCS does not establish water
allocation policies or regulate water or land resources, NRCS does
coordinate with local, state, and Federal, and Tribal partners to
ensure that voluntary conservation actions are considered in such
decisions. NRCS uses a locally-led model to direct agency resources to
vulnerable areas where those resources will address community
priorities and have a greater impact.
The 2018 Farm Bill provided NRCS with multiple new avenues for
addressing drought. Through the EQIP, NRCS may now provide direct
program assistance to water management entities such as irrigation
districts, acequias and other public or semi-public entities for the
purposes of improving water use efficiencies. The 2018 Farm Bill also
created the new Conservation Incentive Contracts option within EQIP to
address high-priority conservation and natural resources concerns,
including drought. Through up to 10 year contracts, producers manage,
maintain and address important natural resource concerns and build on
existing conservation efforts. In addition, NRCS utilizes waivers as
needed to assist producers who are dealing with natural disasters;
often, these waivers allow actions that would otherwise be prohibited
to support practice implementation, such as allowing producers with
applications to install practices prior to contracting.
NRCS is also coordinating across USDA and other Federal agencies to
ensure effective collaboration to address drought. As noted above, NRCS
is investing $25 million as part of a collaboration with the Department
of [the] Interior's (DOI) WaterSmart Initiative to help farmers and
ranchers in three new priority areas and 37 existing priority areas
conserve water and build drought resilience in their communities,
assisting communities and producers in 12 Western states. This builds
on a $21 million investment in FY22.
Equity
USDA is committed to advancing equity across our systems,
processes, and policies. The President's issuance of Executive Order on
Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities paved
the way for USDA to meaningfully listen to internal and external
stakeholders, understand where barriers to accessing USDA programs and
services exist. NRCS is taking deliberate, bold, and historic action to
dismantle barriers to equity, justice, and equal opportunity in agency
programs and policies.
NRCS is committed to sustaining a culture that operates with core
values of equity, justice, and equal opportunity for all. In 2022, NRCS
released its Equity Action Plan. The NRCS Equity Action Plan provisions
set forth a well-defined framework to meet the agency's equity
objectives. The NRCS Equity Action Plan was developed using a framework
to advance equity in the culture of NRCS and a commitment to
institutional transformation. The plan describes five strategic goals
for NRCS:

1. Organizational Capacity for Equity

2. Equity Toolkits

3. Equity and Inclusion Data

4. Equity and Inclusion Partnerships

5. Operationalize Equity

NRCS is investing in this plan. In 2022, we awarded $50 million in
Equity Conservation Cooperative Agreements through 118 partnerships to
support underserved farmers and ranchers with climate-smart agriculture
and forestry. NRCS recently announced the availability of up to $70
million in funding for Equity Conservation Cooperative Agreements, and
these partnerships will be instrumental in expanding access to our farm
bill conservation programs for underserved producers. We are also
continuing to identify and eliminate barriers within our programs to
expand access.
NRCS is also making progress towards accomplishing the Biden-Harris
Administration's Justice40 initiative to have 40 percent of the overall
benefits of Federal investments in covered programs supporting
underserved communities, which is a key piece of NRCS's Justice40 plan
for reducing barriers to program participation. Based on feedback from
producers, communities, and organizations, NRCS updated its forms to
streamline procedures and improve clarity, including applications,
applying for multiple programs, and practice approval. NRCS's Act Now
Policy also helps to streamline the application process, particularly
for underserved producers, by providing an opportunity for states to
identify ranking pools and establish a ranking threshold at or above
which they can automatically pre-approve an application for funding and
move to contract obligation quickly.
Another aspect of NRCS's plan was to develop a methodology for
geographically targeting underserved communities. To that end, NRCS
developed geospatial data layers for internal use that include multiple
datasets addressing priorities for equity, climate change, and urban
agriculture to guide programmatic decision-making at national,
regional, and state levels.
Additionally, each NRCS State Office has been directed to appoint
and maintain an Outreach Coordinator in order to increase the agency's
ability to provide localized, strategic outreach to communities that
NRCS has not previously served, or which may not be visible at the
national level.
To address concerns of Tribal Nations and Tribal producers, NRCS
has published policy on Alternative Funding Arrangements (AFAs) under
EQIP and CSP. AFAs provide Tribal Nations and Alaska Native
Corporations with additional flexibilities for funding, planning, and
administration where existing processes created barriers to program
participation. Additionally, NRCS is developing systems to assure that
indigenous knowledge better informs NRCS standards and program
opportunities.
Urban Agriculture
NRCS supports conservation everywhere, regardless of location or
size of the agricultural operation. This includes urban agriculture and
innovative forms of controlled environment agriculture, including
hydroponics, aquaponics, and rooftop production. USDA views supporting
these operations as an important part of engaging the next generation
of agricultural producers and living up to USDA's commitment to
equitably support all producers. As agricultural production methods
evolve, NRCS is working to innovate its programs and policies within
the current legislative bounds in order to best meet customer needs.
Examples of this innovation include the creation of over 50 new
payment scenarios and interim practice standards, clarification on EQIP
eligibility in small-scale and innovative settings, and NRCS staff
training focused on the reduction of barriers to participation of urban
and innovative producers in NRCS programs.
The Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP)
hired a permanent director last year and now has 6 full-time staff and
several detailees. OUAIP has awarded over $55 million to date and has
given awards in 45 states and Puerto Rico. In FY22, OUAIP awarded
approximately $44 million through its funding opportunities, Urban
Agriculture and Innovative Production grants and Composting and Food
Waste Reduction cooperative agreements, as well as through the People's
Garden Initiative, thanks to funding from the American Rescue Plan.
The Federal Advisory Committee for Urban Agriculture and Innovative
Production (FAC) held its fifth public meeting on April 18th. The FAC
is currently drafting recommendations for the Secretary on how USDA can
better support urban and innovative producers.
Additionally, to further demonstrate USDA's commitment to serving
these producers, NRCS and FSA have jointly committed to opening brick
and mortar urban service centers in 17 cities throughout the United
States. These service centers will offer urban and innovative producers
the full suite of applicable USDA programs and services and bring our
employees closer to this expanding customer base.
Conclusion
NRCS's accomplishments would not be possible without our more than
10,000 employees in every state and territory across the country.
Agency employees work to connect with farmers, ranchers, forestland
owners, Tribes, and partners to implement our many programs and
initiatives. I am honored to lead so many dedicated conservationists. I
appreciate Congress's continued support for NRCS and our work to combat
climate change, address drought, ensure equity, and support voluntary
conservation on working lands. Thank you for the opportunity to submit
written testimony.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cosby. We appreciate you being
here. Our second and final witness for today's hearing is Mr.
Zach Ducheneaux, the Administrator of USDA's Farm Service
Agency. And, sir, you may begin at any time that you are ready.
You have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ZACH DUCHENEAUX, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE
AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Spanberger, Chairman Thompson, and distinguished Members of the
Committee. It is always an honor and a privilege to appear here
in front of this body as your Administrator. I have been your
administrator for 2 years, 3 months, and 2 days, and every day
I welcome another opportunity to improve outcomes for our
producers all across the country. And I have said many times
over, anybody that doesn't want this job probably shouldn't be
in it. I love my job. I am glad to be able to work with you
all.
Ranking Member Spanberger, I appreciated the opportunity to
learn from your producers in that stakeholder session, and we
took some of those lessons to heart, and took them back to the
office, and went to work. Chairman Baird, Members, I look
forward to opportunities to visit with your stakeholders out
there in the countryside, because that is where we are really
going to get the best input about our programs, finding out
from the producers exactly where the rubber meets the road, and
I look forward to opportunities to do that in the future, and I
will have our staff keep in touch with you about where we are
going to be in the countryside in case we have a chance to get
together.
Our conservation programs really fall in two to three
different buckets. First is our Conservation Reserve Program,
and that is our largest private lands conservation program, one
of the largest in the United States. And through CRP we pay an
annual rental rate to producers on a voluntary basis to engage
in conservation measures that help preserve soil health and
improve soil health for the future, improve wildlife habitat,
and give them another option as they contemplate the economic
realities of being an ag producer in this country. We look
forward to the opportunities to have conversations about what
that program might hold in the future with you all, but I want
to share some of the adjustments we have made, and the impacts
that those adjustments have had.
Producers can participate in one of three aspects of the
CRP Program. That is our General Signup, our Grassland Signup,
and our Continuous Signup. Last year 5.1 million acres total
entered into CRP through our various signups, surpassing the
3.9 million acres that exited the program, so we had a net gain
of a little over a million acres. While the grassland signup is
currently ongoing and open, closes Friday, we have received
over 15,000 acres, covering one point--15,000 offers, covering
1.1 million acres for general signup for CRP. We are currently
in the deliberation process to decide how many of those papers
will generate contracts.
The 2018 Farm Bill established a rising acreage cap for CRP
that tops out at 27 million acres this year, and when we came
to town, we saw that as a target. We took the intention of
Congress seriously that we should meet those conservation
goals, and we have been doing our best to ensure that we are
getting producers the opportunity to enroll that amount of
acreage in these programs. Secretary Vilsack gave us a charge
to increase producer interest in enrollment, so we made some
adjustments to the soil rental rates where data supported such
an adjustment, increased payment for practice incentives, and
increased payment for water quality practices. We also added a
climate-smart practice incentive for CRP general and continuous
signups to better leverage this program for positive climate
outcomes.
Additionally, we updated grassland CRP last year to re-
establish a minimum rental rate of $13 per acre, which has
driven record enrollment in that program for each of the last 2
years. We have made significant strides through our work to
expand access in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
based on the flexibilities afforded to us by Congress in the
2018 Farm Bill, which allows more locally-led partnerships in
conservation programs. We are leveraging that especially in the
West to some of our underserved communities. Three Tribal
Nations have enrolled in Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program. I had a chance just last week to visit the Colorado
CREP, where we are working with producers in the Republican
River Basin to help them transition away from irrigation into
non-irrigated cropping in order to maintain their working
lands, but also save the draw on the Ogallala Aquifer, which is
so important to much of our producers across the Midwest.
As I close my testimony, I want to share my gratitude for
the leadership and the expertise of our Conservation Division,
some of whom are in the room with us, and our staff at
headquarters, and the 10,000 employees that we have all across
the country. Without them on the front line deploying these
programs, engaging with our producers, sharing feedback from
our producers, we would not be able to continue to make these
improvements and enhancements to the authorities that are
granted to us by Congress. I look forward to the conversation
that we get to have today as we talk about crafting a new farm
bill, and the work we have done to implement the 2018 Farm
Bill. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ducheneaux follows:]

