The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-246 ), the 2008 farm bill, reauthorizes almost all existing conservation programs, modifies several programs, and creates various new conservation programs. These changes address eligibility requirements, program definitions, enrollment and payment limits, contract terms, evaluation and application ranking criteria, among other administrative issues. In general, the conservation title includes specific changes that expand eligibility and delivery of technical assistance under most programs to cover more broadly, for example, forested and managed lands, pollinator habitat and protection, and identified natural resource areas, among other expansions. Producer coverage across most programs is also expanded to include beginning, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged producers; speciality crop producers; and producers transitioning to organic production. The enacted bill also creates new conservation programs to address emerging issues and priority resource areas, and also new subprograms under existing programs. Estimated new spending on the 2008 farm bill's conservation title—not including estimated conservation-related revenue and cost-offset provisions in the bill—is projected to increase by $2.7 billion over 5 years and $4.0 billion over 10 years. Total mandatory spending for the title is projected at $24.3 billion over 5 years (FY2008-FY2012) and $55.2 billion over 10 years (FY2008-FY2017). Agricultural conservation became a significant and visible policy focus in the Food Security Act of 1985. Since then, questions and concerns about conservation program funding, policy objectives, individual program effectiveness, comparative geographic emphasis, and the structure of federal assistance have been recurring issues in the debate shaping each successive omnibus farm bill. The 2008 farm bill is no exception. These long-standing issues arguably became even more apparent in this farm bill as they found their way into many individual program changes. This result may be a continuation of the more active profile taken by many conservation groups and their supporters in the 2002 farm bill. Unlike commodity programs, conservation program participation tends to be well represented by small and mid-size farming operations, according to the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Economic Research Service. The programs also enjoy wider public support. In an environment of pronounced domestic budget constraint, however, conservation groups and producers found themselves competing with other farming interests for the necessary resources to expand and continue many conservation programs. Budget concerns aside, several other issues emerged in the debate leading to enactment of the 2008 farm bill: funding priorities and payment structure, geographic targeting, program complexity, the importance of large-scale conservation efforts, and measurement of costs and effectiveness. These general policy issues—in various forms—raised questions central to the deliberations and outcomes in the enacted conservation title of the farm bill. Among the questions raised were: Should payment limits be program-specific, or for some combination of conservation programs? Would the imposition of payment limits change patterns of participation and effectiveness of conservation programs? What are the potential differences in saving under different payment limit options? Where should savings be allocated? Should each conservation program have the same payment limit? How will funding levels affect the existing backlog of interest in program participation that cannot be met? Because agricultural production is concentrated in specific regions of the United States, agricultural conservation and environmental issues are not randomly distributed. Some areas and some natural resources reveal greater environmental impact from agricultural activities—actual and potential—than others. For example, pressures on farmland development from urban sprawl are more pronounced on the East and West Coasts. Although many areas of the United States have water quality/quantity concerns or air quality issues, the deterioration of certain watersheds and certain air sheds is more advanced in some places than in others. How is it determined where federal conservation spending would be most effective? Should certain locations (states, regions, or watersheds) be targeted? Does targeting particular producer groups provide an effective strategy in resource management? Should some types of agricultural production or resource concerns receive higher priority in evaluating applications? Members of Congress, conservation groups, the Administration, and individual producers raised questions about the desirability of proliferating conservation programs and the complexity of adhering to various regulations that govern the programs. Some producers might have some acreage under one program and other acreage under another program. On-farm wetland management may be regulated by one program, while the environmental management plan of retired acreage is under another program. The question arises whether there is avoidable duplication or other inefficiencies that significantly limit conservation and resource management effectiveness. Could existing programs be combined in certain ways? Would a consolidated effort targeting a few specific resource issues reduce the complexity? Along with the perceived complexity of agricultural conservation programs is the related issue of the effectiveness of program delivery. Does the conservation delivery capacity of USDA agencies need to be further supplemented through partnerships, relationships with other organizations, or expansion of the technical assistance provider system? What opportunities and problems would result if a large portion of staff in the responsible agencies retired in a short time period? Does USDA currently have the staff needed to administer conservation programs if they were all fully funded? How might more market-based solutions to resource conservation improve delivery efficiency and program effectiveness? Local planning and implementation of conservation programs through locally constituted councils is an important aspect of conservation