[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.

  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.

    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.

  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 (Stanton, et al. 2010).

  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 (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

 
 
 
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:

    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.

   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 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]