Prepared Statement of Zach Ducheneaux, Administrator, Farm Service
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Spanberger, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, it is an honor and privilege to appear before
you today. To those who I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, my
name is Zach Ducheneaux, and since February of 2021, I have served as
the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, Farm Service
Agency (FSA). Prior to starting this job, I was a third-generation
rancher on my family's ranch on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation.
I have had the opportunity to visit with many of you in past
hearings, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to be with you
today to share FSA's vision to strengthen and expand access to our
conservation programs. These programs play a vital role in improving
producers' economic viability while also giving them better tools to
invest in the long-term health and sustainability of their land.
FSA's Conservation Division oversees several voluntary programs
that protect our drinking water, reduce soil erosion, preserve wildlife
habitat, restore forests and wetlands, and improve soil health for
future generations. Key FSA conservation programs also support
producers whose operations are damaged by natural disasters.
I have always appreciated FSA's commitment to voluntary, producer-
led, working lands conservation, and I am committed to maintaining
those pillars of our conservation programs. At the same time, FSA has a
unique opportunity to expand and improve these programs to bring in new
and diverse partners and better empower our producers to tackle the
climate crisis and build more resilient operations. The changes FSA has
made and the changes we continue to pursue are focused on giving
producers more opportunities to invest in the long-term well-being of
their natural resources.
In my testimony today, I'd like to highlight some of our
conservation programs, along with some of the updates and improvements
our Administration has implemented over the past 2 years.
Farm Bill Program Implementation
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of the largest
private lands conservation programs in the United States. Through CRP,
the FSA pays producers a yearly rental payment in exchange for removing
environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and
planting species that will improve environmental quality. The long-term
goal of the program is to reward producers who re-establish valuable
land cover, which in turn helps improve soil health and water quality,
prevents soil erosion, and reduces the loss of wildlife habitat.
Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are typically from 10 to 15 years in
length.
There are several ways agricultural producers and landowners can
participate in CRP, including through our General Signup, our Grassland
CRP, and our Continuous CRP. Last year, FSA accepted more than 2
million acres through the General Signup, more than 3.1 million acres
through the Grassland Signup, and more than 877,000 acres through the
Continuous CRP Signup, resulting in about 5.1 million acres entering
the program, surpassing the 3.9 million acres that exited the program.
The 2018 Farm Bill established a rising acreage cap for CRP,
setting the cap at 25 million acres in 2021, 25.5 million acres in
2022, and 27 million acres in 2023. Despite Congress' work to raise
these enrollment targets in the farm bill, in 2021, FSA faced
decreasing enrollment due to a variety of factors. At the direction of
Secretary Vilsack, FSA has prioritized increasing access to CRP and
strengthening the climate benefits of the program through several
changes, which have now put the program on an upward trajectory and
helped bring participation into closer alignment with the caps
established by Congress.
To increase producer interest and enrollment, FSA adjusted soil
rental rates where data supported such an adjustment, increased
payments for practice incentives, and increased payments for water
quality practices. We also added a Climate-Smart Practice Incentive for
CRP general and continuous signups to better leverage this program for
positive climate outcomes, including carbon sequestration. Climate-
Smart CRP practice incentives involve the establishment of trees and
permanent grasses, the development of wildlife habitat, and wetland
restoration. The Climate-Smart Practice Incentive is an annual payment
based on the benefits of each practice type.
Additionally, we established a grassland CRP minimum rental rate.
The grassland CRP program helps landowners and operators protect
grassland, including rangeland, pastureland, and certain other lands,
while maintaining the areas as working grazing lands. FSA updated the
grassland CRP signup in Fiscal Year 2022 to establish a minimum rental
rate of $13 per acre that increased rental rates in 1,047 counties
across the country. FSA also established National Grassland Priority
Zones--the Greater Yellowstone Migration Corridor and Dust Bowl Zone--
that aim to increase enrollment of grasslands in migratory corridors
and environmentally sensitive areas. Last year, FSA expanded the
Greater Yellowstone Wildlife Migration Corridor Priority Zone to
include seven additional counties across Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho,
to help protect the big-game animal migration corridor associated with
Wyoming elk, mule deer, and antelope.
FSA's improvements to Grassland CRP have yielded rapid results.
Last year's Grassland CRP signup was the largest Grassland signup ever.
That record-breaking signup and continued growth and interest in
Grassland CRP demonstrates that conservation priorities and
agricultural productivity not only have the capacity to coexist, but
also to complement and enhance one another. Additionally, as part of
FSA's Justice40 efforts, underserved producers and landowners,
including beginning farmers and military veterans, were able to receive
10 additional ranking points to enhance their Grassland CRP offers. FSA
accepted offers covering more than 1.9 million acres from more than
5,000 underserved producers, about 87 percent of those who submitted
applications.
This year's Grassland signup concludes in a few days on May 26. As
part of the 2023 Grassland signup FSA is providing limited resource
producers 20 additional points to enhance their offers. These ranking
point incentives will continue helping small-scale operators and
landowners find an entry way into the program. Also, with this signup,
certain land enrolled in USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service's (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is
eligible for enrollment in Grasslands CRP. This is significant because
producers can take advantage of a greater suite of conservation
practices tailored toward managing the rangeland enrolled in Grasslands
CRP.
Haying and grazing of CRP acres enrolled under General and
Continuous CRP is authorized under certain conditions to improve the
quality and performance of the CRP cover or to provide emergency relief
to livestock producers due to natural disasters. There are two types of
haying and grazing authorizations: emergency and non-emergency.
Emergency haying and grazing of CRP acres may be authorized by FSA to
provide relief to livestock producers in areas affected by severe
drought or other natural disasters. During the 2022 program year, 1,633
counties became eligible for CRP emergency haying and grazing.
Through CRP, producers can also enroll land in FSA's Farmable
Wetlands Program (FWP). FWP is designed to restore previously farmed
wetlands and wetland buffers to improve both vegetation and water flow.
FWP is a voluntary program to restore up to 1 million acres of farmable
wetlands and associated buffers. Participants must agree to restore the
wetlands, establish plant cover, and to not use enrolled land for
commercial purposes. Plant cover may include plants that are partially
submerged or specific types of trees. FSA runs the program through CRP
with assistance from other government agencies and local conservation
groups.
Additionally, FSA announced efforts to enhance natural resource
benefits through CRP by moving State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement
(SAFE) practices from general and back to the continuous CRP signup.
Producers can enroll year-round under continuous signup and be eligible
for additional incentives. FSA also made Highly Erodible Land
Initiative (HELI) practices available in both the general and
continuous signups.
Notably, we also saw benefits from the expansion of both the Soil
Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP), which was a pilot program
FSA implemented in 2021, and the Clean Lakes, Estuaries and Rivers
initiative (CLEAR30), another pilot that has now expanded from twelve
states in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay watershed to all states
and Territories, allowing producers nationwide to enroll in 30 year CRP
contracts for water quality practices. CLEAR30, another a voluntary,
incentive-based conservation program offered by FSA, is currently open
for signup through July 31. This signup allows producers and landowners
enrolling certain water quality practices to extend the lifespan and
strengthen the benefits of important water quality practices on their
land.
FSA also continues to invest in the CRP Monitoring, Assessment, and
Evaluation (MAE) program. FSA has kick-started much-needed work to
evaluate and quantify conservation benefits of its programs to inform
program design and implementation. In 2022, FSA dedicated significant
resources toward measuring and monitoring the climate impacts of
conservation practices. In a series of multi-partner projects that
involve minority serving institutions, FSA is enlisting skilled
technical experts in a field-scale measurement, monitoring, and
reporting initiative to quantify carbon sequestered and greenhouse
gases reduced on land enrolled in CRP. In addition to these field-scale
measurement projects, FSA has also invested substantial MAE resources
in partnerships with organizations serving underserved producers to
better understand how targeted outreach and engagement can help these
producers better access and benefit from CRP. For example, MAE
resources are supporting a mixed methods study led by the University of
Georgia and a variety of partners, including the Southwest Georgia
Project, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Sustainable Forestry
and Land Retention Program, Florida A&M University, Alcorn State
University, Alabama A&M University, and other minority-serving
organizations. This study is focused on understanding existing barriers
to entry into the CRP program for underserved producers and landowners
and will assess strategies to increase these landowners' participation.
The last component of CRP that I'll highlight is the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP is a partnership program that
targets specific significant conservation concerns in particular
geographies, and Federal resources are supplemented with non-Federal
resources to address those concerns. In exchange for removing
environmentally sensitive land from production and establishing
resource-conserving plant species, farmers and ranchers are paid an
annual rental payment along with other Federal and non-Federal
incentives, as applicable per each CREP agreement. Participation is
voluntary, and the contract period is typically 10-15 years.
Through CREP, for the first time, three Tribal Nations are
partnering with USDA to help conserve, maintain, and improve grassland
productivity, reduce soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat. The
Cheyenne River, Oglala, and Rosebud Sioux Tribes have entered into CREP
agreements with FSA to enroll eligible grassland, pastureland, and
other agricultural lands within the boundaries of their reservations in
this conservation program. The CREP agreements authorize enrollment of
up to 1.5 million acres by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, up to 1
million acres by the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and up to 600,000 acres by the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe. These CREP agreements reflect the priorities and
goals of USDA to broaden the scope and reach of its voluntary,
incentive-based conservation programs to engage underserved
communities. Looking ahead, FSA is focused on continuing to explore
innovative CREP agreements with states, Tribes, and non-governmental
organizations to build new partnerships, particularly in underserved
communities.
USDA has made significant improvements to CREP to reduce barriers
and make the program more accessible to a broad range of producers and
new types of partners. In direct response to feedback from state
agencies, Tribes, nonprofits and other groups, USDA has updated CREP's
rule regarding matching fund requirements, and invested in additional
staff to work directly with partners for streamlined, partner-driven
conservation efforts. A December 6, 2019, rule required that 50% of
matching funds from partners be in the form of direct payments, which
made it more difficult for many groups to participate as partners in
CREP. With the December 13, 2021, rule change, partners can now provide
their negotiated level of matching funds in the form of cash, in-kind
contributions, or technical assistance. This change allows for greater
flexibility and opportunity for additional partners to participate in
the program.
The rule also updated policy to allow for a full annual rental
payment to producers who are impacted by state, Tribal or local laws,
ordinances and regulations that require a resource conserving or
environmental protection measure. The previous rule reduced the rental
payment made to producers who were affected by such laws.
Most recently through CREP, FSA utilized flexibilities provided by
the 2018 Farm Bill to offer dryland crop production on eligible
cropland in the Colorado Republican River basin. The newly revised
Colorado Republican River CREP project, now available through the FSA
and the Colorado Department of Water Resources, will give producers
meaningful tools and the necessary technical assistance to keep working
lands working, all while successfully transitioning away from irrigated
production and taking critical steps to conserve the Oglala Aquifer
into the future. FSA is deeply grateful for the State of Colorado's
commitment to not just reaching an agreement, but reaching the right
agreement and strengthening a long-term partnership that will support
voluntary, producer-led, climate-smart agriculture and land management
for generations to come.
FSA also offers meaningful support for landowners with expiring CRP
contracts through the Transition Incentive Program (TIP), which is
authorized under the 2018 Farm Bill at $50 million for Fiscal Years
2019 through 2023. TIP offers assistance for landowners and operators,
along with opportunities for beginning and socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers. It provides landowners or operators with up to
two additional annual rental payments on land enrolled in expiring CRP
contracts, on the condition they sell or rent this land to a beginning
farmer or rancher or to an underserved producer. New landowners or
renters must return the land to production using sustainable grazing or
farming methods.
Next, I'll discuss FSA's Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). This
program provides funding and assistance to help farmers and ranchers
repair conservation structures, recover damaged farmland, and install
methods for water conservation following natural disasters, including
chronic disasters like severe drought.
In response to the 2021 drought, FSA expanded its policies to allow
financial assistance to livestock producers for portable pumps used to
temporarily pump water from available sources. This allowed producers
to continue grazing activities when water sources were not safely
accessible by the livestock. In Fiscal Year 2022, FSA allocated a total
of $171.5 million in ECP funds to assist producers in response to
weather-related disasters, and has funding available to address
existing disasters. We will continue to closely monitor funding levels
to ensure needs can be met for future disasters.
In response to fires in 2022, FSA updated its regulations to begin
allowing producers who lease federally-owned or managed lands,
including Tribal trust land, as well as state land, the opportunity to
participate in ECP. FSA has now made advance payments available--up to
25% of the cost--for all ECP practices before the restoration is
carried out, an option that was previously only available for fence
repair or replacement.
FSA also administers the Emergency Forest Restoration Program
(EFRP). This program assists owners of non-industrial private forests
to restore forest health damaged by natural disasters. In Fiscal Year
2022, FSA allocated a total of $44.5 million in EFRP funds to assist
forest landowners in response to weather-related disasters and has $215
million available to provide assistance to aid producers in recovering
from natural disasters.
Recently, Congress authorized FSA to pay 100% of the ECP and EFRP
cost for damage associated with the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire in
New Mexico. ECP and EFRP cost-share assistance is typically capped at
75%. The flexibilities provided by Congress are helping provide
critical assistance to producers as they work to rebuild their
operations and infrastructure.
Following widespread damage occurring due to disasters, FSA has
also expedited the process for completing environmental assessment of
practices and restoration activities that will not result in ground
disturbance, or disturbance ``above the plow-line.'' By streamlining
the environmental compliance process for farm and forestland
restoration, while maintaining the integrity of these critical
processes, FSA has been able to approve applications for assistance in
a more timely manner.
Last, along with its partner, the National Rural Water Association,
FSA also administers the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
Acting through local organizations (rural water authorities), this
partnership helps prevent pollution of surface and groundwater used as
the primary source of drinking water by rural residents. Technicians
from rural water authorities work with FSA and county office staff and
with specialists from the USDA's NRCS to implement projects. In the
2022 program year, 114 source water plans with management activities
were implemented in the source water areas and 12,380 hours of on-site
source water-related technical assistance was provided. These recent
source water plans provide protection measures for 426 public drinking
water sources (393 wells and 33 surface water intakes). In FY 2022 and
FY 2023, aspects of the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program were
implemented in all states.
In addition to these programs, FSA continues to work with
participants in administering a variety of farm bill conservation
programs that have sunset. Even when an authorization shifts, the job
of supporting farmers with long-term contracts remains for FSA and
county office employees to maintain the investments made at the farm,
ranch and forest level for the life of the participant contract.
Conclusion
Agricultural producers are the original conservationists, and
conservation is an integral part of the work we do at FSA. We are
focused on weaving conservation values into the DNA of all our
programs, old and new, so that as our agricultural communities face
more frequent and intense climate-induced disasters, we are better
prepared to provide both relief and economic opportunity for continued
conservation. I am grateful for our staff across the country, who are
working every day to make these programs work for the producer, I am
also grateful for the leadership and expertise of FSA's Conservation
Division, and our staff in Headquarters. We value the tools and
authorities that this Committee has provided FSA so that we can better
serve every farmer, rancher, and forest owner. We look forward to
supporting the efforts of the Committee as they craft a new farm bill
and I welcome your questions.
Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate
you being here. At this time the Members will be recognized for
questions in order of seniority, alternating between Majority
and Minority, and in order of arrival for those who joined us
just after the hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5
minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions
as possible. And the first individual that I might turn it over
to is Chairman ``GT'' Thompson. Do you have questions that you
would like to do?
Mr. Thompson. Sure, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Once
again, gentlemen, thank you for your leadership. Thanks for
joining us here today. Much appreciated. This is important,
that we work together on these programs, when it comes to the
conservation programs, and, quite frankly, everything under the
USDA jurisdiction, and under the responsibilities that we take
very seriously with the Agriculture Committee.
Our conservation programs are--we know some of them are
significantly oversubscribed. I think it was EQIP, the year
2020, we exhausted, and we put significant funding into this,
but the demand for it is huge. I think there were 80,000-90,000
contracts that we couldn't do anything with. As a result of
that, we put forward the SUSTAINS Act (H.R. 2620, 117th
Congress), that passed unanimously out of this Committee in
December and became law (Pub. L. 117-328), creating that
public-private partnership for USDA to be able to fund
additional conservation. So, that said, can you share with us,
where is the Department in using this new authority across USDA
conservation programs?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, yes. We have been taking a look at this,
and we have several teams that are working at USDA to look at
this new authority and try to see how it best fits with the
work that we are doing across the conservation family. And
those teams are working right now, and hopefully we are going
to be gaining a lot of information from the work that the teams
are doing to see what authority we have. And, when we talk
about accepting money from the outside or from the public, how
does that fit into what we are already doing, and how will it
fit? And so, we are working also with our attorneys, OGC, to
figure out how can we do this? And so we are currently working
on that, and looking at it, and hopefully we will be able to
report back more work on that in the near future.
Mr. Thompson. Well, Chief, I look forward to that. Let us
not let bureaucracy kill that. You have the authority.
President Biden signed that into law. We put a great deal of
work into this, and we expect that this will be administered
according to the intent of Congress, which our intent is to
benefit the American farmer, with expanded opportunities in the
conservation space. So we appreciate you keeping us informed.
We will probably be staying in--absolutely--will be staying in
contact with you as this is developed to make sure that we are
doing this in a timely manner, but, quite frankly, also one
that we stay within the lane of Congressional intent.
One of the most successful programs in the conservation
title that Congress has authorized in the past 20 years is the
Regional Conservation Partnership Program. It combined all
these regional programs into one program that allows you to
leverage funding with the private-sector to address specific
resource concerns. And a question I have is what has happened?
The program seems mired now with administrative burdens that
make it difficult for people to access. And does the
Administration have a plan to fix this program, either through
administrative or, quite frankly, legislative fixes that
continues the principles of a partnership within NRCS? How
specifically does RCPP get fixed?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, we are pretty excited about RCPP. I had the
opportunity to work on the first one out of the gate in the
2014 Farm Bill in Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana. It was about $20
million, and we were very successful there. And over time it
has changed, but I am here to tell you today that, with all of
the work that we have done on our RCPP, we are pretty excited.
We put a NOFO out this last Friday on RCPP, about $500 million,
and the team has done a great job. We had several listening
sessions, one in person, two virtual, and we had over 400
comments back from our stakeholders and our partners on RCPP,
and it kind of fell into seven different buckets. And I won't
go through all of those, but we heard them, we understand it,
and we have seven teams now that are working through that
process, and we have been able to put some of those into the
new NOFO that was put out last Friday.
And a couple of them, we need to simplify our TA. How does
that work? How does the Department use the TA authority that we
have, and how do they do that? Twenty-five percent of that can
be used for technical assistance. How do you do that
negotiation? We have looked at that. And the portal was another
one. We are simplifying it so that the customer does not have
to touch that very often. And, if we need more information
there, then staff will have to do that.
The third we heard was that our staff was not knowledgeable
about this program. So, one of the things that we are
aggressively training our staff--we are going to have several
training sessions for every employee in this country to talk
about RCPP and how it works. It is a very important program,
and when you talk about that partnership between the agency and
the public, that one to one investment is huge, and so we are
taking it very seriously. We are going to continue to work on
this. We are going to have more improvements in 2024. These
teams are going to continue to work, and we are very excited
about RCPP.
Mr. Thompson. Well, Chief, I appreciate the due diligence
with which you are pursuing this increased access. Mr.
Chairman, my time has expired.
The Chairman. Thank you, ``GT''. He yields back. And now I
am going to yield myself 5 minutes, if I may. And I want to
recognize that my questions deal with the TSP Access Act. And,
as you know, my colleague, Representative Spanberger, and I
recently introduced H.R. 3036, the Increased TSP Access Act of
2023. This bill would address the TSP shortages by expanding on
the framework first envisioned in the 2018 Farm Bill.
So, Mr. Cosby, from your perspective, how important is
increased technical service capacity, whether through your own
capacity or through the private-sector, to getting conservation
funding out the door?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, it is very important, and thank you for the
question. I had the opportunity to write the first TSP manual
for our agency, back a few years ago, over this career I have
had, and that program is valuable to us, and a lot of times it
brings a lot of boots on the ground, sometimes expertise that
we don't have. And so we have taken a very good look at that
program and tried to figure out how can we strengthen it, how
can we make it more flexible?
Some of the things that have happened over the last year or
so is that we have changed how we are administering TSP. It was
state-driven, you had to go through an exhaustive process to
get certified, and it took a while to do it, and these were
collateral duties for staff out in the field. So what we have
done now is we have hired some full-time staff to just work on
TSP, getting people certified.
And then the other thing that happened was a lot of these
folks wanted to actually do work in multiple states, and there
are different state laws, and rules, and regulations that they
had to follow. So what we have done there is that we have folks
that can work with them on which states they want to be
certified in. We have also looked at our costs for doing
business, and how we make sure TSPs earn a living when they are
doing this work. We worked through that. And so it is very
important to our delivery system to have TSPs on the ground to
help us do this important work.
The Chairman. Thank you. Do you think that this Increased
TSP Access Act is important to the delivery of those services?
Mr. Cosby. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Very good. Mr. Ducheneaux, do you have any
comments in that regard?
Mr. Ducheneaux. I do, sir, and as an Executive Director of
a nonprofit before this role, we worked a lot with some of the
TSPs on trying to get some of our staff out there in the
countryside certified as a TSP, but what became apparent is
that there is another step in there as well, and that is
technical assistance, beyond just the technical service
provision.
And that is where some of the work that we have done in the
Department, to really stand up a meaningful network of
cooperators through cooperative agreements, to ensure that our
lingo, our jargon, which gets a little bit like alphabet soup,
can be translated out there into the languages that our folks
are speaking in the countryside. And having that, in addition
to that TSP, and the increased access to TSPs, is going to help
us continue to improve the delivery of conservation programs
out there in the countryside.
The Chairman. Thank you, and my next question deals with
the IRA funding, and the RCPP. The CBO expects that, from the
$4.95 billion in the IRA funding, Inflation Reduction Act, the
Regional Conservation Partnership Program would only be able to
spend about $3.9 billion, and it looks like this money will go
out the door especially slow in the early years. So, Chief
Cosby, how does your agency plan to effectively administer
these dollars for a program that is authorized to $300 million
per year and doesn't spend that much annually? And we have
about 55 seconds, so----
Mr. Cosby. What I would tell you, sir, is that we are going
to deliver this program, and I think we have the staff, and we
have the capacity to do this. And, as I said, the NOFO went out
this last Friday with $500 million available, and we are going
to continue to do this, and we think we can get this done. Our
team is in delivery mode, and we have a very good team around
this country, and we plan to deliver this program effectively.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Now I turn to Ranking
Member Spanberger for any questions she may have.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Chairman Baird. Just following
up a little bit on this, Mr. Cosby, I saw that NRCS recently
announced it will hire new staff, including soil
conservationists, across the country to support conservation
programs. And, as we have already discussed here today how
vital they are to conservation planning, and the technical help
required for producers to be able to enroll in EQIP, or CSP, or
ACEP, or RCPP. As part of a greater effort to hire nearly 3,000
new people in the coming years, and with the challenges meeting
those goals, can you talk about what are some of the barriers
that you all are seeing at hiring soil conservationists, or
other roles that offer technical assistance to producers?
Mr. Cosby. Yes, and----
Ms. Spanberger. And, specifically, which of these barriers
might be something we could address in the farm bill?
Mr. Cosby. Thank you, Congresswoman, and yes, this is
something that we talk about on a daily basis. As of this
morning we are about 10,600 employees, and, as you mentioned,
we need to hire somewhere north of 3,000 over the next few
years. And with those--hiring of those--that staff, and with
our attrition rate that we have on an annual basis, at about
nine percent, it is just going to keep us right at where we are
right now, even with bringing on those--that many folks over
the next 2 to 3 years.
We have a pretty aggressive hiring strategy across the
country that we are pretty proud of, and we are doing all that
we can with our internships, our third parties--we work a lot
with third parties. Right now we are gearing up for our summer
students to come in to take a look at us to see if they would
like to continue to work for us over the next few years. We are
using every authority we have. We have direct hire authority,
and we are continuing to look at how we can use that. So we are
using almost every authority we have to see how we can bring
more folks in.
One of our limiting factors has been that as we hire soil
conservationists, and the soils course is the limiting factor
for folks coming out of college. A lot of universities do not
offer that course any longer. We have been working with a lot
of them, the 1890s, and the 1862s, and Hispanic-serving
institutions, and--saying we need to get soils back into this
curriculum. That is the basis for everything that we do at
NRCS. It is a foundational course that everyone in agriculture
should have, no matter what your major is in agriculture. You
should have a soils class. And so that is one of the things
that we are struggling with, but we have--we just----
Ms. Spanberger. Sir, if I could interrupt you. So,
universities just aren't offering it, which is a limiting
factor. Is that a limiting factor in terms of just who is, as a
result, qualified for positions you are hiring for? Is that a
baseline that they could get as part of their training once
they have been hired? Could you just speak a little bit more
about how that creates a challenge, and where we might be able
to step in with support?
Mr. Cosby. For the soil conservationist position, it takes
30 hours in natural resources.
Ms. Spanberger. Yes.
Mr. Cosby. It takes 12 in plants and soil science, and then
it takes at least 3 in soils. And the 3 hours in soils has been
the limiting factor with a lot of our soil conservationists
coming in. Now, we do have a lot of other positions that don't
require that. Our technician positions, our engineering
positions, some of those type things, we don't require it. But
for our professional ranks, that is a limiting factor for us
getting folks on. And then when they come on with us, we may
have to bring them on in a different fashion, and then they
promise to go back and get that soils course, because that is a
requirement.
Ms. Spanberger. Yes. Of the position?
Mr. Cosby. Yes.
Ms. Spanberger. And what has been the responses when you
have been doing that outreach to the universities about how
important that coursework is to your workforce?
Mr. Cosby. I will tell you, it has been outstanding.
Ms. Spanberger. Okay.
Mr. Cosby. Most of them didn't understand that dropping
that would be a dilemma for the folks that are graduating from
that university.
Ms. Spanberger. Of course.
Mr. Cosby. And I will tell you, some of the colleges just
don't have the funding to make that happen. When--the soils
course, you have to have laboratories, and all those type
things, and so it is a limiting factor for funding for some of
the universities.
Ms. Spanberger. And just assuming out--in my limited time,
beyond some of the specific hiring challenges, I am curious
what could be some of the ways that we could encourage the next
generation to enter conservation-related or agricultural-
related positions? Certainly, many of us have incredible
organizations like FFA in our districts that are really making
sure that students are aware of the opportunities. But, in the
remaining time, would you have any comments on how--what we
could be doing better as a nation?
Mr. Cosby. It is a K through 12 program. We need to make
sure that we start early on with students. We have a lot of
people that are graduating in some ag-related field, or
agribusiness, and they just don't know what they want to do
yet. But I will say that we do is important, and we would love
to have them come work for us.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back, and now we go to
my good friend from the great State of Oklahoma, Representative
Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Baird. Chief Cosby, I
believe the last time we spoke we were standing on a watershed
structure in my home county in Roger Mills County in the Third
District of Oklahoma. And as you were able to see that day, I
come from a community that is fiercely supportive of the
Watershed Construction and Rehabilitation Programs and has been
for generations. These programs are vitally important not only
to my home community, but to the entire State of Oklahoma, a
place that is home to over 2,000 watershed structures. So,
Chief Cosby, could you speak to the importance of the Watershed
Program nationally, and give us an update on how the watershed
funding included in the recent infrastructure package is being
sent?
Mr. Cosby. Yes, sir, and thank you. Good morning, and thank
you for being a champion for the Watershed Program. I know you
have done that for a lot of years, and it was a pleasure to be
out in Oklahoma with you to look at one of the watersheds that
you and one of my successor, Mr. Pearlie Reed, was at early on,
and so thank you for that. And this program is hugely
important.
BIL, the bipartisan infrastructure law, gave us about $918
million within this program, and it went into three different
buckets. One was watershed operations. It was very important
for the operations to have funding, because we are looking at
new projects. How do we go into some of these communities and
help protect them from flooding? And the next bucket that it
went into was rehab. We have a lot of dams out there that are
at their 50 to 60 year mark. They are aging, the emergency
spillway is not functioning. A lot of the pipes have rusted
out. We need to replace them. And so we have a lot of
structures out there that need a lot of help. And I was just in
my home State of Mississippi and saw some of those in my
backyard. And a lot of times folks live downstream from these
dams, and really don't know what type of protection it is
providing for them.
And then, the third bucket is our Emergency Watershed
Protection, EWP. We had over 60 different events this year that
we responded to with EWP. The amount of success we have had
with this program is tremendous, but we have a huge waiting
list of folks that are trying to get in. One of our limiting
factors is that, with these events, these storm events and
things that are happening, it takes a lot of staff power to do
this. And so we are mobilizing folks to wherever in the country
that we need this help. We have a huge waiting list. We have a
lot of folks that are saying, hey, when are you going to get to
us, and so we are trying to make sure that happens. But, it was
a huge shot in the arm with the BIL and the $900 million.
Mr. Lucas. Last Congress I, along with my colleagues,
introduced the Carbon Sequestration Collaboration Act (H.R.
8337). This legislation directs a coordinated research effort
across the Department of Energy, Agriculture, and the
Department of the Interior to improve our ability to sequester
carbon through land use. Specifically, the legislation is in
response to the great need for research and development to
support the accurate and affordable monitoring, reporting, and
verification of carbon sequestration and other conservation
outcomes. Could you both speak to how this knowledge gap may
limit the capacity and the impact of programs administered by
both NRCS and FSA now and in the future?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Certainly, sir, and I appreciate it, and
thanks for the question. Having the right set of data is going
to be important in making the adjustments that are going to
continue to drive the enrollment in these programs, drive the
participation in these programs, and we use some of the money
that we have access to do monitoring, assessment, evaluation of
conservation impacts in our CRP Program. Some of those are
directly focused on carbon sequestration, but I think one of
the important aspects of the work we do is that we take it
broader than that, and it is not just about carbon
sequestration. It is about how do we balance that with working
lands.
And it is my belief, sir, that if we don't have working
lands in conservation, we are not taking advantage of the full
opportunity to sequester carbon, because anybody that has seen
that CRP field that hasn't had enough wildlife on it, or hasn't
had enough animal impact, knows that it doesn't continue to
cycle that carbon through. So it is important to have the right
set of data to make that determination, and we are working to
build that out.
Mr. Lucas. Chief?
Mr. Cosby. Yes. We are also working to do the same thing.
This last year we created what we call the CEMA 221. It is the
Conservation Evaluation and Monitoring Activity, and what this
does is help us look at the soil organic carbon stock, and
doing these evaluations, how are we sequestering? We are
looking at greenhouse gas emissions. How are we helping with
that? And it is going to be very important, as we apply these
conservation practices, to explain to the public, what are the
benefits, and what are they getting for these dollars that they
are investing in conservation?
Mr. Lucas. Indulge me, Mr. Chairman. Chief, one last quick
question. How many authorized personnel at NRCS, how many
funded by the appropriations process, how many vacancies?
Mr. Cosby. We are at 10,700 this morning.
Mr. Lucas. Authorized?
Mr. Cosby. Authorized. We can go to 11,000 authorized. And
we are going to try to get there, and then we are looking at a
little over 3,000 employees over the next 3 to 4 years.
Mr. Lucas. So there are 3,000 vacancies, approximately?
Mr. Cosby. Somewhere around that. And we have about a ten
percent attrition rate, so we lose about 1,000 folks every
year.
Mr. Lucas. I appreciate the Chairman's indulgence. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you, and the gentleman yields back. And
next we are going to go south to New Mexico, to Representative
Vasquez.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member. Chief Cosby, Administrator Ducheneaux, thank
you for both attending this hearing. USDA's voluntary
conservation programs, like EQIP and CSP, are some of our best
tools to conserve our agricultural lands for future
generations. To me, conservation has always been taught as the
wise use of natural resources, using our resources in a fashion
that leaves something behind for the next generation.
So let me first say that I am glad to see that New Mexican
farmers and ranchers have taken advantage of USDA's
conservation programs. I am proud that my state benefits from
programs like EQIP. However, in talking with some of my
constituents over the last several months, some producers from
my district feel that these Federal programs aren't working
well enough.
The Middle Rio Grande Conservation District, for example,
manages conservation and irrigation programs in Bernalillo,
Socorro, and Valencia Counties in my district. They recently
told me how they tried for over a year and a half, 18 months,
to enter into the Regional Conservation Partnership Program
with NRCS, but ended up backing out due to delays and a lack of
certainty in communication. A farmer in Socorro County that
worked with NRCS is stuck now with a concrete irrigation ditch
that is less efficient than his previous dirt ditch because of
what he characterizes as a lack of coordination between the
Service and the local conservancy district to ensure it
functioned as it was intended. And recently a group of
constituents, attempting to get an urgent small watershed
program project moving to address rural flooding were told by
NRCS representatives it would take 5 to 6 years before they
could even get the project off the ground.
Now, in this drought and climate crisis, and when--this
influx of funding from the IRA, we cannot meet the moment if
government is slow and works inefficiently. Every growing
season is critical, and if farmers and ranchers are
continuously delayed in working with NRCS, they simply won't
enroll. Chief Cosby, how often do NRCS applicants back out of
projects citing reasons of delays?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, I am not aware of--there have been any
projects that when we walked in the door there was a lot of
things that had already been set in play, and I am really happy
today to tell you that we have turned that corner, and we have
improved these programs tremendously. And we don't expect that
to happen in the future, especially with RCPP.
If you look at the RFP that we put out last Friday, there
is a lot of flexibility there, and we built a team around this.
And I think you are going to see us delivery a very efficient
program, so we don't expect that to happen any further. And
because we understand that when you can't get this implemented,
and you can't get it on the ground, it affects producers. It
affects their livelihood, their productivity. It affects
everything around that. And the team that we built to help with
this is going to deliver.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, Chief, I appreciate that.
And I think programs like this have an impact beyond the
subscribers of these programs. We face landscape-scale
challenges, and I think these landscape-scale solutions are
important in every little project that gets funded. Helps
contribute to solving the crisis that we face, at least in my
state, New Mexico, with droughts, and with wildfires. And, of
course, the unfortunate often--decision we have to make to
fallow lands to be able to conserve the water that we need for
the future.
Because these programs are so vital, according to the 2017
Census of Agriculture--mentioned that the American farmer's
almost average of 58 years old, and only eight percent of
farmers are under 35 years old. So we need folks to actually be
subscribing to these programs in the future, the farmers of the
next generation. Administrator Ducheneaux, given how difficult
it is for the next generation of farmers to get into
agriculture, what can FSA do to improve credit availability for
young and beginning farmers, and particularly those that are
working on leased lands, and not owned lands?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you very much for the question, sir.
And 45 seconds isn't enough to do that justice, so we will get
back to you.* But in short order, we are looking to streamline
our loan application process and eliminate the barriers between
producers in those circumstances and participation in our deal.
We have, by far, the best opportunity for producers to take
advantage of the opportunity to get into agriculture with our
credit programs, and we continue to refine that. And you will
see some of those provisions that we have offered indicated in
the President's 2024 budget. We welcome a chance to follow up
more deeply with you on that as you consider your options for
the 2023 Farm Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p. 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, and it would be great to
have, perhaps, a meeting with some of our constituents,
especially our associations of young farmers, to better explain
to them how the FSA plans to implement these changes. Thank you
so much, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Ducheneaux. I would love to get back out there. Thank
you.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and now we go to
my good neighbor, Representative Miller from Illinois.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes. Chief Cosby, in your
testimony you state that the USDA is focused on ensuring rural
America plays a key role in our transition to cleaner sources
of energy. I am very concerned about the use of solar panels on
prime farm ground. Is it the policy of NRCS that the placement
of solar panels on prime farm ground is good conservation
practice?
Mr. Cosby. Ma'am, and thank you for the question. And I
know this has been a topic of discussion around the country,
and we have not taken a position on that. NRCS has not. What we
do is we deliver conservation practices, and I think that is
our lane, and hopefully that is where we plan to stay, is
delivering conservation practices. And when it comes to solar
panels, or even conversion of farmland, it is something that
has happened at an alarming rate across the country----
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Cosby.--but hopefully when that happens, we are doing
conservation practices, conservation measures, to make sure we
don't have erosion on those sites.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Well, not just erosion, but this
is prime farm ground. We are seeing tens of thousands of acres
in Illinois being taken out of production, and these solar
panel, like--whatever you want to call it--it is not really
farming. Solar panels are covering that land. But, in general,
does the NRCS consider it good conservation to put hazardous
materials on land?
Mr. Cosby. I am not sure I am following the question, but
what I would say is that we have not studied this, we have not
been involved in installing solar panels, so I can't answer
that question for you.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Recently, in a letter to
shareholders, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase suggested the
government should use eminent domain to take private property
to get adequate investments fast enough for grid, solar, wind,
and pipeline initiatives. Can you ensure us here today that the
USDA does not agree with this statement?
Mr. Cosby. Ma'am, again, I have not read that. I am not
sure exactly what is in that, but again, we have a distinct
role--NRCS and Farm Service Agency--we have a distinct role,
