[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SUPPORTING FARMERS, STRENGTHENING
CONSERVATION, SUSTAINING WORKING
LANDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, RESEARCH,
AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-6
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-618 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
DON BACON, Nebraska Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr., CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio
______
Parish Braden, Staff Director
Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana, Vice Chair JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii, Ranking
DON BACON, Nebraska Minority Member
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico, Vice
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr., Ranking Minority Member
Pennsylvania EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana JOHN W. MANNION, New York
APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
opening statement.............................................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 6
Submitted letter on behalf of Andrew W. LaVigne, President
and Chief Executive Officer, American Seed Trade
Association................................................ 61
Tokuda, Hon. Jill N., a Representative in Congress from Hawaii,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Witnesses
Boening, Russell W., President, Texas Farm Bureau, Poth, TX...... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
McLeland, Christopher, Managing Director of Agriculture Programs,
Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Hallsville, MO.......................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Sebert, Ph.D., Dan A., original Charter Member, Senior Policy
Advisor, National Watershed Coalition, Pawnee, OK.............. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Fink, Tim, Vice President of Policy, American Farmland Trust,
Washington, D.C................................................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Galase, Nicole K., Managing Director, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council,
Hilo, HI; on behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Submitted questions.......................................... 61
SUPPORTING FARMERS, STRENGTHENING CONSERVATION, SUSTAINING WORKING
LANDS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., Room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Lucas, Baird, Rose,
Jackson, Newhouse, Bresnahan, Messmer, Thompson (ex officio),
LaMalfa, Tokuda, Adams, Davids, Budzinski, Sorensen, Vasquez,
Vindman, Mannion, McClain Delaney, Craig (ex officio), Costa,
and Riley.
Staff present: John Busovsky, Laurel Lee Chatham, Sofia
Jones, Joshua Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, John Konya, Suzie
Cavalier, Kate Fink, Ari Perlmutter, Ashley Smith, Michael
Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome and
thank you for joining today's hearing entitled, Supporting
Farmers, Strengthening Conservation, and Sustaining Working
Lands. After brief opening remarks, Members will receive
testimony from our witnesses today 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 Members of the Subcommittee aware
that other Members of the full Committee may be joining us
today.
Good morning. Welcome to today's Conservation, Research,
and Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing. Today we will be
examining farm bill conservation programs and hearing from a
distinguished panel of witnesses from their perspectives. Title
II of the farm bill authorizes a suite of conservation programs
that are critical for supporting the long-term viability of
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. These programs have
the dual benefit of supporting the producer and addressing
pressing natural resource concerns at the local level. As we
have today's discussion, hear about the programs, and discuss
potential improvements, it is important that we have some
context for why and how our system of farm conservation
developed over many years.
The roots of our conservation system date back to the 1930s
and the actions that the Federal Government took in response to
the Dust Bowl. In the 19th century, the Homestead Act (Pub. L.
37-64) was enacted with the best of intentions, but it had
unintended consequences. When settlers came West in search of
fertile land to farm, it didn't take long for them to realize
that the sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains were
susceptible to erosion when unprotected, or not protected, I
should say, by native vegetation. Coupled with severe drought
conditions, this led to massive dust storms in Oklahoma, Texas,
and Kansas in the 1930s. Perhaps the worst fell on April 14,
1935, a day that has become known as Black Sunday. The dust
storms were so severe, their effects were felt far beyond the
Southern Great Plains, gathering attention of lawmakers in
Washington.
Only 13 days after Black Sunday, President Roosevelt signed
legislation into law establishing the then-named Soil
Conservation Service. Renamed the Natural Resources
Conservation Service in 1996, the agency administers most of
the farm bill conservation programs and provides technical
assistance for others administered by the Farm Service Agency.
Voluntary conservation practices are critically important for
supporting agriculture and ensuring we don't have another Dust
Bowl again. With this year marking the 90th anniversary of both
Black Sunday and the establishment of the now-named NRCS,
today's hearing is timely to hear more about these programs and
how Congress may be able to further improve them.
We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm
Bill, and rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the
current status of agriculture and the rural economy. This
extends to conservation programs and reforms we can include to
build on the progress we have made in recent farm bills. Last
year's Committee-passed farm bill proposed historic new funding
for conservation programs by rescinding the unobligated
Inflation Reduction Act funding and reinvesting it in Title II.
The House-passed reconciliation bill similarly reinvested the
unobligated IRA funding into the conservation title.
Reallocating those dollars would increase the title's baseline
over the long-term, making it a permanent investment in
conservation programs. It also allows for continued support for
orphan programs, increased funding for successful programs like
Small Watershed Program, and the creation of new forestry
easement program.
In addition to funding, last year's bill placed an emphasis
on science, technology, and innovation. The bill makes
precision agriculture specifically eligible for cost-share
under EQIP and CSP, requires more frequent updates to
conservation practice standards, and creates an office of
innovation at the Office of the Secretary. The bill streamlines
RCPP, provides commonsense flexibility for ACEP, and reforms
the Technical Service Provider Program. The bill also proposes
a modernization of CRP and focusing the program on marginal
lands by incorporating soil capacity class into rental rates
for general enrollment. These are all welcome changes intended
to improve program administration and make them more producer
friendly.
Farm bill conservation programs have been so successful
because they are voluntary, incentive based, and producer-
first. The programs have also been so effective because they
are locally-led, which allows for states and regions to
determine the priority natural resource concerns. As we think
about the next farm bill, it is important for us to keep all of
this in mind. Conservation programs have been so effective
because of the flexibility built into them and because we have
continually encouraged the local-led process to work. I am
proud of the work that this Committee has done over the past
several farm bill cycles to improve the programs because we
know voluntary conservation works.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress
from Oklahoma
Good morning. Welcome to today's Conservation, Research, and
Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing. Today we will be examining farm
bill conservation programs and hearing from a distinguished panel of
witnesses for their perspectives.
Title II of the farm bill authorizes a suite of conservation
programs that are critical for supporting the long-term viability of
farmers, ranchers and rural communities. These programs have the dual
benefit of supporting the producer and addressing pressing natural
resource concerns at the local level.
As we have today's discussion, hear about the programs, and discuss
potential improvements, it is important that we have some context for
why and how our system of farm conservation developed over many years.
The roots of our conservation system date back to the 1930s and the
actions that the Federal Government took in response to the Dust Bowl.
In the Nineteenth century, the Homestead Act was enacted with the
best intentions, but it had unintended consequences. When settlers came
west in search of fertile land to farm, it didn't take long for them to
realize the sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains were susceptible
to erosion when not protected by native vegetation. Coupled with severe
drought conditions, this led to massive dust storms in Oklahoma, Texas,
and Kansas in the 1930s. Perhaps the worst fell on April 14, 1935, a
day that has come to be known as ``Black Sunday.''
The dust storms were so severe that their effects were felt far
beyond the Southern Great Plains, garnering the attention of lawmakers
in Washington. Only 13 days after Black Sunday, President Roosevelt
signed legislation into law establishing the then-named Soil
Conservation Service. Renamed the Natural Resources Conservation
Service in 1996, the agency administers most of the farm bill
conservation programs and provides technical assistance for others
administered by the Farm Service Agency.
Voluntary conservation practices are critically important for
supporting agriculture and ensuring we don't have another Dust Bowl
again. With this year marking the 90th anniversary of both Black Sunday
and the establishment of the now-named NRCS, today's hearing is timely
to hear more about these programs and how Congress may be able to
further improve them.
We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm Bill and
rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the current state of
agriculture and the rural economy. This extends to conservation
programs and reforms we can include to build on the progress we've made
in recent farm bills.
Last year's Committee-passed farm bill proposed historic new
funding for conservation programs by rescinding the unobligated
Inflation Reduction Act funding and reinvesting it into Title II. The
House-passed reconciliation bill similarly reinvests the unobligated
IRA funding into the conservation title. Reallocating those dollars
would increase the title's baseline over the long term, making it a
permanent investment into conservation programs. It also allows for
continued support for the orphan programs, increased funding for
successful programs like the Small Watershed Program, and the creation
of a new forest easement program.
In addition to funding, last year's bill placed an emphasis on
science, technology and innovation. The bill makes precision
agriculture specifically eligible for cost-share under EQIP and CSP;
requires more frequent updates to conservation practice standards; and
creates an office of innovation in the Office of the Secretary.
The bill streamlines RCPP; provides commonsense flexibilities for
ACEP; and reforms the technical service provider program. The bill also
proposes a modernization of CRP and focusing the program on marginal
lands by incorporating soil capability class into rental rates for
general enrollment.
These are all welcomed changes intended to improve program
administration and make them more producer friendly. Farm bill
conservation programs have been so successful because they are
voluntary, incentive-based and producer-first. The programs have also
been so effective because they are locally-led, which allows for the
states and regions to determine the priority natural resource concerns.
As we think about the next farm bill, it's important for us to keep
all of this in mind. Conservation programs have been so effective
because of the flexibility built into them and because we have
continually encouraged the locally-led process to work. I'm proud of
the work that this Committee has done over the past several farm bill
cycles to improve the programs because we know that voluntary
conservation works.
I'd like to welcome all of our witnesses today; and thank Ranking
Member Tokuda for her partnership on this hearing. With that, I yield
to the Ranking Member for any opening remarks she would like to
provide.
The Chairman. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses
today and thank Ranking Member Tokuda for her partnership on
this hearing. And with that, I yield of the Ranking Member for
any opening remarks that she would like to provide.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JILL N. TOKUDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM HAWAII
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning. Aloha, everyone. Thank you for being at our hearing
today. As Ranking Member, I am proud to join you and our
colleagues in reaffirming a shared commitment to supporting
America's farmers, ranchers, and producers through smart,
effective conservation policy. I also want to thank our panel
of witnesses for being here today and extend an especially warm
mahalo to Nicole Galase for traveling all the way--I think she
came the farthest--all the way from Hawaii to share the
perspective of food producers operating in some of the most
remote and climate vulnerable parts of the country.
Now, let's begin with some common ground. USDA conservation
programs work, whether it is EQIP, CSP, ACEP, RCPP, the whole
alphabet soup of acronyms. These programs provide practical
tools to improve soil health, manage water more efficiently,
and keep operations productive and resilient, but here is the
hard truth. The weather isn't what it used to be. No matter
what you want to call it--climate change, extreme weather,
shifting seasons--our producers are living it every day. Longer
droughts, harder rains, heat waves in April, frost in May, it
is getting harder to grow the food, fuel, and fiber that this
country relies on, and that is not a partisan talking point. It
is reality for farmers and ranchers across this country.
Programs like EQIP and CSP can help producers adapt, but
they have been chronically under-funded for decades, turning
away thousands of qualified farmers each year, not because the
programs don't work, but because demand far exceeds supply.
That is why the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) was
such a turning point. The conservation investments in the IRA
weren't just a budget line, they were a statement, a bold time-
limited, once-in-a-generation effort to meet demand head on and
finally give producers the access and the technical support
they need to take on the challenges they are facing today.
Now, yes, we have seen bills that move IRA dollars into the
baseline USDA conservation budget. And that is a good thing,
and on the surface that might look like a step towards
stability, but let us not lose sight of what made the IRA
conservation funding different and powerful. The IRA wasn't
about business as usual. It was about breaking the log jam. It
opened the flood gates to let more farmers and more ranchers
get the support they have been asking for, for many, many
years, and let me be clear: this is not about left or right. It
is about forward.
Whether you are in red states, blue states, purple states,
or farm country, right in between, producers are not asking for
politics. They are asking for access, for flexibility, for
conservation tools that make their land more resilient, their
water more efficient, and their operations more secure because
their livelihoods, as you all know, depend on it and so does
our nation's food supply. So as we move forward, whether a farm
bill or broader conservation planning, let's protect not just
the dollars, but the spirit behind what was in the IRA:
urgency, scale and the recognition that changing conditions
require bold action, not modest tweaks. So let's make sure that
in the name of stability, we don't slip back into scarcity. Our
producers don't need diluted promises. They need real, timely
farmer-focused support because the weather is not waiting and
neither should we.
I look forward to our dialogue today and to working with
this Committee to continue improving the effectiveness of NRCS
programs, supporting our staff, and supporting Americans'
agriculture through thoughtful and innovative conservation
practices. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to
hearing from our panel, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tokuda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jill N. Tokuda, a Representative in Congress
from Hawaii
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening today's
hearing.
As Ranking Member, I'm proud to join you and our colleagues in
reaffirming a shared commitment to supporting America's farmers,
ranchers, and producers through smart, effective conservation policy. I
also want to thank our panel of witnesses for being here, and extend a
warm mahalo to Nicole Galase for traveling all the way from Hawai`i to
share the perspective of food producers operating in some of the most
remote and climate-vulnerable parts of the country.
Let's begin with common ground: USDA conservation programs work.
Whether it's EQIP, CSP, ACEP, or RCPP, these programs provide practical
tools to improve soil health, manage water more efficiently, and keep
operations productive and resilient.
But here's the hard truth: the weather isn't what it used to be. No
matter what you call it--climate change, extreme weather, shifting
seasons--our producers are living it every day. Longer droughts, harder
rains, heatwaves in April, frost in May--it's getting harder to grow
the food, fuel, and fiber that this country relies on.
And that's not a partisan talking point. It's a reality for farmers
and ranchers across America.
Programs like EQIP and CSP can help producers adapt. But they've
been chronically under-funded for decades, turning away thousands of
qualified farmers each year--not because the programs don't work, but
because demand far exceeds supply.
That's why the Inflation Reduction Act was such a turning point.
The conservation investments in the IRA weren't just a budget line--
they were a statement. A bold, time-limited, once-in-a-generation
effort to meet demand head-on and finally give producers the access--
and the technical support--they need to take on the challenges they're
facing today.
Now, yes, we've seen bills that move IRA dollars into the baseline
USDA conservation budget. On the surface, that might look like a step
toward stability. But let's not lose sight of what made the IRA
conservation funding different--and powerful.
The IRA wasn't about business as usual. It was about breaking the
logjam. It opened the floodgates to let more farmers and ranchers get
the support they've been asking for--many for years.
And let me be clear: this is not about left or right. It's about
forward.
Whether you're in red states, blue states, or farm country in
between, producers are not asking for politics. They're asking for
access. For flexibility. For conservation tools that make their land
more resilient, their water use more efficient, and their operations
more secure--because their livelihoods depend on it, and so does our
national food supply.
So as we move forward--whether in the farm bill or broader
conservation planning--let's protect not just the dollars, but the
spirit behind the IRA: urgency, scale, and the recognition that
changing conditions require bold action, not modest tweaks.
Let's make sure that in the name of stability, we don't slip back
into scarcity. Our producers don't need diluted promises. They need
real, timely, farmer-focused support--because the weather's not
waiting, and neither should we.
I look forward to our dialogue today, and to working with this
Committee to continue improving the effectiveness of NRCS programs and
supporting American agriculture through thoughtful and innovative
conservation practices.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now
recognizes the Chairman of the full Committee for any opening
comments he would like to make. Chairman Thompson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. I know it is not easy making
the trip to Washington. I really appreciate your willingness to
participate in today's hearing. I also want to thank Mr. Lucas
for serving as a Subcommittee Chairman at this critical time.
There is no Member more capable to help navigate the vital
issues of working lands conservation at this moment in time
than our esteemed former full Committee chair, so thank you,
Frank.
As a former Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have been
proud to support these programs, and I have seen firsthand how
voluntary conservation directly benefits the producer, soil and
water, wildlife habitat, and so much more. Title II programs
have been so successful for many reasons, fundamentally because
our motto of conservation is voluntary, incentive based, and
locally-led. The locally-led part is important, and we must
continue to protect that aspect of the programs as we consider
reforms within a new farm bill.
The Farm, Food, and National Security Act (H.R. 8467, 118th
Congress) was passed by this Committee last year and contains
many bipartisan priorities in its conservation title to build
on the gains that we have made in recent farm bills. This
includes reforms to improve the administration of RCPP, ACEP,
and the Small Watershed Program. The bill encourages more
innovation in the programs by requiring more frequent updates
to conservation practice standards and makes precision
agriculture eligible for cost-share in EQIP and CSP. It also
proposed a modernization of CRP and important improvements to
the technical services provider program. And while these are
just some of the reforms this Committee can take to improve the
administration of each program, we also have a tremendous
opportunity at this Congress to bolster conservation programs
over the long-term with significant new funding. The Farm,
Food, and National Security Act also proposed rescinding the
unobligated IRA conservation funding and reallocating it into
Title II. House Republicans are now trying to provide similar
reinvestment through the reconciliation process. Instead of
letting the IRA funding expire, investing it would provide
additional funding for the programs that we all know work and
increase the baseline for the conservation title into
perpetuity.
Rural America continues to face great economic challenges,
and I look forward to working with all of you on strategic
investments and policy updates to meet the needs of our
producers and the agricultural value chain. Thank you again to
our witnesses for your time today, and we look forward to
hearing your testimonies and appreciate your expertise with the
farm bill conservation programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With
that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize the
Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Craig, for any
opening comments that she would like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so pleased to be
here with fellow strong advocates for conservation programs.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for making time to come up
to the Hill today, to share your expertise with us, and a
special shout-out to Ms. Galase, who has traveled 5,000 miles
to be with us here today.