management and a long-standing characteristic of U.S. local-federal relations. A significant question raised by conservation groups, however, is the extent to which conservation efforts would be more effective and more efficient if they took place at larger scales, for example, through regional or multistate resource planning and multistate conservation planning. Because the conservation programs are voluntary, concern was voiced that participation could decline if producers felt that conservation programs were more remote from local planning input. Using watersheds or river basin drainage areas as policy targets, for example, could reduce the planning control of any single area jurisdiction. The trade-off is seen in the efficiencies that potentially stem from pooling financial and planning resources and targeting particular resource issues affecting most if not all producers. The Chesapeake Bay region, the Great Lakes, and specific river basins with significant agricultural impacts are examples where larger scale planning may hold particular advantages. How effective are federal conservation programs in improving environmental management of natural resources? Evaluation is an essential part of effective conservation management. Yet, developing practical and reliable indicators that can be used across programs and with different producers and different resources has been a challenge. Policymakers and stakeholders generally agree that conservation measures have been effective in reducing the environmental impact of agricultural activities, but at what cost, in what locations, and under what specific circumstances are much more difficult questions to answer. The recognized importance of establishing valid indicators has been an ongoing issue in environmental management. Research has advanced considerably in the area, to the point that integrating those findings within the structure of current programs is viewed by many to be more feasible than it was in the past. The 2008 farm bill reauthorizes almost all current conservation programs, modifies several current programs, and creates various new conservation programs. The various conservation programs administered by USDA can be broadly grouped into land retirement and easement programs and so-called "working lands" programs. In general, land retirement and easement programs take land out of crop production and provide for program rental payments and cost-sharing to establish longer term conservation coverage, in order to convert the land back into forests, grasslands, or wetlands. Working lands programs provide technical and financial assistance to assist agricultural producers in improving natural resource conservation and management practices on their productive lands. The enacted 2008 farm bill also creates several new conservation programs under the bill's conservation and other titles. The following sections provide brief overviews of the Title II changes to agricultural conservation programs. Major land retirement and easement programs include the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), among other programs. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program that allows producers to enter into 10-15 year contracts that provide annual rental payments and financial assistance to install certain conservation practices and maintain vegetative or tree covers. Its purpose is to conserve and improve soil, water, and wildlife resources by converting highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage to a long-term vegetative cover. CRP is the largest conservation program in terms of total annual funding. It is administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) and is funded through the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). CRP also has several subprograms, one of which is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), that are designated to support state and federal partnerships through incentive payments for installing specific conservation practices that help protect environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water. The enacted 2008 farm bill (Secs. 2101-2111) caps CRP enrollment at 32 million acres, down from its current cap of 39.2 million acres. The managers report on the conference agreement states this reduction is "not ... an indicator of declining or reduced support for CRP"; however, in other sections of the report USDA is encouraged to assist producers who are transitioning from land retirement to working lands conservation. The farm bill makes certain program changes, including allowing USDA to address state, regional, and national conservation initiatives; providing incentives for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers/ranchers to purchase CRP land from retiring farmers; allowing certain types of managed haying and grazing and installation of wind turbines on enrolled lands (but at reduced rental rates); requiring that program participants manage lands according to a conservation plan; requiring USDA to survey annually the per-acre estimates of county cash rents paid to CRP contract holders; clarifying the status of alfalfa grown as part of a rotation practice; and establishing cost-sharing rates for certain types of conservation structures. The bill also amends the pilot program for wetland and buffer acres in CRP. Each state can enroll up to 100,000 acres up to a national maximum of one million acres. This maximum may be raised to 200,000 in each state following a review of the program. Eligible lands for the program include (1) wetlands that have been cropped three of the immediately preceding 10 crop years; (2) land on which a constructed wetland is to be developed to manage fertilizer runoff; and (3) land that has been devoted to commercial pond-raised aquaculture. Conditions under which managed haying and grazing on CRP acreage may occur have been modified. The farm bill allows managed harvesting and grazing in response to drought and routine grazing to control invasive species. Where routine harvesting is permitted, state technical committees are required to coordinate to ensure appropriate environmental management. In addition to managed harvesting, the installation of wind turbines on enrolled land is now permitted activity. Any of these