and we will leave that up to other folks to decide how that
works and when that happens.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Administrator Ducheneaux, as I am
sure you know, the USDA's Equity Commission report was very
critical of the county committee system at FSA. Can you talk
about how the county committees are important to FSA?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Yes, ma'am, and it goes to the opportunity
to have local input. And, really, the FSA county committee
structure is one of the only places in the Federal Government
where citizen stakeholders can have that level of input in
program delivery, program eligibility, and program
determination.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Ducheneaux. That can have benefits, and those benefits
can also sometimes inure to those that are at the table. And in
some cases, and what the Equity Commission was getting at, is
oftentimes those committees aren't truly representative of the
diversity in that particular county that they represent, and
the Equity Commission was contemplating whether or not there
should be some adjustments made to ensure appropriate
representation not only across diversity of people, but across
diversity of production practices, and diversity of production
goals.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Ducheneaux. So, that is what the Equity Commission's
getting at.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes. Do you think the USDA's time
and money would be better spent promoting policies that help
farmers, instead of playing political games with an Equity
Commission?
Mr. Ducheneaux. That is a really good question.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Ducheneaux. We did not ever stop developing policies
that work for farmers while the Equity Commission was doing
its----
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. But we are diverting time and
money in that area, instead of looking at policies that promote
supporting farmers and producers. Last Friday I had a farm bill
roundtable with many of my constituents. I can tell you, they
are much more concerned about their ability to pass on family
farms to the next generation, and feeding America, than they
are about equity and climate change. I hope that the USDA will
change course and focus on real issues that farmers are facing.
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you, ma'am. In conversations that we
have across the countryside with producers of all types and all
backgrounds, they want the same opportunity that your producers
are talking about and our job is to ensure that we are
deploying those equitably across all of our farmer
stakeholders.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. And next we go to
Hawaii, and that is Representative Tokuda.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, that is perfect. Thank you for your
testimony today. I want to first begin by thanking your teams
in Hawaii for their dedication to helping producers in our
state. I recently held meetings with ag producers on five
islands in a 5 day time period earlier this month and invited
all of our Federal partners from USDA to each of my farm bill
listening sessions. J.B. Martin, Director of NRCS Pacific
Islands Area joined me on almost every island to speak about
programming available to them, which greatly benefitted
everyone in attendance. FSA State Director Joy Kono's team also
joined me at every listening session, and Chris Kanazawa, Rural
Development State Director for Hawaii and the Western Pacific
was also in attendance. And this really helped to make sure
that we could connect our Federal programs with farmers,
producers, and ranchers on all of the islands within my
district. So, please extend a warm mahalo from me to all of
your Hawaii teams and representatives.
Now, during these listening sessions I happened to take a
small prop plane over to the Island of Molokai, and what I saw
when I looked out the window was a disaster area. You could see
large amounts of red dirt runoff choking off the ocean, killing
off the local coral reef fish. Many on our islands actually
live off subsistence farming and fishing. This is taking away
their ability to feed themselves. On Molokai I also toured
degraded cattle land with his team. I saw eroded dirt roads
that were as deep as I am tall, and I am not even joking, and
this is exacerbated by invasive species as well as ungulates
like axis deer and feral pigs, which are just ravaging our
land.
Mr. Cosby, we have heard from a number of Members of this
Committee, the leadership of the Committee, about the
historical oversubscription of EQIP. We have heard about delays
that are being experienced. Is NRCS looking to prioritize
awards for certain practices, producers, or regions with
funding from the Inflation Reduction Act? And in particular, is
NRCS considering setting aside IRA funding for indigenous and
traditional conservation practices, practices that are unique
to certain areas and growing conditions? Perhaps even looking
at rural and remote communities with limited access to
infrastructure, and that have been hit hardest by some of the
weather impacts you are seeing right now?
Mr. Cosby. And thank you for your question, ma'am, and I
would say, to all of those, yes. And I would go a little bit
deeper to say that our programs are--and we talked about this,
they are locally-led. We try to use a local-led process, and on
an annual basis we give budgets out to our states. And Mr.
Martin is a newly elected--selected director down in Hawaii,
and he has done a great job. But, we try to work from the
locally-led process, and we let the local folks try to decide
what those resource concerns, what those resource needs are.
And then we have what we call a State Technical Committee
that that information flows up to, and Mr. Martin, also the FSA
Director, they get input from that committee. They talk about
how those programs should work on a statewide basis, or, in
your situation, on an island basis, and they administrate
because of what the local needs are. And so I know that they
are down there taking sign-up right now, and I know it is
working pretty well. And the influx of IRA dollars just help
us--last year we were only able to fund one in three contracts
through EQIP and so it has given us a huge shot in the arm.
Ms. Tokuda. Yes.
Mr. Cosby. Our staff right now is processing about 29
contracts per hour. We are ahead of where we were last year.
Last year, just with the 2018 Farm Bill, we are only about 25
percent committed to contracts. This year, we are over 30
percent. Our talented staff out there are doing a great job.
They are implementing this, and they--I just can't be more
happy about our staff and what they are doing. And we are
really implementing and delivering.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. And I will just say, I know I have
limited time, that, given that we have so much to do, we have
resources we should be able to get out there and deploy, but I
am a bit concerned right now about recent reports of the
Agriculture Appropriations bill cutting the top line item for
NRCS by $29.7 million. I really do feel that this is going to
kind of shoot us in the leg right now as we are trying to
deploy out more much needed resources, and supports to our
farmers, ranchers, and producers. We have heard about it here
today, in terms of the oversubscription. We have heard about
delays. I think this would be behooving us to not cut this
amount any further. It would really limit your staff's ability
to get the work that they need done.
We need more staff than less, so--in particular for myself,
I am concerned about rural remote areas, like, Hawaii and the
Pacific Islands, that right now Mr. Martin has a lot of work to
do, and very little resources, and a team to be able to do
that. Given my 10 seconds I have left, I will say that a big
concern for us includes ungulates. As I have mentioned, axis
deer is a big issue. I think we need to look at ways that we
are going to be able to fill gaps in outstanding issues using
EQIP funds and other monies to be able to help our ranchers and
producers manage an overwhelming amount of invasive species.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back, and now we are
going to go the great State of Minnesota, with Representative
Finstad.
Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Spanberger, for holding this important hearing
today. And to you, Administrator Ducheneaux and Chief Cosby,
thank you for your testimony and your continued leadership. As
a proud fourth generation farmer from southern Minnesota, I
know that farmers are the best environmentalists in the world.
I see this every day. We work every day to protect our water
and our topsoil, not because the Federal Government tells us to
do it, but we do it for the next generation of farmers and
families that we are proud to be raising. And so we want to
make sure that we can continue to work to fuel and feed the
world.
So with that being said, I have a couple questions in
regards to the CRP Program. Administrator Ducheneaux, across
Minnesota's First District we are seeing CRP rates compete with
or exceed land values per acre of farm ground. It is making it
difficult for farmers to secure new ground and maintain current
leases for land. As you know, in the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress
kept CRP payments at 85 percent of county rental rates. So I
guess my question is, do you believe that reforms made to the
CRP Program in the 2018 Farm Bill are achieving their goal of
limiting competition against farmers for prime farm land?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
During one of the trips, I had a chance to make out to
Minnesota, we had a visit in Rice County in Minnesota, and saw
firsthand some of the ag production there, talked with some of
the producers. Also during one of those visits we had a chance
to talk with some of the distressed borrowers who we have been
able to help with the Inflation Reduction Act, and that young
fellow that we did help mentioned, ``I go around, and I have to
get the cheapest, poorest land in the county, and try to make
it work on that, because of the competition.'' He didn't
mention the competition with CRP. He mentioned the competition
with other interests that really, I think are more indicative
of a consolidation of resources, and when one small producer
goes out, typically another producer gets bigger, and we lose
bodies in our rural communities.
To your question, though, I think that the incentives that
we offer in CRP give producers a meaningful choice, and the
choice that they make with their resources is not for us to
dictate. Our job is to get the opportunity out there in front
of them so that they can make the best choice now. On the side
of those that need to acquire that land, we continue work to
refine our credit opportunities so that we are ideally
positioned for those beginning farmers, taking advantage of the
tools that we have to offer. Again, as land prices increase,
our ability to deliver those loan programs continues to
diminish in respect to the opportunity that is there.
So, I welcome the conversation with you and your
stakeholders. Sir, I would love to visit more about it, but I
think we are offering a great opportunity for a voluntary and
incentive-based program. And there are countywide limits that
limit the amount of land that can be enrolled that are set
elsewhere, not at the Department.
Mr. Finstad. Yes. Well, I appreciate that answer, and I do
welcome further conversation, because I think it is healthy for
us to have a conversation about what does CRP 2.0 look like?
With all of the science and advancement that we have with soil
science, with precision agriculture, with really understanding
the soil, I think it is important for us to make sure that as
we look at, especially in southern Minnesota, some of the most
fertile, prime farmland that we have, every time we take an
acre of that out of production we lose that, and we become more
vulnerable. And, really, food security is national security,
so----
Mr. Ducheneaux. Yes.
Mr. Finstad. It is a conversation that we have to keep on
having, that we have to make sure happens. In 2021 USDA added a
ten percent inflationary adjustment for both the general and
continuous CRP contracts to: ``increase program payments to
encourage more land enrollment.'' This move incentivizes farm
country to take high quality land out of production. FSA touts
several programs to help young and beginning farmers, yet I
have heard from some of these very same young and beginning
farmers in southern Minnesota that CRP rates have forced them
to compete with the Federal Government for farmland.
So currently we pay a percentage of the county rental rate
for land going into the program. Would you be in favor of the
general idea of paying more for marginal land, and less for
prime farmland, so the program doesn't compete for productive
farmland?
Mr. Ducheneaux. I think that is what some of our incentive
payments actually do, is incentivize that land in the margin,
think about buffer zones, buffer strips. While I was on that
trip to Minnesota, I had a chance to visit with free-Range
Poultry, who are working on the fringes of prime farmland to do
free-ranging poultry production for some of the underserved
producers there. I think there is a lot of opportunity in
considering that on a more granular level. And with our
erodibility index tool adjustments we have made, we are looking
more precisely at the land that is being enrolled so that we
can move towards something like that, sir.
Mr. Finstad. I appreciate your comments. I look forward to
further conversations. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and next we go to
Illinois for Representative Budzinski.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Ranking Member. Thank you to the panelists for being here
today. My question is really first--for Chief Cosby and
Administrator Ducheneaux, I understand that there has been
really positive feedback from stakeholders responding to the
launch of the Increasing Land, Capital, and Markets Access
Program from last August. I believe that this program will be a
critical tool in meeting the needs of our new generation of
farmers, which you have heard a lot about from--already from
Members of this Committee, the importance of them, and
addressing our crisis of land access. As we eagerly await award
announcements, can you provide us with any insights into what
the Department may need to successfully run this program over
the next 5 years, and if it is permanently authorized within
the farm bill?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. I
believe we have put out a $300 million opportunity in that, and
I know that we have had oversubscription for that, so, to me,
that indicates that there are a lot of solutions out there in
the countryside from our stakeholders that we may not have
contemplated yet. And I think continuous support for that type
of on the ground research, shopping those good ideas, and
empowering people to take control of that to improve land
access for the very same beginning farmers and ranchers that
struggle to find a way to carve out a footprint. And it is not
just about the access to the prime farmland, it is about
opportunities in urban centers, and rural Tribal Nations. So I
think there is a lot of opportunity there. We have to continue
support these initiatives if they are going to grow roots, and
take a hold, and grow into something new.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Anything you might like to add, Chief
Cosby?
Mr. Cosby. Nothing to add to that.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay.
Mr. Cosby. Mr. Ducheneaux is doing a very great job over
there handling this.
Mr. Ducheneaux. Okay, great. I will move on to my next
question. Actually, that is for you, Chief Cosby. I am really
excited--I was excited that the Partnerships for Climate-Smart
Commodities launched last February, and in September the
Secretary announced $2.8 billion in 70 selected projects under
the first pool of funding, with an additional 71 receiving $425
million in December. As we work to have more farmers
transitioning and working toward the implementation of more
conservation and climate-smart practices, I am curious if you
have identified ways you can continue to incentivize innovation
in this space, and whether adding NRCS practice standards is
something achievable for growers who may not have had the
technical expertise to navigate these programs?
Mr. Cosby. Ma'am, I will tell you that it has been pretty
exciting to watch that program, and then watch how it has
flourished. And, it all started--the Secretary made $1 billion
available, and we had almost $20 billion worth of requests for
that $1 billion, and so we went back and added a little over $2
billion to that. So $3.1 billion went into climate-smart
commodities, and there is a lot of excitement across the
country.
I mean, when you look at the amount of folks that applied
for that program, the commodity growers across the country that
really wanted to work with us, and work with their producers to
get conservation on the ground--and we are talking about
climate-smart solutions. When you look at the new and expanding
market opportunities that this is going to have, it is going to
be a tremendous program.
And when we talk about our conservation practice standards,
we review those on a rotational basis, but over the last few
years we have looked at all of those, and we make sure that it
is up to date, it has new technology. We are looking at--how do
we include indigenous information into those standards, and I
think we have some of the best standards in the world.
And when you look at these practices, when you talk about
the co-benefits, one practice does not have one solution. It
helps with several solutions. And when you use these practices
in a system approach, it is tremendous benefits that we are
having. Whether it is a climate benefit, whether it is a water
quality benefit, or a wildlife habitat benefit, the co-benefits
are tremendous.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you. And I could fit in one more
question that is more specific to my area in central and
southern Illinois. At the beginning of the month a blowing dust
storm swept through central Illinois, in my district. An
unusually dry spring, combined with sustained winds, tragically
caused blackout conditions, causing eight deaths and many more
injuries. What can your agency do to help producers and
communities impacted by these types of events?
Mr. Cosby. Ma'am, we heard about that, learned about it,
and our hearts go out to the families of lost loved ones and
lost family members there. But, one such solution is through
our conservation systems approach, and getting good soil health
measures on those acres. And that is something our team will
continue to do, it is something that we will continue to reach
out, and it is done in a voluntary basis.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back, and now we go all
the way to the West Coast, and California. Representative
Durante.
Mr. Duarte. Duarte.
The Chairman. Duarte.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I
represent a whole bunch of orchard and vineyard growers in my
district that just love the EQIP irrigation efficiency grants.
And oftentimes, on new plantings, many of those grants have
requirements that do not allow the beginning of installation of
an irrigation system until grant payment is received.
Now, Mr. Cosby, you have let us know that you have many of
your staff diligently working at a rate of 29 approvals per
hour, and we appreciate that, but nothing can happen until the
check gets to the farmer, as I understand from many of my
constituents. Is there anything we can do on our end that would
allow these projects to begin installation on the farm at a
time they are approved, rather than waiting for the initial
payment of the grant to show up?
Mr. Cosby. Thank you, sir, for the question, and there is
an option called Advance Payment, and it is readily available
to the farmer to use that option. When they come in and sign
up, and as soon as they are approved, they can ask for advance
payment, and we can make that, and they have up to 90 days to
start the work after they receive that advance payment. So,
yes, we do have an option where we can get farmers started
right away, and then they can continue.
A lot of these contracts are 3 years, and they stretch
those practices out over that 3 year period. But if they want
to start right away, are going to get something done in that
first 12 months, we can issue them an advance payment.
Mr. Duarte. Well, thank you. That is great news. And could
you please send me even a link that I could share with my local
Farm Bureaus?
Mr. Cosby. We will do that, sir.
Mr. Duarte. I appreciate that. Sounds good. Next set of
questions for you, Mr. Ducheneaux. We had the EPA Director in
here, Michael Regan, a few weeks ago. We had a lot of concerns
here in the Agriculture Committee about logistics, farm power,
mobile diesel engines that we use, that certain EPA regs really
are very difficult to keep compliant in the upcoming years. And
we actually counted this, I had my staff count it. He referred
to biofuels 32 times during that one hearing as the solution to
some of the power requirements on farms and other issues we
would be facing.
Well, you and I know, without much imagination that that
level of reliance on biofuels, in addition to what we are
already pulling out of ethanol and biodiesel, is going to be
quite extraordinary. Are we to take this serious that the
commitment on the Federal Government's part to provide that
kind of growth of supply of biofuels in order to fuel our
economy versus diesel, and what we might drill, is actually
coming? And have you integrated those demands into your FSA
programs? Right now we have 140 million acres tied up in
endangered species habitat conservation reserve, and other set-
aside acreages that is the size of California and New York. Not
electorally, but nonetheless, have you integrated all that
together? Can we believe that biofuels are on the way to power
our farms?
Mr. Ducheneaux. I think they can be a valuable tool to
power our farms. Many of our producers across the country
already use some version of biofuel to do it. I think our tools
are designed to help our producers participate in the viable
marketing of agriculture products for whatever the end-use,
whether it is biofuels to power the farms in California, or the
food and fiber that feed and clothe the nation and beyond. The
tools that we have to deploy are really about giving producers
those options, providing that safety net, and in some cases
providing that finance opportunity to help them open the door.
Mr. Duarte. Sure, but to revisit, conservation set-aside
programs and endangered species habitat preserves don't produce
biofuels, or food, or anything else, other than habitat and
conservation land. Where are we going to get the growth of
biofuels, and what percent of our nation's power do you think
will be incrementally supplied from biofuels, going forward?
And do you have specific goals within your program to make that
happen?
Mr. Ducheneaux. I think there are a lot of people that have
a way better estimation of the capacity or the percentage of
our fuels that can come from biofuels. But I will offer that
the programs within our conservation portfolio are more and
more working lands conservation, and we are offering producers
the opportunity, through CREP agreements and other types, to
maintain production while we engage in those conservation
measures. And you don't have good wildlife habitat without some
type of production on that acreage. You need the animal impact
as well, so I think they go hand in hand together, sir.
Mr. Duarte. So you are going to repurpose set-aside acreage
for biofuels production in some specific quantity?
Mr. Ducheneaux. I do not believe that is what I said, sir.
Mr. Duarte. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and next we go
back to Illinois. Representative Sorensen.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here today. I would like to talk about the Driftless
Area. The Driftless Area covers nearly 25,000\2\ miles in the
heart of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, spanning four
states, where glaciers missed the scouring of the land in the
last Ice Age. The place is special, and it includes my district
in northwestern Illinois.
The region features extremely productive, but very fragile
soils vulnerable to erosion. And especially, being a
meteorologist, we are seeing more of this happen with heavy
rain events and increasing severe weather as our world warms.
The USDA recognized the Driftless Area in DALCI in 2012, but
that program ended in 2017, and our region's needs for this
overarching program continue today.
As we heard from my colleague from southern Minnesota
across the aisle, we need NRCS to properly implement many of
the conservation programs in the farm bill. So for Chief Cosby,
my question to you, what are the benefits of having a
conservation program to protect the Driftless States like the
one the USDA created in 2012? Chief Cosby.
Mr. Cosby. Congressman, thank you for the question. And I
will tell you that when you look at these--and I would call it
probably a landscape initiative. When you look at these types
of landscapes, and when you can dedicate a set of funds for
that, and you can do the outreach to the producers to come in
and do these things, I think you are pretty effective. We have
these all across the country, where we concentrate just on that
area, and the Driftless area is one of those areas that we have
concentrated on and we offer this.
Mr. Sorensen. Yes.
Mr. Cosby. And then, from the local stand pack, how do you
build what those conservation needs are? What are the resource
concerns? Because they could change over counties, they could
change over states. And then how do you build something
successful around that, and then how do you put funding towards
that? And I will tell you that a lot of the things that we
offer would fit there. When you talk about EQIP, you talk about
CSP, you talk about RCPP, ACEP, all the programs that we
administer would fit in that area.
Mr. Sorensen. That is very good. And to continue in a
different realm, as a meteorologist, we are identifying an
increasing El Nino for this growing season, and many of the
producers in my district remember all too well what happened in
1988. So, Chief Cosby, you utilize waivers to help producers
dealing with drought. Could you provide us with some more
detail about these waivers, and then a follow-up, are there
common ones that we might want to address in the next farm bill
concerning drought?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, anytime you have to use waivers, it is
interesting when it is not something that is permanent, and you
use waivers at the discretion of what you are trying to
accomplish. But I will tell you that the investments that have
been made over with--especially with the 2018 Farm Bill, and
then when you put IRA, and you put BIL, and some of the other
things on top of that, these investments--I think the resources
are there. We just need to do a--probably a little more look-
see, and see where we could build on what we started there in
the Driftless Area, and maybe how we build on that, and how do
we do the outreach to producers to come in on that voluntary
basis to do these practices? And I think we could work with you
to look at this, and maybe study this, and see how we can
expand.
Mr. Sorensen. I appreciate that. To you, Administrator
Ducheneaux, I would really like--maybe a little bit more
clarification from the previous line of questioning. In my
district the farmers and the producers are ready for biofuels.
In northern, western, and central Illinois, we are ready to
power the future. The farmers understand that we are being
dealt a different set of cards today, through no fault of them.
How can I best, and how can we work together to support this
transition to biofuels that we need to meet our goals?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
look to the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Programs
that we rolled out over the last year. One of those is a jet
fuel biofuel that is going to happen in eastern South Dakota.
We are helping producers in that particular region have an
entirely new opportunity for the marketing of their product,
something that doesn't exist today. And I think that is the
strength in the partnerships' work that we are doing.
We have now got industry buy-in to this notion that we
should improve market opportunities for the commodities that
our producers grow beyond what already exists, and continue to
spur that innovation that our producers are so keen to deploy
when they have an opportunity to meet a need that this country
has.
Mr. Sorensen. Our farmers in western Illinois are ready to
meet this challenge head on, and so I look forward to working
with you. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and next we go to
Missouri, Representative Alford.
Mr. Alford. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Chief Cosby, and Administrator Ducheneaux, for being here
today. Chief Cosby, good talking with you about turkey hunting
in Missouri. Hopefully we can do that together someday.
Well, the Endangered Species Act requires agencies to use
the best scientific and commercial data available in their
analysis on listed species. However, EPA frequently does not
consider all the data available, and that is wrong. Chief
Cosby, does the NRCS have relevant conservation practice data
that would benefit the EPA when reviewing the impact of
pesticides on a dangerous species and their habitat, sir?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, we work very closely with what the EPA, and
the folks over there. We have a seat at the table during these
discussions, and we are making all of our practice standards,
and all the data that we have available to be used, and so we
have a very good partnership with the EPA.
Mr. Alford. What type of data has the EPA specifically
requested, and what have you provided?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, I am not part of those discussions, but I
know that I have staff there. What I would like to do is take
this question back to the team and maybe provide you some
information on this at a later date. But I would be happy to do
that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 49.]
Mr. Alford. That would be very helpful, because we do have
ongoing concerns that the EPA is not using the data as it is
supposed to, to make the proper decisions and the proper
ruling, so we would very much appreciate that.
The work of your agencies has contributed to de-listing of
many species under the Endangered Species Act, improving water
quality across the U.S., and promoting soil health and
conservation. However, I spend a lot of time talking to
constituents, but also to anti-agriculture environmentalists
that you just cannot regulate your way out of a natural
resource concern. In fact, several of my colleagues here today,
including Chairman Thompson, sent this very letter to Secretary
Vilsack and the President of the United States regarding anti-
agriculture climate remarks made by Special Presidential Envoy
for Climate John Kerry. Administrator Ducheneaux, in your
opinion, why does voluntary conservation have a better track
record than regulation, and why aren't farmers getting the
credit they deserve for being good stewards of God's creation?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you for the question, Mr. Alford. I
think we are giving the proper credit at the Department and at
the Agency, and always talking about their role in innovating
and preserving production for the future. And our job, again,
is to provide the tools to those producers so that they can
take a meaningful part in that, and continue to promote that
soil health, to get those species de-listed, and continue to
provide incomes and economic opportunity in our rural
communities.
Mr. Alford. Chief Cosby, do you have a comment on that,
sir?
Mr. Cosby. Yes, sir, and that is why technical assistance
is so important. We have a lot of landowners out there. A lot
of times they would like the technical assistance, and
sometimes they really don't want the financial assistance. They
want to do this on their own, and they are looking for the best
in technologies that we have through our systems.
The other thing is that what we see when we are out working
with producers, they take pride in their land, and they want to
do the best thing they can for their property. And we have so
many folks out there that are doing this on their own, without
government assistance, and you see that on a lot of farms that
you are on. And so we try to figure out how do we give them
credit for the work that they are already doing?
And we learned from a lot of these folks, on some of the
conservation measures that they are putting on their farms. So
it is a give and take with my staff when they are on the land
with these producers that talk about some of the things that we
might recommend, and then we learn some of the things that they
are doing that has worked for years, and years, and years, so
it is a give and take. That is why we want to keep these
programs voluntary.
Mr. Alford. Let us talk about that, because you say in your
opening statement, ``We know voluntary conservation works.''
What are the potential dangers, though, of tying climate scores
and DEI initiatives to farming practices in America, Chief
Cosby?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, one of the things that we have to look at
is how do we make these programs flexible enough for every
person that wants to benefit from these programs are able to
participate? One of the things we used to talk about, every
acre counts, I think every acre and every producer counts, no
matter where you are on the landscape, whether you are in urban
America, or whether you are in suburbia, whether you are in the
rural areas.
And when we look at--and I think one of the things we have
to do is we have to tell the American public, these investments
that we are making in conservation, what are we paying for?
What are we buying? What is happening? And because the American
taxpayers are the one that is footing these bills, and so we
have to be able to tell them what is happening with these
investments in conservation.
Mr. Alford. Chief, thank you so much. Administrator, thank
you so much for your attitude here today, and your willingness,
and your candidness. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and next we go to
the great State of Florida. Representative Cammack.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
you both for being here today. I am so glad to see that both of
you highlighted the critical role that voluntary conservation
programs have on production agriculture in both of your
testimonies. I think it has been said multiple times here by my
colleagues, voluntary, producer-led, and incentive-based
conservation programs are the most effective ways that our
farmers can be the best stewards of their lands. So I will just
jump right into it. Chief Cosby, can you tell me what
vegetative filter strips are?
Mr. Cosby. It is one of the many different practices in our
repertoire, but when we talk about vegetative filter strips, we
look at where do they best fit? Is it a waterway, is it a field
border? And so we----
Mrs. Cammack. But specifically what they are.
Mr. Cosby. It is the planting of grasses in an area that
might be eroding, or have water issues, and some of those type
of things.
Mrs. Cammack. Can you tell me the cost?
Mr. Cosby. I cannot, but I can get that information for
you, and I think we do those on a acre by acre basis.
Mrs. Cammack. Yes.
Mr. Cosby. I can't tell you what the cost is, but I can get
that information for you, ma'am.
Mrs. Cammack. What about contour terracing? Can you explain
that to me?
Mr. Cosby. I have laid out a lot of contour terracing. It
is when you are farming around the hill, and you are trying to
divert water to the lowest place to get it out of the field,
and I have done that. I did that a lot of years when I was in
Iowa, and across the Midwest, and they work really effectively.
Mrs. Cammack. Good. I am so glad to hear that you know
what, in fact, contour terracing and vegetative filter strips
are because, when the EPA was here, they couldn't tell me what
it was. And, as someone who comes from agriculture, it is
pretty troubling when you have someone regulating an industry
that they can't really speak about. So I am thrilled that you
are able to describe that.
But in November the EPA published an update to their
Endangered Species Act workplan that proposed numerous costly
mitigation efforts that farmers, ranchers, and producers would
be required to implement when using crop protection tools,
including field buffers, vegetative filter strips, contour
terracing, et cetera. These regulatory mandates are in direct
contrast to our farm bill principles, that conservation should
be voluntary, incentive-based, and locally-led. Can you tell me
how you are working--and very briefly, because I have a couple
of other follow-up questions--with the EPA to make sure that
this conservation effort remains voluntary for our producers?
Mr. Cosby. And we have these discussions at all times. We
talk about what our path is at USDA, and especially NRCS, in
keeping these programs voluntary, and making sure we are
working with the producer for the very best positive outcome.
And we continue that conversation anytime we are meeting with
any agency or other department across the Federal family.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you. Chief and Administrator, when you
are staffing for your local offices, what are the onboarding
processes for your agencies, and how are those new staffers
gaining the necessary local knowledge they need to succeed in
the roles that they are filling? And I will start with you,
Administrator, and then to you, Mr. Cosby.
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. I
appreciate it. When we fill those positions at the local
office, a lot of that training happens locally.
Mrs. Cammack. Yes.
Mr. Ducheneaux. If they are a program technician, they come
on board with existing staff, if they are there. Otherwise, we
reach across and capitalize on our ability to work through the
Teams environment, and train in that manner. When it is our
County Executive Directors that we are bringing on, they go
through a pretty rigorous training system where they go around
that state to several different counties to see firsthand how
those counties deliver the programs before they are offered a
chance to lead in that county.
Mrs. Cammack. Perfect.
Mr. Ducheneaux. And it is critical that they have that
opportunity to get in there, roll their sleeves up, and get
some experience that is guided, because we all know it is
important to have some working knowledge of what is going on so
that they can bring their own unique skills to the table in a
manner that can help them innovate and continue to provide
better service to our producers.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you. Mr. Cosby, very quickly, if you
could?
Mr. Cosby. Yes. As we bring that local staff on, we team
those up with the local folks in that office. A lot of times we
ask the producers in the county, actually, to help mentor those
new employees, because a lot of these employees are not farm
kids anymore and they are coming from different sectors, and so
we try to do that. The training happens right there locally. It
is all mostly on the job training. It has been pretty difficult
the last couple years because of COVID.
Mrs. Cammack. Right.
Mr. Cosby. But, then there are some national trainings, but
we try to make sure--since these are locally-led programs, we
try to make sure those employees get that local training.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you. I am going to turn to FSA now. I
am sure that you are aware, Administrator, that FSA is facing
staff shortages, and that it is hurting our rural communities.
In fact, it is one of the main things that I hear about from my
producers, not just in my district, but across the State of
Florida. Administrator, what do you believe is causing this
shortage, and what is your agency specifically doing to address
the shortages of FSA personnel?
Mr. Ducheneaux. I think there is a stigma in this country
about the reality of Federal service, and I think too often
people are persecuted from engaging in Federal service and
painted as part of a bureaucracy. And I think instead we should
look at these folks as the forefront of delivery of essential
programs and services to our rural communities to give them the
lifeblood they need to have economic opportunity. And we all
need to get together and start to brag on our county staff the
way the Secretary and I do, instead of treating them like they
are part of some inefficient Federal bureaucracy, which just,
frankly, isn't true.
Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate that comment, and I will send a
few of my follow-ups for the record.
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Cammack. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank
you both, gentlemen.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and
next we go to Ohio, Representative Miller.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for holding this hearing as we seek to support efforts
by our nation's agricultural producers to sustain both
agriculture production, as well as the future viability of our
natural resources. I would like to extend a special note of
gratitude to NRCS Chief Terry Cosby, who acted as NRCS Ohio
State Conservationist for 16 years, and recognize his efforts
towards adoption of critical conservation programs in the great
State of Ohio, my state, and now throughout the country.
Welcome, Chief Cosby. It is great to see you.
Likewise, I would like to call attention to the Ohio
Agriculture Conservation Initiative, a partnership between
agriculture, conservation, environmental, and research
communities to recognize farmers for their dedication to
advancing methods that improve water quality in Ohio, and
increasing the number of farm-best management practices. These
collaborative efforts offer farmers the ability to proactively
employ modern science-based practices and carry out water
quality solutions to sustain resources.
Toward that end, and chief among critical conservation
objectives I have heard include maintaining working lands
conservation programs, streamlining the NRCS conservation
practice approval process, allowing for flexibility in
addressing local and regional resource challenges. As the
operator of Bowers Farms of Wayne County, Ohio, who was awarded
the Soil and Water Conservation District's Conservation Farm
Award noted, we try to look at our conservation practices as
the right thing to do with the soils we farm.
Chief Cosby, I understand the United States and Canada have
formed a partnership to prioritize the restoration of Lake Erie
and other Great Lakes. As a part of that effort, the NRCS,
along with five other Federal agencies, state, and other non-
government industry and academic partners are dedicated to
accelerating Lake Erie's rehabilitation through a number of
collaborative projects and initiatives, including the Western
Lake Erie Basin Project. How can NRCS best provide technical
and financial assistance to farmers to implement conservation
practices such as Lake Erie rehabilitation, and assist in a
comprehensive effort to improve water quality, soil health, and
sustain the region's economic viability and farm capabilities?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, thank you for that question. And when I was
back there in Ohio, I had an opportunity to start the Western
Lake Erie Basin Project, probably from day one, back in 2006,
2007, so it was a fun project to work on. And through that
effort we were able to bring in funds to help--how do we make
sure that doesn't happen again?
We had the water crisis up there along the lake, and we
have been working very diligently there with the NRCS staff and
team. And we have been working very closely with the
partnership with the Governor's office, with the DNR Director,
the EPA Director, and the Department of Agriculture in looking
at how these programs could be effective. We did an RCPP
project in that basin. We have what we call the Western Lake
Erie Basin Project, where the dollars are dedicated to help
farmers up there with cover cropping. And, I tell you what, we
are still continuing to work in the Western Lake Erie Basin. It
is 25 percent of all the fresh water in this country that is
held there, and I think that we have to continue doing that.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you, Chief. For the
Administrator, I am heartened by Federal conservation programs
that assist our farmers, ranchers, and landowners through the
voluntary adoption of sound conservation programs that benefit
my district, and the entire region. More specifically, I
understand December of 2022 the United States Department of
Agriculture and the State of Ohio continued a partnership
through the Farm Service Agency, Lake Erie Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, to assist Ohio farmers and agricultural
landowners in approving water quality and conserving other
natural resources through voluntary, incentive-based
conservation programs.
Please let us know how the Ohio-Lake Erie CREP, which
includes Medina County, in my Congressional District, offered
by USDA, the Ohio Department of Agriculture, and the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, through conservation practices
such as buffer strips, grasslands, and wetlands, is improving
water quality and making a positive impact on the natural
resources and farming operations throughout Ohio.
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As
with all of our CREP Program agreements that we offer, it puts
the producers and their stakeholder groups in the driver's seat
of addressing what those conservation concerns are. And as an
example, and one of the things we need to think about is that
while there are individual producer decisions to be made, we
are in this together. You mentioned the multi-state, multi-
national cooperative around Lake Erie.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Right.
Mr. Ducheneaux. We need to be able to put resource concerns
together and help producers have the tools to address those
things that they have in common to have a more meaningful
impact. So I think that is one of the values that our CREP
agreement has, is that it lets us amplify the impact by getting
some economies-of-scale on those conservation measures that we
deploy, and multiply those impacts on top of each other.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you very much. I would just like
to thank our witnesses, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. And now I would
like to invite my Ranking Member to share any closing comments
she may have.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chief
Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, for your testimony today.
Thank you for your extraordinary answers, very detailed, to the
questions asked this afternoon. Your dedication to conservation
and supporting America's farmers, ranchers, and foresters is
clear, and I am so grateful for your work at the helm of these
important agencies. The programs you all administer provide
vital support to farmers, but also to all of us, who benefit
from the conservation and environmental benefits of the
important conservation work that farmers and producers are
doing thanks to these programs.
Through continued efforts by your teams, our producers can
volunteer to conserve their lands for future generations. They
can employ conservation practices on their operations, and they
can help meet our shared goals for healthy lands, water, and
air. Thank you so much for your work. Thank you to your teams
and staffs for their work, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
having this hearing today. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I want to thank both of our
witnesses for being here today, Chief Cosby and Administrator
Ducheneaux, for sharing your visions and so on for our
conservation programs. And, Chief, you mentioned something that
I found interesting.
You mentioned that some of those dams out across the
country, those small dams, are at 50 or 60 years old, and may
be at the end of their useful life, but I know when I was a kid
growing up, we had some floods and we farmed the bottom ground,
and the farmers all got together with the local USDA folks, and
they came up with small dams up the tributaries to those
streams. And those are getting to be 50 or 60 years old, but I
would--just want to share that those were very effective. They
went up those tributaries, they stopped--they held the water,
and let it down. And so I just wanted to reinforce that we
probably ought to keep those.
But anyway, I want to thank the Ranking Member for being
here today, and I appreciate your participation. This has been
a very helpful conversation for our Members, and we look
forward to working with you and your agencies as the 2023 Farm
Bill does move forward.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member. And with that,
this hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and
Biotechnology is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Mark Alford, a Representative in Congress from
Missouri
May 22, 2023