Our farmers are the natural caretakers and stewards of our
land. USDA's conservation programs help continue that legacy
while diversifying farm income streams and helping farmers'
bottom line. Conservation is essential to keeping our farm and
forest lands working for generations to come. Over the last
decade my state, Minnesota, has received over $875 million from
Natural Resources Conservation Service programs to help
producers with everything from planting cover crops and
pollinator habitat to implementing reduced tillage and manure
management.
For example, in my district in Rice County, conservation
champions, like John and Debbie Becker, have enrolled land in
the Conservation Reserve Program to protect the country's only
self-sustaining trout stream, and more recently, they have used
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to fund planting
cover crops. Of course, that is the county's only, not the
country's only, and through the Conservation Stewardship
Program, Mike and Kay Peterson have added critical area
plantings of native prairie on highly-erodible end rows where
erosion occurred year after year. These programs are popular
because they work. Moving forward, there are some significant
issues I believe we must address to get more conservation on
the ground.
First, I would be remiss not to mention my significant
concern with the current Administration's hollowing out of
NRCS. In Minnesota alone, we have lost more than 70 dedicated
NRCS employees. Without dedicated and qualified staff working
from farmer service centers in rural America, these programs
cannot succeed. Yet the President's budget recommends
completely zeroing out conservation technical assistance,
further jeopardizing our ability to implement extremely popular
farm bill conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. This will
hurt farmers not help them.
Second, NRCS programs remain oversubscribed. We have to
protect the remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation
funding by rolling it into the farm bill baseline, and we
should do it in a manner that preserves the original intent of
the investment and without busting up the farm bill coalition.
We must make sure that money stays in the voluntary, incentive-
based conservation programs that our farmers rely on. The
investments we made in conservation programs through the IRA
might be a once-in-a-lifetime, and we shouldn't give up those
gains. I am glad the Majority has recognized the importance and
success of the IRA and joined us in trying to get this across
the finish line.
Last, it has been too long since we have reauthorized a
full 5 year farm bill. There are commonsense, bipartisan
changes that everyone agrees need to be made. I look forward to
working with my colleagues, our witnesses, and the broader
conservation community to protect and improve the farm bill's
conservation programs. We have a tremendous opportunity to
streamline program delivery, increase incentives for producer
participation, and preserve farm, ranch, and forest lands for
current farmers and our children, and especially for those of
us who have them, our grandchildren. Thank you Mr. Chairman and
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
I'm pleased to be here with fellow strong advocates for
conservation programs. Thank you to each of our witnesses for making
time to come up to the Hill and share your expertise with us. And a
special shout-out to Ms. Galase for traveling nearly 5,000 miles from
Volcano, Hawaii--we appreciate you making the journey to be here today.
Our farmers are the natural caretakers and stewards of our land.
USDA's conservation programs help continue that legacy while
diversifying farm income streams and helping farmers' bottom line.
Conservation is essential to keeping our farm and forest lands working
for generations to come.
Over the last decade, my state, Minnesota, has received over $875
million from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs to
help producers with everything from planting cover crops and pollinator
habitat to implementing reduced tillage and manure management.
For example, in my district in Rice County, conservation champions
like John and Debbie Becker have enrolled land in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) to protect the county's only self-sustaining
trout stream, and more recently, they've used the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) to fund planting cover crops. And through the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Mike and Kay Peterson have
added critical area plantings of native prairie on highly-erodible end
rows where erosion occurred year after year.
These programs are popular because they work. Moving forward, there
are some significant issues I believe we must address to get more
conservation on the ground.
First, I would be remiss not to mention my significant concern with
the current Administration's hollowing out of NRCS. In Minnesota alone,
we've lost more than 70 dedicated NRCS employees. Without dedicated and
qualified staff working from Farmer Service Centers in rural America,
these programs cannot succeed. Yet, the President's budget recommends
completely zeroing out Conservation Technical Assistance, further
jeopardizing our ability to implement extremely popular farm bill
conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. This will hurt farmers, not
help them.
Second, NRCS programs remain oversubscribed. We've got to protect
the remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding by rolling
it into the farm bill baseline. And we should do it in a manner that
preserves the original intent of the investment and without busting up
the farm bill coalition. We must make sure that money stays in the
voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs that our farmers rely
on. The investments we made in conservation programs through the IRA
might be once-in-a-lifetime, and we shouldn't give up those gains. I am
glad the majority has recognized the importance and success of the IRA
and joined us in trying to get this across the finish line.
Last, it's been too long since we've reauthorized a full, 5 year
farm bill. There are common sense, bipartisan changes that everyone
agrees need to be made. I look forward to working with my colleagues,
our witnesses and the broader conservation community to protect and
improve the farm bill's conservation programs.
We have a tremendous opportunity to streamline program delivery,
increase incentives for producer participation and preserve farm, ranch
and forest lands for current farmers and our children and
grandchildren.
Thank you and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The chair would request that other
Members submit their opening statements for the record so that
the witnesses may begin their testimony and to ensure that
there is ample time for questions.
Our first witness today is Mr. Russell Boening, President
of the Texas Farm Bureau. Our next witness is Christopher
McLeland, the Managing Director of the Agricultural Programs,
Ducks Unlimited. Our third witness today is Dr. Dan Sebert, who
is Senior Policy Advisor and former Executive Director of the
National Watershed Coalition. Our next witness is Mr. Tim Fink,
the policy director at the American Farmland Trust. And I will
turn to my colleague to introduce her constituent, my fellow
cattleman.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our fifth and
final last, but not least, witness today is Ms. Nicole Galase,
the Executive Director of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.
Mahalo, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining
us today, and we will now proceed with our testimony. You will
each have 5 minutes. The timer is in front of you. It will
count down to zero at which your time will expire, and with
that, Mr. Boening, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL W. BOENING, PRESIDENT, TEXAS FARM BUREAU,
POTH, TX
Mr. Boening. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be
here and testify today. My name is Russell Boening. I am a
fourth-generation farmer and President of the Texas Farm
Bureau. Along with my brother, we produce grain, cotton, and
wheat while operating a 450-cow dairy and a beef operation
outside of Polk, Texas, which is right southeast of San
Antonio. It is an honor to be here on behalf of our member
families of the Texas Farm Bureau.
Voluntary conservation practices have become a cornerstone
of modern agriculture. Our family implements conservation
practices to improve water quality, soil health, and wildlife
habitat, while keeping our land productive, but we are not
unique. Farmers across Texas and across this whole country are
seizing the opportunity to utilize conservation programs. For
decades, USDA, NRCS, and FSA programs have assisted farmers in
executing on-farm conservation practices. Farmers rely on
working lands programs such as EQIP, CSP, and RCPP. These
programs are highly successful, and the greatest challenge for
producers is just gaining entry.
All of these programs have become increasingly
oversubscribed with demand consistently surpassing available
funding. For Texans, EQIP is of the utmost importance given the
50 percent set-aside for livestock operations. In 2022, the
Inflation Reduction Act allocated additional funding for these
working lands programs. Currently, this IRA funding is
temporary and does not alter the permanent baseline funding
established by the 2018 Farm Bill. The One Big Beautiful Bill
Act (Pub. L. 119-21) that has passed the House last month
infuses roughly $11 billion in unspent IRA funding into this
baseline for these programs, while also adding $8 billion in
additional baseline funding. Incorporating the IRA funds into
the baseline would ensure that these funds continue into
perpetuity and farmers can stay committed to their conservation
work.
CRP is a voluntary land retirement program that assists
farmers in removing environmentally-sensitive land from ag
production. For many farmers, CRP serves as an important farm
safety net by providing a reliable source of income during
times when crop prices are low or when certain acres are less
productive due to environmental challenges. By enrolling
vulnerable or less profitable land in CRP, farmers can receive
a guaranteed annual rental that helps stabilize their cash-
flow, thereby reducing financial stress and risk.
We support the approach taken in the Committee's bill that
proposes using soil classification to determine CRP payments.
This approach could better align rental rates with the
productivity and environmental value of the land enrolled. By
factoring in soil classification, payments could be more
accurately tailored to reflect the potential ag value and
conservation benefits of specific parcels. It would create a
payment scale that incentivizes the enrollment of
environmentally-sensitive areas, which focuses on the parcels
of land that the program was originally designed to protect.
Farmers often express concern about the shortage of
technical service providers available to assist with these
conservation practices as this lack of support can delay or
limit their ability to implement these programs. Without
sufficient TSPs, producers may struggle to develop conservation
plans, complete necessary documentation, or receive expert
guidance on selecting the effective practices tailored for
their land. This shortage can be especially challenging in
rural or under-served areas where access to trained
professionals is already limited.
Expanding and better supporting the network of TSPs is
essential to ensure farmers can successfully navigate
conservation programs and achieve meaningful environmental
outcomes. Congress must invest in the TSPs that assist farmers
in executing these practices. We strongly advocate that the
Committee work to make all conservation programs more
practicable, accessible, and supportive of modern agricultural
challenges. Our members continue to advocate for increased
funding and higher payment rates to better reflect the true
cost of implementing and maintaining conservation practices.
Also, simplifying application processes and reducing paperwork
are top priorities, especially for small and beginning farmers
who may lack the time or resources to navigate these complex
requirements. Farmers seek more flexibility in program
contracts and practice options to tailor their conservation
efforts to their unique operations.
We ask Members of this Subcommittee to work towards
reauthorizing the farm bill to ensure that farmers have access
to conservation programs that promote environmental
stewardship. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boening follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell W. Boening, President, Texas Farm Bureau,
Poth, TX
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
importance of voluntary conservation practices and the benefits they
provide to our producers and the environment. My name is Russell
Boening, I am a fourth-generation farmer and President of the Texas
Farm Bureau. Along with my brother, we raise grain, cotton, and wheat
while operating a 450-head dairy and beef operation outside of Poth,
Texas. It is an honor to be here on behalf of the 540,000 members of
the Texas Farm Bureau.
Voluntary conservation practices have become a cornerstone of
modern agricultural operations, playing a crucial role in balancing
productive farming with environmental stewardship. These practices
allow farmers and ranchers to proactively manage their land in ways
that protect soil health, conserve water, enhance wildlife habitat, and
reduce pollution--all while maintaining or even improving crop and
livestock yields. For several decades, our family has implemented
voluntary conservation practices in a variety of ways to improve water
quality, soil health, and wildlife habitat while keeping our land
productive. Our family is certainly not unique--farmers across Texas
and the country are seizing the opportunities to improve their
environmental impacts and incorporating conservation practices into
their business models. As an industry, we have seen improvements in
soil health and water quality throughout the communities where we work
and live.
Overview of Conservation Programs
Authorized under title II of the farm bill, the United States
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs have assisted farmers in
executing on-farm conservation practices for decades. The agency
provides a variety of programs and an extensive menu of conservation
practices for farmers to choose from to address their environmental
goals. NRCS provides cost-share and technical assistance, while keeping
the programs voluntary and farmer led. I am proud to be here advocating
for these programs and the farmers who use them.
Acres (in Thousands) Enrolled in NRCS Programs, FY 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Including EQIP, CSP, RCPP, CRP, ACEP and technical
assistance.
Source: USDA NRCS; AFBF calculations.
Last year, the House Agriculture Committee passed the Farm, Food,
and National Security Act of 2024, led by Chairman GT Thompson. The
Texas Farm Bureau appreciates the continued commitment that Members of
this Subcommittee have in improving the function of conservation
programs. Farmers rely on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) to address natural resource concerns. Simply put--each of
these programs are essential to achieving our sustainability mission.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Since its inception, EQIP has consistently been one of the most
popular conservation programs for farmers and ranchers. The program
provides financial and technical assistance to producers for
implementing conservation practices on their land that helps to improve
water and air quality, conserving ground, and surface water, increasing
soil healthy by limiting erosion and sedimentation and numerous other
benefits. We have seen, especially in Texas, the benefits of EQIP are
wide ranging for livestock and crop producers alike.
As a working lands program, EQIP provides flexibility by adapting
to a farmer's specific situation, offering a wide range of conservation
options, supporting diverse producers, and allowing for customized
planning and implementation timelines. This makes it a valuable tool
for sustainable agriculture without forcing a one-size-fits-all
approach. EQIP supports a wide variety of practices--from improving
irrigation systems to managing livestock waste--so farmers can address
the environmental challenges most relevant to their farms. With
customizable conservation plans, variable contract lengths, and
multiple application periods throughout the year, farmers can adopt
improvements at a pace and scale that works for them. Additionally,
EQIP provides higher payment rates and priority support for beginning,
socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers, making conservation more
accessible and adaptable for a diverse range of producers. In Texas,
the EQIP program has helped install terrace and waterway systems that
reduce sediment loss and nutrient runoff, improve irrigation systems
and water use efficiency, and maximize grazing systems--just to name a
few.
Including livestock operations in the EQIP is essential for
supporting comprehensive, sustainable agriculture. Under current law,
50% of EQIP funding is set aside for livestock-focused practices.
Livestock producers face unique conservation challenges, such as
managing manure, protecting water sources, and maintaining healthy
grazing lands--all of which have significant environmental
implications. EQIP provides critical financial and technical assistance
that enables livestock farmers to implement practices like nutrient
management, rotational grazing, fencing to protect streams, and
improved waste handling systems. These practices not only help reduce
pollution and improve soil and water quality but also enhance animal
health and operational efficiency. By including livestock in EQIP, the
program ensures that conservation efforts address the full spectrum of
agricultural systems, promoting environmental stewardship across both
crop and animal production.
Due to its popularity, EQIP has become increasingly oversubscribed,
with demand consistently surpassing available funding. In Fiscal Year
(FY) 2023, the program received 134,450 applications nationwide but was
only able to award contracts to 34,222 applicants, reflecting a
nationwide acceptance rate of approximately 25% . This high demand has
led to significant disparities in contract awards across states, with
some states awarding contracts to fewer than 20% of applicants.
Figure 2. National Overview of Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Performance (USDA)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/09/farm-bill-2023-
nrcs-backlogs-and-the-conservation-bardo.html]
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
Another popular working lands conservation program utilized by our
members is CSP. CSP is designed for farmers, ranchers, and forest
landowners who are already implementing conservation practices and wish
to enhance their environmental stewardship. The program offers
financial and technical assistance to help producers expand their
conservation efforts by adopting additional practices or improving
existing ones. Participants receive annual payments for maintaining and
improving their conservation activities, with contracts typically
lasting 5 years. In FY 2024, USDA increased the minimum annual payment
for CSP participants from $1,500 to $4,000 to better support small-
scale, under-served, and urban producers, making the program more
accessible and equitable. CSP's comprehensive approach encourages
producers to address multiple resource concerns simultaneously, such as
soil health, water quality, and wildlife habitat, leading to more
sustainable and resilient agricultural operations. This structure
benefits farmers who are already committed to sustainability and like
EQIP, provides flexibility allowing producers to choose from a wide
variety of enhancements that suit their operation's needs.
Like EQIP, CSP supports conservation practices that support our
greatest natural resource concerns such as:
Soil Health Improvements: These practices help improve soil
structure, reduce erosion, and increase organic matter such as,
cover cropping, reduced or no-till, crop rotation enhancements
and precision nutrient and pesticide application.
Water Conservation: These practices help conserve water and
improve irrigation efficiency, especially important in drought-
prone areas such as, improved irrigation systems, irrigation
scheduling, water recycling or reuse systems.
Grazing and Livestock Management: These practices enhance
pasture health, reduce overgrazing, and protect water quality,
such as prescribed grazing systems, rotational grazing,
improved livestock watering systems.
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement: These efforts provide food and
shelter for wildlife, including pollinators and threatened
species, such as planting native species, creating buffer
strips or field borders, restoring wetlands or riparian areas.
Climate-Smart Practices: These practices contribute to
greenhouse gas reduction and help farms become more resilient
to climate impacts such as, carbon sequestration activities,
agroforestry, composting, and manure management.
Like EQIP, CSP is consistently oversubscribed, with demand from
farmers far exceeding available funding and enrollment capacity. Each
year, thousands of producers who apply to enhance conservation efforts
on their working lands are turned away due to limited resources.
Overprescription of Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: USDA NRCS ProTract.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
Another conservation initiative authorized by the farm bill is
RCPP, which promotes collaboration between the USDA and local, state,
and private partners to address regional natural resource concerns.
RCPP enables partners--such as conservation groups, agricultural
organizations, Tribal governments, and municipalities--to design and
lead projects that deliver targeted environmental outcomes while
supporting agricultural productivity. Through RCPP, partners contribute
funding, expertise, and innovation, while eligible farmers and
landowners receive financial and technical assistance to implement
conservation practices. The program emphasizes flexibility and local
leadership, making it a powerful tool for addressing complex,
landscape-scale challenges like water quality, drought resilience, soil
health, and habitat restoration.
Farmers often face several challenges when participating in the
RCPP, despite its collaborative and locally driven approach. One of the
most common concerns is the complexity and length of the application
process, which can be more time-consuming and confusing than other
conservation programs due to the involvement of multiple partners and
project-specific requirements. Additionally, inconsistent communication
and coordination between NRCS, partner organizations, and producers can
create delays or confusion about program rules, funding timelines, and
eligibility criteria. These hurdles can discourage participation,
particularly for small or beginning farmers who may lack the resources
to navigate the bureaucratic and administrative demands of RCPP
projects. Addressing these challenges is critical to ensuring that the
program reaches its full potential in delivering effective, landscape-
scale conservation.