permitted uses on CRP acreage will result in a rental payment reduction commensurate with the economic value of the authorized activity. The enacted farm bill permits 50% cost share payments on land used for hardwood trees, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wildlife corridors for contracts entered into after November 1990. Contracts extend from a minimum of two years up to four years. Funding of $100 million also is authorized to cover cost sharing for the thinning of trees to improve the management of natural resources on the land. The 2008 farm bill modifies the criteria for evaluating CRP contract applications. Evaluation criteria include the extent to which a CRP contract application would improve soil resources, water quality, or wildlife habitat. The bill also allows the Secretary to establish different criteria in various states or regions that lead to improvements in soil quality or wildlife habitat. Preference in new CRP contracts will be given to land owners and operators who are residents of the county or a contiguous county in which the land is located. The farm bill also establishes incentives to increase the participation of beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. It authorizes CRP contract modifications to assist these producers in leasing or purchasing land under a CRP contract from a retired or retiring farm owner or operator. The provision authorizes $25 million for assistance in making these land transfers. Other enacted modifications to CRP include redefining the Chesapeake Bay region as a priority area without limiting the region to the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. While the new program apples to all watersheds draining into the Chesapeake Bay, the Susquehanna, Shenandoah, Potomac, and Patuxent Rivers will get funding priority. A provision in the Trade and Tax Provisions Title (Section 15301) will permit retired or disabled farmers and ranchers to exclude CRP payments from self-employment taxes beginning January 2008. The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) provides long-term technical and financial assistance to landowners with the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property, and to establish wildlife practices and protection. It is a voluntary program administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The enacted 2008 farm bill (Secs. 2201-2210) increases the WRP maximum enrollment cap to over 3.014 million acres (up from an existing cap of 2.275 million acres), and expands eligible lands to include certain types of private and tribal wetlands, croplands, and grasslands, as well as lands that meet the habitat needs of specific wildlife species. The farm bill authorizes a new Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program, to establish agreements with states similar to that for CREP, which includes a Reserved Rights Pilot program to explore whether reserving grazing rights is compatible within WRP. The bill makes certain program changes, including changing the payment schedule for easements; limiting wetland restoration payments; specifying criteria for ranking program applications; requiring that USDA conduct an annual survey of the Prairie Pothole Region starting with FY2008; and requiring USDA to submit a report to Congress on long-term conservation easements under the program. GRP is a voluntary program administered by USDA's Farm Services Agency (FSA) that helps landowners restore and protect grassland, rangeland, pastureland, and shrubland and provides assistance for rehabilitating grasslands. The enacted 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2403) adopts a new acreage enrollment goal of an additional 1.22 million acres by 2012, with 40% of funds for rental contracts (10-, 15-, and 20-year duration) and 60% for permanent easements. Requirements for cooperative agreements similar to those under the Farmland Protection Program are also authorized for GRP easements. The farm bill modifies the terms and conditions of GRP contracts and easements to permit fire presuppression and the addition of grazing-related activities, such as fencing and livestock watering. Priority for enrollment is also given to certain expiring CRP lands, and tribal lands are made eligible. The bill does not include a Grassland Reserve Enhancement provision, as proposed in the House. FFP is a voluntary program administered by USDA's NRCS that provides matching funds to help purchase development rights for eligible farmlands to keep productive farm and ranchland in agricultural uses. USDA partners with state, tribal, or local governments and nongovernmental organizations to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land from landowners, and provides up to 50% of the fair market easement value of the conservation easement. The enacted 2008 farm bill changes the program's purpose from protecting topsoil to protecting the land's agricultural use by limiting nonagricultural uses and including lands that promote state and local farmland protection (Sec. 2401). The federal share of easement costs are capped at 50%, with the land owner contributing 25% of the costs. The program is also restructured to emphasize longer term and renewable cooperative agreements. The bill also makes other technical changes to the program covering the program's administrative requirements, appraisal methodology, and terms and conditions, among other issues. It does not rename the program the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, as the program is often referred to by USDA. The bill provides additional budget authority for FPP of $743 million. Major working lands programs include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the (renamed) Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), among others. EQIP and CSP are the two largest working lands programs, and received additional budget authority over five years under the 2008 farm bill of $3.4 billion for EQIP and $1.1. billion for CSP. The enacted farm bill did not include a Senate proposal that would have closely coordinated CSP and EQIP under the so-called Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program. EQIP is administered by USDA's NRCS and provides technical and cost-share assistance to farmers