Hon. Joesph R. Biden, Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'' Vilsack,
President of the United States, Secretary,
The White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.

Dear President Biden and Secretary Vilsack:

The United States recently hosted the Agriculture Innovation
Mission (AIM) for Climate Summit in Washington, D.C., a forum for
public and private sector stakeholders to discuss climate-related
issues in agriculture. In reality, the AIM for Climate Summit provided
the opportunity for speakers like Special President Envoy for Climate
John Kerry to attack America's hardworking farmers and ranchers and
paint them as the sole scapegoat for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We
strongly urge you to denounce Kerry's remarks. These comments are a
blatant slap in the face to the hardworking individuals that spend
their lives sustainably producing our world's food, fuel, and fiber.
Although the world agriculture industry accounts for 22 percent of
global GHG emissions, Kerry's alarmist narrative does not tell the full
story of American agriculture. According to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. agriculture industry is
the lowest emitting economic sector in America. Furthermore, U.S.
agriculture only represents ten percent of U.S. GHG emissions, which
translates to just 1.4 percent of 2019 global GHG emissions. In fact,
the U.S. agriculture industry has achieved a net reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions since the 1980s, whereas other top producers,
like China and Brazil, have increased emissions up to 86% over the same
time.
U.S. farmers and ranchers should be applauded for implementing
solutions to protect and conserve natural resources, sequester and
harness soil carbon, and increase farm yields, achieving climate
benefits as they go. According to the EPA, U.S. land management
practices alone removed 764 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere in 2018, which is more than the U.S. agriculture sector
emits in 1 year. This is largely due to innovations in technology and
science, like precision agriculture technology and biotechnology tools.
According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S. agriculture
would have needed nearly 100 million more acres of land 30 years ago to
match today's production levels. Animal agriculture also continues to
make advancements in nutrition, genetics and production practices that
reduce their already minimal footprint. Cattle recycle carbon dioxide
as part of their natural carbon cycle and the U.S. beef industry has
reduced emissions by more than 40% between 1961 and 2018.
American farmers and ranchers are committed to being stewards of
the land. We are appalled by the comments made by Special Presidential
Envoy for the Climate Kerry and ask that your Administration recognize
the responsible efforts agriculture producers make every day to feed,
clothe and fuel the world. Farmers and ranchers are the lifeblood to
our food security, and a nation that cannot feed itself would not be a
nation at all. We strongly urge you to condemn Kerry's remarks and
support American agriculture.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Mark Alford,
Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. Mariannette Miller-Meeks,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Dan Newhouse, Hon. Ashley Hinson,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Brad Finstad, Hon. C. Scott Franklin,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Monica De La Cruz, Hon. Mike Bost,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Mary E. Miller, Hon. Trent Kelly,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Intelligence and Special
Operations.
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Sam Graves, Hon. Ronny Jackson,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Hon. Zach Nunn,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Hon. Randy K. Weber, Sr.,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Dusty Johnson, Hon. Kat Cammack,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Randy Feenstra, Hon. Barry Moore,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Don Bacon, Hon. Brian Babin,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. James R. Baird, Hon. John S. Duarte,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. John W. Rose, Hon. Erin Houchin,
Member of Congress Member of Congress

______

Supplementary Material Submitted by Terry Cosby, Chief, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert
Mr. Alford. . . .
Well, the Endangered Species Act requires agencies to use the
best scientific and commercial data available in their analysis
on listed species. However, EPA frequently does not consider
all the data available, and that is wrong. Chief Cosby, does
the NRCS have relevant conservation practice data that would
benefit the EPA when reviewing the impact of pesticides on a
dangerous species and their habitat, sir?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, we work very closely with what the EPA, and
the folks over there. We have a seat at the table during these
discussions, and we are making all of our practice standards,
and all the data that we have available to be used, and so we
have a very good partnership with the EPA.
Mr. Alford. What type of data has the EPA specifically
requested, and what have you provided?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, I am not part of those discussions, but I
know that I have staff there. What I would like to do is take
this question back to the team and maybe provide you some
information on this at a later date. But I would be happy to do
that.

NRCS is collaborating with EPA to offer our experience and
scientific expertise regarding mitigation of impacts related to
integrated pest management. We may have relevant information and
expertise that can help inform EPA's regulatory actions. NRCS provided
EPA with an overview and access to the Resource Conservation Act Data
Viewer to develop custom queries to meet their needs. Another resource
that NRCS has is the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
information and reports, we have shared that with EPA as well.
______

Supplementary Material Submitted by Zach Ducheneaux, Administrator,
Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert
Mr. Vasquez. . . .
Because these programs are so vital, according to the 2017
Census of Agriculture--mentioned that the American farmer's
almost average of 58 years old, and only eight percent of
farmers are under 35 years old. So we need folks to actually be
subscribing to these programs in the future, the farmers of the
next generation. Administrator Ducheneaux, given how difficult
it is for the next generation of farmers to get into
agriculture, what can FSA do to improve credit availability for
young and beginning farmers, and particularly those that are
working on leased lands, and not owned lands?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you very much for the question, sir.
And 45 seconds isn't enough to do that justice, so we will get
back to you.

Improving credit availability for all customers, especially young
and beginning farmers and ranchers, is a paramount priority for FSA as
we understand that credit access is essential to increase opportunities
for market entry. Credit access is vital for beginning farmers to be
successful in the agricultural industry. FSA is addressing this
priority with a holistic approach that emphasizes improvements to
customer experience, equity, and program delivery. Among these efforts
are the following:
In February, FSA released a simplified direct loan application that
seeks to improve the customer experience by significantly reducing the
number of pages previously required to apply for loan assistance.
The launch of the Loan Assistance Tool (LAT) allows customers to
explore FSA loan programs and see what matches their specific
eligibility from the privacy and comfort of their own home prior to
making any contact with loan staff. This self-paced resource was
designed specifically with customer experience and functionality in
mind and further works to reduce barriers to success by providing easy
access to information. After walking customers through the eligibility
criteria with the aid of instructions and informational pop-outs, the
customer can decide if they would like to continue their pursuit of an
FSA loan with an application. This tool is the forerunner to current
efforts to deliver the first FSA loan program Online Application
portal, which is scheduled for deployment later in 2023.
FSA is currently revising and developing policies to improve
program access by adding certain eligibility and security criteria
flexibilities as well as reimagining loan underwriting analysis
techniques to add efficiencies that reduce burdensome processes for
customers and employees and better target risk management. FSA has
taken administrative action to implement these changes and is
finalizing regulatory changes as needed for their implementation.
______

Submitted Letters by Tom Kiernan, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Rivers
Letter 1
Monday, May 22, 2023

Hon. James R. Baird, Hon. Abigail [Davis] Spanberger,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Subcommittee on Conservation,
Research, and Biotechnology, Research, and Biotechnology,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.

Dear Chair[man] Baird, and Ranking Member Spanberger:

We are writing to you to express our gratitude for holding a
hearing on ``Conservation in the Farm Bill: Making Conservation
Programs Work for Farmers and Ranchers'' and we share your continued
commitment to improving voluntary, locally-led, and incentive-based
programs under USDA and NRCS. Attached to this letter is our full
report and fact sheet. We specifically ask that these materials, both
the report and fact sheet, be included in the hearing record.
Since 1973, American Rivers has protected wild rivers, restored
damaged rivers, and conserved clean water for people and nature. With
headquarters in Washington, D.C. and 355,000 supporters, members, and
volunteers across the country, we are the most trusted and influential
river conservation organization in the United States, delivering
solutions for a better future. We support comprehensive and rapid
response that expedite recovery efforts for farmers, ranchers, ag
producers, and landowners.
Improving USDA's Emergency Watershed Programs
The Emergency Watershed Protection Program--Floodplain Easement
Program (EWPP-FPE) offers farmers, ranchers, ag producers, and
landowners alternative voluntary methods to participate in conservation
programs aimed at reducing threats to life and property, and damage to
crops during natural disasters like fires and floods. The purpose of
the floodplain program is to restore the floodplain to its natural
condition to mitigate flooding damages on the farm. Recovery projects
allow NRCS to purchase floodplain easements. A key goal of the program
is to restore the land to the maximum extent possible using river
restoration techniques that enhance flow and storage of floodwaters,
control erosion, and improve the overall management and maintenance of
easements.
Our new report entitled, The Multiple Benefits of Floodplain
Easements, demonstrates the demand for floodplain easements around the
country, especially in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB). These
emergency watershed programs do not receive consistent, annual funding.
Despite the reoccurring costs of damages from flood and excess rain/
moisture, Congress makes no funds available to provide farmers with
much needed relief and resources. No matter where you live, out West or
in the Midwest, farmers and ranchers face potential displacement and
hardships due to uncontrolled floods and fires.
Costs of Flooding Impacts on Farmlands
Across the nation, our research finds flooding has caused $59.2
billion in damages over the last decade. Over that same period, farmers
enrolled in the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) reported $29
billion in damages caused by floods and excess moisture, with UMRB
states representing 34 percent of those damages. The cost of flooding
impacts on the nation and in the UMRB is rising as precipitation
increases, and damages are expected to continue to escalate as climate
change impacts intensify.
In the West, acequias are falling through the cracks when it comes
to fire and flood recovery assistance. Flood damage after the Hermits
Peak-Calf Canyon fire in the summer of 2022 impacted more than 700
people in New Mexico. The average market value for farms in the region
is about $20,000. These communities need our help. Local and state
governments simply do not have the cash reserves to deploy financial
resources to help small acequias associations. Today, these damages
across the watershed are escalating due to climate change.
With the new infusion of Federal funding through the Inflation
Reduction Act, we have a huge opportunity to reform USDA's watershed
programs in the upcoming 2023 Farm Bill to allow the creation of a
permanent, open-enrollment program that annually invests in the
increased coverage of floodplain easements to benefit agricultural
producers. Floodplain easements compensate landowners and farmers for
permanently conserving flood-prone lands through voluntary and market
driven policy measures backed by science and economics. Floodplain
easements support recreation, fishing, hunting, and agricultural
practices like grazing and other compatible uses.
Unfortunately, rising costs is not the only thing holding back
farmers and harming their futures. Requests from farmers, ag producers,
ranchers, and landowners for easements greatly exceed awards under EWP.
The way the current program is set up does not meet their needs in a
changing environment that constantly makes it harder for them to adapt.
Despite the valuable assistance of the program, concerns remain with
the implementation of EWP, including its eligibility requirements and
approval processes. Funding for floodplain easements is rarely
available where flood damages occur in states that need it the most in
the West and Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Transformative Community Benefits of Functional Floodplains
Floodplains are areas of land that become inundated with water
during or following precipitation events and are adjacent to a
permanent or ephemeral water body, like a river, stream, ditch, storm
sewer, lake or pond. Floodplains are the transition zone between the
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Floodplain easements restore,
protect, maintain, and enhance the functions of floodplains while
conserving their natural values such as serving as fish and wildlife
habitat, improving water quality, retaining flood water, and recharging
groundwater to support drought resilience in arid regions. Structures,
including buildings, within the floodplain easement must be demolished
and removed, or relocated outside the affected floodplain area. A
``functional floodplain'' is a floodplain that can perform the natural
processes that produce goods and services. These include:

1. Connectivity: The floodplain is physically accessible by water
from its adjacent river or stream to allow an exchange of
water, nutrients, sediment, and organisms.