Inflation Reduction Act in the Baseline Funding
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocated an additional $18.05
billion to USDA conservation programs, including EQIP, CSP and RCPP
through FY 2031. Currently, this IRA funding is temporary and does not
alter the permanent baseline funding established by the 2018 Farm Bill.
Once the IRA funds expire, these programs will revert to their original
baseline funding levels, further limiting these program's capacity to
meet ongoing conservation needs.
How Did IRA Supplement the Baseline?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: AFBF compilations, Congressional Budget Office,
Senate Ag GOP.
To ensure sustained support for conservation efforts, there have
been discussions within Congress around incorporating IRA funding into
the permanent baseline, allowing for continuous and expanded assistance
to farmers and ranchers. Our Texas farmers strongly support this
transition, as it would provide long-term stability and enable the
program to address evolving environmental challenges effectively.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed the House last month
infuses roughly $11 billion in unspent IRA funding into the baseline
for a variety of USDA conservation programs while also adding $8
billion in additional baseline funding past the budget window of the
IRA. Incorporating the IRA funds into the baseline would ensure that
these funds continue for conservation programs into perpetuity, subject
only to Congressional reauthorization. This could represent a
significant increase in the conservation title's available funding.
Additionally, we support the removal of the climate-related
sideboards on IRA conservation funding. Congress must reverse these
restrictions that tie funding solely to climate mitigation goals. It is
unwise to narrowly focus the IRA resources on one specific natural
resource concern. Farmers need flexibility and these sideboards are
unnecessarily handcuffing our members by picking one resource concern
over another.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Administered by FSA, CRP is a voluntary land retirement program
that pays farmers to remove environmentally sensitive land from
agricultural production and plant species that improve environmental
health and quality. In return, participants receive annual rental
payments and cost-share assistance for establishing conservation
practices. CRP helps reduce soil erosion, improve water quality,
enhance wildlife habitat, and increase carbon sequestration. By taking
marginal, highly-erodible or at-risk farmland out of production, CRP
supports long-term environmental sustainability while providing a
stable income source for participating landowners. In 2024, Texas had
roughly 2.2 million acres enrolled in CRP to protect highly-erodible
lands and enhance wildlife habitat.
For many farmers, CRP serves as an important farm safety net by
providing a reliable source of income during times when crop prices are
low or when certain acres are less productive due to environmental
challenges. By enrolling vulnerable or less profitable land in CRP,
farmers receive guaranteed annual rental payments that help stabilize
their cash flow, reducing financial stress and risk. This safety net
allows producers to manage their land more sustainably without the
pressure to overuse or degrade fragile soils. Given the state of the
farm economy today, many farmers are looking to conservation programs
to keep their businesses solvent.
As Congress considers reauthorizing the farm bill, they must
consider changes to CRP that will make the program more flexible,
accessible, and better aligned with farmer's needs. Many Texas
producers are asking for higher rental rates and more competitive
payments to reflect current land values and the costs of establishing
conservation practices. We also seek increased acreage caps and the
ability to enroll smaller or more diverse parcels of land, including
working lands, rather than just marginal acres. Additionally, farmers
want streamlined application processes and greater flexibility in
contract terms to better accommodate changing farm operations and
market conditions. Overall, these changes aim to balance environmental
goals with economic viability for farmers.
Additionally, our members support the approach taken in the Farm,
Food, and National Security Act of 2024 that proposes using soil
classification to determine CRP payments. This approach could help
better align rental rates with the productivity and environmental value
of the land enrolled. By factoring in soil classification, payments
could be more accurately tailored to reflect the potential agricultural
value and conservation benefits of specific parcels. The bill would
create a payment scale that incentives the enrollment of
environmentally sensitive and highly-erodible lands, which focuses on
the parcels of land that the program was originally designed to
protect.
Conversely, the scale would disincentive the enrollment of prime
farmland. The enrollment of prime farmland in CRP has unintentionally
created challenges for young farmers by reducing the availability of
highly productive land for farming and entry into the agricultural
sector. When prime farmland is taken out of production and enrolled in
long-term CRP contracts, it limits opportunities for young and
beginning farmers to access affordable, high-quality land needed to
start or expand their operations. This can increase competition for the
remaining farmland, driving up land prices and rental rates, making it
harder for new farmers to establish financially viable businesses.
Additionally, with less prime land available, young farmers may be
forced to work on lower-quality or more marginal acres, which can
reduce their productivity and profitability. As a result, while CRP
supports important conservation goals, it can also unintentionally
hinder generational renewal and the long-term sustainability of the
farming community.
Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program
Feral swine pose a serious and growing threat to farmers across
many regions, causing extensive damage to crops, pastures, and farm
infrastructure. These invasive animals root up fields in search of
food, destroying valuable crops like corn, soybeans, and vegetables,
which leads to significant financial losses for producers. Their
digging also damages soil structure and can contribute to erosion and
the spread of invasive plant species. Beyond crop damage, feral swine
compete with livestock for forage, contaminate water sources, and can
carry diseases that threaten both animal and human health. The presence
of feral swine increases costs for farmers who must invest in fencing,
trapping, and control measures to protect their land and animals,
making them a persistent and costly challenge to agricultural
operations.
The 2018 Farm Bill established the Feral Swine Eradication and
Control Pilot Program (FSCP) to address the significant threats posed
by feral swine. With an estimated five million feral swine causing
approximately $1.6 billion in annual damages across just 13 states, the
FSCP allocated a total of $75 million over the life of the 2018 Farm
Bill. While the FSCP has made significant strides in controlling feral
swine populations, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to
assess its effectiveness. It is imperative that Congress continue to
support this Federal investment in wildlife management to protect
agricultural resources and public health.
Additional Challenges in Executing Conservation Practices
Farmers often express concern about the shortage of technical
service providers (TSPs) available to assist with conservation
practices, as this lack of support can delay or limit their ability to
implement important environmental improvements. Without sufficient
TSPs, producers may struggle to develop conservation plans, complete
necessary documentation, or receive expert guidance on selecting and
installing effective practices tailored to their land. This shortage
can be especially challenging in rural or under-served areas, where
access to trained professionals is already limited. The resulting
bottlenecks slow down program participation, reduce the impact of
conservation funding, and increase frustration among farmers eager to
adopt sustainable practices but lacking the technical assistance to do
so efficiently. Expanding and better supporting the network of TSPs is
essential to ensure farmers can successfully navigate conservation
programs and achieve meaningful environmental outcomes. Congress must
invest in the TSPs that assist farmers in executing these practices.
More recently, farmers are growing increasingly concerned about the
closure of NRCS offices, as these local centers are vital for accessing
conservation assistance, technical support, and program guidance.
Office closures and staff reductions, particularly in rural areas, have
led to longer travel distances and wait times for farmers seeking help
with conservation planning, cost-share programs, and disaster recovery.
This disruption not only delays the implementation of crucial
conservation practices but also strains the relationships between
farmers and NRCS staff, who often serve as trusted advisors. The loss
of local NRCS offices erodes the accessibility and effectiveness of
Federal conservation programs, leaving farmers without the support they
need to maintain sustainable and productive operations.
Conclusion
We appreciate the reforms the House Agriculture Committee included
in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. In addition to
the specific recommendations made above, we strongly advocate that the
Committee work to make all conservation programs more practical,
accessible, and supportive of modern agricultural challenges. Our
members continue to advocate for increased funding and higher payment
rates to better reflect the true costs of implementing and maintaining
conservation practices, making participation more financially viable.
Simplifying application processes and reducing paperwork are also top
priorities, especially for small and beginning farmers who may lack the
time or resources to navigate complex requirements. Additionally,
farmers seek more flexibility in program contracts and practice options
to tailor conservation efforts to their unique operations and regional
conditions. Finally, expanding technical assistance and addressing
staffing shortages within agencies like NRCS would help farmers more
effectively access and benefit from conservation programs. We challenge
Members of this Subcommittee to work towards reauthorizing the farm
bill to ensure that farmers have access to the conservation programs
that allow for environmental stewardship. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Boening. Mr. McLeland, please
begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER McLELAND, MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS, DUCKS
UNLIMITED, INC., HALLSVILLE, MO
Mr. McLeland. Well, good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking
Member Tokuda, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify on the
importance of voluntary, locally-led, incentive-based farm bill
conservation programs. My name is Chris McLeland. I am the
Managing Director of Agriculture Programs for Ducks Unlimited
in the Great Lakes Atlantic Region, and I am also a producer
myself, supporting a small cow-calf operation in my home State
of Missouri. It is an honor to be here this morning.
As a proud partner of USDA, Ducks Unlimited has a long
history of working with farmers, ranchers, and other private
landowners across the country to restore and enhance millions
of acres of waterfowl habitat. Ducks Unlimited supports
balanced agricultural policies that help American farmers and
ranchers be more competitive and successful in meeting the
demands for food, fiber, and energy, while conserving soil,
water, wetlands, grasslands, and forests. DU's focus is not
just on the financial assistance dollars delivered to
agricultural producers and land stewards, but also the critical
importance of conservation technical assistance where partners
such as Ducks Unlimited work alongside USDA and participating
landowners to help them achieve their conservation goals. We
are proud of our ability to deliver quality science-based
assistance with agricultural producers alongside NRCS.
The Federal flagship wetlands restoration program, ACEP-
Wetland Reserve Easement, or WRE, is a voluntary, non-
regulatory, incentive-based way for private landowners,
farmers, and ranchers to protect and restore wetlands on their
property. WRE also provides landowners a financially-viable
alternative for transitioning farmland with high inputs and low
profits to functioning wetlands, while continuing to focus
investments and production on more suitable lands, and I have
personally witnessed these benefits and the positive impacts
WRE has to these program participants.
NRCS also works with landowners to implement conservation
practices on older WREs, allowing these lands to continue to
provide ecosystem services for wildlife and people. One of DU's
biggest priorities in the next farm bill is to ensure NRCS
provides landowners with long-term stewardship opportunities.
It is critically important that the program provide these
additional tools to landowners to maintain their WRE and retain
the associated wildlife benefits.
Mr. Lucas, as you know, the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, which was originally authorized while you
were chair of the Committee, has been a resounding success. The
rice industry's symbiotic relationship with waterfowl led DU to
a historic partnership with USA Rice. This partnership has had
phenomenal success in delivering on-the-ground conservation to
rice farmers with more than 800,000 acres of rice impacted and
over $100 million of additional conservation funding directed
to these program participants. And while there still are
administrative hurdles with the program, Ducks Unlimited asks
Congress to provide thoughtful and targeted solutions that
allow the program to continue to succeed.
The Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, provides farmers and
ranchers with additional financial options while improving soil
health, enhancing water quality, and supporting wildlife
habitat. And we do thank FSA and Administrator Beam for
recently opening CRP general and continuous enrollments and
appreciate the Committee's efforts in addressing policies last
Congress that promote locally-led activities and reinstate
management tools and options, such as mid-contract management,
as well as increasing the rental rate payment practices under
Continuous CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement.
I have discussed our partnership with NRCS in providing
conservation technical assistance when delivering these
programs. This assistance, which is directly provided to the
agricultural producers, is essential to the long-term success
of a producer's conservation system. Conservation technical
assistance is just as important as the financial assistance
provided through the suite of farm bill programs. The
priorities mentioned in my testimony were included in the Farm,
Food, and National Security Act that passed out of the House
Agriculture Committee last Congress, and I thank Chairman
Thompson and the Members of the Committee for supporting Ducks
Unlimited's priorities last Congress, and we ask you to
continue to support those provisions in the upcoming farm bill.
Ducks Unlimited proudly partners with NRCS and passionate
farmers and ranchers and landowners who invest their own
financial resources to bring these farm bill programs to their
lands, and DU's mission to conserve, restore, and maintain
wetlands and waterfowl habitat would not be possible without
these voluntary programs. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McLeland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher McLeland, Managing Director of
Agriculture Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Hallsville, MO
Good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing and for the
opportunity to testify on my perspectives of voluntary, locally-led,
incentive-based farm bill conservation programs.
My name is Chris McLeland, and I am the Managing Director of
Conservation Programs for Ducks Unlimited in the Great Lakes and
Atlantic Region. When I'm off the clock, I enjoy spending time on the
farm, with my daughters and our cattle. Growing up in a rural community
in north-central Missouri, I learned from a young age that agriculture
and wildlife conservation were not mutually exclusive activities. In
fact, they can very much mutually inclusive and complementary. It has
been my passion for agriculture and wildlife conservation that has
guided me throughout my career and is a passion that I am working hard
to instill in my children.
As a proud partner of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), Ducks Unlimited (DU) has a
long history of working with ranchers, farmers, and other private
landowners across the country to enhance and restore millions of acres
of critical waterfowl and other wildlife habitats. The organization was
established in 1937 amid the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. DU was
founded by people who understood the value of wetland resources and
bolstered by the passage of the first Federal duck stamp in 1934. With
more than one million supporters across North America, DU has become
the premier organization for wetlands and waterfowl conservation with a
mission to conserve, restore, and manage wetlands and associated
habitats for the continent's waterfowl, other wildlife, and people. To
date, DU has restored and enhanced more than 19 million acres across
the continent focusing heavily on the priority landscapes for waterfowl
populations.
The voluntary, locally-led, incentive-based conservation programs
that are authorized and funded through the farm bill are the backbone
of DU's cooperative conservation work. Many of the remaining wetlands
in the United States are on private lands, where most waterfowl are
raised, migrate and winter. To further our mission, DU supports
agricultural policies that can help American farmers and ranchers be
more competitive and successful in meeting demands for food, fiber and
energy while conserving soil, water, wetlands, grasslands and forests.
The farm bill is the most effective tool for conserving wildlife
habitats on private land.
DU collaborates with USDA and other partners in helping deliver
farm bill conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), Agricultural Conservation Easements Program (ACEP),
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program. Our focus is not
just on the financial assistance dollars delivered for agriculture
producers and land stewards for on-the-farm conservation practices, but
also as a technical assistance partner working hand-in-hand with USDA
and program participants on their lands. We are proud of our ability to
deliver quality, science-based assistance to agriculture producers
cooperatively with NRCS.
Wetlands in the Farm Bill
The Federal flagship wetlands restoration program, ACEP-Wetland
Reserve Easement (WRE), is an NRCS program that is popular and
oversubscribed. WRE is a voluntary, non-regulatory, incentive-based way
for private landowners, farmers and ranchers to protect and restore
agricultural lands and wetlands on their property. WRE has multiple
benefits and can be tailored to many types of wetland ecosystems,
including the prairie potholes (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Minnesota and Iowa), floodplain wetlands and coastal tidal marshes.
Ducks Unlimited provides technical assistance to implement practices on
WRE that, for example, restore and manage wetlands to filter
pollutants, which naturally leads to water quality improvements.
WRE also provides landowners and producers a financially viable
alternative for transitioning farmland with high inputs and low or
negative profits to functioning wetlands while continuing to focus
investments and production on their more suitable lands as key to
sustaining property ownership and promoting generational transition of
agriculture and forest lands. I have personally witnessed the impacts
on the farm viability and ecological improvements that extend beyond
the farmgate. We see this program as a win-win for farmers and ranchers
and our North American waterfowl.
In my home State of Missouri, wetland restoration programs such as
WRE have been extremely popular among producers, recreational
landowners, and conservation partners alike. Missouri is a state that
can experience extreme flood events. Programs like WRE provide an
avenue for landowners to restore wetland acres, provide a diverse array
of wildlife habitats, create outdoor recreational opportunities, while
also reducing operational risk in the form of lost revenue. Through the
hard work of partners such as USDA-NRCS, the Missouri Department of
Conservation, and groups like Ducks Unlimited, Missouri has restored
over 167,000 acres of wetlands through the WRE program.
Using the Lower Mississippi Valley as an example, since 1998, Ducks
Unlimited has partnered with NRCS in reforestation and hydrology
restoration activities in states from Missouri to Louisiana. In
Louisiana alone, DU has helped reforest 52,000 acres of bottomland
hardwoods by enrolling these acres in WRE. Prior to WRE, an estimated
80 percent of the bottomland hardwood wetland forests were converted.
With Louisiana being one of the most intensive farmed regions in the
nation, WRE projects and the restoration of bottomland hardwood forest
ecosystems ultimately filter out sediment, nutrients and farm runoff
that would otherwise end up in the Mississippi River.
There is also a stewardship component to WRE where NRCS works with
landowners to implement conservation practices on older WREs (formerly
known as WRP), allowing these lands to continue to provide multiple
ecosystem benefits to local communities. One of DU's biggest priorities
for the next farm bill is to ensure NRCS provides landowners these
long-term stewardship opportunities. It is critically important that
the program provides these additional tools to landowners to maintain
their WRE and retain the associated habitat benefits. In addition, DU
has advocated to modify the county cap restriction on WRE. Focused on
the more marginal lands, this provision provides flexibility to NRCS
allowing more acres in areas where duck habitat is critically
important. We are excited, both of these provisions were included in
the Farm, Food, and National Security Act (that passed out of the House
Agriculture Committee last Congress). Thank you, Chairman Thompson and
Members of the Committee, for including this critically important
language.