and ranchers for promoting agricultural production and environmental quality by supporting the installation or implementation of structural and management practices on eligible agricultural land. EQIP includes a number of subprograms, including the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control, Conservation Innovation Grants, the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program, and the Klamath River Basin. The enacted 2008 farm bill (Secs. 2501-2510) expands the program to cover practices that enhance soil, surface and ground water, air quality, and conserve energy; it also covers grazing land, forestland, wetlands, and other types of land and natural resources that support wildlife. In evaluating applications, cost-effectiveness and comprehensive treatment of resource issues are given priority. The bill sets aside 5% of the EQIP spending for beginning farmers and ranchers and 5% for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, providing up to 90% of the costs of implementing an EQIP plan for these farmers. It also provides payments to assist tribal or native corporation members, and producers transitioning to organic production. The 2008 farm bill lowers the EQIP payment limit to $300,000 (down from $450,000) in any 6-year period per entity, except in cases of special environmental significance including projects involving methane digesters, as determined by USDA. Projects with organic production benefits are capped at $20,000 annually or $80,000 in any six-year period. The enacted bill retains the requirement that 60% of funds be made available for cost-sharing to livestock producers, including an incentive payments for producers who develop a comprehensive nutrient management plan. The bill reserves $37.5 million of annual EQIP funds for the Conservation Innovation Grants program and modifies the grants to cover air quality concerns associated with agriculture (including greenhouse gas emissions). It also replaces the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program within EQIP with a new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) to address water quality and quantity concerns on agricultural land, highlighting certain priority areas and providing additional mandatory funds for the program. The manager's report accompanying the farm bill suggests priority areas under the programs to include the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer region, Puget Sound, the Ogallala Aquifer, the Sacramento River watershed, the Upper Mississippi River Basin, the Red River of the North Basin, and the Everglades. AWEP prioritizes assistance to areas experiencing significant drought. The bill provides a total of $280 million through FY2012 for AWEP activities. Funding for EQIP is authorized at $1.2 billion (FY2008), $1.337 billion (FY2009), $1.45 billion (FY2010), $1.588 billion (FY2011), and $1.75 billion (FY2012). The pre-existing Conservation Security Program is a voluntary program administered by NRCS that provides financial and technical assistance to promote the conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on tribal and private working lands. However, the 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2301) phases this program out (except for existing contracts) and replaces it with a new and renamed Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). The new CSP, beginning in 2009, will continue to encourage conservation practices on working lands, but will be different from the former program. It eliminates the three-tier approach, establishes 5-year rather than 10-year contracts, and requires direct attribution of payments, among other changes, thus requiring that USDA promulgate new rules for the program. More than $2 billion in funding is made available for existing contracts under the former CSP program. Rather than the three-tier payment system, payments for new CSP contracts will be based on meeting or exceeding a stewardship threshold—the level of resource conservation and environmental management required to improve and conserve the quality and condition of at least one resource concern. The stewardship threshold also must be met for at least one priority resource concern identified at the state level as a priority for a particular watershed or area of the state. Payments are based on the actual costs of installing conservation measures, any foregone income, and the value of the expected environmental outcomes. The CSP reserves 5% of the funds each for beginning farmers and ranchers and disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (Sec. 2704). Monitoring and evaluation of the stewardship plan to assess the environmental effectiveness is also an element of the new CSP. The bill sets a target of enrolling 12.8 million acres annually under the new CSP. Individual producer payments are limited to $200,000 in any 5-year period per entity. Rather than annual sign-ups for the program, CSP enrollment will be contracted on a continuous basis. The type of eligible lands is expanded to include priority resource concerns, as identified by states; certain private agricultural and forested lands; and also some nonindustrial private forest lands (limited to not more than 10% of total annual acres under the program). Technical assistance will also be provided to specialty crop and organic producers, along with a pilot testing of producers who engage in innovative new technologies or participate in on-site conservation research. Producers may also receive supplemental payments for resource-conserving crop rotations that provide specific environmental benefits such as improving soil fertility, thus reducing the need for irrigation. Program payments may not be used for the design, construction, or maintenance of animal waste storage or treatment facilities or associated waste transport or transfer devices. WHIP is a voluntary program designed for the development and improvement of habitat primarily on private land. Through WHIP, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service provides both technical assistance and up to 75% cost-share assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The terms of WHIP agreements between NRCS and the participant generally are from 5 to 10 years from the date the agreement