2. Variable Flow: The connected river can produce flows with
magnitudes large enough to inundate the floodplain. These
flows must occur with the necessary timing, duration,
magnitude, and frequency to support native, local biota.

3. Scale: The floodplain must have the space to accommodate
inundation and the resulting habitat and landscape-forming
processes.

4. Habitat and Structural Diversity: The floodplain must have
diverse sediment-erosion and -deposition conditions,
gradients of hydrologic connectivity, ecological
succession, and naturally accumulated debris to generate
habitat supportive of terrestrial and aquatic organisms.
Support Drought Resilience and Include Flood Reduction Strategies in
the Next Farm Bill
Climate change has increased the frequency and ferocity of extreme
weather events. From fires to floods, our world is changing, and
farmers need more help to adapt. Dire conditions in the Colorado River
Basin call for collaborative solutions. The Colorado River has
consistently ranked the nation's Most Endangered River. Farmers are
facing some of the most water-scarce times in recorded history. A lot
of our partners live on small tributaries, and those streams do not
flow anymore. Federal action can help manage the water crisis in the
West. We call on Congress to put forward long-term solutions including
drought resilience and flood reduction strategies in the next farm bill
to improve the land's ability to recharge ground water supplies and
increase surface water supplies for future generations. It is clear
that nature-based solutions can help preserve the Colorado River now.
In the Mississippi River farm country, excessive rain and moisture
push back planting seasons and drown crops such corn and soybeans.
Farmers are taking different precautions to mitigate flood damages,
digging drainage trenches or installing more underground pipes, called
drainage tiles, in their fields in an effort to keep them from
flooding. But those steps have unintended consequences that may worsen
flooding and soil loss. Along the Le Sueur River in southern Minnesota,
this leaves family farms coming close to losing their entire homes and
their livelihoods due to sever erosion after heavy rains hit the area
last year.
In the last decade, we have seen well over $29 billion in crop
damages caused by floods and excess moisture, more than 172 million
cumulative acres impacted by flooding, and close to 9,500 agricultural
disasters related to flooding. Yet, funding for floodplain easements
remain rarely available where flood damages occur.
Recommendations for the 2023 Farm Bill
Given the multiple benefits of investing in floodplain easements
and the substantial unmet demand in the West and UMRB, we make seven
key recommendations that will provide guidance on how to continue
investments in floodplain easements to increase water storage, reduce
flood damages, and provide multiple beneficial services to communities
and wildlife across the country.

1. Congress should fund flood damage-reduction and floodplain
easements annually. The West and UMRB states have both a
need for flood-damage reduction and a sufficient number of
willing landowners to enter into voluntary easements that
exceeds the current Presidential disaster declaration-
dependent funding structure for floodplain easements. These
findings merit the establishment of a permanent, open-
enrollment program that annually invests in the increased
coverage of floodplain easements to benefit agricultural
producers, increase resiliency to floods, increase safety
of downstream communities, and reduce taxpayer burden for
repetitive damages.

2. The NRCS and USDA should establish and implement a tracking
system for floodplain easements. This tracking system would
document flood levels and damage reductions; ensure
establishment of a resilient, flood-adapted natural
community; and provide landowner guidance for managing
easement lands for floods as well as other compatible uses.
The existing Conservation Effects Assessment Project offers
one important opportunity to conduct an evaluation of
floodplain easements. This effort would be particularly
useful as a component of an intergovernmental initiative to
inventory and track data related to the protection and
restoration of functional floodplains.

3. The NRCS and USDA should collaborate with universities, the U.S.
Geological Survey and independent experts on economic
research that evaluates the total ecosystem services
associated with retiring cropland within the areas of land
that have a one percent annual chance of flooding (100 year
flood zone). This research should include evaluation of
alternative funding sources for floodplain easements based
on their provision of marketable ecosystem services.
Transactions for watershed services and water-quality
trading in the U.S. from roughly 1992 through 2008 amounted
to $9.75 billion.

4. Congress should remove the land-tenure requirements that generate
unnecessary paperwork for landowners and NRCS staff.
Requiring property owners to prove, and the NRCS to verify,
that a particular owner has held a piece of property for
more than 7 years adds an illogical eligibility barrier and
creates another layer of paperwork for all parties. The
requirement for property owners to have held a property for
7 years prior to the installation of a conservation measure
or easement ignores the increasing frequency of severe
floods and the rising recurrence of flood damages in
agricultural areas. Properties incur damages regardless of
owner or date of purchase.

5. The USDA should work with FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to track properties with recurring claims
due to flooding, and prioritize those properties for
enrollment. In 2012, when the URMB was experiencing the
most extreme drought event ever, flood and excess rain/
moisture was still reported on 1.1 million acres. The USDA
needs to track where flood and excess rain/moisture damages
are being reported within the FCIP, and through programs
administered by FEMA and the USACE. This would identify
properties that are at the most at risk of flooding, and
help prioritize investments.

6. The USDA should identify and make recommendations to farmers with
flood-prone properties on flood-compatible farming
practices that avoid repetitive losses. As flooding becomes
more frequent in the UMRB and sporadic in the West, the
USDA needs to develop recommendations to help farmers
reduce losses during flood events. These recommendations
could include flood-compatible recreational uses like
hunting and fishing, crop modifications that are flood-
tolerant, and alternative land uses like grazing. These
recommendations need to be developed across all programs to
prevent losses on acres in production, husbandry, and
conservation.

7. NRCS and USDA should develop science-based guidance for state
engineers regarding partial versus full removal of levees
on properties with easements. Several states have reported
that a portion of current and past floodplain and other
easement projects did not fully remove agricultural dikes
or levees from properties. The reasoning for leaving these
structures in place included a desire to limit the amount
of earth disturbance or tree removal that full structure
removal would cause, the added cost of necessary
engineering studies, a desire to maintain some hydrologic
control, concerns of adjacent property owners, scour
protection and other factors. While each of these issues
may be a valid concern at any given site, the NRCS must
provide guidance to its field staff to ensure that the
impacts associated with accommodating these issues are
balanced against maximizing the services of floodplain
storage and reducing long-term intervention needs.
Conclusion
AR's experience as a partner working with farmers, ag producers,
ranchers, and landowners on conservation program projects in the West
and UMRB has given the organization a unique perspective on how to
improve USDA's Emergency Watershed Programs. The next farm bill must
improve the flexibility, accessibility, and availability of these type
of important programs and increase the benefits to support farming
communities. Congress needs to help farmers, landowners, and ag
producers manage flood prone land to protect people, reduce the cost of
disaster recovery, improve water quality and quantity, and conserve
habitat for fish and wildlife.
We would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to share
these observations and our report with you. We would be happy to answer
any additional questions the Committee may have on this subject, and
serve as a resource in the future.
Sincerely,

Tom Kiernan, Matt Rice,
President and CEO, Senior Director, Southwest Region,
[Redacted] [Redacted]
Olivia Dorothy, Fay Hartman,
Restoration Director, Mississippi Conservation Director, Southwest
River, Region,
[Redacted] [Redacted]
Brian Graber, Jaime D. Sigaran,
Senior Director, River Restoration, Associate Director, Policy and
Government Relations,
[Redacted] [Redacted]
Eileen Shader, Ted Illston,
Director, River Restoration, Vice President, Policy and
Government Relations,
[Redacted] [Redacted]

attachment 1

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

2023 Farm Bill Priority

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo Credit: Crystal Dorothy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Last Decade

$29 billion

In crop damages caused by floods and excess moisture over the last
decade.

172 million

Cumulative acres impacted by flooding.

9,460

Agriculture disasters due to flooding over the last decade.

303

Number of easements enrolled in EWPP--Floodplain Easement Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reform USDA'S Emergency Watershed Protection Program
Extreme weather can strike farmers, landowners, agriculture
producers at any time and any place. Dealing with the aftermath can be
challenging and expensive especially in rural communities. Floodplain
easements compensate landowners and farmers for permanently conserving
flood-prone lands through voluntary and market driven policy measures
backed by science and economics.
A new report by American Rivers shows improving the national and
existing USDA Floodplain Easement Program in the 2023 Farm Bill,
Congress can enroll easement acres annually and provide farmers with
much needed flood damage reduction strategies to conserve and protect
ecosystems while feeding our nation and the world.
Overview
USDA's Emergency Watershed Protection--Floodplain Easement Program
(EWPP-FPE) is an existing program that offers technical and financial
assistance to help communities relieve imminent threats to life and
property caused by floods, fires, and other natural disasters that
impair a watershed.
The EWPP-FPE needs to be reformed to help farmers reduce the
financial impact of floods and use their flood-prone land for more
profitable purposes that improve the health of people, wildlife, and
rivers.
Rising Costs: Farmers enrolled in the Federal Crop Insurance
Program reported that flooding caused $29 billion in damages in the
last decade.
Frequently Flooded: Flooding is the most prevalent natural disaster
in the United States. Over 90% of natural disasters involve some kind
of flooding. On average each year, flooding causes $8 billion in
damages and 82 fatalities.
In Demand: Requests for easements greatly exceed awards. Despite
the valuable assistance of the program, concerns remain with the
implementation of EWP, including its eligibility requirements and
approval processes. Funding for floodplain easements is rarely
available in where flood damages occur.
How Congress Can Help
This next farm bill needs to be better, not just bigger. We urge
Members of Congress to introduce legislation to reform USDA's Emergency
Watershed Protection--Floodplain Easement Program.
Congress needs to help farmers, landowners, and ag producers manage
flood prone land to protect people, reduce the cost of disaster
recovery, improve water quality, and conserve habitat for fish and
wildlife.
Recommendations
Fund long-term flood damage reduction strategies

Establish a voluntary, open-enrollment program to benefit
agricultural producers increase resiliency to floods.

Establish a tracking system for floodplain easements

The existing Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) offers
one important opportunity to conduct an evaluation of floodplain
easements.

Require USDA to collaborate with economic experts

This research should include evaluation of alternative funding
sources for floodplain easements based on their provision of marketable
ecosystem services.

Require USDA to work with FEMA and USACE to track damages

The USDA needs to track where flood and excess rain/moisture
damages through programs administered by FEMA and the USACE. This would
identify properties that are at the most at risk of flooding, and help
prioritize investments.

Require USDA to develop Best Management Practices to reduce flood
damages in the Ag sector

These recommendations could include flood-compatible recreational
uses like hunting and fishing, crop modifications that are flood-
tolerant, and alternative land uses like grazing.

Require USDA to improve guidance on floodplain restoration to meet
natural resource challenges

NRCS needs to develop clear guidance on how farmers can maximize
the multiple benefits of floodplain restoration.

Remove land-tenure requirements

This reduces unnecessary paperwork for landowners and [NRCS] staff
and delivers funding where it's needed most.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo Credit: Sarah Kennedy.
[http://www.americanrivers.org/investinrivers].
Payments provided to landowners will allow them to put their
land to work to provide flood storage. If landowners are
reimbursed for flood storage-compatible uses of the floodprone
areas of their property, flood damages will be reduced.

American Rivers is championing a national effort to protect
and restore all rivers, from remote mountain streams to urban
waterways. Healthy rivers provide people and nature with clean,
abundant water and natural habitat. For 50 years, American
Rivers staff, supporters, and partners have shared a common
belief: Life Depends on Rivers. www.AmericanRivers.org.
attachment 2
The Multiple Benefits of Floodplain Easements
An Assessment of Demand for Floodplain Easements in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin
Olivia Dorothy, Restoration Director

September 2022

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo: Chris Young.

Description: Floodplain easements are a land-management
strategy that compensates landowners for permanently conserving
flood-prone land. Floodplain easements provide multiple
benefits, including storage of floodwater on the land, wildlife
habitat, improved water quality and more.
This report reviews the unmet demand for floodplain easements
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin and makes a case for
annual appropriations via a new or reformed U.S. Department of
Agriculture floodplain easement program. This report updates
American Rivers' 2011 report Multiple Benefits of Floodplain
Easements: An Assessment of American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act Funded Emergency Watershed Protection Program Floodplain
Easements in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
American Rivers would like to thank the Walton Family and
Lumpkin Family Foundations for their generous support of this
report.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo: Chris Young.
Land Acknowledgement
We respectfully acknowledge that we are working on the traditional
and ancestral lands of many Indigenous People who have called this land
home since the beginning, those who continue to call the area home and
the Indigenous leaders yet to be born.
This report discusses land in the states of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin. These lands include the following
sovereign Indigenous nations and communities: Red Lake, Grand Portage,
Bois Forte, Leech Lake, White Earth, Fond du Lac, Mille Lacs, Prairie
Island, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux, Red Cliff, Bad River, Lac du
Flambeau, Lac Courte Oreilles, St. Croix Chippewa, Potawatomi, Sokaogon
Chippewa, Menominee, Stockbridge Munsee, Oneida, Ho-Chunk, and Sac and
Fox.
This report focuses on agricultural disasters in the states of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin. Maize is the primary
crop grown in the region, and is the foundation of the economy in the
study area. As such, we amplify the history and agricultural ingenuity
of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas for the cultivation of maize.
We acknowledge colonization's legacy and the errors, omissions or
erasures our acknowledgement may manifest. Learn more about Indigenous
territories and land acknowledgement at www.Native-Land.ca.
To the best of our knowledge, prior to colonization, this land was
part of the following Indigenous nations:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Introduction
The purpose of this report is to review the need to expand access
to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) floodplain easements.
Currently, USDA floodplain easements and flood damage-reduction
investments are made through the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)
Program, the EWP Program--Floodplain Easement Program (EWPP-FPE) and
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (WFPO) of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Under the EWP and WFPO, NRCS provides disaster-recovery assistance
to communities and landowners to protect infrastructure and land. The
floodplain easement (EWPP-FPE) option is unique in that it funds
permanent conservation easements that alleviate threats to life or
property, as well as slowing runoff and preventing soil erosion. These
programs are critical to landowners in the Upper Mississippi River
Basin (UMRB) because flood and excess rain/moisture are the most
widespread and frequent cause of crop losses in the region. Flood and
excess moisture losses occur more frequently and impact more acres than
drought, which is often considered the primary agricultural threat in
the area.
The demand for flood assistant is very high, but these programs do
not receive consistent, annual funding. Many years, Congress makes no
funds available in the UMRB for flood damage-reduction projects of any
kind, despite the recurring costs of damages from flood and excess
rain/moisture. The cost of damages from flood and excess rain/moisture
ranks second only to drought in the UMRB, and these damages are
escalating due to climate change.
The NRCS is uniquely situated to serve a critical role in reducing
flood risks and flood damages in the UMRB. Floodplain easements can
help landowners avoid future losses through restoration of natural
conditions that can store and safely convey floodwater.
Our report reviews cause-of-loss data for flooding and excess rain/
moisture, and makes a case for Congress to invest more in pre-disaster
mitigation programs for farmers. In particular, we recommend reforming
the EWPP-FPE to enroll acres annually. This would provide the NRCS with
a better tool that uses the natural ability of floodplains to store,
slow and filter waters to protect property and people, while enhancing
natural resources for multiple benefits.
Easements through the NRCS can directly reduce future flood losses
in the agricultural sector without requiring property acquisition. The
restoration and reconnection of natural floodplains to accommodate
flooding will have the added benefits of increased water quality, low-
maintenance wildlife habitat and marketable recreational opportunities
for landowners, tourism economies and adjacent communities.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo: Roy Plasscheart and Lighthawk.
What are Floodplains?
Floodplains and Wetlands as Ecosystems
Floodplains and wetlands are often indistinguishable to the
layperson. However, they are different landscape features and
ecosystems.
Floodplains are areas of land that become inundated with water
during or following precipitation events and are adjacent to a
permanent or ephemeral water body, like a river, stream, lake or pond.
Floodplains are the transition zone between the aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems.
In contrast, wetlands are areas of land with hydric soils, water-
loving plants and the presence of water just below or above ground
level. Wetlands are a common feature in a floodplain. However,
floodplains often have areas that lack the three requisite wetland
features.
The Multiple Benefits of Functional Floodplains
One of the goals of the EWPP-FPE is to restore floodplain lands to
their natural, functioning condition. A ``functional floodplain'' is a
floodplain that can perform the natural processes that produce goods
and services. The four key attributes (Loos and Shader 2016) necessary
for a floodplain to be functional are:

1. Connectivity: The floodplain is physically accessible by water
from its adjacent river or stream to allow an exchange of
water, nutrients, sediment and organisms.

3. Scale: The floodplain must have the space to accommodate
inundation and the resulting habitat and landscape-forming
processes.

Investing in functional floodplain restoration and protection
projects yields significant returns. Ecologically, floodplains rank
second only to estuaries in their value to society per acre. Though
they represent less than two percent of Earth's terrestrial land
surface, ``floodplains provide approximately 25 percent of all
terrestrial ecosystem service benefits'' (Opperman, et al. 2010).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo: Crystal Dorothy.

Ecosystem services are the multiple benefits people obtain from a
healthy environment. A functional floodplain can provide an array of
benefits. These benefits produce economic gains related to floodwater
conveyance, erosion management, water-quality improvements, groundwater
recharge, biological productivity, fish and wildlife habitat, carbon
storage, and improved quality of life through associated benefits
related to recreation and culture (Task Force On The Natural And
Beneficial Functions Of The Floodplain 2002) (Seavy, et al. 2009)
(Kusler 2016).
Flooding versus Flood Damage
Flooding is a natural process that supports healthy river, riparian
and wetland ecosystems. However, when property in flood-prone areas is
developed, flooding can cause economic damages and threats to human
health and safety.
In the Midwest, flooding is often characterized in two ways. Most
frequently, flooding is thought of as overbank flow from a river or
other water body. Flooding that is not due to overbank flow happens
when the amount of precipitation or snowmelt exceeds the capacity of
soil or stormwater infrastructure to absorb and/or convey the water.
This second type of flood event is labeled by the USDA as ``excessive
moisture/precipitation/rain'' or by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) as ``surface water runoff.'' This type of flooding is
often due to factors such as soil saturation, broken tile or stormwater
infrastructure, or other physical limitations at a site that prevent
water from being conveyed to the local stream or river.
The USDA differentiates between these two types of flooding.
However, in this report, we consider both events as ``flooding'' for
several reasons:

1. In Illinois, over 90 percent of flood-damage claims were outside
the mapped floodplain between 2007 and 2014 (Winters 2015).
This indicates that floodplain maps, which outline areas
where overbank flow is likely to occur, only represent a
fraction of the actual flood-prone land.

2. Climate change is driving significant and rapid changes in the
areas subject to flooding due to both overbank flow and
excess rain. A report for FEMA's National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) found that land areas subject to the one
percent annual chance of an exceedance flood event will
expand an average of 45 percent across the nation. In the
UMRB states, this expansion of floodplain land will be even
more pronounced, with land areas in parts of these states
expected to double in size by 2100 under the most likely
climate-change scenarios (Crowell, Rhodes and Divoky 2013).

3. Restricting the definition of flooding can result in projects
that do not address the full range of flood scenarios.
Failure to consider all of the flood ``types'' that can
occur at a site (i.e., overbank versus ponding) will
inevitably fail to provide the best outcomes for people
suffering from the economic and health consequences of
flooding (see example).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example: Yazoo Pumps, a costly pumping project that was proposed
along the Mississippi River, was vetoed under the Clean Water Act. If
the project had moved forward, it would have only provided very limited
and delayed relief during ``backwater'' flood events and would have
been ineffective during ``headwater'' flood events. The failure of land
and water managers to consider solutions that would address both types
of flood events drives wasteful investments that do not address the
full range of needs in the community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Awareness of the consequences of limiting the definition of
``flooding'' has led FEMA to reform the NFIP rating system.
NFIP rates will no longer be based on whether a property is
in or out of the mapped floodplain (though mortgages will
still require flood insurance if the structure is inside
the mapped floodplain). As of 2022, rates will be based on
other factors, like how close a property is to a source of
overbank flooding and flood history data (FEMA 2022).

5. Many counties that report frequent flood losses also report
frequent excessive rain/moisture losses. For a recent
report by the Environmental Working Group, crop insurance
``hot spots'' were mapped throughout the Mississippi River
Critical Conservation Area. Results show that many counties
that report frequent losses due to ``flood'' are also
reporting losses due to ``excess moisture'' (Schechinger
2022).

6. The landscape has been so significantly modified in the UMRB that
it is hard to say where rivers and streams were located
prior to cultivation or development (see Table 1). As such,
an area may no longer appear to be an actual river, but may
still be a low point that conveys water during rain events.
Many floodplains along small water bodies that have long
since been drained will still convey water during flood
events.

Table 1: Protected Natural Areas as a Percent of Land.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois 2.20%
Iowa 1.46%
Minnesota 10.34%
Missouri 6.28%
Wisconsin 9.90%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of land in the UMRB states has been modified for
agriculture and/or urban development (Natureserve 2022).

Because of these reasons, it is difficult to understand whether any
type of flood event is truly an ``overbank'' event, due to shortcomings
of natural and/or human-made drainage infrastructure or some
combination of both. As such, for the purposes of this report, we
review the information and data about flooding in all of its
manifestations in order to better understand how precipitation with
climate change is impacting farmers and the agricultural economy
Floodplain & Wetland Easements as Risk Reduction Tools
In the agricultural landscape, both floodplains and wetlands can be
subject to extreme and recurring inundation to the extent that such
land cannot be productive. Easements offer landowners a means to take
marginal, flood-prone land out of production and conserve it in a more
natural state. Under NRCS conservation programs, wetlands are eligible
for the Wetland Reserve Easements, and other frequently inundated land
that does not meet the three wetland criteria are eligible for EWPP-
FPE.
Figure 1: Flooding is the most frequent and widespread agricultural
disaster in the Midwest.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Twenty four percent of all county-level disasters declared by
the USDA between 2012 and 2021 included flood or excessive
water damages (USDA Farm Service Agency 2022).