Emergency Watershed Protection Program
Building on the success of WRE, the Emergency Watershed Protection
Program incorporates floodplain easements as an alternative tool to
landowners, farmers and ranchers who seek long-term protection of life
and property and avoid future agriculture crop losses after devastating
natural disasters. It is proven that wetlands provide flood control,
slowing the flow of water and allowing it to replenish the ground water
supply and reduce flood damage in areas downstream. DU partners with
NRCS to implement voluntary floodplain easements to restore
floodplains, forests, or conservation practices to pre-disaster
conditions. We firmly believe USDA should leverage the easement
purchase by adding habitat value similar to those provided by the WRE.
For minimal additional restoration investment, we can see substantial
improvement in hydrology, habitat quality and wildlife usage of these
easements that are positioned in our most critical flyways.
EWP has been a critically important program along our countries big
river systems, with the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers being no
exception. An example of EWP in action is the Dogtooth Bend project.
Dogtooth Bend is a 17,000 acre peninsula in southwest Illinois created
by a meander of the Mississippi River. It's fertile soils in the
Mississippi floodplain have made it attractive for row crop
agriculture. To prevent flooding a levee system was completed around
1943 and stood until the great flood of 1993. The levee was rebuilt but
flooding continued repeatedly, through the 2010s, culminating in a
major event in 2019 that deposited massive amounts of sediment across
the peninsula. The EWPP-FPE Easements (2600 acres) were critical to
helping landowners recover from this disaster as the site is no longer
economically viable to farm.
Again, the Farm, Food and National Security Act, included DU's
priority of language that promotes management and restoration of
floodplain easements, as well as restoring the land for the long-term
health of the watershed.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Mr. Lucas as you well know, the Regional Conservation Partnership
Program (RCPP) which was originally authorized when you were Chairman
of the Committee has been a resounding success. As you well know, the
rice industry's symbiotic relationship with waterfowl led DU to a
historic partnership with USA Rice, called the Rice Stewardship
Partnership (RSP), in 2013. While both organizations have separate
missions and methods, we have managed to collaborate and develop goals
for our Partnership, including work on RCPP where our focus is to work
with producers to maintain lands in agriculture production while
managing those acres to supplement wildlife food and cover, improve
water quality and promote water conserving practices.
The Rice Stewardship Partnership's RCPP projects have pulled
together nearly one hundred diverse partners to help implement their
goals, communicate successes, and ultimately share the cost of
investment in working lands conservation programs. The Rice Stewardship
Partnership has had phenomenal success in delivering on-the-ground
conservation to rice farmers. Since the creation of RCPP in the 2014
Farm Bill, the RSP has beneficially impacted over 800,000 acres of rice
and rice rotation ground and provided over $100 million in additional
conservation funding. From Missouri to Texas and California in the
west, America's rice producers have literally filled the void in
critical wildlife habitat needs by adapting their operations to include
wildlife benefiting water and cover management practices,
For the upcoming farm bill, Ducks Unlimited would note the
complexity plaguing RCPP and its impact on the long-term viability of a
crucial partnership program to rice farmers. Congress should work to
address barriers for partners including the overly detailed and
complicated application process, multiple layered agreements, the
length of time it takes to finalize an agreement, and burdensome
accounting for technical assistance within the agreements. Simplifying
RCPP will help deliver more timely assistance to producers. While
administrative barriers can present unnecessary obstacles and costs for
partners, Ducks Unlimited asks Congress to provide thoughtful and
targeted solutions that allow the program to successfully function as
it has for nearly a decade without the overly bureaucratic process that
has plagued the program over the last several years. The House
Agriculture Committee worked tirelessly last Congress to address these
concerns in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. We thank you for
your thoughtful attention to these concerns and encourage Congress to
support these provisions in the farm bill.
CRP
I must also mention another important voluntary conservation
program at USDA under the Farm Service Agency, CRP. CRP is a prominent
component of the farm safety net by providing farmers and ranchers with
financial options while improving soil health, enhancing water quality,
and supporting wildlife habitat, in particular nesting cover. Ducks
Unlimited primarily provides technical assistance to landowners and
producers who enroll in the CRP Continuous sign up. This sign up allows
eligible land to be enrolled at any time, targeting high-priority
conservation practices such as buffer strips, riparian buffers, and
wetlands.
We thank FSA and Administrator Beam for opening CRP General and
Continuous enrollment and appreciate the Committee's efforts in
addressing policies in last Congress' farm bill that promote locally-
led activities, reinstate management tool options like mid-contract
management, and increase rental rate payments for practices under
Continuous CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE).
Working Lands Programs
Working lands programs, like the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), serve as economic drivers and provide farmers and
ranchers with the support they need when considering conservation plans
on their land. EQIP is one of the largest conservation programs within
the farm bill. It helps producers maintain working agricultural lands
and improve farm infrastructure like fencing, water irrigation, post-
harvest flooding and more. We at Ducks Unlimited support working lands
programs as a way to retain critically important habitats and to
sustain working farms and ranches.
Technical Assistance
Across all the farm bill programs and all of USDA's conservation
programs, I have discussed our partnership with NRCS in providing
technical assistance in advance of, and when, delivering these
programs. From program outreach to conservation planning, conservation
practice design, implementation and evaluation, this staff assistance
provided directly to agriculture producers is essential to the success
and long-term sustainability of a producer's conservation system. We
are concerned about the recent downsizing and loss of personnel in the
field, on the front lines with our private land stewards. As USDA
realigns their personnel resources and program policies, DU will work
alongside our NRCS colleagues and producers to fill gaps as this
process moves forward. While we have resources to contribute in
support, the technical assistance component of each of the farm bill
programs is as essential as the financial assistance provided. We ask
that you continue to provide for sound, science-driven, field-based
technical assistance directed at the field level to each participating
agriculture producer.
Conclusion
Ducks Unlimited is a proud partner with NRCS and the passionate
farmers, ranchers and landowners who invest their own financial
resources to bring these farm bill conservation programs to their land.
DU's mission to conserve, restore and maintain wetlands and waterfowl
habitat would not be possible without the voluntary farm bill
conservation programs and our partnerships with many in the
agricultural industry. I encourage Congress to pass a farm bill that
supports strong funding levels for conservation programs, maintains the
integrity of the conservation programs and sustains wildlife and the
farm economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share my
perspectives on the farm bill conservation programs.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McLeland. Dr. Sebert, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN A. SEBERT, Ph.D., ORIGINAL CHARTER MEMBER,
SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, NATIONAL WATERSHED COALITION, PAWNEE, OK
Dr. Sebert. Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Dan Sebert. I am a charter member of the
National Watershed Coalition. I also served the Coalition as
Executive Director for over 20 years.
To begin, I want you to understand that the Watershed
Program touches me on a personal level. I was raised on the
banks of the Washita River, one of the original 11 upstream
flood protection demonstration watersheds. I also witnessed the
incremental improvements as one watershed dam after another was
completed on those tributaries and creeks, not huge, massive
dams on the river. It was the smaller structures dotting the
landscape, integrated into private farms and ranches that
shaped my views and my passion for a lifetime of service in
conservation.
While USDA may be better known for providing a financial
safety net for farmers and ranchers, the Department also
provides an actual safety net for rural communities. The
Watershed and Flood Prevention Program is a vital, but often
overlooked infrastructure program in the NRCS portfolio. I
consider Chairman Lucas as the godfather of the program, an
heir to the legacy of watershed leadership shaped by his family
and community stalwarts in rural western Oklahoma. The reason
behind this is simple: of the nearly 12,000 watershed
structures nationwide, over 2,000 of them are in the State of
Oklahoma. As a matter of fact, 71 percent of those nearly
12,000 dams are in the states represented here by this
Subcommittee's Members.
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Pub. L.
83-566) authorizes NRCS to work with local sponsors to install
watershed improvement projects. Projects provide flood
prevention, water quality, and quantity protection,
agricultural water management, municipal water supply
management, and wildlife habitat protection. The program has
gained even more importance as a tool for helping farms,
ranches, and rural communities adapt to increasing weather
volatility and reducing risk against catastrophic weather
events. The annual benefits these projects produce is over $2
billion. There are watershed project structures in 218
Congressional districts across the nation. As a result, more
than 48 million people across the United States benefit from
the watershed program every year.
A crucial part of the watershed program is the Dam
Rehabilitation Program. Many dams today are in a far different
setting than when constructed. In addition, many of these
structures built by NRCS had a design life of only 50 years.
Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940s to the
early 1970s, many of these dams are now past their design life
and they show the effects of aging. Mr. Lucas led the
development of rehabilitation legislation in 2000 that ensured
the nation's investment in the watershed program had the
opportunity to continue into the future. Under this program,
dams are selected for rehabilitation through analysis and a
rigorous assessment process. I cannot overemphasize the
importance of Congress and the USDA as full partners in the
watershed program.
We do think there are improvements to be made to the
program. Our farm bill priorities are quite simple: increase
funding to the program; increase the flexibility of the
program's authority to make repairs that go beyond routine
operation and maintenance, which is required of the local
sponsors, but fall short of the threshold for full
rehabilitation; provide flexibility in cost-share to states;
reduce the regulatory and administrative barriers that add
years to project implementation; and add statutory language to
provide oversight and accountability for program funds.
The National Watershed Coalition is pleased to see its
recommendations integrated into the Farm, Food, and National
Security Act of 2024. We cannot thank Chairman Thompson and
Subcommittee Chairman Lucas enough for their support of these
policies, and we look forward to working with them and the
other Members to continue this work into the next farm bill.
I will conclude where I began. The implementation and
success of the watershed program shaped my life and the western
Oklahoma communities that thrived under the umbrella of
protection these structures provide. Similar stories, can be
found across the nation, where in a blend of Federal, state,
and local partnership, these projects have been successfully
implemented. As we look to the challenges and the need for
increased resiliency in our agricultural production and the
communities which support it, the watershed program is more
important today than ever in history.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sebert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan A. Sebert, Ph.D., Original Charter Member,
Senior Policy Advisor, National Watershed Coalition, Pawnee, OK
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Dan Sebert, an original charter member of the National
Watershed Coalition. I served the coalition as Executive Director for
over 20 years. To begin, I want you to understand that the watershed
program, to which I will speak, touches me on personal level. I was
raised on the banks of the Washita River, one of the original 11
upstream flood protection demonstration watersheds authorized by the
Flood Control Act of 1944. I was raised by parents and grandparents
that had personally experienced the ravages of the Dust Bowl and the
subsequent flooding which decimated both farms and communities across
western Oklahoma and the nation. My youth and perspective were formed
with knowledge of the catastrophic damage to communities and farms by
the Washita River's frequent floods and I witnessed the incremental
improvements as one watershed dam after another was completed on those
tributaries and creeks. Not huge, massive dams on the river, it was
these smaller structures dotting the landscape, integrated into the
private farms and ranches that shaped my views and passion for a
lifetime of service in conservation.
While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be
better known for providing a financial safety net for farmers and
ranchers, USDA also provides an actual safety net for our rural
communities. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Program (Watershed
Program) is a vital, but often overlooked, infrastructure program
within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) portfolio. I
consider Chairman Lucas as the godfather of the program, an heir to a
legacy of watershed leadership shaped by his family and community
stalwarts in rural western Oklahoma. The reason behind this is clear
and simple. Of the nearly 12,000 watershed structures, over 2000 of
them are in the state of Oklahoma.
Building on the success of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations established through the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-
566) authorizes NRCS to work with local sponsors to install watershed
protection and improvement projects. Projects can and do provide flood
prevention, water quality and quantity protection, agricultural water
management, municipal water supply management, fish and wildlife
habitat protection, and public recreation development. The program has
gained even more importance as a critical tool for helping rural
communities adapt to increasing weather volatility and reducing risk
against catastrophic weather events.
There are about 2,100 NRCS assisted watershed projects in the
Unites States, covering 145 million acres, with projects in every
state. In 1,271 of these projects, 11,845 flood control dams have been
constructed by local watershed sponsors with NRCS assistance. In most
cases, a local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) serve as the
local sponsors. In some cases, they are assisted by other cosponsors
such as watershed districts or county government.
The benefits of this program are significant and far reaching. The
total average annual monetary benefits these projects produce is over
$2 billion. In addition, over 282,000 acres of wetlands and over 9
million acres of upland wildlife habitat have been created or enhanced
by watershed projects. There are watershed project dams in 218
Congressional Districts across the nation. As of today, these projects
are protecting more than 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,000
farms and ranches, 61,000 bridges, and 28,000 domestic water supplies.
As a result, more than 48 million people across the United States
benefit from the Watershed Program every year.
These projects create and protect vital infrastructure while
conserving natural resources and contributing to local economies. The
Watershed Program focuses on both the design and construction of
structural water control measures, managing agricultural water, and on
land treatment measures. Watershed planning provides a basis for
partnering at state and local levels to identify and co-invest in
projects reflecting the highest priority needs.
Conservation practices within these approved project areas improve
water quality and are also a vital part of all watershed projects.
Practices such as terraces, waterways, grass buffers, strip cropping,
and grade stabilization structures, are used to prevent soil erosion
and reduce sediment. They also increase the service life of dams and
their ability to provide flood damage reduction.
Flood prevention and reliable water quality created by the
Watershed Program are essential to developing and maintaining strong
rural communities. Watershed projects not only protect lives, property
and reduce flood damages, but also create economic growth and
strengthen local economies. Flood protection is essential to prevent
the unnecessary loss of infrastructure and capital to developing
economies in rural America. Coalition staff recently toured areas of
Kentucky impacted by April/May 2025 floods where Watershed Program
infrastructure reduced damage and provided significant protection of
life and property.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
I cannot understate the looming crisis facing rural America.
Recognizing the aging watershed infrastructure, watershed dam
rehabilitation is a critical component of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Program, authorized in 2000. Many dams today are in a
far different setting than when they were constructed. Population has
increased; residential and commercial development has occurred upstream
and downstream from the dams; and land uses within many watersheds have
changed. Many of these dams do not meet current state dam safety
regulations that have been enacted and revised with more stringent
requirements than when the dams were built resulting in higher dam
hazard classifications, primarily due to population at risk. In
addition, many of these structures built by NRCS had a design life of
only 50 years. Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940s
to the early 1970s, many of these dams are now past their design life
and show the effects of aging with deteriorating metal and fractured
concrete components.
The protection these structures afford our communities touch every
aspect of our daily lives and have been so effective for over 60 years
that many folks are unaware of their presence on the landscape. Chances
are as you travel across western and southern Oklahoma highways or
perhaps south on Interstate 35 through the heart of Texas some portion
of the road receives flood protection from an upstream Watershed
Program dam. The local economy that is driven in part by grain, cattle,
oil and natural gas relies daily on this protection. The roads and
bridges that carry our children to and from school are protected. In
several cases the school itself along with other key elements of
community are protected.
Many of our most productive farms and our healthiest soils are in
these protected watersheds. There are many less obvious benefits that
come in the form of the prosperity and opportunity made possible by
these projects. The partnership between USDA and local sponsors that
brought us this protection is extremely important in keeping it in
place. Rehabilitation is necessary to ensure dams continue to protect
lives, businesses and homes. Failure to provide for the rehabilitation
of these dams could result in dam breaches which would have
catastrophic consequences.
As previously alluded Mr. Lucas led the development of
rehabilitation legislation in 2000 that ensured the nation's investment
in the watershed program had the opportunity to continue into the
future. Under the Dam Rehabilitation Program, dams are selected for
rehabilitation through analysis and a rigorous assessment process. This
commitment from state and local partners is necessary to ensure that
sponsors are fully committed to a project. This legislation gave us the
pathway and the procedure for reinvestment.
As the significantly invested local sponsors of watershed projects,
state and local sponsors have felt that we have suffered from an
inadequately funded Federal partner for much of the past decade.
Sponsors and state watershed program partners have responded with O&M
dollars, rehabilitation matching funds, technical and financial
assistance. I cannot over emphasize the importance of Congress and the
USDA-NRCS as full partners in the watershed program. We hope these
recent investments are a signal to USDA about the importance of these
programs and the willingness of the state partners and local sponsors
to share in protecting the local communities and agriculture producers
in this ever-changing environment.
National Watershed Farm Bill Priorities
The National Watershed Coalition (NWC) has several suggestions for
reforms for the watershed Program. The first is an increase of
mandatory funding for the program. Increased funding will create
certainty and stability to ensure valuable projects can flow from
planning to implementation and meet the changing pressures placed on
our watersheds and rural agriculture producers. The program largely
survives on discretionary program funding but did receive $50 million
in annual funding through the 2018 Farm Bill. I would note that the
program did receive this funding in the recent reconciliation bill
passed by the House. This historic investment and commitment to our
rural communities is appreciated and its importance cannot be
overstated.