is signed. The 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2602) reauthorizes WHIP at current funding levels, but limits program eligibility to focus on "the development of wildlife habitat on private agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and tribal lands," thus potentially excluding some previously covered areas (i.e., non-agricultural lands). It also allows USDA to provide priority to projects that address issues raised by state, regional, and national conservation initiatives. The manager's report emphasizes that the program address various specific wildlife initiatives at state and local levels. The 2008 farm bill provides $425 million (FY2008-FY2012) and also increases the limit on cost-share payments to 25% for long-term projects. Payments to an individual entity are limited to $50,000 per year. The 2008 farm bill also authorizes a $15 million increase in funding to $20 million annually for FY2008-FY2012 for the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program (Sec. 2603). Funding is also increased to $100 million (FY2009) for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, to remain available until expended (Sec. 2803). The Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, a partnership between the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the National Rural Water Association, is designed to help keep surface and groundwater water pollution from affecting drinking water. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is administered by NRCS and works to rehabilitate older community dams. The farm bill (Sec. 2801) also provides additional mandatory funding ($15 million annually, FY2008-FY2012) for the Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMA) and includes Hawaii as an eligible state under that program. AMA provides cost share assistance to agricultural producers to voluntarily address issues such as water management, water quality, and erosion control by incorporating conservation into their farming operations. The enacted bill amends the Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D) to emphasize locally led planning processes and to provide assistance for implementing area plans (Sec. 2805). The RC&D program designates RC&D areas and assists the capability of elected and civic leaders to plan and carry out projects for resource conservation and community development. Also reauthorized through FY2012 is the Farm Viability Program (Sec. 2402). The Farm Viability Program, as authorized in the 2002 farm bill, provides authority for USDA to provide grants to eligible entities for the purpose of carrying out farm viability programs. To date, Congress has not appropriated funds to implement the program. The Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control is a federal-state partnership providing demonstration and technical assistance projects throughout the Great Lakes region. The program is coordinated by the Great Lakes Commission in partnership with the NRCS, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The enacted bill modifies the program to implement the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (Sec. 2604). Site-specific technical assistance (TA) is provided for producers and landowners in constructing and installing conservation and natural resource management technologies. Producers often need TA in designing and implementing appropriate conservation strategies. The enacted 2008 farm bill makes changes in the TA component of various conservation programs to respond to these producer needs and clarifies the purposes of TA. The bill also requires a review of conservation practice standards and includes specific provisions to ensure that speciality crops, organic producers, and precision agricultural producers receive adequate conservation TA. Although NRCS provides TA directly, the enacted bill also authorizes a national certification process for third-party providers, including non-federal providers (Sec. 2706). In addition, the bill creates an Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) Program to make use of the talents and skills of older, non-USDA employees (Sec. 2710). The bill further establishes state TA committees composed of various state conservation officials and agricultural producers for each state to assist in the implementation and technical aspects of conservation programs (Sec. 2711). The bill authorizes a new Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI) (Section 2707) as a component of the Conservation Technical Assistance program. It is authorized to target technical and financial resources on conservation priorities on agricultural and nonindustrial private forest land on a state, local, multistate, and regional basis. The manager's report especially encourages locally developed projects. Eligible CCPI programs include EQIP, CSP, WHIP, Great Lakes Basin Sediment Control, Conservation of Private Grazing Land, Chesapeake Bay Region, and Grassroots Water Conservation. The provision reserves 6% of the funding for these programs for initiatives under the CCPI and establishes criteria for prioritization of projects, including projects that provide innovative conservation methods. The enacted 2008 farm bill directs USDA to prepare a number of statistical and evaluation reports regarding various conservation programs: (1) an annual report on conservation program enrollments and payments—those greater than $250,000—under the Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland Protection Program, Grassland Reserve Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (for land having special environmental significance). The bill also requires a report on the new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (Sec. 2705). Other required reports include one on the long term implications of conservation easements (Sec. 2210), an annual report on average county cash rental rates (Sec. 2110), and an appraisal of soil and water conservation programs (Sec. 2804). In addition to the changes made to existing agricultural conservation programs, the enacted 2008 farm bill also expands the range of USDA conservation activities by creating several new programs, including a program expanding conservation activities in the Chesapeake Bay region, a new state grants