When an easement is purchased by the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, landowners still retain ownership rights and
rights of use. However, certain uses are limited through the duration
of the easement. Both wetland and floodplain easements are subject to
restoration projects to rehabilitate lost ecosystem functionality and
habitat that are compatible with each site.
Despite their similar role in restoring marginal flood-prone land,
Federal funds for wetland and floodplain easement programs are
appropriated differently. The Wetland Reserve Program receives annual
appropriations to allow the USDA to enroll acres into easements yearly.
However, EWPP-FPEs are only funded through supplemental disaster
appropriations. Floodplain easements are only offered by the NRCS when
and where funds are released during a Presidentially declared disaster,
pursuant to the Stafford Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the UMRB, EWPP-FPE funds have only been available to farmers in
the Fiscal Years 2009 and 2019. By comparison, the Secretary of
Agriculture has declared agricultural disasters due to flooding and
excess rain/moisture in UMRB counties 2,512 times between 2012 and 2021
(see Figure 1). Over this 10 year period, these flood events have
impacted a cumulative 62 million acres and have cost farmers and
taxpayers over $8 billion (consumer price index (CPI)-adjusted using
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator to reflect
buying power as of February 2022).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Floodplain Investments
USDA natural resource conservation programs make investments that
``reduce soil erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water quality,
increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damages caused by floods and
other natural disasters'' (USDA n.d.). Conservation programs and
easements are a minuscule portion of the USDA budget.
In Fiscal Year 2022, the USDA received $198 billion to administer
its farm- and food-related authorities. The conservation programs
received $5 billion, or just two percent of the total USDA budget. Of
that $5 billion, only $225 million was put towards the NRCS's primary
flood-management programs, though none of this funding will be used to
enroll floodplain easements in the UMRB. Between 2002 and 2020,
conservation programs received over $74 billion, and of that amount,
only $3.4 billion (or 4.5 percent) was put into the EWPP. Among other
activities, these funds allowed NRCS to enroll 482,678 floodplain acres
into the EWPP-FPE, or roughly 0.06 percent of the conservation acres
that were administered by the NRCS (USDA 2020).
Figure 2: USDA Fiscal Year 2022 budget (left) and the conservation
programs budget on the right (USDA 2022).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Key Findings
We found that there is a substantial unmet demand for investing in
floodplain easements in the UMRB. Floodplain easements funded through
the EWP Program are markedly underutilized, and there is significant
need to enroll more acres to reduce flood damages. Floodplain easements
have many benefits, ranging from protecting people from the impacts of
climate change to promoting resilient economies. These reasons
illustrate the need for a floodplain-specific easement-reserve program
that is open to annual enrollment to enhance the NRCS agricultural
conservation programs.
Need to protect people and the economy from climate change impacts
According to FEMA, flooding is the most frequent severe-weather
threat and the costliest natural disaster facing the nation. Ninety
percent of all natural disasters in the United States involve flooding
(FEMA 2017). Across the nation, flooding has caused $59.2 billion (CPI-
adjusted) in damages over the last decade (NOAA National Centers for
Environmental Information 2022). Over that same period, farmers
enrolled in the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) reported $29
billion in damages (CPI-adjusted) caused by floods and excess moisture,
with the UMRB states representing 34 percent of those damages (USDA
Risk Management Agency 2022). The cost of flooding impacts on the
nation and in the UMRB is rising as precipitation increases, and
damages are expected to continue to escalate as climate-change impacts
intensify (see Figures 4-6, page[s] [63-64]).
In addition to the fact that flood-related crop damages are the
most frequent and widespread cause of agricultural disasters, most of
those damages have been subsidized through public funding, with UMRB
states as top recipients (see Table 2). Unfortunately, these damages
are entirely predictable. In Iowa alone, a recent study found that
farmers have 450,000 acres of crops in the ``2 year floodplain,''
meaning there is a 50 percent chance of crop damage due to flooding
every year (Yildirim and Demir 2022). The combined effects of planting
crops in frequently flooded areas and worsening flooding due to climate
change are causing an overall increase in the number of acres flooded
and disaster-aid spending that far outpaces producer-paid premiums.
But despite the significant and escalating amount of flood damage
to crops on a regular basis, the EWPP and WFPO are only sporadically
funded in the UMRB. Between 2011 and 2020, the USDA only invested $267
million (CPI-adjusted) into these two flood damage-reduction programs
in the UMRB, while agricultural flood and excess rain/moisture damages
exceeded $8 billion (CPI-adjusted) (see Tables 3 and 4, pages [65] and
[66]).

Table 2: The UMRB sees more damages from flooding and excess rain/
moisture than most other states for farmers enrolled in the Federal Crop
Insurance program (USDA Risk Management Agency 2022).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Year Total Acres10 Year Total Flood & Excess Rain/
and Excess Rain/MoistuMoisture Damage Subsidies
of acres). (Indemnities minus Producer Paid
Premium). Adjusted for Inflation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. North Dakota 16.6 1. North Dakota $2.8 Billion
2. Minnesota 16.2 2. Minnesota $2.5 Billion
3. Illinois 16.6 3. South Dakota $1.7 Billion
4. Missouri 13.8 4. Iowa $1.7 Billion
5. Iowa 12.2 5. Missouri $1.5 Billion
. . . 6. Illinois $1.5 Billion
15. Wisconsin 4.1 14. Wisconsin $688 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 4: UMRB annual precipitation anomalies (inches of rain above or
below the annual average rainfall of 32.62"s)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information 2022.
Figure 5: The number of acres damaged in the UMRB due to ``flood'' and
``excess rain/moisture'' as a percent of total acres planted
under the FCIP.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The steady upward trend indicates that the increase in
flooded and wet acres is not due to the overall increase in
acreage enrolled in the FCIP. While the number of farmers
enrolling more planted acres in the program has generally
increased, flood and excess moisture damages are escalating due
to other factors (USDA Risk Management Agency 2022).
Figure 6: Average subsidy per acre planted under the FCIP for flood and
excess rain damages in the UMRB. Adjusted for inflation.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Subsidy is calculated by subtracting total indemnities from
producer-paid premiums. This shows that the public is paying
substantially more in disaster aid to farmers than in previous
years, as flood and wet-weather events are becoming more
frequent (USDA Risk Management Agency 2022).

Table 3: NRCS Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention program (WFPO), Emergency Watershed Protection program (EWP), total obligations, and percent of
budget spent of flood mitigation by fiscal year. Includes technical and financial assistance and reimbursable fund types. In thousands of dollars. Not
adjusted for inflation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois
WFPO............. $1,333 $3,465 $75 $1,702 $753 $1,000 $0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
EWP.............. $(90) $61 -- $172 $3,692 $4,247 -- -- $15 -- $5 $148 $(1) $275 $61 $7,380
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... $70,183 $60,060 $59,562 $61,133 $59,507 $74,77 $73,70 $77,71 $74,57 $73,74 $81,29 $84,45 $96,71 $89,16 $93,74 $151,5
6 0 0 1 9 4 3 5 2 0 81
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% spent on Flood 2% 6% 0% 3% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Prevention......
Iowa
WFPO............. $8,911 $8,592 $1,272 $2,258 $3,312 $3,888 $941 $221 $40 -- -- $10 $17 $9 -- $806
EWP.............. $1 $171 $77 $3,908 $38,261 $50,82 $2,365 $(287) $315 $(3) $526 $15 -- $102 $27 $17,51
9 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... $110,31 $102,48 $104,73 $114,70 $142,23 $170,7 $159,2 $151,8 $148,6 $137,7 $114,0 $115,3 $126,6 $127,2 $147,9 $169,8
4 4 1 1 5 96 25 61 78 25 10 70 96 96 05 56
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% spent on Flood 8% 9% 1% 5% 29% 32% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11%
Prevention......
Minnesota
WFPO............. $877 $209 $198 $195 $610 $396 $1,062 $517 $33 $(1) -- -- -- -- -- $1
EWP.............. $389 -- $846 $832 $1,722 $525 $142 $694 $103 $610 $5 $197 $36 -- -- $106
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... $85,017 $81,298 $75,642 $98,013 $104,23 $108,7 $137,1 $152,5 $143,0 $36,08 $135,6 $148,2 $136,5 $144,6 $122,5 $232,3
7 93 63 79 25 2 38 13 41 29 71 69
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% spent on Flood 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Prevention......
Missouri
WFPO............. $9,816 $11,327 $5,568 $4,264 $2,424 $5,527 $357 $4 $5,116 $14 $5,593 $5,692 $5,603 $25,73 $5,119 $17,31
9 7
EWP.............. $138 $(2) $148 $4,045 $44,806 $25,56 $7,061 $31,72 $7,271 $660 $1,439 $9,284 $959 $22,08 $2,773 $36,50
1 0 6 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... $96,937 $93,864 $112,22 $102,68 $136,10 $162,6 $143,5 $165,3 $141,5 $117,9 $108,5 $116,7 $128,7 $174,1 $157,0 $199,2
8 1 6 98 23 42 21 06 86 96 67 45 17 65
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% spent on Flood 10% 12% 5% 8% 35% 19% 5% 19% 9% 1% 6% 13% 5% 27% 5% 27%
Prevention......
Wisconsin
WFPO............. $376 $113 $23 $(2) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,987
EWP.............. $57 $23 $243 $891 $22,414 $5,408 $243 $6 $1,559 $69 $289 $83 $23 $156 $286 $636
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... $66,794 $53,081 $50,682 $63,019 $98,099 $76,54 $69,91 $78,23 $83,42 $72,90 $73,94 $70,96 $84,89 $94,12 $113,7 $134,2
6 5 9 4 4 6 9 5 7 68 53
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% spent on Flood 1% 0% 1% 1% 23% 7% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Prevention......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NRCS Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act data.

Table 4: Flooding or excess rain/moisture has been among the most
expensive causes of loss each year in the UMRB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
(Indemnity
Total minus Acres
Cause of Loss Indemnities Producer Paid Impacted
(millions of Premium) (millions of
dollars) * (millions of acres)
dollars) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Year Total: Flood/Excess $8,285.6 $6,933.9 61.6
Rain
10 Year Total: Drought $9,978.8 $8,967.9 50.6
2021.....................
1. Drought............. $553.9 $467.6 4.1
2. Flood/Excess Rain... $300.7 $171.6 2.2
3. Severe Storms....... $50.4 $36.6 0.3
2020.....................
1. Severe Storms....... $443.4 $377.8 2.0
2. Flood/Excess Rain... $404.9 $326.7 4.4
3. Drought............. $320.7 $264.3 3.7
2019.....................
1. Flood/Excess Rain... $2,117.3 $1,854 14.1
2. Cold/Freeze......... $213.5 $193.9 1.1
3. Severe Storms....... $69.6 $61.5 0.6
2018.....................
1. Flood/Excess Rain... $620.5 $519.5 6.3
2. Drought............. $292.9 $245.5 2.7
3. Revenue Losses...... $137.6 $91.5 2.8
2017.....................
1. Flood/Excess Rain... $330.6 $219.2 4.4
2. Drought............. $225.0 $184.5 2.2
3. Severe Storms....... $61.0 $50.4 0.6
2016.....................
1. Flood/Excess Rain... $257.2 $192.9 2.9
2. Severe Storms....... $47.1 $39.3 0.4
3. Revenue Losses...... $23.4 $14.1 0.4
2015.....................
1. Flood/Excess Rain... $1.077.7 $927.3 7.9
2. Revenue Losses...... $88.3 $57.4 1.4
3. Cold/Freeze......... $46.6 $39.4 0.3
2014.....................
1. Flood/Excess Rain... $1,472.6 $1,273.4 10.7
2. Revenue Losses...... $1,426.3 $1,141.3 15.3
3. Cold/Freeze......... $229.2 $197.2 1.7
2013.....................
1. Drought............. $1,859.3 $1,594.0 12.1
2. Flood/Excess Rain... $1,600.8 $1,412.4 7.6
3. Revenue Losses...... $1,272.0 $979.8 11.3
2012.....................
1. Drought............. $6,473.0 $5,999.2 23.5
2. Revenue Losses...... $611.2 $548.5 1.5
3. Heat/Excess Sun..... $234.6 $214.6 0.9
4. Flood/Excess Rain... $74.9 $36.3 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Adjusted for inflation. (USDA Risk Management Agency 2022)

Need to promote resilient local economies
Once established, natural floodplains provide many economic
benefits, including a reduction in post-disaster spending, higher
property-tax revenues and increased investment from businesses. Many
economic benefits are derived simply from the desire of people to live
and work in areas that are rich in natural resources, have beautiful
landscapes and offer easy access to outdoor spaces for recreation.
While these outcomes may seem aesthetic and unessential, they have
proven and real economic benefits that can bring substantial amounts of
jobs and revenue to local communities (Parsons, et al. 2020). As such,
conservation easements enhance community resources and have many
economic benefits for local communities. By providing payment to local
landowners, floodplain easements can address one of the factors
limiting the extent and services of natural floodplains.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Studies:

A study of the La Grange Reach of the Illinois River
evaluated the feasibility of naturalizing large areas of the
floodplain. The study found that restoring connectivity to as
little as 14 percent of the floodplain along the La Grange Reach of
the Illinois River could provide 100 year flood protection to an
additional 44 percent of the floodplain, thereby reducing flood
damages in downstream communities. However, the study reported that
the local economic impact of converting agriculture to floodplain
was a key obstacle to restoring floodwater storage in floodplain
areas (Sparks and Braden 2007).

The Wetlands Initiative has estimated that restoring 3
million acres of wetlands and floodplains that were converted to
agriculture in the UMRB could store more than 40 million acre-feet
of floodwater while providing habitat for wildlife and reducing
flood damages downstream (Hey, et al. 2004).

A study in Waterbury, Vermont, found that a proposed
floodplain restoration project would reduce annual building damages
from flooding by approximately 20 percent (Schiff, et al. 2015).

In Napa County, California, the Napa River Food Protection
Program has invested $550 million to protect and restore over 1,000
acres of wetland and riparian habitats, reducing property damage by
$1 billion over the life of the project (Kershner and Gregg 2021).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need to increase conservation opportunities in floodplains
Floodplain easements expand the effectiveness of NRCS conservation
programs by ``filling in the gaps'' between existing conservation
areas. Floodplain acres cannot compete within the Conservation and
Wetland Reserve Easement Programs because current program guidelines
discourage restoration investments that are at risk of being damaged by
flooding.
While the EWPP-FPE can purchase easements on land that is largely
ineligible for other conservation programs, the EWPP is a post-disaster
recovery program. Congress only releases easement funds in the wake of
disaster declarations under the Stafford Act, which so narrowly defines
what constitutes a disaster that it severely limits the ability of
farmers to set aside unproductive, flood-prone land. Since the EWPP-FPE
was established, it has only been open for enrollment twice in the
UMRB, despite the annual [occurrence] of agricultural disasters due to
flooding (USDA Farm Service Agency 2022). Both times the EWPP-FPE was
open for enrollment, the NRCS was able to combine the floodplain
easements with adjacent land that did qualify for wetland easements to
create large contiguous conservation areas that restored critical
riparian habitat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example: In Illinois, farmers in Alexander County lost their levee
along the Mississippi River during flooding that occurred in 2015-16.
EWPP-FPE funds were not released until the 2019 Flood, forcing farmers
to wait in limbo for years on land that could not be accessed or
farmed. These farmers also could not compete for funding under the
Conservation and Wetland Reserve Easement Programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo: Olivia Dorothy.

Farmers in the UMRB need more investments and opportunities for
pre-disaster hazard mitigation, especially as climate change is driving
an expansion in land areas prone to recurring flood damages (Crowell,
Rhodes and Divoky 2013). Acres that may not have flooded in the past
will be susceptible to frequent flooding now and in the future.
Reforming the EWPP-FPE to receive annual appropriations for enrollment
would give farmers more options.
Need to increase flood water storage
As discussed, the UMRB has seen an increase in spring rainfall over
the past 30 years. Experts anticipate further increases in rainfall,
with swift transitions from flood to drought conditions (USGCRP 2018).
Floodplain easements have the potential to provide significant
flood storage. Floodplains provide space for floodwaters to safely
spread out, slowing in velocity and reducing flood peaks, and enhancing
the effectiveness of flood risk-management structures that protect
people and property. Healthy, ecologically functional floodplains have
the capacity to hold tremendous quantities of water.
Wetlands, an ecosystem feature commonly found in floodplains, can
store 1 to 1.5 million gallons of floodwater per acre (USEPA 2001).
Floodplains are also recharge zones for aquifers, which means that
during flood events, they allow water to infiltrate into groundwater
reservoirs (Maples, Fogg and Maxwell 2019). This function is important
to lower flood stages and store water in the underground aquifer
system, where it can be tapped during future periods of drought.
Need to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in the Mississippi River
Excess nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the Mississippi River
causes toxic algal blooms in local water bodies and the Gulf of Mexico.
Phosphorus and nitrogen pollution can also contaminate drinking water
and devastate aquatic ecosystems. But despite the establishment of the
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force in 2008,
the region is not reaching its pollution-reduction goals (USEPA 2021).
Floodplain restoration is an effective downstream nutrient-removal
tool. Studies show that floodplain restoration may be more effective
than wetlands, and other best management practices, in removing
nitrogen, and can also remove both nitrogen and phosphorus from the
water column (Gordon, Dorothy and Lenhart 2020). Enrolling more acres
into floodplain easements will help reduce nutrient pollution loads in
the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico.
Need to prevent extinction of species
We are in the midst of a massive extinction event, with the rate of
species extinction at 1,000 times the background rate (Pimm, et al.
2014). In response, President Biden committed to conserve 30 percent of
the nation's land and water resources by 2030 in order to mitigate and
adapt to climate change and protect biodiversity (Biden 2021). The UMRB
states have an important role in land and water conservation because
they are part of the Mississippi River corridor, which supports 780
species of wildlife--38 percent of all animal species in North America
(Mississippi River Network n.d.).
Freshwater species are the most at-risk species per unit area on
earth (Wilson 2016). The main causes of freshwater species extinction
are habitat loss/degradation, water pollution and over-exploitation.
Degradation of aquatic habits is the most common of these drivers, and
is caused by agriculture, urbanization, infrastructure (dams and
levees) and logging (Collen, et al. 2017). All medium to large U.S.
rivers, including the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Illinois Rivers,
rank in the highest categories of concentrations of imperiled
biodiversity in the nation (Hamilton, et al. 2021) (FAO 2020).
Functional floodplains are essential habitats for freshwater
species because they are highly dynamic and productive (Kusler 2016).
Floodplain easements would help the U.S. meet not only its goals to
adapt to climate change that are discussed elsewhere in this report,
but also its goals to conserve land and water resources to protect
biodiversity.
Need to expand use of permanent easements
Permanent easements, such as the EWPP--Floodplain Easement Program,
increase the overall efficiency of the program because by doing so it
allows for the minimization of a long-term Federal role and provides
the greatest benefits to the watershed and the communities living
downstream. As these floodplains are repeatedly flooded in the future,
post-disaster spending will be reduced, and the floodplains will
establish high-quality habitat for wildlife and provide other human and
environmental benefits.
Need to meet demand for floodplain easements in the UMRB
Not only will the expanded use of floodplain easement provide many
economic and environmental benefits, but farmers also want the program.
Throughout the UMRB, an unmet demand exists for funding to invest in
floodplain easements. Since the EWP Program was established, NRCS in
the UMRB has received 2,210 applications, but less than ten percent of
total applications and 16 percent of flood prone acres have been
enrolled. Clearly, many farmers are interested in putting marginal,
flood-prone acres into permanent easements. Expanding and reforming the
EWPP-FPE Program to enroll acres annually would help meet this demand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Offered Awarded Awarded
State Applicants Acres Applicants Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA 1,127 115,635 76 9,101
IL 362 10,829 30 4,685
MN 44 3,376 7 4,846
MO 325 45,010 45 6,717
WI 352 24,193 54 6,365
---------------------------------------------------------
UMRB Total.. 2,210 199,043 212 31,714
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data provided by NRCS from each state.

Discussion
Expanding the use of floodplain easements would address the above
identified needs in the UMRB. The program is underutilized and there is
a demand to enroll flood-prone acres into easement programs. Floodplain
easements have many benefits that range from protecting people from
flood damages to promoting economic wealth.
Family farmers are some of the best land conservationists, but they
have very few to zero resources to properly conserve floodplain land in
a way that maximizes benefits for society. Floodplains ecosystems are
among the most important ecosystems in the world and more floodplain
restoration is needed to address the converging threats of climate
change and the extinction crisis.
But there are few, if any, resources for farmers to conserve
floodplains, which keeps farmers stuck in an endless cycle of planting
on flood-prone lands at the expense of Federal and state taxpayers. And
it is getting worse as climate change causes more extreme flood and
precipitation events in the UMRB region.
By promoting restoration of floodplains in recognition of their
critical infrastructure services, Federal agencies can play a huge role
in reducing risk to communities through restoring the natural
floodplain condition, functions, and value, which in turn will improve
water quality and wildlife habitat, among other benefits.
Expenditures on floodplain easements in agricultural areas can
directly reduce flood damages incurred in that sector by reducing risky
practices in flood prone areas. The Upper Mississippi River Basin holds
a significant opportunity to retire sensitive agricultural lands
subject to frequent flooding and flood damages. Through the
conservation and restoration of floodplains, NRCS can expand the
definition of ``working lands'' and play a significant role in
providing flood protection to communities downstream.
Whatever the accounting method, there is little dispute that hazard
mitigation through floodplain restoration and removal of structures in
high-risk areas is the most economically efficient and guaranteed form
of flood damage reduction. Indeed, every $1 spent on flood mitigation
yields a return of $5 to $8 in avoided losses (Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Council 2019). As such, floodplain easements are a highly efficient,
``bright green'' flood damage reduction strategy.
Key Recommendations
Given the multiple benefits of investing in floodplain easements
and the substantial unmet demand in the UMRB, we make seven key
recommendations that will provide guidance on how to continue
investments in floodplain easements to increase flood storage, reduce
flood damages, and provide multiple beneficial services to communities
and wildlife in the region.

1. Congress should fund flood damage-reduction and floodplain
easements annually. These data illustrate that the UMRB
states have both a need for flood-damage reduction and a
sufficient number of willing landowners to enter into
voluntary easements that exceeds the current disaster
declaration-dependent funding structure for floodplain
easements. These findings merit the establishment of a
permanent, open-enrollment program that annually invests in
the increased coverage of floodplain easements to benefit
agricultural producers, increase resiliency to floods,
increase safety of downstream communities and reduce
taxpayer burden for repetitive damages.

2. The NRCS should establish and implement a tracking system for
floodplain easements. This tracking system would document
flood levels and damage reductions; ensure establishment of
a resilient, flood-adapted natural community; and provide
landowner guidance for managing easement lands for floods
as well as other compatible uses. The existing Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) offers one important
opportunity to conduct an evaluation of floodplain
easements. This effort would be particularly useful as a
component of an intergovernmental initiative to inventory
and track data related to the protection and restoration of
functional floodplains.

5. The USDA should work with FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to track properties with recurring claims
due to flooding, and prioritize those properties for
enrollment. In 2012, when the URMB was experiencing the
most extreme drought event ever, flood and excess rain/
moisture was still reported on 1.1 million acres (USDA Risk
Management Agency 2022). The USDA needs to track where
flood and excess rain/moisture damages are being reported
within the FCIP, and through programs administered by FEMA
and the USACE. This would identify properties that are at
the most at risk of flooding, and help prioritize
investments.

6. The USDA should identify and make recommendations to farmers with
flood-prone properties on flood-compatible farming
practices that avoid repetitive losses. As flooding becomes
more frequent in the UMRB, the USDA needs to develop
recommendations to help farmers reduce losses during flood
events. These recommendations could include flood-
compatible recreational uses like hunting and fishing, crop
modifications that are flood-tolerant, and alternative land
uses like grazing. These recommendations need to be
developed across all programs to prevent losses on acres in
production, husbandry and conservation.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Photo: Roy Plasscheart and Lighthawk.

7. The NRCS should develop science-based guidance for state
engineers regarding partial versus full removal of levees
on properties with easements. Several UMRB states have
reported that a portion of current and past floodplain and
other easement projects did not fully remove agricultural
dikes or levees from properties. The reasoning for leaving
these structures in place included a desire to limit the
amount of earth disturbance or tree removal that full
structure removal would cause, the added cost of necessary
engineering studies, a desire to maintain some hydrologic
control, concerns of adjacent property owners, scour
protection and other factors. While each of these issues
may be a valid concern at any given site, the NRCS must
provide guidance to its field staff to ensure that the
impacts associated with accommodating these issues are
balanced against maximizing the services of floodplain
storage and reducing long-term intervention needs.
Conclusion
There is a high demand for floodplain easements by landowners of
marginal, flood-prone land, but current funding is unable to meet this
demand and support floodplain easements as a flood damage-reduction
approach.
And yet, the nation has spent over $8 billion in the UMRB over the
last decade on what is arguably preventable flood damage. As climate
change drives more frequent, severe flood events in the UMRB,
floodplain easements can help landowners avoid future losses through
restoration of natural conditions that can store and safely convey
floodwater.
Payments provided to landowners will also allow them to put their
land to work to provide flood storage. If landowners are reimbursed for
flood storage-compatible uses of the flood-prone areas of their
property, flood damages will be reduced.
The NRCS is uniquely situated to serve a critical role in reducing
flood risks and flood damages in the UMRB. Easements through the NRCS
can directly reduce future flood losses in the agricultural sector
without requiring property acquisition.
The restoration and reconnection of natural floodplains to
accommodate flooding will also have the added benefits of improved
water quality, low-maintenance wildlife habitat and marketable
recreational opportunities for landowners, tourism economies and
adjacent communities.