Second, NWC recommends increased flexibility in the program's
authority use of program funds to repair and replace essential
structural components. Many of the program constructed dams now require
significant repairs that go well beyond the routine Operation and
Maintenance required of the local project sponsors but fall short of
the threshold for full rehabilitation. This adjustment in authority
preserves the previous investment in infrastructure and flood
protection by providing Federal funding for design and construction for
repairs of the structural components thereby extending their
performance life. Failure to repair and remediate common component and
material deterioration on these dams could result in loss of life, loss
of the investment in infrastructure and most certainly a loss of
benefits to the nation.
Third, NWC recommends raising the Federal cost-share for
rehabilitation as these structures are often high hazard. With few
exceptions, these flood prevention structures were fully funded by
Federal funds. For decades, the local sponsors have assumed the
responsibility for inspection, operation, and maintenance of these
structures. With limited access to funding to provide the required
local cost share to complete the cradle-to-grave planning, design and
construction necessary for rehabilitation, Federal support is
essential. The potentially catastrophic outcome of this cost-share
requirement barrier is that many project sponsors will not initiate
rehabilitation of aged, high hazard, high priority projects. Increasing
the Federal cost-share will alleviate this significant financial burden
placed on local project sponsors.
Fourth, NWC believes it is crucial to reduce the regulatory and
administrative barriers that adds years to project implementation
timeline. The authorities in the watershed program provide for the
planning and implementation at a smaller scale benefiting agriculture
production and rural communities. The project scale is significantly
smaller than the much larger public works of the Department of [the]
Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This program is
accomplished in partnership with local units of government, termed
project sponsors. Yet, compliance with the OMB's Project Planning
Principles and Guidelines, benefits thresholds, other Federal Agency
permitting requirements, and complicated procedures impair or negate
project implementation and consume limited sponsor staff and financial
resources. Providing a streamlined process with a system of checks and
balances commensurate with the scale of the projects will accelerate
project delivery and serve out rural communities well. In addition,
several states have or can develop the capacity to deliver this program
effectively with oversight from NRCS. Statutory clarity to provide
authority and requisite funding to capable state agencies could
streamline and promote more efficient delivery of the program.
Finally, NWC would like to see statutory language added to provide
oversight and accountability mechanisms for program funds. Real-time
transparency in all aspects of program delivery will ensure and support
program integrity through the accountability for allocations,
expenditures, and timeliness of delivered projects.
The National Watershed Coalition was pleased to see its full set of
recommendations integrated into The Farm, Food, and National Security
Act of 2024. We cannot thank Chairman Thompson and Subcommittee Chair
Lucas enough for their support of these policies and look forward to
working with them and other Members to continue this work into the next
farm bill. Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to address the
Committee with respect to the watershed program. I would point the
Members and Committee staff to the Coalition's website
www.watershedcoalition.org for additional history, facts, figures and
multiple Watershed Program success stories. I will conclude where I
began. The implementation and successes of the watershed program shaped
my life and the western Oklahoma communities that thrived under the
umbrella of protection these structures provide. Similar stories can be
found across the nation where in a blend of Federal, state and local
partnership these projects have been successfully implemented. As we
look to the challenges and the need for increased resiliency in our
agriculture production and the communities, the watershed program is
more important today than ever in history. Not only for new planning
and implementation around flood protection, water supply and water
conservation, but also taking action on the older structures needing
attention to continue to protect populations and infrastructure
expansion that has occurred in the decades following their initial
construction . . . the result of the many benefits this program
continues to provide.
The Chairman. Thank you for your career involvement in
this, Dr. Sebert, and clearly, it is a classic example if you
work long enough and hard enough, you can still do good things
in this country.
With that, I turn to Mr. Fink. Please begin when you are
ready, sir.
STATEMENT OF TIM FINK, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, AMERICAN
FARMLAND TRUST, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Fink. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and
honorable Members of the Committee, I am Tim Fink, Vice
President of Policy for American Farmland Trust, an
organization founded 45 years ago to protect farmland, advance
sound farming practices, and keep farmers on the land. I thank
you for the opportunity to testify and applaud the Committee
for its continued work in strengthening our nation's voluntary
farm bill conservation programs. While AFT has a broader farm
bill platform, our testimony today will concentrate
specifically on the Agricultural Land Easement subprogram, the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.
Farmland is too often viewed as an unlimited resource, but
according to AFT research, in the first 15 years of this
century, we have lost 2,000 acres a day. That means 11 million
acres of farmland were paved over, built up, or converted to
uses that otherwise threaten agriculture. This is the
equivalent of all of the acreage in the U.S. devoted to fruit,
nut, and vegetable production. AFT research projects that
without further policy intervention, we are likely to lose 18
million more acres of agriculture to development by 2040, and
many communities are already seeing this prediction being
outpaced. Continued conversion of this finite resource
threatens our food security, our national security, and the
viability of our agricultural sector. To put simply no farms,
no food. It is also pushing production in the marginal lands
and slamming the doors shut to the next generation of
producers.
Agricultural conservation easements are essential to
stemming this tide. They offer landowners a vital option, a way
to extract equity from their land without selling it for
development, which is often the only option for a land-rich,
cash-poor farmer when they reach retirement or face family or
business expenses. Land under easement remains in private
ownership and on the tax rolls, and it could be transferred to
a new owner at any time with the easement conditions running
with the land.
Such easements benefit farmers, the farm, the community and
society as a whole. Here are four ways. First, easements
support reinvestment in agriculture. Research shows that
farmers and ranchers use easement proceeds to improve or
diversify their operations, purchase new equipment, land
infrastructure. Second, easement support the transfer of
agricultural land. The sale of an easement can help finance
retirement without the farmer needing to give up their most
cherished asset. For aspiring farmers, protected land is more
affordable. In fact, it may be the only land they can afford.
Third, easements spur additional conservation. A recent
survey found that the majority of landowners with easements
have NRCS conservation plans, and over 75 percent have adopted
at least three conservation practices. This is because of
something we refer to as permanent syndrome. Farmers are more
likely to make these long-term investments if they know that
the land is going to remain in agriculture long enough for
those investments to bear fruit. Fourth, easements benefit
rural communities and economies. A 2022 Montana study found
that between 2014 and 2021, every ACEP dollar spent yielded
nearly twice that amount in economic activity. These
investments also supported over 1,000 local jobs. It is for
these reasons that 30 states and over 100 local governments
invest in easement programs. That list now includes the State
of Tennessee. AFT was also pleased to see Secretary Rollins
point to the benefits of ACEP-ALE as part of the
Administration's Farmer First Agenda.
We are grateful to this Committee and especially to
Chairman Thompson for championing important easement reforms in
the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. I will
highlight just a few.
First, the bill would increase long-term funding for
conservation programs by transferring unspent IRA conservation
dollars into the farm bill, a measure also included in the
recent reconciliation package. This is AFT's top farm bill
priority since it will enable more farmers to protect their
land and implement the very practices they need to build more
profitable operations for decades to come. Second, the bill
would increase ACEP's general Federal match and offer a lower
match option for program partners. The increase in the match
would enable more participation in the program in parts of the
country where there are no matching funding to be found. The
lower match option would provide an alternative for public
programs that have had trouble reconciling their program rules
with that of USDA.
Third, the bill will streamline ACEP by empowering
experienced certified entities to play a larger role. Certified
entities help to reduce easement closing times and can do more
to improve the experience for landowners. A greater focus on
certification can reduce both costs and administrative burdens
for USDA. And fourth, the bill eliminates ACEP-ALE's adjusted
gross income eligibility requirement. This change recognizes
that an easement payment is different than a conservation cost-
share payment. This will also help reduce closing times and
ensure that the program is focused on the lands most vital to
conservation.
I thank you again for being here and for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fink follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Fink, Vice President of Policy, American
Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for giving American Farmland Trust (AFT) the opportunity
to testify today on the role of USDA in safeguarding one of America's
most important natural assets--our rich and productive agricultural
land. I am Tim Fink, Vice President of Policy for AFT.
AFT was formed in 1980 as the first and still only national
conservation agriculture organization devoted specifically to stemming
the loss of agricultural land. AFT is known for our policy advocacy,
groundbreaking research, and innovative programing. We take a holistic
approach to agriculture, focusing on the land itself, the agricultural
practices used on that land, and the farmers and ranchers who do the
work. We have a strong and longstanding partnership with USDA. Since
1994, AFT has operated the Farmland Information Center (FIC)
i in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The FIC serves as the nation's primary clearinghouse for
information and data related to farmland retention and protection for
landowners, producers, policymakers, and the public. Our ``Farms Under
Threat'' and predecessor ``Farming on the Edge'' research series, also
conducted in partnership with NRCS, are the nation's foremost studies
on agricultural land loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ https://farmlandinfo.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To build awareness of tools and voluntary approaches to saving farm
and ranch land, AFT hosts the National Agricultural Land
Network,ii a network of over 1,500 public agencies, farm and
conservation organizations, farmers, ranchers, and concerned citizens
seeking to do more to reduce the loss of working lands in their states
and communities. AFT also works directly with farmers, ranchers, and
agricultural landowners, providing critical on-the-ground conservation
and business technical assistance, assisting with farmland transition
and access, and supporting landowners who choose to donate or sell
agricultural conservation easements, including through the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ https://farmland.org/national-agricultural-land-network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Agricultural Land Is a Vital and Irreplaceable Asset
For most of our nation's existence, the Federal Government has
viewed private working lands as a limitless asset. Federal programs and
policies have supported--and even subsidized--the conversion of some of
America's most productive agricultural land to cities, suburbs,
industrial, and infrastructure development simply because this land has
been the easiest and least expensive on which to build.
Unfortunately, this ``limitless'' asset is, in fact, limited.
According to AFT's Farms Under Threat: The State of the States
report,iii in just the first 15 years of this century--a
period with a slowdown in housing starts due to a recession--11 million
acres of productive farm ground were converted. This includes nearly 7
million acres to low-density residential land use and 4.1 million acres
to urban and highly developed land use. These 11 million acres are
equal to all the U.S. farmland devoted to fruit, nut, and vegetable
production in 2017--or 2,000 acres a day paved over, built up, and
converted to uses that threaten the future of agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-the-
state-of-the-states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without policy changes, this alarming trajectory will continue, if
not worsen. AFT's Farms Under Threat iv modeling shows that
the U.S. is likely to lose another 18.4 million acres of productive
farm ground to development by 2040. And in some parts of the U.S.,
actual development over the past 9 years is already outpacing these
predictions. In the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area, farmland and
ranchland is being developed 49% faster than we anticipated, fueled by
many of the same trends we are seeing across the U.S.--demand for
housing, warehouses, data centers, and energy development. While solar
is critical to meeting national energy needs, AFT's Farms Under Threat
2040 v solar modeling projects that 83% of new solar
development is expected to occur on farmland and ranchland, with almost
half on America's most productive land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-2040/
\v\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-2040-
solar-modeling-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued conversion of this finite asset threatens our future food
security and the viability of our agricultural sector. Farmland
conversion limits opportunities for commodity and specialty crop
growers alike and increases costs of production. Loss of productive
cropland is driving conversion of marginal pasture and grassland to
cropland, and foreclosing options for the next generation of producers.
Agricultural Conservation Easements Are an Essential Tool in Preventing
Farmland Loss and Supporting Farm and Ranch Viability
Federal programs supporting agricultural conservation easements
like ACEP and RCPP are essential tools in stemming the loss of our
productive agricultural land. ACEP's Agricultural Land Easement (ALE)
subprogram and RCPP are voluntary programs within USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that provide funding for the
purchase of perpetual agricultural conservation easements on working
farms and ranches. ACEP-ALE is the only Federal program dedicated
specifically to the protection of agricultural land. RCPP has a broader
resource protection mandate, which can include funding for the
protection of both working and natural lands. The first Federal
investments in agricultural land protection were authorized in the 1996
Farm Bill through the Farmland Protection Program that provided grants
to state and local agricultural land protection programs. Since 1996,
USDA has invested approximately $2.2 billion in ACEP-ALE and
predecessor programs,\1\ ensuring that more than 2.3 million acres
vi of productive farmland and ranchland will remain forever
available for agricultural production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Compiled by American Farmland Trust's Farmland Information
Center using data supplied by the NRCS Resource Economics and Analysis
Division and Easement Programs Division using information from NEST and
FMMI, April 2024.
\vi\ https://www.farmers.gov/data/easements-overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's important to understand exactly what an agricultural
conservation easement is, and what it does and does not do. An
agricultural conservation easement:
Is a powerful tool for ensuring that agricultural land
remains forever available for agricultural use. With an
easement, a landowner voluntarily restricts some of the rights
to the use of their land. In doing so, they are exercising
their private property rights. While these restrictions can be
tailored to meet the unique goals of the landowner, all
agricultural conservation easements limit non-agricultural
development in perpetuity and spell out allowable uses of the
land.
Can be donated or sold to a qualified entity such as a
public agency or a private land trust. The entity that holds
the easement is then responsible for making sure that the
restrictions are followed. The value of the easement is
determined by appraisal, comparing the land's value for its
highest and best use (typically development) and its value as
restricted by the easement's terms and conditions.
Land under easement remains in private ownership, and the
landowner is free to transfer the land to a new owner at any
time with the conditions of the easement transferring along
with the land.
Here are some of the benefits of agricultural conservation
easements which have been demonstrated through surveys of participating
farmers and ranchers and other research:
Improved farm viability. Proceeds from the sale of an
agricultural conservation easement are often reinvested into
the farm or ranch operation. Farmers and ranchers have used
proceeds to construct, expand, or repair agricultural
buildings; buy equipment for farming, processing, or marketing
products; pay down debt; or buy additional land.\2\ Protected
farms and ranches also have a positive impact on neighboring
farmers and ranchers, providing them a sense of confidence in
the ``permanence'' of agriculture in the community and helping
to encourage additional investment in their own operations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dempsey, Jennifer (2023). Analyzing the Lasting Impacts of the
Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (https://
farmlandinfo.org/publications/analyzing-the-lasting-impacts-of-the-
farm-and-ranch-lands-protection-program/). Northampton, MA; American
Farmland Trust.
\3\ Sherman, R., Millshaw, S., Freedgood J. and Wagner B. (1998).
Investing in The Future of Agriculture: The Massachusetts Farmland
Protection Program and the Permanence Syndrome. Northampton, MA:
American Farmland Trust.
Additional conservation practice adoption--Many landowners
who protected their land through the Federal Farm and Ranch
Lands Protection Program (FRPP) used proceeds from the easement
sale to implement additional conservation practices. The survey
shows that this increase in conservation was due to the
recognition that their land will remain forever available for
agriculture. FRPP landowners have a significantly higher rate
of conservation practice adoption than the general farm
population.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Dempsey. Analyzing the Lasting Impacts of the Federal Farm and
Ranch Lands Protection Program (https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/
analyzing-the-lasting-impacts-of-the-farm-and-ranch-lands-protection-
program/).
Enables older producers to transfer land without liquidating
their most valuable asset--The sale of an easement allows older
farmers and ranchers--who are often ``land rich but cash
poor''--to finance their retirement and facilitate an intra-
family land transfer without having to liquidate a cherished
asset and legacy. An AFT study found that virtually all
surveyed farmers wanted to see their land remain in farming and
saw the sale of an easement as the only means to make their
land affordable for a next generation producer.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ American Farmland Trust. Keeping Farmers on The Land (https://
s30428.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/AFT_E-
FS_D_GainingInsights_GainingAccess.pdf). 2016. Accessed June 2, 2025.
Improved land access for next generation farmers and
ranchers--Escalating land values and competition for land from
developers and non-farming investors is putting land ownership
out of reach for many producers. This includes both those with
established operations seeking to expand and, even more so, for
undercapitalized producers and those just getting underway.
Land access has long been the number one challenge facing new
farmers and ranchers and has only been exacerbated by a 106
percent vii increase in cropland values and a 73%
increase in pastureland value viii over the last
decade and a half. By limiting its future use to agriculture,
ACEP typically makes land more affordable, helping to create
pathways for land ownership and wealth generation for a new
generation of producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vii\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/
2024LandValuesCashRents.pdf.
\viii\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/
2024LandValuesCashRents.pdf.
Economic benefits for rural communities--Studies have shown
that ACEP and other Purchase of Agriculture Conservation
Easement (PACE) programs also strengthen rural economies. A
2022 study ix led by USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service in Montana, the Montana Association of
Land Trusts, and the Heart of the Rockies Initiative found that
between 2014 and 2021, every Federal dollar of easement
financing invested in Montana's farms and ranches through ACEP
yielded $1.89 of economic activity. In addition, the $109
million ACEP investment produced a total economic impact of
$182 million, supported 1,057 local jobs and $41.5 million in
labor income, and contributed $99 million to the state's GDP. A
similar study x completed by Colorado State
University's Agricultural and Resources Economics Department in
2018 found similar results for Federal investments made from
easement programs in Colorado between 2008 and 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ix\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/
Montana_Working%20for%20
Montana%20Agriculture%20-
%20Economic%20Impact%20Analysis%20Full%20Report.pdf.
\x\ https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/
4d17eb79-b9db-41eb-b6fa-41bee188a8ea/content.