program, a provision to limit production on native sod, and a provision promoting market-based approaches to conservation. This program (Sec. 2605) is targeted at conserving and protecting the Chesapeake Bay and the water sources that make up the watershed. It applies to all tributaries, backwaters, and side channels, including watersheds, draining into the Chesapeake Bay, but gives priority to the Susquehanna, Shenandoah, Potomac, and Patuxent Rivers. The bill authorizes $188 million in mandatory funding (FY2009-FY2012) and $438 million over 10 years (FY2009-FY2018). Also referred to as the "Open Fields" program, this program authorizes state grants to encourage land-owners to provide public access for wildlife-dependent recreation, subject to a 25% reduction for the total grant amount if the opening dates for migratory bird hunting in the state are not consistent for residents and non-residents. The bill provides $50 million in mandatory funds (FY2009-FY2012) for the program. This 2008 farm bill provision (Sec. 12020) makes producers that plant an insurable crop (over 5 acres) on native sod ineligible for crop insurance and the noninsured crop disaster assistance (NAP) program for the first five years of planting. The conference agreement states that this provision may apply to virgin prairie converted to cropland in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area, if elected by the state. This new conservation provision (Sec. 2709) is intended to facilitate the participation of farmers and landowners in emerging environmental services markets, such as water and air quality, habitat protection, and carbon storage. The farm bill directs USDA to establish a framework for developing consistent standards and processes for quantifying environmental services from the agriculture and forestry sectors, but does not authorize funding for this effort. The enacted farm bill also includes changes to several additional programs. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act makes funding available to support resource management activities targeting sources of salinity in the Colorado River (e.g., leaking wells, irrigation, industrial sources). The enacted farm bill establishes a Basin States Program for salinity control activities upstream of the Imperial Dam (sec. 2806). The 2002 farm bill authorized that mandatory spending of $200 million be transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation to provide water to at-risk natural desert terminal lakes. Section 2807 of the enacted bill provides $175 million for desert terminal lakes, but also designates that part of this funding be used for land and water purchases in the Walker River Basin. The basin lies on California's eastern border with Nevada. A provision in the Credit title of the enacted 2008 bill (Sec. 5002) establishes a new loan and loan guarantee program to assist producers in financing the cost to the producer for applying for needed conservation installations. The manager's report states that the loan program is only a complement to the assistance provided through the various conservation programs. The bill gives priority for these loans to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, those converting to organic systems, and producers who need conservation assistance to address various compliance requirements. The majority of agriculture and farmland conservation groups have responded favorably to the expanded provisions and increased funding for programs in the Conservation Title of the 2008 farm bill. Since enactment, a few national wildlife groups have expressed concern about changes to some provisions during the conference negotiations, which are perceived as providing fewer benefits to the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Among the concerns expressed by these groups are the reduction in the CRP acreage enrollment cap reduction, easing of the requirements under the "sodsaver" provision, limitations on the types of lands eligible under Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the new permanent disaster fund, which could encourage marginal land plantings, among other concerns.

Summary: The 2008 enacted farm bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) reauthorizes almost all existing conservation programs, modifies several programs, and creates various new conservation programs. A new Conservation Stewardship program replaces the existing Conservation Security Program and a new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program is also authorized with mandatory funding. Other new programs include the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program and a "Sodsaver" provision to help preserve native sod, including virgin prairie in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. Significant modifications to existing programs include a reduction of the maximum enrolled acreage under the Conservation Reserve Program to 32 million acres and an increase in the cap for the Wetlands Reserve Program to over 3 million acres. Other changes in the enacted bill include modifications to address eligibility requirements, program definitions, enrollment and payment limits, contract terms, evaluation and application ranking criteria, among other administrative issues. Eligibility is expanded for many programs and technical assistance under most programs is broadened to cover forested and managed lands, pollinator habitat and protection, and identified natural resource areas. Beginning, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged producers, specialty crop producers, and producers transitioning to organic production are also targeted for special consideration in many existing programs. Estimated new spending on the conservation title—not including estimated conservation-related revenue and cost-offset provisions in the bill—is projected to increase by $2.7 billion over 5 years and $4.0 billion over 10 years. Total mandatory spending for the conservation title is projected at $24.3 billion over 5 years (FY2008-FY2012) and $55.2 billion over 10 years (FY2008-FY2017). A comparison of conservation provisions in the enacted 2008 farm bill with existing law and the House and Senate farm bills is provided in the Appendix. This report will not be updated.