References
Biden, Joseph R. 2021. ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad.'' Executive Order 14008. Washington, D.C., January 27. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/
executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/.
Collen, Ben, Felix Whitton, Ellie E. Dyer, Jonathan E.M. Baillie,
Neil Cumberlidge, William R.T. Darwall, Caroline Pollock, Nadia I.
Richman, Anne-Marie Soulsby, and Monika Bohm. 2017. ``Global patterns
of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism.'' Global Ecology
and Biogeography 23: 40-51. doi:10.1111/geb.12096.
Crowell, Mark, Perry Rhodes, and David Divoky. 2013. The Impact of
Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance
Program through 2100. Report for FEMA, Washington, D.C.: AECOM. https://
aecom.com/fema-climate-change-report/.
FAO. 2020. The State of World Fisheries. Rome: Sustainabiliy in
Action. doi:10.4060/ca9229en.
FEMA. 2022. Risk Rating 2.0: Equity in Action. April 18. Accessed
July 15, 2022. https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/risk-rating.
FEMA. 2017. ``Written testimony of FEMA Federal Insurance &
Mitigation Administration Deputy Associate Administrator Roy Wright for
a House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and
Insurance hearing `Flood Insurance Reform: FEMA's Perspective'.''
Congressional Hearing Transcript, Washington, D.C. https://www.dhs.gov/
news/2017/03/09/written-testimony-fema-house-committee-financial-
services-subcommittee-housing-and.
Gordon, Brad, Olivia Dorothy, and Christian Lenhart. 2020.
``Nutrient Retention in Ecologically Functional Floodplains: A
Review.'' Water 12 (2762). doi:10.3390/w12102762.
Hamilton, Healy, Regan L. Smyth, Bruce E. Young, Timothy G. Howard,
Christopher Tracey, Sean Breyer, D. Richard Cameron, et al. 2021.
``Increasing taxonomic diversity and spatial resolution clarifies
opportunities for protecting US imperiled species.'' Ecological
Applications 32. doi:10.1002/eap.2534.
Hey, Donald L., Deanna L. Montgomery, Laura S. Urban, Tony Prato,
Andrew Forbes, Mark Martell, Judy Pollack, Yoyi Steele, and Ric
Zarwell. 2004. Flood Damage Reduction in the Upper Mississippi River
Basin: An [Ecological] Alternative. Chicago: The Wetlands Initiative.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/567070822399a343227dd9c4/t/
568d6213c647ad1e518d2b07/1452106259180/
flood_damage_reduction_in_umrb.pdf.
Kershner, J., and R.M. Gregg. 2021. Napa River Watershed Flood
Protection and Enhancement Project. November 16. Accessed July 21,
2022. https://www.cakex.org/case-studies/napa-river-watershed-flood-
protection-and-enhancement-project.
Kusler, Jon. 2016. Definition of Wetland, Floodplain, Riparian
``Functions'' and ``Values''. Association of State Wetland Managers.
https://www.nawm.org/pdf_lib/
definition_of_wetland_floodplain_riparian_functions_and_values_kusler.p
df.
Loos, Jonathon, and Eileen Shader. 2016. Reconnecting Rivers to
Floodplains: Returning natural functions to restore rivers and benefit
communities. Washington, D.C.: American Rivers. https://
www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/
ReconnectingFloodplains_WP_Final.pdf.
Maples, S.R., G.E. Fogg, and R.M. Maxwell. 2019. ``Modeling Managed
Aquifer Recharge Processes in a Highly Heterogeneous, Semi-confined
Aquifer System.'' Hydrogeology J. 27: 2869-2888. doi:10.1007/s10040-019-
02033-9.
Mississippi River Network. n.d. The Mississippi River Restoration
and Resilience Initiative. Accessed August 26, 2022. https://
mississippiriver.org/mrrri/.
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council. 2019. ``Natural Hazard Mitigation
Saves.'' National Institute of Building Sciences. Washington, D.C.
https://www.nibs.org/projects/natural-hazard-mitigation-saves-2019-
report.
NatureServe. 2022. LandScope America. Accessed July 15, 2022. http://
www.landscope.org/.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2022. Billion-
Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. Accessed July 18, 2022.
doi:10.25921/stkw-7w73.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental information. 2022. Climate
at a Glance: Regional Time Series. July. Accessed July 21, 2022. https:/
/www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/.
Opperman, Jeffrey J., Ryan Luster, Bruce A. McKenney, Michael
Roberts, and Amanda Wrona Meadows. 2010. ``Ecologically Functional
Floodplains: Connectivity, Flow Regime, and Scale.'' Journal of the
American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46 (2): 211-226.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00426.x.
Parsons, Brandon, Laura Marshall, Mark Buckley, and Jonathon Loos.
2020. Economic Outcomes of Urban Floodplain Restoration: Implications
for Puget Sound. Washington: American Rivers. https://
www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AR-Economic-Outcomes-
Report.pdf.
Pimm, S.L., C.N. Jenkins, R. Abell, T.M. Brooks, J.L. Gittleman,
L.N. Joppa, P.H. Raven, C.M. Roberts, and J.O. Sexton. 2014. ``The
biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution,
and protection.'' Science 344 (6187). doi:10.1126/science.1246752.
Schechinger, Anne. 2022. In the Mississippi River region, billions
of dollars spent on crop insurance payouts could have been used instead
to retire over 300,000 acres of frequently flooded fields. Research,
Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/research/mississippi-
river-region-billions-dollars-spent-crop-insurance-payouts-could-have-
been.
Schiff, R., S. Bighinatti, E. Fitzgerald, N. Wahlund, D. Carlton, A.
Church, J. Louisos, and B. Cote. 2015. Evaluating the Costs and
Benefits of Floodplain Protection Activities in Waterbury, Vermont and
Willsboro, New York, Lake Champlain Basin, U.S.A. Technical Report No.
78, Lake Champlain Basin Program. https://3paj56ulke64foefopsmdbue-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/
78_CostsBenefitsFloodplains.pdf.
Seavy, Nathaniel E., Thomas Gardali, Gregory H. Golet, Thomas
Griggs, Christine A. Howell, Rodd Kelsey, Stacy L. Small, Joshua H.
Viers, and James F. Weigand. 2009. ``Why Climate Change Makes Riparian
Restoration More Important than Ever: Recommendations for Practice and
Research.'' Ecological Restoration 27 (3): 330-338. doi:10.3368/
er.27.3.330.
Sparks, R., and J. Braden. 2007. ``Naturalization of Developed
Floodplains: An Integrated Analysis.'' Journal of Contemporary Water
Research & Education (Universities Council on Water Resources) (136): 7-
16. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=jcwre.
Stanton, Tracy, Marta Echavarria, Katherine Hamilton, and Caroline
Ott. 2010. State of Watershed Payments: An Emerging Marketplace. Forest
Trends. http://www.foresttrends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdf.
Task Force On The Natural And Beneficial Functions Of The
Floodplain. 2002. The Natural & Beneficial Functions of Floodplains:
Reducing flood losses by protecting and restoring the floodplain
environment. A Report for Congress, Washington, D.C.: FEMA. https://
www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_14217.PDF.
USDA. 2022. Disaster Designation Information. Accessed August 24,
2022. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disaster-
assistance-program/disaster-designation-information/index.
USDA Farm Service Agency. 2022. State and County Level Records of
Disaster Designation Information Made By the US Secretary of
Agriculture. Accessed February 7, 2022. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/
programs-and-services/disaster-assistance-program/disaster-designation-
information/index.
USDA. 2022. FY 2022 Budget Summary. Budget Summary, Washington,
D.C.: USDA. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-
budget-summary.pdf.
___. 2020. National Planning and Agreements Database (NPAD).
October. Accessed April 10, 2022. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/
NRCS_RCA/reports/conservation-by-prog.html.
___. n.d. NRCS Conservation Programs. Accessed 04 07, 2022. https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/.
USDA Risk Management Agency. 2022. Cause of Loss Historical Data
Files. Accessed July 18, 2022. https://www.rma.usda.gov/
SummaryOfBusiness/CauseOfLoss.
USEPA. 2001. ``Functions and Values of Wetlands. September 2001. EPA
843-F-01-002c.'' Factsheet, Washington, D.C. https://www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2016-02/documents/functionsvaluesofwetlands.pdf.
USEPA. 2021. Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient
Task Force Third Report. Report to Congress, USEPA. https://www.epa.gov/
ms-htf.
USGCRP. 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaption in the United States:
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Global Change Research Program. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.
Wilson, E.O. 2016. Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life. New
York, NY: Liveright.
Winters, Brad A. 2015. Report for the Urban Flood Awareness Act.
Springfield: Illinois Department of Natural Resources. https://
www2.illinois.gov/dnr/waterresources/documents/final_ufaa_report.pdf.
Yildirim, Enes, and Ibrahim Demir. 2022. ``Agricultural flood
vulnerability assessment and risk quantification in Iowa.'' Science of
The Total Environment 826: 154165. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154165.

Letter 2
Monday, May 22, 2023

Dear Chair[man] Baird, and Ranking Member Spanberger:

On behalf of our nearly 60 partners, allies, and coalition
networks, American Rivers submits this letter in support of reforming
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection
Program--Floodplain Easement Program (EWPP-FPE) in the upcoming farm
bill. As you and your Committee prepare to work towards a bipartisan,
comprehensive, and robust legislative package, we are committed to
working with you to enhance and reinforce our nation's legacy of
locally-led, incentive-based, and voluntary conservation programs.
Over the last decade, we've seen increased flooding which leaves
many farmers, landowners, and ag producers at risk. The economic impact
of severe storms and flood disasters can be quite expensive. As a
result, farmers experience crop loss, contamination, soil erosion,
equipment and property loss, livestock loss, and debris deposition. To
protect farmers from the headaches, hardships, and heartbreak of the
financial and emotional setback, we support a set of recommendations to
improve USDA's Emergency Watershed Program--Floodplain Easement
Program. The goal of this legislation is to move this program into the
farm bill permanently, so farmers can receive increased support from
NRCS for financial and technical assistance. This will create certainty
and ensure farmers can reliably and confidently count on a flood
reduction and natural disaster assistance program that is rooted in
rapid response, less redtape, and conservation with a purpose.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection
Program--Floodplain Easement Program (EWPP-FPE) compensates farmers,
landowners, and ag producers for permanently conserving flood-prone
lands. However, this program needs to be expanded and reformed to
incentivize farmers to participate on a much broader scale. Reforming
the Floodplain Easement Program involves establishing a permanent
voluntary and open-enrollment program, increasing funding for the
program, creating a system of tracking, and reporting for floodplain
easements, and drawing on expertise to quantify the economic benefits
of functional floodplains.
Recommendations: The USDA Floodplain Easement Program needs to be
reformed to enroll easement acres annually and make more substantial
investments in flood damage reduction. To do this, Congress needs to
include the following reforms in the 2023 Farm Bill.

1. Fund flood damage reduction and floodplain easement programs
annually through USDA--Natural Resources Conservation
Service.

2. Establish a tracking and reporting system for floodplain
easements within the Conservation Effects Assessment
Project.

3. Require USDA to collaborate with economic experts to better
understand and quantify the ecosystem services provided by
functional floodplains.

4. Ensure floodplain easements are not subject to land-tenure
requirements.

5. Require USDA to collaborate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prioritize
investments in areas subject to recurring flood damages.

6. Require USDA to develop Best Management Practices to reduce flood
damage in the agricultural sector.

7. Require USDA to improve guidance on floodplain restoration to
meet multiple natural resource challenges.

We urge Members of Congress to champion these policy
recommendations in a standalone bill or as part a comprehensive
legislative package that would expand the flexibility, accessibility,
and the availability of the program to compensate farmers, landowners,
and ag producers who set aside lands for floodplain easements. The
proposal will further mitigate flood damages, and this is supported by
a variety groups from across the country including farmers, food and ag
think tanks, businesses, river groups, land trusts, water and state
utility associations, faith groups, foundations, aquariums, enviros,
and more.
The need for this legislation is obvious according to the numbers.
In the last decade, have seen nearly 10,000 agricultural-related
disasters which amounted to over $29 billion in crop damages. \1\*
Nationally, farmers are being denied entry to the program despite the
valuable assistance of the program. The current practice in place
disincentivizes farmers from opting for floodplain easements that would
conserve lands to the benefit of communities and surrounding
ecosystems. We must do more to fix it now in the upcoming farm bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.americanrivers.org/resource/the-multiple-
benefitsof-floodplain-easements/.
* Editor's note: the report referenced, The Multiple Benefits of
Floodplain Easements, is Attachment 2 of Letter 1, and is located on p.
56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flooding is a natural process, and the rivers provide critical
infrastructure services to facilitate it strategically. Farmers today
need flood reductions strategies that secure their futures in farming
and protect their lands. Now more than ever, we need to reform the
EWPP-FPE program to put these strategies into action. Expanding
floodplain easements would improve water quality, enhance water storage
and increase drought resilience, create new opportunities for
restoration; opportunities to reduce crop damage, protect livestock and
private property, enhance ecological function of watersheds, support
recreation and compatible agricultural uses, and increase safety and
security for the millions of people.
We urge Congress to enact policy measures that builds on our
floodplain policy proposal to meet the demand of farmers across the
country and supports healthy rivers, and the communities who depend on
them.
Sincerely,

1. ACRES Land Trust 30. Micah Six Eight Mission
2. Alabama Rivers Alliance 31. Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper
3. American Rivers 32. National Association of
Counties
4. American Sustainable Business 33. National Mississippi River
Network Museum & Aquarium
5. Association of State Floodplain 34. Natural Heritage Institute
Managers
6. Belmar Farm 35. New Mexico Wild
7. Bozeman Birders 36. New Mexico Wildlife Federation
8. Californians for Western 37. Northern Prairies Land Trust
Wilderness
9. Chesapeake Conservancy 38. Ohio River Foundation
10. Chicago Sierra Club 39. Pasa Sustainable Agriculture
11. Climate Reality Chicago Metro 40. Project Eleven Hundred
12. Climate Reality Project 41. Responsible Alpha
Regenerative Agriculture Coalition
13. Cojujo Farm 42. Rio Grande Headwaters Land
Trust--del Norte, CO
14. Contra Costa Resource 43. Rio Grande International Study
Conservation District Center
15. Endangered Habitats League 44. River Network
16. Family Farm Defenders 45. River Partners
17. Farm Aid 46. Shedd Aquarium
18. Farmers Solidarity for 47. Sierra Club
Agricultural and Social 48. The Barn Group
Development
(SOPADAS)
19. Friends of the Big Sioux River 49. The Ocean Project
20. Friends of the Chemung River 50. The Wei LLC
Watershed
21. Friends of the Mississippi 51. Vets United to Stop the Wall
River
22. Healthy Ocean Coalition 52. Water Environment Federation
23. Hispanic Federation 53. Waterkeepers Chesapeake--Fair
Farms Initiative
24. Hoosier Environmental Council 54. Wellsave/Food System CARE
25. Inland Ocean Coalition 55. Western Nebraska Resources
Council
26. Institute for Agriculture and 56. Western Slope Conservation
Trade Policy Center
27. Iowa Environmental Council 57. Wild Farm Alliance
28. Kansas City Zoo 58. Winyah Rivers Alliance
29. Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance

______

Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Response from Terry Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Question 1. The Inflation Reduction Act contained nearly $20
billion in additional farm bill conservation funding. Chief Cosby, can
you please tell the Committee how exactly your agency plans to spend
that money. For example, what practices and enhancements are you
addressing in EQIP and CSP, how are you targeting the money in ACEP and
what have you done in RCPP?
Answer. For Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23), NRCS will prioritize Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) funds for projects that implement climate-smart
agriculture conservation activities targeted to assist agricultural
producers and nonindustrial private forestland owners in directly
improving soil carbon, reducing nitrogen losses, or reducing,
capturing, avoiding, or sequestering carbon dioxide, methane, or
nitrous oxide emissions, associated with agricultural production. Where
co-benefits exist with climate mitigation goals, IRA funds may support
projects that address water resource concerns and associated risks.
In FY23, NRCS began implementing IRA funding through its initial
list of climate-smart agriculture forestry (CSAF) mitigation
activities. This list includes approximately 40 Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) conservation practices and 95 Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) enhancement activities. Conservation practice
implementation begins with conservation planning that can serve as a
springboard into program participation. Plans are developed in
partnership with the producer to address producer resource concerns in
alignment with agricultural or forestry objectives. Producer driven
conservation plans may include CSAF activities and a broader array of
practices and activities to address a single or multiple resource
concerns. Conservation practices that facilitate management, or the
function, of a CSAF mitigation activity may be planned as applicable.
NRCS is currently evaluating additional practices and associated
enhancements to ensure that an updated CSAF activities list reflects
the latest quantification methodology and latest data and science.
NRCS prioritized IRA Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP) funding this year for grasslands and wetland soil types that
would best achieve identified climate benefits, and we funded 75
enrollments. In FY23, the IRA ACEP was oversubscribed, funding only 29
percent of the applications received. In FY24, NRCS plans to expand
priority enrollment areas and land types identified that support IRA
priorities to most reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester carbon dioxide,
methane, or nitrous oxide emissions associated with land eligible for
the program. ACEP overall continues to be oversubscribed, even with
additional funding from the IRA. NRCS is working to improve delivery of
EQIP and ACEP, including streamlining administrative processes,
proactively certifying eligible entities, and ensuring knowledgeable
and trained staff are able to process the additional transactions.
For Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), NRCS provided
$500 million in FY23, with $250 million in IRA RCPP funds and $250
million in farm bill RCPP funds. NRCS also targeted up to $50 million
to prioritize Alternative Funding Arrangements (AFAs) with Indian
Tribes. IRA funding provided an opportunity to streamline and simplify
the program. NRCS is working on program improvements to enable USDA to
efficiently implement IRA funding for the program while improving the
experience for partners, agricultural producers, and employees.

Question 2. CBO expects that from the $4.95 billion in IRA funding,
the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) will only be able
to spend $3.9 billion, and it looks like this money will go out the
door especially slow in the early years. Chief Cosby, how does your
agency plan to effectively administer these dollars for a program that
is authorized at $300 million per year and doesn't spend that much
annually?
Answer. NRCS is actively working to improve the delivery and
administration of RCPP. Some of the improvements will allow us to
simplify agreements while remaining in compliance with statutory and
regulatory requirements, streamline and reduce evaluation criteria,
reduce the time to complete RCPP easement transactions, improve the
RCPP Portal, provide consistent guidance and training for employees and
partners, as well as simplify the technical assistance structure. We
anticipate demand for RCPP will steadily grow as we continue our
outreach and improvement efforts to make the program more accessible to
interested groups and participants.

Question 3. As you know, the Inflation Reduction Act authorized $8
billion for EQIP. However, the law also removed the existing
requirement that at least 50% of EQIP funding support livestock
producers. Chief Cosby, can you commit to the Committee today that
livestock producers will be given fair consideration and will receive
contracts through this funding?
Answer. Livestock and non-livestock operations have the opportunity
to compete for both IRA funds and general farm bill dollars.
Applications are based on resource concern criteria (for IRA, based on
climate-smart related concerns and activities (CSAF)). There are
numerous activities that livestock producers are eligible for within
the IRA funding; we anticipate their applications will compete well for
IRA funds. Outreach and engagement to reach new producers will include
both crop and livestock producers, and for livestock producers
highlighting the key activities available.

Question 4. Chief Cosby, do you agree that the locally-led
component of the farm bill conservation programs is what makes them so
popular and successful with producers? It concerns me that the
conservation funding in the Inflation Reduction Act has restrictions on
how that money can be spent. We have heard from stakeholders that are
displeased that popular and effective practices and programs aren't
being used to their full potential. Do you believe in broader
authorities that allow for growers to build upon other climate benefits
that may not be directly linked to carbon sequestration or greenhouse
gas reduction, and would you agree that the IRA restrictions violate
the principles of locally-led conservation?
Answer. NRCS is best known for incentive-based, voluntary and
locally-led conservation programs. The locally-led process is
compatible with IRA authorities. Priorities are still being set using
this process and State Conservationists are working with State
Technical Committees to consider input and feedback. The additional
investment in the programs identified in IRA are investments for
producers seeking additional support to address conservation needs.

Question 5. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, which agency
is taking the lead on administering and implementing the Climate-Smart
Commodities Partnership Program?
Answer. This is a Departmental effort, and the opportunity is
housed in NRCS.

Question 6. Chief Cosby, last week the Forestry Subcommittee heard
from U.S. Forest Service Chief Moore, and he stated forestry and timber
harvesting was ``certainly climate-smart.'' Do you agree with Chief
Moore? Of the Climate-Smart Commodities Partnership projects selected
by USDA, only nine of the 141 projects were timber or forest related.
Is the USDA aware that it can maximize our forests' ability to
sequester and store carbon through forest management and timber
harvesting?
Answer. Forestry is definitely an important component of climate-
smart agriculture and forestry efforts. The overarching commodity for
nine of the tentatively selected projects under Partnerships for
Climate-Smart Commodities is timber and forest; many of these projects
are expanding markets for multiple climate-smart commodities. In
addition, multiple projects have forest or forest products as a major
commodity and/or are applying practices such as Tree/Shrub
Establishment, Agroforestry, Forest Stand Improvement and other
climate-smart tree or forest related practices. As is the case with all
conservation activities and land uses, we make sure the eligible list
of climate-smart activities is updated to reflect the latest data,
science, and a systems approach.

Question 7. Chief Cosby, in California in 2020 alone, wildfires
burned 4.3 million acres, emitting an estimated 112 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide. The Department estimates that Climate-Smart
Commodities Projects will sequester 60 million metric tons over the 5
year program. This means that in 1 year, in one state, nearly twice the
amount of carbon was emitted than these projects will sequester. Can
you share with this Committee why the USDA is prioritizing these
``climate-smart'' efforts instead of addressing the wildfire crisis on
forested landscapes?
Answer. Funding to provide climate-smart technical and financial
assistance through the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities and
existing farm bill conservation programs does not take away from the
extensive assistance NRCS provides related to wildfires. NRCS routinely
assists in the installation of fuel breaks and fire breaks, as well as
fuel load reduction activities and prescribed burns on private lands,
all of which can reduce both the occurrence and intensity of wildfires.
We also provide important support and assistance in recovery efforts
after wildfires. The efforts at NRCS are in addition to those items
discussed by the U.S. Forest Service to address forest health.

Question 8. Chief Cosby, can you detail how your agency has been
involved with the climate-smart grants and can you give us an update on
how those are progressing? How much of that money has gone out of the
ground, how many agreements have been signed, etc.?
Answer. This Departmental effort is housed in NRCS. In
collaboration with the Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Under
Secretary's office and many others throughout the Department, as of May
2023, we have been able to execute over 60 percent of the first funding
pool grants, obligating over $2.2 B to date with more grant agreements
approved each day. I am sure you are interested to know grants have
been executed impacting your own state, including those led by
Pennsylvania Association of Sustainable Agriculture and Pennsylvania
State University. Each project will start their producer signups based
on the timeline in their grant, and some already started this Spring.

Question 9. Chief Cosby, can you give us an estimate on how much of
the $3.1 billion will go to direct financial assistance to farmers and
how much goes to the overhead of the partners? What do you anticipate
will be the non-Federal investment in the Climate-Smart Commodities
pilot?
Answer. Expanding climate-smart markets for producers is the core
goal of these grants, and the ``direct'' financial assistance to
producers varies by project. Each project has a different breakdown of
assistance to producers for climate-smart practices, measurement,
monitoring, reporting and verification, marketing incentives and other
activities necessary to support those markets. The non-Federal
investment is anticipated to be over $1B and likely about 50 percent of
the Federal investment.