Given these many benefits, it is unsurprising that thirty states,
and over 100 counties and municipalities, have PACE programs. The most
recent addition to this list is the State of Tennessee, which this year
passed a new $25 million state Farmland Preservation Fund with strong
support from the governor, legislators, and the state's agriculture
industry. AFT was similarly pleased to see Secretary Rollin's Farmers
First agenda xi point to the benefits of ACEP-ALE as a
program for farmers interested in keeping their land in agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xi\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/
19/secretary-rollins-announces-farmers-first-small-family-farms-policy-
agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such programs have long been popular with both landowners and
lawmakers and are typically oversubscribed. They have assisted
thousands of farm and ranch families in realizing their dream of
protecting their land and legacy for future generations.
Building on the Success of ACEP-ALE and RCPP in the Next Farm Bill
AFT is grateful to this Committee--and especially to Chairman
Thompson--for its strong support of ACEP-ALE and RCPP, as well as for
championing program changes in the Farm, Food and National Security Act
of 2024 that would greatly improve their ability to serve farmers,
ranchers, and agricultural landowners. Let me speak to each of these
proposed changes in turn.
1. Increases Funding for Agricultural Conservation Programs
We applaud and strongly support the Committee's inclusion of
language to transfer the remaining unobligated balance of Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) funding into the farm bill conservation title both
within the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 and in the
recent House reconciliation bill. The House reconciliation package
would increase the farm bill baseline for ACEP by $250 million per year
(to $700 million annually), and for RCPP by $150 million per year (to
$450 million annually). This funding would begin to help fulfill more
landowner demand for ACEP and RCPP and enable even more farmers and
ranchers to protect their land and implement the conservation practices
needed to build more profitable, resilient, and sustainable operations
for decades to come.
It's important to note that ACEP consists of two subprograms--
Wetlands Reserve Easements (WRE) and Agricultural Land Easements (ALE).
Annual funding for ACEP-ALE easement acquisitions represents less than
half of the current $450 million annual funding for ACEP. For instance,
from 2019-2021, funding obligated for easements acquired through ALE
amounted to just $114 million on average annually, falling far short of
meeting landowner demand. For reference, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania spends an average of $34 million annually on its PACE
program.
Key ACEP-ALE Reforms in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of
2024
1. Expands Opportunities for Landowner Participation Through Changes to
the Federal Share of Easement Value
The Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 would make
valuable changes to ACEP's cost-share rates. These include:
Increasing the Federal share to up to 65% for general ALE
easements.
Providing a lower Federal share option of 25% for easements
held only by the partnerentity.
Working lands with high agricultural productivity and conservation
values are being lost because of the financial barriers that many
landowners face in accessing ACEP-ALE. Currently, NRCS can only
contribute 50% of the easement value unless a property is designated as
``Grasslands of Special Significance,'' (GSS) in which case the Federal
share increases to 75%. In parts of the country without a land trust or
state or local conservation funding source to leverage additional
funding, landowners not in a financial position to donate a significant
portion of the easement value are often unable to participate in the
program.
The lower Federal share option of 25% provides a new and important
alternative. Some landowners mistrust government agencies and are
reluctant to commit to an easement in which USDA holds an executory
interest. Additionally, some states have been unable to reconcile their
program's easement deed terms with USDA's terms. This could be
addressed if state programs are allowed to use their own deed terms and
there is no Federal interest in the easement. Land trusts and public
PACE programs with alternative funding sources would be able to
leverage this smaller amount of Federal funding to compensate
landowners for the sale of an easement. There is precedent for this
lower Federal share option; a 25% Federal share for an entity-only held
easement is currently available through the RCPP.
Such changes would enable more farmers, ranchers, and landowners
across the nation to make use of the program.
2. Improves Program Efficiency Through an Enhanced Certification
Process
Established in the 2008 Farm Bill, certification was intended to
streamline program delivery and reduce administrative burdens on NRCS
by recognizing the expertise of certain program partners to acquire and
steward agricultural conservation easements. By enabling experienced
partners to acquire an easement with minimal advance NRCS review,
certification helps to reduce the time a landowner must wait to be
compensated for an easement, which, since FY20, has averaged over 2
years.xii Until recently, NRCS had certified only a handful
of entities. While we commend NRCS for recent efforts to expand
certification, experienced program partners could take on more
responsibilities to further reduce easement acquisition times and
decisions on post-closing stewardship requests. The language included
in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xii\ https://www.farmers.gov/data/easements-acquisition.
Affirms Congressional intent around the purpose for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
certification.
Lowers the threshold of projects required for certification
and provides an additional pathway for certification.
Allows certified entities to use and modify their easement
deed terms so long as these terms are consistent with program
purposes.
Such changes would both expand the number of certified entities and
make certification more meaningful, thereby improving the process for
entities and participating landowners.
3. Eliminates the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Eligibility Requirement
We were pleased to see the Farm, Food and National Security Act of
2024 eliminate the AGI eligibility requirement on landowners
participating in ACEP. Unlike conservation cost-share programs, a
payment through ACEP is not a subsidy but rather a real estate
transaction and purchase of a specific property interest based on
appraised fair market value. Moreover, imposing AGI eligibility
requirements on landowners for ACEP defeats the program purpose of
conserving land with the highest agricultural productivity and
conservation values. In addition, AGI checks administered through the
Farm Services Agency and the Internal Revenue Service are slow and
cumbersome and are a barrier to getting projects completed in a timely
fashion.
We hope the Committee will consider one further change to AGI,
relating to how AGI is calculated. Currently, proceeds from the sale of
an agricultural conservation easement are considered income for the
purpose of calculating a landowner's AGI. This can have the perverse
impact of preventing a farm or ranch family that has just sold an
easement from participating in other NRCS conservation cost-share
programs for several years. We encourage the Committee to eliminate
this disincentive for conservation by excluding easement sales from AGI
calculations.
4. Provides Additional Program Clarity Around ACEP Easement
Administration Actions
We are grateful to the Committee for including reforms related to
easement modifications. The language in the Farm, Food and National
Security Act of 2024 allows for modifications that align with program
purposes and address changing circumstances that adversely impact
agricultural viability, including changes in water availability. The
language also created a new category of ``de minimis'' adjustments,
offering a streamlined pathway for minor actions such as correcting
typographical errors and changes to building envelope boundaries.
Importantly, the language also clarifies that easement modifications
are not considered a major Federal action under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
These changes are intended to address landowner concerns over often
extensive delays or denials of minor modification requests, and to
recognize that program partners have significant expertise in
addressing easement administration actions in other easements they
hold. Consistency in easement amendment and modification practices
across the realm of conservation programs is critical to avoid costly
and unnecessary litigation as well as for the proper long-term care of
perpetual conservation easements. AFT and partners look forward to
continuing to work with Committee staff on ALE modifications language.
Key RCPP Reforms in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024
RCPP is designed to foster innovative landscape-scale conservation
projects through expanded public-private partnerships. Land
conservation organizations and public agencies have used RCPP to focus
working lands protection efforts on important agricultural regions and
to incentivize conservation planning and practice adoption on
permanently protected farmland and ranchland. RCPP is a valuable,
complementary tool to ACEP for permanent working lands protection. The
Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 includes several key
reforms to RCPP supported by AFT and many others in the farmland
protection community. These reforms would:
1. Expand ACEP Certification to RCPP and Allow ACEP-Certified Entities
To Use the Same Streamlined Easement Acquisition Process as
ACEP
RCPP has often been stymied by program rules that require different
acquisition procedures for agricultural land protection than those used
by ACEP-ALE, even for experienced state and local land protection
partners. We welcome the bill's proposed return to the ``covered
program'' approach, which offers entities the choice of using
established ACEP rules for working lands protection or pursuing
innovative approaches through Alternative Funding Arrangements. The
proposed language also provides assurance that entity certification
under ACEP extends to RCPP easement projects.
2. Allow Up to Ten Percent of Project Agreement Funds To Reimburse a
Partner for Administrative Expenses Related to the Project and
Permit Partner Administrative Expenses Not Reimbursed To Be
Part of the Eligible Partner's Contribution
We applaud the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024's
recognition that eligible partners should be permitted to recover
personnel and associated costs with RCPP projects, similar to the use
of funds for USDA personnel supporting the covered programs.
Conclusion
Private working lands are a finite resource foundational to the
essential industry of agriculture. These lands, especially those that
are the most critical for future food production, are being carved up
and paved over in communities large and small. This relentless
conversion threatens the profitability of established farmers and
ranchers, the viability of our next generation of producers, and our
future food and national security.
The Federal Government has an important role to play in addressing
farmland loss. Agricultural conservation easements are an essential
tool in this effort. ACEP-ALE and RCPP do much more than simply protect
farmland. They help to create more viable farms and ranches, strengthen
rural communities, and open the door for the next generation of farmers
and ranchers.
In addition to conservation easements, it is important to note that
there are other Federal strategies which could support farmland
retention. These include strengthening the Farmland Protection Policy
Act and making changes in the Tax Code to both better enable the
lifetime transfer of agricultural lands and exempt easement proceeds
from taxation. AFT welcomes additional discussion on these and other
policy topics.
I thank you once again for this opportunity and for this
Committee's continued support for farmland and ranchland protection.
AFT appreciates your leadership and looks forward to continuing this
conversation. We stand ready to serve as a resource as you move forward
on these important issues.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Fink, and we now
turn to Ms. Galase. You may please begin when you are ready for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NICOLE K. GALASE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAWAII
CATTLEMEN'S COUNCIL, HILO, HI; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL
CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION
Ms. Galase. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and
Members of the Committee, I am grateful to join you today to
testify on the value of conservation programs that support our
nation's livestock industry. My name is Nicole Galase, and I
currently serve as a Managing Director for the Hawaii
Cattlemen's Council, a statewide organization supporting
ranchers who steward 750,000 acres or nearly 20 percent of
Hawaii's total landmass. HCC is an affiliate of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, which is the nation's largest and
oldest national trade association representing the U.S. cattle
industry and represents over \1/4\ million cattle producers.
Cattle producers own and manage considerably more land than
any other segment of U.S. agriculture or any other U.S.
industry for that matter. America's cattle producers
collectively manage over 650 million acres, nearly \1/3\ of our
nation's continental landmass. Some of the biggest challenges
and threats to our industry come from the loss or conversion of
our natural resources. In Hawaii, like many other states, we
face a decline in pasture lands. A decline in pasture
inevitably leads to a decline in agricultural production, which
weakens food security. Our goal is to keep grasslands green.
Since our livelihood is made on the land, resource
stewardship not only makes good environmental sense, it is
economically fundamental. Maintaining robust voluntary
conservation programs must remain a top priority for both USDA
and this Committee. Accomplishing this goal is impossible
without the flexibility and attention to locally-led decision-
making. Cattle producers take pride in our efforts to improve
the land and are always looking for partnership opportunities.
I urge the Committee to promote initiatives in the farm bill
that allow NRCS programs to foster innovative and common-sense
land management. Additionally, mandates that stifle
implementation or a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not
work in the cattle industry. These efforts to standardize
programs limit producers' ability to utilize the unique
practices that help their individual operations thrive.
The EQIP program is a popular funding source for Hawaii
cattle producers. In one example, a Hawaii rancher utilized
EQIP for cross fencing to improve his rotational grazing,
allowing him to double his herd size while improving soil
health. For this producer and others, accessing technical
assistance is crucial to success. NRCS staff provide guidance
to maximize both productivity and sustainability, and access to
EQIP and conservation technical assistance improves soil
health, controls erosion, and ensures improved water quality.
It is clear through my experience with NRCS and FSA that
lack of funding is not our primary road block. Especially when
it comes to EQIP, the 50 percent livestock carve-out is
effective in ensuring that necessary monies are available.
Access to technical assistance and inefficient funding
distribution are the most significant hurdles to producers'
success. While these hurdles were acknowledged in the 2018 Farm
Bill, few policies actually increase functionality.
NRCS was designed to function as a locally-led Federal
agency. While this seems counterintuitive, its structure has
proven invaluable for farmers and ranchers who seek specialized
solutions for local conservation challenges. Local populations
hold a deep understanding of their land, their ecosystems, and
their unique challenges. These stakeholders know better than
anyone else where to dedicate resources to address urgent and
high impact concerns. This insight allows conservation projects
to be tailored to the specific needs of the area, reducing
costly missteps often seen when national programs are forced on
states or counties. In short, locally-led conservation combines
the right knowledge, community buy-in, and targeted solutions
to efficiently stretch every dollar spent.
As policymakers consider the sustainability of the U.S.
agricultural industry, environmental sustainability is only one
leg of a three-legged stool. Economic prosperity, social
awareness, and voluntary conservation go hand in hand, and we
are always looking for conservation opportunities that will
have tangible benefits for the environment and to help improve
our ranching lands.
USDA's conservation programs are an asset to cattle
producers, but only when implemented in a practical producer-
friendly and voluntary manner. With USDA as a partner, American
ranchers maintain open spaces, healthy range lands, and
wildlife habitat while leading the world in quality protein
production. Together we can conserve our country's natural
resources, maintain economic prosperity, ensure a viable way of
life for future generations. I thank the Committee for the
opportunity to testify, and I look forward to questions.
Mahalo.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Galase follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicole K. Galase, Managing Director, Hawaii
Cattlemen's Council, Hilo, HI; on Behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef
Association
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member Craig, and Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:
I am honored and grateful to join you today to testify on the
importance of conservation to support our nation's agricultural
industry.
My name is Nicole Galase and I currently serve as Managing Director
of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council (HCC). I also lead the Hawaii Beef
Industry Council, a Qualified State Beef Council, and the Hawaii
Rangeland Stewardship Foundation, which is a [501(c)(3)] with a mission
to ensure healthy rangelands for generations to come. I have been
working with Hawaii's ranchers since 2019 to ensure a viable business
environment for the cattle industry. This includes representing
ranchers in state and county policymaking, and providing opportunities
for them to gain access to conservation agriculture funds that help
them in their goals to steward the land while producing food.
The Hawaii Cattlemen's Council's represents 135 ranch members
across the state. Ranchers are the stewards of 750,000 acres of land in
Hawaii, or nearly 20% of the state's total land mass. HCC is an
affiliate of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA). NCBA is
the nation's largest and oldest national trade association representing
the U.S. beef cattle industry, with other 250,000 producers represented
through both direct membership and 44 state affiliate associations.
Cattle producers own and manage considerably more land than any
other segment of U.S. agriculture--or any other U.S. industry for that
matter. Cattle producers graze cattle on approximately 666.4 million
acres across the United States--nearly \1/3\ of our nation's
continental landmass. Additionally, acreage used to grow hay,
feedgrains, and food grains add millions more acres of land under
cattlemen's stewardship and private ownership. Some of the biggest
challenges and threats to our industry come from the loss or conversion
of our natural resources. The cattle industry is threatened daily by
urban encroachment, natural disasters, and government overreach that
makes our stewardship harder--if not impossible. In Hawaii, like many
other states, we face a decline in pasture lands. A decline in pasture
inevitably leads to a decline in agricultural production, which weakens
our food security. Our goal is to keep agricultural lands in
agricultural production. Since our livelihood is made on the land,
through the utilization of our natural resources, being good stewards
of the land not only makes good environmental sense; it is fundamental
for our industry to remain strong. We strive to maximize the
environmental, economic, and social sustainability of our operations,
and it is through voluntary conservation programs that ranchers will
continue to be a proud partner with the government to reach our
environmental conservation goals.
Conservation programs are one of the most visible and consistently
important portions of the farm bill for cattle producers across the
country. Many cattle producers' only nexus to farm bill-related
services occurs at their local NRCS or FSA office. Building and
maintaining robust voluntary conservation resources must remain a top
priority for both USDA and this Committee. The 2018 Farm Bill sent a
strong signal to agricultural producers across the country that
voluntary conservation is a top priority, and we appreciate this
Committee's commitment to continually improving these vital programs.
As we look forward to the next farm bill, I'm excited to discuss the
exciting opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Cattle producers
pride themselves on being good stewards of our country's natural
resources.
Cattle producers employ various conservation practices, many of
which we put in place by utilizing NRCS programs, such as the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (or EQIP). EQIP is designed to
assist producers in implementing conservation practices that will
enhance the health of grazing lands, improving water quality, improving
soil quality, and reducing soil erosion. One important feature of EQIP
has been its focus on livestock operations, and we appreciated the 50
percent funding designation for livestock-related practices in the 2018
Farm Bill. Because crop production receives significant value from
other working lands programs, like CSP, a livestock carve-out for EQIP
funding ensures that resources are equitably distributed among
producers. Federal funds spent on conservation are a good investment in
our country's natural resources and the sustainability of agriculture
and wildlife, and it is vital to ensure that livestock producers have
access to these valuable resources for grazing and feeding management.
While the intent of EQIP is to make conservation funding and technical
assistance accessible to all producers, barriers to entry often
disincentivize producers from utilizing NRCS programs. For example,
when NRCS staff are not given enough resources to make site visits and
understand the specific needs of a producer, the producer is often
offered very rigid guidelines that are not tailored to their situation.
While producers may see opportunities to improve the land and
environment with EQIP funding, many simply do not have sufficient
confidence in the process to apply[.]