Question 10. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, when
staffing for local offices, what are the onboarding processes for your
agencies and how are new staffers gaining the requisite local knowledge
they need to succeed?
Answer. Onboarding for an employee includes the agency--NRCS and
FSA--as well as coordination with the FPAC Business Center. The
Business center includes engagement on necessary equipment, network
access, and overview of completion of required employment forms. It is
also a central location for respective benefits, timesheets, learning,
and key new employee engagement.
From there, each agency works on their respective onboarding and
training process.
The timeline for training is dependent on employee experience and
the position of the new employee. State, local, and county practices
influence the employee onboarding processes. While both agencies have
core outlines of agency expectations and deliverables, training is
handled by the direct supervisor and often colleagues within the local
district or office. The supervisor provides the new employee with
expectations, guidelines, and policies for the office and agency
At NRCS, over the first few months, the supervisor assesses the
employee skills and abilities that form the basis of the employee's
training plan. One of the primary and critical pieces of employee
onboarding is acclimating the new employee to the local work unit
including introductions to many of the local partner organizations and
agricultural groups as well as the local Conservation District staff.
NRCS training includes prioritized time spent in the field to
familiarize the new employee to the local work unit including its
resource issues and concerns to ensure an understanding of local
agricultural practices and knowledge.
Similarly, FSA's onboarding process includes not just the programs
and protocols but an awareness of the local procedures and agricultural
needs of the county the office serves. Several common training
approaches are utilized when onboarding new staff in FSA offices to
ensure staff are gaining the knowledge and skills required to service
our nations producers. These include:

Mentoring: New employees often receive guidance and support
from experienced colleagues who act as mentors. With their
wealth of experience, mentors answer questions and offer
valuable insights to new employees to foster growth and propel
them towards success.

One-on-One Supervisory Instruction: Supervisors provide
personalized instruction to new employees, helping them
understand their roles, responsibilities, and the agency's
expectations.

On-the-Job Training: Hands-on experience is an essential
aspect of the onboarding process. New employees engage in
practical tasks and learn by actively participating in their
assigned responsibilities.

Utilization of Technology: Available technology resources,
such as the Teams environment, are utilized to provide
interactive and hands-on training opportunities for remote or
dispersed employees.

Agency Provided Curriculum: Farm Service Agency often
provides specialized training curriculum (often through program
handbooks) tailored to the specific needs and requirements of
different positions. This curriculum covers important topics
related to agricultural programs, policies, and procedures.

Two positions at FSA have a comprehensive training system,
County Executive Directors in Training (CEDTs) and Farm Loan
Office Trainee (FLOT) training:

CEDTs undergo rigorous training, which involves
visiting multiple counties within the state. This firsthand
exposure allows them to observe and learn how different
counties deliver programs. By gaining practical experience
and knowledge, CEDTs are prepared to lead effectively
within their assigned counties.

FLOT training ensures that farm loan employees receive
proper training to implement programs in accordance with
policy guidelines. Overall, the aim of the onboarding
process is to provide employees with practical experience,
foster innovation, and enhance service delivery to
agricultural producers.

Question 11. As each of you know, the successes of the farm bill
conservation programs largely lie in the voluntary, locally-led,
incentive-based nature of the programs. Do the current conservation
programs provide enough flexibility to optimize program efficacy across
different regions with different resource concerns?
Answer. Yes, for NRCS and FSA, the current authorities provide
flexibility to address natural resource priorities established through
the locally-led process.
NRCS relies on this process, which empowers local stakeholders to
engage with their State Conservationist in setting the natural resource
priorities within a state. This local flexibility, combined with
program sideboards that follow statutory intent, allows for successful
voluntary conservation program implementation.
At FSA, the locally-led process allows local stakeholders to
contribute to the prioritization of natural resource concerns. This
allows states to take the program guidelines provided and optimize
financial incentives based on local conditions.

Question 12. Chief Cosby, we have seen an Administration-wide focus
on climate change across all economic sectors, especially agriculture.
How do you balance this top-down, Presidential climate prescription
with the voluntary, locally-led, and incentive-based nature of farm
bill conservation programs?
Answer. NRCS is implementing IRA authorities using the locally-led
process through its existing voluntary, incentive-based farm bill
conservation programs. We are not implementing IRA through a top-down
approach. The IRA provides additional and necessary funding for the
oversubscribed farm bill conservation programs giving us the
opportunity to expand the programs' reach and ability to help the
nation's farmers, ranchers and forest landowners implement conservation
measures.

Question 13. One of the most successful programs in the
conservation title that Congress has authorized in the past 20 years is
the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). It combined all
these regional programs into one program that allows you to leverage
funding with the private sector to address specific resource concerns.
What has happened? The program seems mired with administrative burdens
that make it difficult for people to access. Does the Administration
have a plan to fix this program either through administrative or
legislative changes that continues the principles of a partnership with
NRCS? How specifically does RCPP get fixed?
Answer. NRCS is actively working on improving the delivery and
administration of RCPP. We have taken customer feedback and are working
to streamline evaluation criteria, reduce the time to complete RCPP
easement transactions, improve the RCPP Portal, provide consistent
guidance and training for employees and partners, and simplify the
technical assistance structure.

Question 14. Along with healthy markets for forest products,
voluntary conservation easements are a proven tool for incentivizing
land conservation. While the farm bill's conservation title has
financial and technical assistance programs where forestland is
eligible, it does not extend conservation easement programs to
forestland. Chief Cosby, do you think a forest conservation easement
program is needed? How would such a program help us keep our
forestlands intact and working?
Answer. Our forestland, like our cropland and rangeland, offers
great opportunities for long-term conservation. The opportunity to
bring more forestland into permanent easement protection would allow
customers to protect those acres from conversion to non-silvicultural
uses, offer longer-term financial stability (forest revenue), and
realize climate benefits. Currently, NRCS administers the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) and even though its current funding
levels are modest, there is a recognized demand for forest conservation
easements as demonstrated when HFRP was a covered program under the
2014 Farm Bill Regional Conservation Partnership Program.

Question 15. In November, the EPA published an update to their
Endangered Species Act workplan that proposed numerous costly
mitigation measures that farmers, ranchers, and producers would be
required to implement when using crop protection tools--including
conservation practices such as cover cropping, riparian field buffers,
vegetative filter strips, and contour terracing. These regulatory
mandates are in direct contrast to our farm bill principles that
conservation should be voluntary, incentive-based, and locally-led.
Chief Cosby, can you tell us how exactly is NRCS working with EPA to
ensure conservation practices remain voluntary?
Answer. EPA is implementing Federal actions under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to register
pesticides and provide product labels that prescribe legally
enforceable limitations on pesticide applications. As described in
EPA's update to the workplan, EPA has developed a menu of Interim
Ecological Mitigation measures for conventional and biological
pesticides used on agricultural crops. EPA designed these Interim
Ecological Mitigation measures to reduce exposure to a variety of non-
target species, including listed species, while EPA moves toward full
Endangered Species Act compliance and final registration review
decisions. NRCS does not register or label pesticides; NRCS offers
voluntary and incentive-based programs under the farm bill (Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended) that support conservation solutions
for agricultural producers. These conservation solutions can include
voluntary conservation practices as part of a Pest Management
Conservation System (PMCS) that combines an Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) decision making process with natural resource conservation to
address pest and environmental impacts. NRCS is collaborating with EPA
to offer our experience and scientific expertise regarding mitigation
of impacts related to integrated pest management. NRCS is not requiring
implementation of conservation practices--participation in NRCS
programs under the farm bill remains voluntary. Any requirements
included on product labels for mitigating the impacts of pesticide
applications will come from EPA under FIFRA and in response to its ESA
section 7 consultations with FWS and/or NMFS.

Question 16. The Endangered Species Act requires agencies to use
``the best scientific and commercial data available'' in their analysis
on listed species; however, EPA frequently does not consider all the
data available. Chief Cosby, do you believe NRCS has relevant
conservation practice data that would benefit EPA when reviewing the
impact of pesticides on endangered species and their habitat?
Answer. As discussed in the response above, NRCS is collaborating
with EPA to offer our experience and scientific expertise regarding
mitigation of impacts related to integrated pest management. We may
have relevant information and expertise that can help inform EPA's
regulatory actions. NRCS provided EPA with an overview and access to
the Resource Conservation Act Data Viewer to develop custom queries to
meet their needs. Another resource that NRCS has is the Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) information and reports, and we have
shared that with EPA as well.

Question 17. The work of your great agencies has contributed to de-
listing of many species under the Endangered Species Act, improving
water quality across the U.S., and promoting soil health and
conservation. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, in your
opinions, why does voluntary conservation have a better track record
than regulation, and why aren't farmers getting the credit they deserve
as stewards of their lands?
Answer. Farmers and ranchers are some of our nation's most
dedicated land stewards. They have a direct tie to the land they
manage, and as a result, a direct tie to our natural resources. The
conservation efforts they voluntarily pursue not only serve to build
healthier soils, support water quality improvements, provide habitat
for wildlife, and deliver climate solutions--they also build resiliency
to agricultural operations and, ultimately, strengthen the bottom lines
of their operations. Our farmers and ranchers understand this more than
anyone.
Voluntary conservation is about much more than an operation's
productivity and profitability. Many of our farmers and ranchers are
working the same land their family has managed for generations. They
are looking towards the future--to their own children, and
grandchildren--and the ability of that land or that farming operation
to remain sustainable over time. Over and over, this is what we hear
when talking with farmers and ranchers directly. They care about their
land, and they want to leave their operations stronger for those who
come next. They understand that healthier soil for instance, or more
diverse natural vegetation, is directly tied to their operation's
ability to continue providing for their families--and their larger
communities, for generations to come.
At USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, one of our
driving motivations is working with farmers, ranchers, and other land
managers to strengthen their operations and conserve natural resources
through voluntary efforts. This is about working together, identifying
unique conservation goals, and pursing them collaboratively. We have
USDA Service Centers in nearly every county across the United States,
with staff ready to provide one-on-one support. Our staff meet with
producers at their operation, walk the land with them, and provide
technical expertise on potential conservation improvements.
As Chief, I encourage farmers or ranchers who haven't worked with
us yet to find their local Service Center and begin the conversation.
And for those of us in other professions: If you have the opportunity,
I encourage you to seek out a conversation with a farmer or rancher.

Question 18. As each of you know, the successes of the farm bill
conservation programs largely lie in the voluntary, locally-led,
incentive-based nature of the programs. Do the current conservation
programs provide enough flexibility to optimize program efficacy across
different regions with different resource concerns?
Answer. Yes, for NRCS and FSA, current authorities provide
flexibility to address natural resource priorities established through
the locally-led process.
NRCS relies on this process, which empowers local stakeholders to
engage with their State Conservationist in setting the natural resource
priorities within a state. This local flexibility, combined with
program sideboards that follow statutory intent, allows for successful
voluntary conservation program implementation. The Technical Service
Provider authority, as well as agency acquisition and partnership
authorities, enable the agency to obtain resources to provide technical
assistance in high workload areas. We encourage those engaged in farm
bill deliberations to consider maintaining maximum flexibility so
resource issues can be addressed quickly as they arise.
At FSA, the locally-led process allows local stakeholders to
contribute to prioritization of natural resource concerns. This allows
states to take the program guidelines provided and optimize the
financial incentives based on local conditions.

Question 19. The work of your great agencies has contributed to de-
listing of many species under the Endangered Species Act, improving
water quality across the U.S., and promoting soil health and
conservation. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, in your
opinions, why does voluntary conservation have a better track record
than regulation, and why aren't farmers getting the credit they deserve
as stewards of their lands?
Answer. Voluntary conservation efforts encourage cooperation,
partnerships, and innovation over the threat of regulatory
consequences, and can result in proactive solutions that address
problems before effects and consequences occur. Within the ESA itself,
there are well-known and successful mechanisms that encourage voluntary
and proactive conservation efforts, such as Candidate Conservation
Agreements and Safe Harbor Agreements. As many as \2/3\ of listed
species under ESA are present on private lands, so voluntary
conservation that encourages private landowner participation is
critical to species protection and recovery. This is particularly
important for species like sage grouse or New England cottontail where
the most important need is for improved habitat on lands that farmers,
ranchers, and private forest land owners also manage for their
livelihoods. NRCS programs provide the right sort of assistance to help
landowners benefit species as well as their bottom line; we incentivize
and deliver conservation solutions through voluntary partnerships with
farmers and ranchers in our farm bill programs. Programs such as
Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) provide win-win approaches that
systematically target conservation efforts to improve agricultural and
forest productivity which enhances wildlife habitat on working
landscapes. NRCS recognizes the profound impact that farmers have had,
and continue to have, on listed species protection and recovery.
Successes include a decision by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that
protections under ESA for the New England cottontail are not warranted
due to cooperative efforts by farmers, birdwatchers, hunters, and other
conservationists. Similarly, and more recently, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service did not increase ESA protections for the gopher tortoise due to
voluntary habitat restoration efforts, implementation of best
management practices, and conservation measures to benefit the
tortoise.
Conservation on agricultural lands improves water quality and
protects drinking water sources across the country. Through the
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI), NRCS supports locally-led
efforts to clean up waters listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Using this voluntary, locally-led approach, producers are
supported in delivering the right conservation in the right places to
make a difference for the clean water that we all depend on, as well as
improving the sustainability of their operations. Over 20 streams in
NWQI watersheds have been measurably improved and removed from listing
under CWA. This is only one example of the ways that farmers are
cooperating with their neighbors to improve their communities.
Response from Zach Ducheneaux, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Question 1. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, which agency
is taking the lead on administering and implementing the Climate-Smart
Commodities Partnership Program?
Answer. This is a Departmental effort, and the opportunity is
housed in NRCS.

Question 2. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, when staffing
for local offices, what are the onboarding processes for your agencies
and how are new staffers gaining the requisite local knowledge they
need to succeed?
Answer. Onboarding for an employee includes the agency--NRCS and
FSA--as well as coordination with the FPAC Business Center. The
Business center includes engagement on necessary equipment, network
access, and overview of completion of required employment forms. It is
also a central location for respective benefits, timesheets, learning,
and key new employee engagement.
From there, each agency works on their respective onboarding and
training process.
The timeline for training is dependent on employee experience and
the position of the new employee. State, local, and county practices
influence the employee onboarding processes. While both agencies have
core outlines of agency expectations and deliverables, training is
handled by the direct supervisor and often colleagues within the local
district or office. The supervisor provides the new employee with
expectations, guidelines, and policies for the office and agency;
reviews and clarifies any questions the staff person may have as a
result of the onboarding meeting. Both agencies ensure that employee
safety and addressing emergency situations is incorporated early on in
new employee engagement. These protocols ensure the safety and well-
being of both our employees and customers.
At NRCS, over the first few months, the supervisor assesses the
employee skills and abilities that form the basis of the employee's
training plan. One of the primary and critical pieces of employee
onboarding is acclimating the new employee to the local work unit
including introductions to many of the local partner organizations and
agricultural groups as well as the local Conservation District staff
and supervisors. This is set up with partnering with local colleagues
and local partners to be engaged and learn the local needs of the
community they will serve in addition to implementation of programs.
NRCS will ensure that the training includes prioritized time spent in
the field to familiarize the new employee to the local work unit
including its resource issues and concerns to ensure an understanding
of local agricultural practices and knowledge.
Similarly, FSA's onboarding process includes not just the programs
and protocols but an awareness of the local procedures and agricultural
needs of the county the office serves. Several common training
approaches are utilized when onboarding new staff in FSA offices to
ensure staff are gaining the knowledge and skills required to service
our nations producers. These include:

Mentoring: New employees often receive guidance and support
from experienced colleagues who act as mentors. With their
wealth of experience, mentors provide assistance, answer
questions, and offer valuable insights to new employees to
foster growth and propel them towards success.

One-on-One Supervisory Instruction: Supervisors provide
personalized instruction to new employees, helping them
understand their roles, responsibilities, and the agency's
expectations.

Utilization of Technology: Available technology resources,
such as the Teams environment, are utilized to provide
interactive and hands-on training opportunities for remote or
dispersed employees.

Two positions at FSA have a comprehensive training system,
County Executive Directors in Training (CEDTs) and Farm Loan
Office Trainee (FLOT) training:

Question 3. As each of you know, the successes of the farm bill
conservation programs largely lie in the voluntary, locally-led,
incentive-based nature of the programs. Do the current conservation
programs provide enough flexibility to optimize program efficacy across
different regions with different resource concerns?
Answer. Yes, for NRCS and FSA, the current authorities provide
flexibility to address natural resource priorities established through
the locally-led process.
NRCS relies on this process, which empowers local stakeholders to
engage with their State Conservationist in setting the natural resource
priorities within a state. This local flexibility, combined with
program sideboards that follow statutory intent, allows for successful
voluntary conservation program implementation. The Technical Service
Provider authority, as well as agency acquisition and partnership
authorities, enable the agency to obtain resources to provide technical
assistance in high workload areas. We encourage those engaged in farm
bill deliberations to consider maintaining maximum flexibility so
resource issues can be addressed quickly as they arise.
At FSA, the locally-led process allows local stakeholders to
contribute to the prioritization of natural resource concerns. This
allows states to take the program guidelines provided and optimize
financial incentives based on local conditions.

Question 4. According to the Congressional Budget Office's most
recent baseline, both the budget authority and outlays for the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are projected to increase from $2
billion in Fiscal Year 2023 to $2.675 billion by 2033. If this holds
true, CRP will become the most expensive Title II program with
mandatory funding. Administrator Ducheneaux, can you explain why the
annual cost of CRP is expected to increase so much over the next
decade?
Answer. Increased costs may be associated with assumptions for
maintaining CRP acreage at or near the 27 million acre statutory cap.
During the latter part of the baseline period, more acres will be
expiring from CRP requiring signups to reenroll expiring acres or
enroll new acres to maintain acreage at the statutory cap. It is
anticipated that inflationary costs will be associated with enrolling
acreage in the latter part of the baseline period. FSA's most recent
budget estimates for CRP reflect an increase from $2 billion in FY 2023
to $2.29 billion in FY 2033 based on the most recent acceptance of 1.07
million acres for General CRP and 2.6 million acres for Grassland CRP.
Accepting land under General and Continuous signups are generally more
costly due to the requirements for practice installation on
environmentally sensitive land.

Question 5. Administrator Ducheneaux, CRP is not hitting the
acreage cap and is unlikely to by the end of this farm bill. How can we
modernize the program to ensure its popularity?
Answer. FSA continues its efforts to get as reasonably close to the
FY 2023 statutory cap of 27 million acres and does not wish to disrupt
future opportunities for enrollment in General, Grasslands, and
Continuous CRP, including CREP. The reality is that CRP needs to be
managed with a reserve to avoid potential Anti-deficiency Act
violations or taking unpopular measures such as suspending enrollment
of Continuous/CREPs or running a General or Grasslands CRP sign-up with
few, if any, offers of acceptance made.
At the beginning of FY 2023, FSA faced a gap of almost 4 million
acres with an additional 1.97 million acres expiring at the end of FY
2023 (there are about 23 million acres currently enrolled with a cap of
27 million acres for FY 2023). FSA anticipates narrowing that gap by
accepting approximately 1 million acres under General CRP this year and
anticipates FY 2023 Continuous enrollment at about 1,000,000 acres but
could increase due to some new CREP agreements. With the acceptance of
Grassland CRP for FY 2023 still pending, FSA is currently about 2.8
million acres below the 27 million acre cap.
To increase producer interest and enrollment, FSA adjusted soil
rental rates where data supported such an adjustment, increased
payments for practice incentives, and increased payments for water
quality practices.
In FY 2022, FSA updated the Grassland CRP signup to establish a
minimum rental rate of $13 per acre that increased rental rates in
1,047 counties across the country. FSA also established Grassland CRP
National Priority Zones that aim to increase enrollment of grasslands
in migratory corridors and environmentally sensitive areas. Last year,
FSA expanded the Greater Yellowstone Wildlife Migration Corridor
Priority Zone to include seven additional counties across Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho. These improvements to Grassland CRP have yielded
rapid results as last year's Grassland CRP signup was the largest
Grassland signup ever.
For this year's Grassland signup, FSA provided limited resource
producers 20 additional points to enhance their offers. These ranking
point incentives will continue helping small-scale operators and
landowners find an entry way into the program. Also, we are making
clear that certain land enrolled in NRCS' EQIP is eligible for
enrollment in Grasslands CRP, providing producers access to a broader
suite of conservation practices tailored toward managing the rangeland
enrolled in Grasslands CRP.
USDA has made significant improvements to CREP to reduce barriers
and make the program more accessible to a broad range of producers and
new partners. In direct response to feedback from state agencies,
Tribes, nonprofits, and other groups, USDA updated CREP's rule
regarding matching fund requirements and invested in additional staff
to work directly with partners for streamlined, partner-driven
conservation efforts. With the December 13, 2021 rule change, partners
can now provide their negotiated level of matching funds in the form of
cash, in-kind contributions, or technical assistance. This change
allows for greater flexibility and opportunity for additional partners
to participate in the program. The rule also updated policy to allow
for a full annual rental payment to producers who are impacted by
state, Tribal or local laws, ordinances, and regulations that require a
resource conserving or environmental protection measure. The previous
rule reduced the rental payment made to producers who were affected by
such laws.

Question 6. Administrator Ducheneaux, I'm sure you have heard a lot
about prime farmland and the concern there is too much prime farmland
in the CRP. How many prime farmland acres are in the program, and what
can we do to have that good farmland stay out of the program and into
the hands of, for example, beginning farmers?
Answer. As of a February 2022 analysis, 25.6 percent of Continuous
CRP acres were considered ``prime farmland.'' It is important to
highlight the fact that Continuous CRP practices address specific
environmental concerns along rivers, streams, and waterbodies where
land is generally more productive, but more susceptible to
environmental threats. Similarly, 21.5 percent of General CRP acres are
classified as prime farmland. To carve prime farmland from an offer for
General CRP will result in unmanageable boundaries for producers to
farm around and may result in less interest in enrollment in CRP. In
total, 23.3 percent of all CRP acreage is classified as prime farmland.
Keeping prime farmland from enrollment in CRP will not guarantee that
the land will end up in the hands of a beginning farmer, rather will
end up in the hands of a producer willing to pay the price for renting
prime farmland that usually comes with a hefty price tag.

Question 7. Currently, we pay a percentage of the county rental for
land going into CRP. Administrator Ducheneaux, would you be in favor of
the general idea of paying more for marginal land and less for the
prime farmland, so the program doesn't compete for productive farmland?
Answer. Generally, paying more for marginal land seems reasonable.
Adding incentives to marginal land instead of changing the methodology
by which CRP rental rates are currently established overall may be the
most desirable path to ensuring the program complements local markets
rather than constraining them. Situations exist where the enrollment of
some prime farmland is needed to either solve a specific environmental
concern or where only a small portion of a tract is prime farmland, and
it would be infeasible to farm the area that is prime. For example, a
farmer may be row cropping acreage that is adjacent to a stream and the
installation of a filter strip would be beneficial to address water
quality and that land may be considered prime farmland. Requiring the
agency to expressly limit or pay a separate rate for the inclusion of
prime farmland would likely come at a significant time and resource
cost for FSA, and indirectly, NRCS, because of the need to make a
number of determinations on site before a contract could be entered
into, as well as potentially deter landowner interest in the program.
Time and resources could conceivably need to be spent on activities
including, but not limited to; maintaining authoritative databases,
confirming field conditions, and providing a process for producers to
appeal agency determinations.

Question 8. The work of your great agencies has contributed to de-
listing of many species under the Endangered Species Act, improving
water quality across the U.S., and promoting soil health and
conservation. Chief Cosby and Administrator Ducheneaux, in your
opinions, why does voluntary conservation have a better track record
than regulation, and why aren't farmers getting the credit they deserve
as stewards of their lands?
Answer. Agricultural producers have long invested in conservation
because they understand the value of these practices to the long-term
health and sustainability of their operations. It is critical that we
continue to offer a diverse suite of voluntary, incentive-based,
working lands conservation programs so farmers and ranchers have the
tools and options they need to make the decisions that are right for
their operations, families, and natural resources.

[all]