Collectively, we could improve upon soil-health-building grazing
practices, provide more erosion control, and promote cleaner water
sources. More and more frequently, ranchers choose to adjust their
budgets to cover the costs of improvement, rather than waiting for
assistance and losing valuable time. We care about the environment and
our livestock, and any improvement on the land is something we are
unanimously proud of. By creating additional hurdles for producers that
want to utilize these programs, the Committee and USDA limit access
while simultaneously limiting the government's ability to record our
environmental improvements. I urge the Committee to support initiatives
in the farm bill that allow NRCS programs to support innovation and
commonsense land management.
It is clear through my experience with NRCS and FSA that lack of
funding for practice implementation is not an issue. Especially when it
comes to EQIP, the 50 percent livestock carve-out is effective in
ensuring that necessary monies are available. The most significant
challenge for producers who want to take advantage of working lands
programs is the inefficiency in technical assistance availability and
funding distribution that allow us to accomplish a project. While this
hurdle was acknowledged by Congress in the 2018 Farm Bill, few of the
policies focused on increasing functionality. The EQIP program is a
popular source of funding for Hawaii's cattle producers, as access to
technical assistance is a much-needed resource. The technical
assistance provided, such as engineering specs of a reservoir, or
ensuring designs do not cause erosion, are essential to a producer
successfully completing practices that benefit their operation as well
as the community around them. Providing enough experienced staffing and
resources to our NRCS offices is a key component of ensuring producers
utilize the offered programs.
Flexibility is key to ranchers' utilization of conservation
programs. Ensuring that producers have the freedom to effectively
manage their land goes beyond EQIP, stretching to other conservation
programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP has the
potential to provide significant environmental benefit but currently
fails to maximize its value. Changes made in the 2018 Farm Bill limit
our ability to effectively manage CRP acreage with grazing. Livestock
graze mature, stagnate grasses and allow regrowth of green, carbon-
capturing plants. If we allow more CRP grazing, we will promote more
opportunities for beginning ranchers to graze animals responsibly and
provide existing pastures with more rest and recovery during drought
years. This will be especially beneficial in areas where pasture is
scarce and livestock production is rapidly dwindling like my home state
of Hawaii. Cattle and other forms of livestock can be the sustainable
solution to managing CRP without the negative impact on the ecosystem
while also helping ranchers economically. HCC and NCBA support the CRP
Grasslands pilot program, and hope to see a permanent authorization for
this program included in a final farm bill. Grazing is a valuable tool
in maximizing carbon sequestration but is not a tool that we are able
to use on CRP acreage. This policy limits our ability to effectively
manage our land. By allowing cattle to graze CRP acreage without a
reduction in payment, we could greatly increase interest in CRP
contracts, while simultaneously maximizing environmental value and
economic benefit.
Congress has made clear its interest in building a climate-smart
economy, including the integration of climate-smart practices into the
agricultural industry. The Hawaii Partnership for Climate-Smart
Commodities was a tremendous opportunity to provide incentives for
voluntary conservation practices that also measured the direct benefits
of the practices like managed grazing, silvopasture, and invasive brush
management. The incentive provided the funding support to implement the
practice, and the measurement of impacts on the soil provided a
concrete example of benefit that the producer could be proud of and
utilize to enhance their marketing capacity--boasting both the benefit
of food production and regeneration of the land. While the Climate-
Smart Commodity grant has unfortunately been canceled, we are eager to
apply for the Advancing Markets for Producers Initiative. Our hope is
that this funding will continue to serve the producers by incentivizing
voluntary conservation practices that ultimately provide benefit to the
consumer, our community. As with EQIP, technical assistance will be
necessary for this program. We understand the goal to get as much funds
directly to the producer as possible (in this case, the threshold is
65%). However, we suggest that funds for technical assistance be
considered part of the direct-to-producer percentage, as this technical
assistance is imperative to successful implementation of practices, and
for navigating improvement of markets.
HCC is interested in participating in the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program to direct funds to practices that will best address
Hawaii's land issues. However, our colleagues currently utilizing the
program shared that the application and reporting are cumbersome and
laden with red-tape. For example, NRCS manages the RCPP through
Conservation Desktop, which is a different platform than is used to
manage EQIP and CSP contracts. This adds unnecessary complexity and
confusion. Staff are not well acquainted with how to conduct contract
management through the new platform, leading to errors and delays.
Modifications that should improve the project are also slow to get
approval. This puts stress on organizations and increases
administrative costs. If this program can be streamlined, organizations
like HCC, who are the closest to our producers and can get funds
directly to the boots-on-the-ground doing the important work, will be
better equipped to successfully implement an RCPP contract.
Voluntary conservation programs work because they are voluntary.
While it seems obvious, continuing to fund voluntary conservation
programs, while keeping them voluntary, is critical to their continued
success. Mandated implementation, or a one-size-fits-all approach that
accompanies top-down regulation does not work in the cattle industry.
If these programs or practices were to become mandatory, the rules and
regulations that farmers and ranchers would be subjected to would make
it harder for them to utilize the unique conservation practices that
help their individual operations thrive.
NRCS was created as a locally-led Federal program. While this seems
counterintuitive, its structure has proven invaluable for farmers and
ranchers who seek specialized solutions for local conservation
challenges. Communities have deep knowledge of their land, ecosystems,
and challenges and know how we can dedicate resources to the most
urgent and high-impact issues. This insight allows conservation
projects to be tailored to the specific needs of the area, reducing
costly missteps often seen when national programs are forced on states
or counties. Agriculture is never one-size-fits-all, and the most
successful projects are those that can be flexible and adapt to the
needs of the producer. This leads to better buy-in from the producer
and strengthens participation in the practices that will reach USDA's
goals. Local stakeholders are directly affected by the outcomes, which
encourages more careful and honest use of the funds. Projects are more
likely to be monitored and adjusted if they are falling short of
expectations. In short, locally-led conservation combines the right
knowledge, community buy-in, and targeted solutions to efficiently
stretch every dollar spent.
As policymakers consider the sustainability of the U.S.
agricultural industry, environmental sustainability is only one leg of
a three-legged stool. Cattle producers strive to balance environmental
sustainability with economic viability and social consciousness--
maintaining this balance is key to ensuring our long-term success.
Economic prosperity, social awareness, and voluntary conservation go
hand-in-hand and we are always looking for new, innovative conservation
programs that will have tangible benefits for the environment and help
to improve our ranching lands. USDA's voluntary conservation programs
have been a great asset to cattle producers, and it is important that
these programs are implemented in a practical, producer friendly, and
voluntary manner for years to come to ensure that cattle producers will
continue to have the ability to do what we do best--produce the world's
safest, most nutritious, abundant, and affordable protein while
operating in the most environmentally friendly way possible. Ranchers
across the country maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands, provide
wildlife habitat and feed the world. Together we can sustain our
country's natural resources and economic prosperity, ensuring the
viability of our way of life for future generations.
I thank the Committee for convening this hearing and for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of
the witnesses for your testimony today. At this time, Members
will be recognized in order of seniority, alternating between
Majority and Minority Members and in order of arrival for those
who joined us after the hearing convened, and you will be
recognized for 5 minutes each to allow everyone to get as many
questions in as possible. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Sebert, I thank you for your testimony and perspectives
on Public Law 83-566. In your view, what do you think are the
most helpful improvements that Congress could provide to the
Small Watershed Program and rehab program?
Dr. Sebert. Mr. Chairman, I would direct you----
The Chairman. Your microphone, Doctor.
Dr. Sebert. I pulled a Jimmy there. Sorry. I would direct
you to our farm bill priorities that you are familiar with, not
the least of which is the opportunity for NRCS to address
remedial and repair work on aging structures that exceed the
level for operation and maintenance for which the sponsors are
responsible but fall short of full rehabilitation. There is a
body of work there that needs to be addressed, and it will
require Congress pointing NRCS to that work for that to happen.
The Chairman. Last year's Committee-passed farm bill
contained provisions to specifically authorize cost-share for
remedial actions on Pub. L. 83-566. These actions would include
the deterioration of a component of a structure faster than
expected or structural damage caused by a weather or storm or
weather event. So drilling in on this further, Dr. Sebert, in
your view, how might such a change improve the administration
of the program? We are getting down to the nuts and bolts here.
Dr. Sebert. This body of work carries an element of risk,
and the action that the policies that were put forth in that
version of the farm bill would buy down that risk, which
protects both the sponsors of the project as well as USDA, and,
perhaps most importantly, those living downstream from this
flood protection.
The Chairman. And just one more moment, Dr. Sebert. In the
nature of the upstream flood control, remind our friends that
these are smaller, interlocking dams, most of which hold no
water, simply catch and then meter out at a safe rate these
rainfalls. Just the general concept.
Dr. Sebert. Yes. These small watershed structures are built
in a series. Many times, the head of the watershed area will
have two to three of these structures on it that catch the
rainfall, catch the water, and then release it over a period of
7 to 14 days rather than uncontrolled release from rain events
in the upstream reaches of the watershed that send a flash
flood or extensive flooding in the main tributaries.
The Chairman. President Boening, I appreciate your comments
and your testimony about the need to simplify programs and
reduce paperwork. In recent farm bills, particularly the 2014
Farm Bill, Congress was successful in program consolidation and
simplification. Since Congress has, at times, tended to create
similar overlapping programs, subprograms within larger
programs and regional carve-outs, it seems to me that such
simplification must be necessary to restore clarity and update
the statute. What are your thoughts about recent efforts in
Congress to streamline and simplify programs?
Mr. Boening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the short
answer there is, we are very appreciative of that. I mean, that
is one of the things I kind of said in my testimony. What
farmers and ranchers face, remember, we want a farm and ranch,
and that is what we do, and when things can be simplified when
we walk into the USDA offices, it is much appreciated. So as we
work through this, keep that thought in mind.
The Chairman. Absolutely. It is hard to believe having
chaired this Subcommittee some time ago how far we have really
come, the dramatic increases in the conservation spending in
the 2002 program, and now this effort to take one-time money,
what remains of it, and turn it into a permanent increase in
baseline to work from. I think all of us in the conservation
movement together, all of you and all of your supporters back
home, we have had amazing success considering the ever-
increasing challenges of legislating in the modern world.
With that, I thank all of you for answering my questions
and your participation in these programs, and I turn to my
colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member from Hawaii, for 5
minutes for questions.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2022, USDA launched
the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program, or CSC,
which provided funding and technical assistance directly to
farmers to help them scale climate-friendly practices like
cover cropping, tillage management, and prescribed grazing, to
name a few. This program was overwhelmingly popular and food
producers across the country leveraged $3.1 billion in CSC
funding to get shovels in the ground on cost-effective,
partnership-based conservation projects. That was until April
when USDA abruptly canceled the program, claiming that CSC
projects didn't prioritize direct payments to farmers, but in
reality, farmers were receiving direct financial and technical
support, often exceeding the arbitrary 65-percent threshold for
direct payments, including in the Administration's new Farmers
First priorities. Now more than 14,000 farmers covering 3.2
million acres across the country are left wondering what will
happen to their planned conservation work, in some cases
already with investments made.
There is nothing Farmer First about yanking the rug out
from under these farmers, if you ask me. And the USDA, we know,
has promised to replace CSC with the Advancing Markets for
Producers Initiative or AMP, but it is unclear when project
reapplications will, in fact, be reviewed, how much funding
will be available, and what farmers who are planning on this
funding are supposed to do with the work that is already
ongoing.
Ms. Galase, in your written testimony, you mentioned that
you are eager to apply for AMP to continue projects started
already and invested in under CSC, and you are currently in
conversations with the USDA about this reapplication. What
impact has frozen CSC funds had on planned conservation work
and on your producers? What has been the impact on them given
many have already made investments in the ground?
Ms. Galase. Thank you for highlighting this issue. We did
see the Climate-Smart Commodities Program as something that was
going to help our producers. We had funds going directly to
farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Because it was canceled,
those projects are canceled as well. All those contracts were
canceled, and if a producer is extremely fortunate, they are
going to be continuing those projects on their own dime, but
that was not planned for, and as you know, in agriculture, you
need to plan for years ahead.
We went through the hard work of getting them through the
arduous onboarding process, and we had those funds on the
ground. Producers were starting the work. Now they are
essentially finished, and they don't know when they are going
to get the funding back. And the producer engagement team, such
as the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council who are helping with that
difficult onboarding, a lot of the other organizations have
lost dozens of employees who are now unemployed. And in looking
at applying for the next Advancing Markets for Producers
Initiative, we are now applying with a very bare-bones team.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. So this has definitely had an impact
on our producers. I know for many, they don't have the cash-
flow to just continue on their own, and any investments made
that have not been refunded at this particular point is a
definite loss to their bottom line. And as you mentioned,
employees fired are very hard to rehire in a tight labor market
like the one that we are in.
A question to the panel as a whole, there has been a lot of
discussion about technical assistance and technical support as
being critical. Mr. McLeland, your testimony also cites the
importance of NRCS staff being able to help farmers access the
technical assistance they need to be able to enroll in these
conservation programs. What we do know is with the President's
initial budget, he actually proposed eliminating completely CTA
funding. We do know that yesterday there was some restoration
of that particular funding in the appropriations bill, but we
also know that CTA funding has decreased year after year after
year. It is never enough.
So to the panel, what impact is going to be the result of
NRCS being slashed by the $800 million staffing in the
thousands lost to NRCS and CTA funding actually decreasing, not
increasing in terms of rural farmers, under-served farmers
being able to access this critical conservation funding that we
are trying to provide? I don't know who wants to take it up.
Mr. McLeland. It all starts with technical assistance. The
need for support that we understand from the producers and the
growers out there, that is where it starts, from facilitation
to getting into the right program, to ensure that we are
helping them address their goals and objectives. It is going to
be very difficult to deliver incentive-based, voluntary
programs without conservation technical assistance that it all
builds off a solid foundation of conservation planning.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. Anyone else want to answer to that?
Dr. Sebert. Watershed work is a long-term proposition,
requires years of planning and work, and so any disruption of
that flow does impact the outcome in terms of the ability to
implement watershed program work.
Mr. Fink. We are similarly concerned about the damage this
could do to the conservation delivery system, and I would just
note that not all farmers necessarily want to enter into a
specific farm bill program. The conservation technical
assistance allows them to get planning and the expertise they
need, so it is yet another important avenue for really serving
farmers and ranchers.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to join you in Committee today. A key topic, very
important to my home district in California as well, with over
\1/2\ million acres of rice, as well as other adaptable habitat
for the betterment of waterfowl and conservation.
So as you know it, in my real life, I am a rice grower in
the Sacramento Valley, and my farm and many of my neighbors
utilized the EQIP program in the past and have done at least a
certain amount of effort to provide the habitats to all the
many species we have in the Flyway so plentiful in the
Sacramento Valley. In the 2018 Farm Bill, there was a provision
included that will allow the Secretary to enter into EQIP
contracts for up to 10 years for practices solely for the
benefit of wildlife, including post-harvest flooding. It would
help maintain seasonal wetlands for the waterfowl and migratory
bird habitat. So to my knowledge, USDA has still not carried
out any contracts for longer than a few years, a couple years
at a time. So I am curious, with the provision that we worked
on in 2018, why have not there been more longer, up to these 10
year contracts that the bill provided for?
As you know, depending to what level you are participating,
the infrastructure, the effort you might do in shaping your
lands, shaping the irrigation systems and other aspects of what
you would do to enhance waterfowl and conservation does require
a certain amount of effort, a certain amount of investment in
doing that. So for Mr. McLeland, what is your familiarity with
EQIP putting out actual 10 year contracts, again, because if I
was going to invest, then I would want to be able to know that
I am going to get a return, that the money I spend, the effort
I make, is going to be more for than just a couple years. And
maybe I don't get to be in that contract after that and you are
out that effort, which I think most people that participate at
all probably wouldn't mind being in it for a longer period of
time. It is not a hard thing. It is not like, say, in some
cases permanent easements, which shy a lot of people away. So
what do you think about that?
Mr. McLeland. Yes, thank you for the question. It is
certainly good to have that option for sure, and each contract,
each interaction with that producer, it is very tailored to
their operation. So we work with them and are very sensitive to
that, and we haven't seen as many 10 year contracts as we
probably would have expected, generally average around 5.
Mr. LaMalfa. You have seen some 10 year, though?
Mr. McLeland. I have seen some, yes, but there----
Mr. LaMalfa. What state or what region they would be in
that where you are seeing that happen?
Mr. McLeland. Arkansas.
Mr. LaMalfa. Arkansas?
Mr. McLeland. Yes, and we have definitely seen 5 years be
the norm, though, one to five. One to five, and that generally
ends up being a function of the operation and the preference of
the landowner.
Mr. LaMalfa. So do you hear clamoring by growers for the 10
year contracts, or is it really a low-demand situation? What do
you think?
Mr. McLeland. It seemed like to be a more low-demand
situation.
Mr. LaMalfa. Because we have run into anecdotes, at least
on that. We are wondering why NRCS is not allowing them or
processing them or what have you as defined in the 2018 Farm
Bill to give that additional flexibility and long-term.
Depending to what level, to what stage you are practicing, I
would want to know if I am making significant changes in my
operation that if it worked for me or a neighbor, whatever,
that you would have that option, but I guess we need to get a
little more direct input from folks that have sought these 10
years. Anything else you would have?
Mr. McLeland. Again, we would like to see as long a
contracts as we can get, so 10 years is good but definitely
need to take some look at the implementation side of it.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it is very important we tailor these two
individual needs, as you mentioned at the top there.
Mr. McLeland. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Heck, I know it is a positive thing in that,
but we will have to get some more information together on the
anecdotes, but is NRCS generally cooperative on doing them? Do
they have any reason maybe in the California region that you
are aware of that they are not putting them out internally?
Mr. McLeland. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Okay. Well, we will follow up on
that. So any thoughts you have, anybody else on the panel--I
ran out of time already on that--please send that along to my
office if you wish. So thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Ranking Member, and thank you all to the witnesses who
have come today.
President Trump's 2026 budget proposal would cut funding
that goes toward conservation technical assistance at the USDA,
and there is language that would cut the USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service staff. And yesterday, the House
Agriculture Appropriations Majority released a bill that aligns
with that by slashing funding by five percent below Fiscal Year
2025 to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
conservation operations, and so this is going to make it harder
for farmers to get technical assistance as it relates to
conservation.
So for Mr. Fink and Mr. McLeland, can you explain how
slashing funding for operations and technical assistance
programs affect the effectiveness of conservation programs, the
future of farming, and the day-to-day experiences of farmers?
Mr. Fink. We are definitely concerned about potential cuts
to conservation technical assistance. A lot of farmers, as I
mentioned earlier, are not necessarily interested in entering
contracts on farm bill programs, and so that is the funding
that they access just to get that general technical assistance.
And I think it is absolutely critical to recognize that for a
lot of NRCS staff, these are boots-on-the-ground. These are
people working directly with farmers who have trusted
relationships. You cannot severely slash that funding without
actually impacting the staffing component.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Mr. Fink.
Mr. McLeLand. Yes, and I would agree. As I mentioned
earlier, conservation planning starts with technical
assistance, and these are long-term relationships that these
conservation planners have with these producers, and it is a
long-term investment. As Mr. Fink mentioned, some may not be
looking for participation in a program. They just be looking
for recommendations and advice to address a need or concern
that they have.
Ms. Adams. Okay.
Mr. McLeland. And so that is a very important piece of the
foundation.
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. So could you explain how
this proposed cut might affect the intended outcomes of
conservation efforts such as lowering production costs for
farmers and achieving better environmental results? Yes, sir,
you can go right ahead.
Mr. McLeland. Just given the importance of conservation
technical assistance, it would be very difficult to ensure that
the programs are implemented to the degree that that they would
be otherwise.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, I agree with you. Well, let me move
on. One of my main priorities on the broader Committee is
advocating for racial equity and justice in agricultural
spaces, and it is the same for this Subcommittee because when
we help minority or black farmers, we help all farmers. And one
of my signature bills, Justice for Black Farmers Act of 2023
(H.R. 1167, 118th Congress), has a few provisions related to
conservation, such as using mandatory funding to support
conservation technical assistance at the USDA and the
Conservation Stewardship Program. And at a time when farmers
are facing more climate-related pressures than ever, it is
vital for Congress to give them the resources that they need to
remain resilient and profitable. Hurricane Helene devastated
Charlotte, which is where I represent, and the surrounding
areas. Unfortunately, we have seen devastating impacts of
natural disasters on farm country in the past few years.
So for Ms. Nicole, is that Galase?
Ms. Galase. Galase.
Ms. Adams. Is that right?
Ms. Galase. Galase.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you. So can you tell us about the
role that USDA conservation programs like EQIP play in helping
landowners recover from natural disasters?
Ms. Galase. Sure. EQIP has been really essential for
recovering from natural disasters. EQIP funds things that
reduce erosion. You can put in windbreaks so that there is less
erosion, and these are things that prepare you for and when
natural disasters come. We are seeing things like flooding. We
are seeing things like drought. So reservoirs that EQIP funds,
that allows us to capture the water when we need it in order to
be prepared for when disasters like this happen. Reaching our
historically-under-served producers, these are the producers
who normally don't have access to these programs, and so we
need to build the trust for them to step into those NRCS
offices and know that they are going to get the help they need
with the technical assistance that needs to come with it so
they can be successful.
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of our
witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is very
appropriate that you mentioned the Dust Bowl and the Soil
Conservation Service in your remarks, because it is relevant to
what we are talking about in this Committee. And I wanted to
share with you, when I was a young kid on the farm in Indiana,
we had one of the worst floods that I had ever seen, and it
took out railroad trestles and filled, as a example, a 5 gallon
bucket of water in a very short period. Back then we fed hogs
on wooden platforms and put feeders on them. We saw pigs going
down that flooded stream, still on the platform, and there
wasn't anything you could do about it.
But my point is the local farmers got together with the
Soil Conservation Service and implemented the small watershed
projects. And so when I get around to it, Dr. Sebert, I am
going to start with you, but the question goes to all of you.
But those small watershed projects, that went up the
tributaries rather than a big main dam on mainstream and went
up to tributaries, and those small dams functioned like the
water tank on a toilet, in my opinion, and let it out slow, and
we haven't had a flood in that area since that. I am sorry,
sir, but anyway. But we haven't had a flood in that stream
since then. The only thing I see happening is that they have
come to the end of their useful life, and there is some thought
about maybe taking those out. My suggestion would be that we
restore them and replenish them.
But going on to my question, science, technology and
innovation, they are really central to progression of American
agriculture and have led the U.S. agricultural industry being
the most reliable and efficient in the world. So how can we be
sure to maintain clear eligibility requirements for these
conservation programs that we are talking about, paving the way
from implementation of new technologies when they come about,
like precision agriculture, and technologies, or new land
management practices? Dr. Sebert if you would like to comment
on my original thoughts, and then the rest of you on this
precision agriculture that would be appreciated.
Dr. Sebert.--to speak across----
Mr. Baird. I would rather do that than be here to tell you
truth, but anyway.
Dr. Sebert.--to take you across the country and let you
tell that story. There here are, in fact, 132 NRCS structures
in your state at this point in time. I agree with you that in
the majority of the cases, it is not take them out, it is
rehabilitate them and continue to provide those benefits.
Highway culverts, county road culverts, bridges, school bus
routes have all grown accustomed to the protection those
structures provide, and to take them out, in my opinion, would
be an error, and folks would learn fairly quickly with the
volatile weather we see around the country that something was
doing a good job. Even though it was a silent sentinel,
somebody didn't know it was there. They didn't know what the
function of it was. It was providing the protection necessary
to keep commerce going in that county and keep kids safe going
to school.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Starting with Mr. Boening, anyone
else have a comment in this regard, especially about precision
agriculture?
Mr. Boening. Yes, sir, I would like to comment. I
appreciate the question. I got to thinking here when you went
down that road how much has changed in my 43 year farming
career, and things just simply like GPS has enabled us to move
to things like minimum tillage and nutrient management, and
those are all conservation efforts as well. When you think
about fertilization application rates that you can tailor as
you go across your field and apply them at variable rates to,
then there is no excess. You don't overuse it. You don't under
use it.
So precision ag, and I will share this, it has been a
little difficult to keep up. I think my 8 year old grandson
will be able to help me here pretty quick on some of that
stuff, and it really ties into conservation because, like I
said before, you can manage your nutrients. You cannot over
overuse fuel. It has been a good thing.
Mr. McLeland. Yes. I would just comment quickly that I
concur with Mr. Boening's comments here as well. And would also
add that technology is providing opportunities for us in our
space, too, to better utilize conservation as part on-farm
operations where, in this case, wetlands may provide a suitable
alternative and fit well within a farm operation, strengthening
the bottom line and increasing profitability too. So precision
is helping us identify those opportunities.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, and my time is up. I am sorry for the
last two, but we can talk later. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes an old colleague from the Science Committee, Mr.
Sorensen of Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Always fun to be
able to talk about the intersection of agriculture and science.
Today we are at a critical point where we must do more to
conserve the fertility of our land by investing in soil
resilience. Not doing so would risk the very foundation of our
food and energy systems. Recent reports from the National
Weather Service underscored a stark reality: our land
management choices have real and often dangerous consequences.
On May 1, 2023, multiple crashes occurred on Interstate 55 near
Springfield, Illinois, in Congresswoman Budzinski's district.
Thirty-seven people were seriously injured, and seven people
died. The dust storm originated from freshly-tilled and planted
farm fields picked up and lofted by 40 mile per hour winds, but
this wasn't a onetime deal. Less than a month ago, a dust storm
in my district southwest of Bloomington, Illinois, quickly
tracked northeast on the heels of strong winds, causing zero
visibility on roads and highways. And I, coming back from
Washington, D.C. to my district, watched as the dust storm
moved over O'Hare Airport, causing massive delays. Thankfully,
no one died because of the quick action and the funding of the
National Weather Service.
Meteorologists like me, we call these dust storms, but more
importantly, they are erosion events, the result of overly-
tilled, unhealthy soil, which creates dry, dusty earth that can
easily be carried off by high wind. It is a similar tale to
what happened in the Dust Bowl years of the Central Plains in
the 1930s. It is not just a visibility issue. What we are
seeing here is our nutrients go into the air and are gone, and
we can prevent these disasters by ensuring that our farmers
have the funding and the assistance that they need to implement
smart ag, like no-till or cover crops that mitigate erosion and
improve soil health over time. These practices not only ensure
that our farmers can withstand stronger weather events, but
also protect travelers in our communities. What happened in my
district in Bloomington and downstate in Springfield should
serve as a wake-up call because this could easily happen next
May or even in this fall if we are still in drought condition.
The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS,
plays a vital role in how we move forward, but it requires the
funding and the staffing needed to meet the moment.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing is an Administration that is
hellbent on making cuts to USDA's workforce, specifically
within NRCS. With a massive $300 billion cut in food assistance
on the horizon, it is hard to envision how this Committee will
pass a farm bill that sufficiently provides support through
conservation programs like EQIP and CSP.
Mr. Boening, in March, west Texas experienced its own
erosion event, turning the sky an eerie orange across the
Permian Basin from El Paso to Dallas-Fort Worth. How can we
best integrate smart agricultural practices into risk
management planning to prevent future events?
Mr. Boening. Thank you for the question, Congressman. We
have climate change. We know that. We experience it. Some of
that is brought on by some extreme drought that we have had in
those areas, and these conservation practices that we have been
talking about, since 10:00 a.m. this morning, are really the
tools that we need to use as we go forward. I mean, you
mentioned cover crops, you mentioned minimum tillage. In some
places, not everything works exactly the same in every area. I
will just use my area somewhat. We cover crops on our dryland
acres. Non-irrigated acres are difficult because of limited
rainfall, so we go back to doing as minimum tillage as we can,
leaving as much residue on the surface as we can, and planning
buffer zones, whether they be wind breaks, whether they be
grass waterways, grass strips. Those are all things that we
need to look at as we go forward, and we need to work on the
funding for those quite frankly, and we understand that.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Boening. Dr. Sebert, my time
is limited. I appreciate your soil and water conservation work.
My focus in meteorology school was hydrology and stream flow
management. Could you explain in the last 30 seconds that I
have how important it is to lock the nutrients into the fields,
keeping them out of the rivers, and, more importantly, how
Congress and the Federal Government should support the effort?
Dr. Sebert. [Inaudible]. We can apply every conservation
practice we know, and all it takes is one flood to take that
away. So by controlling the flow of water across the land, we
can lock things in place and have those remain where we have
adequate production.
Mr. Sorensen. I love your idea of an all-of-the-above
approach. I appreciate you all, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the full Chairman of the Committee, Mr.
Thompson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you both.
The One Big Beautiful Bill, as passed by the House, provided
key investments for farmers and ranchers. This includes
necessary updates to the farm safety net, investments in
livestock security measures, research, and trade promotion. It
also rescinded unobligated IRA conservation funds and
reinvested those dollars into the standing conservation
programs. By doing so, we will have eliminated the climate
sideboards and returned the funding to meet an important core
principle: locally-led conservation that benefits all farmers.
Mr. Boening, how important are these investments for our
agriculture producers?
Mr. Boening. The simple answer there, Mr. Chairman, is of
the utmost importance. We talked about all morning here, these
programs were successful, and Chairman Lucas mentioned it in
his opening statement, because they are flexible, they are
voluntary, and they are locally-led. So those programs are what
farmers have worked with and benefited from over the years. So,
quite frankly, and it is not just the farming and ag community
that benefit from it. It is our rural communities, it is all of
those things, so those investments are of the utmost importance
to farmers and ranchers.
Mr. Thompson. So isn't it true that in addition to just the
fact that American agriculture can be defined as science,
technology and innovation, coupled with this type of
investment, and these programs really help to contribute to the
fact that our farmers, ranchers and foresters are the climate
champions of the world with the amount of carbon they
sequester? And the beauty of it in agriculture, when we
sequester carbon, we manufacture topsoil, which means we grow
things for the benefit of everyone.
Mr. Boening. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. The Inflation Reduction Act required that
funding provided by the law for conservation programs could
only be used for climate-related practices, thereby restricting
funding for many other practices otherwise eligible under the
program. And some very credible individuals, including the NRCS
chief during President Obama's Administration, for one, have
said, it would be best if the sideboards were taken out so that
the state technical committees and local groups can decide
which practices work best for the natural resource concerns
that they wish to address. Through the current reconciliation
process, we are trying to reinvest those IRA-unobligated
conservation funding, as we have talked about in this hearing
already, into the existing conservation programs to provide a
permanent increase to the title's baseline. In doing so, we
would also remove those climate sideboards required by the IRA
to allow for more local prioritization.
I will just open this up to all of our panelists. Do you
agree that reducing, removing the climate sideboards would
better allow it to be a locally-led process to be able to work
and be able to use conservation practices that may vary
depending on where in the country the farmer is actually
farming? I can think of many places where, if you put a cover
crop in it, would suck every last bit of moisture out of the
ground, and you won't be able to grow a cash crop. In some
places it gets too cold too soon to be able to do planting like
that. So I will just open it up for anybody who would like to
comment on that question.
Mr. Boening. I will just go really quickly. So by opening
it up, removing those sideboards, it goes back to the same
things we have been talking about: being flexible, being
locally-led, and it is still voluntary. The climate-smart
practices will still be eligible, so it goes back to the core
of how these programs work the best.
Mr. McLeland. Yes, I will second that to say at Ducks
Unlimited, we are fully supportive of locally-led, voluntary,
incentive-based conservation programs that are flexible Farmer
First, and that certainly would be the case in this instance.
Mr. Thompson. Very good.
Mr. Fink. As an organization, AFT is very supportive of
climate-smart practices. They are essential to the
profitability of farmers, but the number one thing that is
limiting the ability to get these practices on the ground is
total available funding. We support the transfer of this
funding with or without those sideboards.
Mr. Thompson. And any comments--I will just finish with
that--won't be a part of the farm bill, but it is a law today.
The Biden Administration just never really got it together, the
[inaudible] programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for 5 minutes, Mr.
Vasquez.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking
Member. It can't be lost on us today that we are sitting here
for a hearing titled, Supporting Farmers, Strengthening
Conservation, Sustaining Working Land, when just 3 weeks ago,
some of my colleagues on this Committee voted essentially to
gut the farm bill and limit the chances of passing the historic
bipartisan farm bill. So I think if we are going to talk about
conservation, let's talk about conservation initiatives that
are effective, that are based in science, and that are
supported by farmers and ranchers on the ground, not the
talking points from the White House.
Because I am limited on time this morning, I am going to
make this easy and ask our panel some simple yes or no
questions and shift the focus to some legislation that we can
pass as part of a farm bill, hopefully. Mr. McLeland, you
stated that you learned early on that agriculture and wildlife
conservation were not mutually exclusive activities, which is
something that I completely agree with. Do you still agree with
this?
Mr. McLeland. Yes.
Mr. Vasquez. Well, then I think you would support my
bipartisan bill, which is the Habitat Connectivity on Working
Lands Act of 2025 (H.R. 2235), which was written for this exact
purpose and expands voluntary USDA programs to improve wildlife
corridors on private working lands, including habitat for
waterfowl and upland bird habitat. Thank you. Mr. McLeland.
Mr. McLeland. Thank you.
Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Fink, do you agree that farmer-to-farmer
education, which creates mentorship opportunities between
experienced and new producers, is a valuable tool for farmers
using Federal dollars?
Mr. Fink. Yes. It is, in fact, one of our top farm bill
priorities in conservation.
Mr. Vasquez. Well, thank you so much. That is the idea
behind my bipartisan Farmer to Farmer Education Act of 2024
(H.R. 8488, 118th Congress), which creates mentorship
opportunities between experienced and new producers, and I
appreciate your support for this approach.
Mr. Fink. Thank you for your leadership on it.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you. Ms. Galase, you said that the
cattle industry is threatened daily by government overreach in
part of your opening statement documents, and it is one of the
impediments to conservation for ranchers. Is this correct?
Ms. Galase. Yes.
Mr. Vasquez. Well, I think you will be happy to support or
endorse my bipartisan bill that is exactly what this does. The
Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2025 (H.R. 2238) aims to fix
this issue by removing bureaucratic delays so that ranchers can
make much-needed improvements on time without having to
renegotiate their leases on Federal land. Thank you, Ms.
Galase. Mr. Boening, in your testimony, you raised concerns
about the closure of NRCS offices, which is something New
Mexican farmers are also facing. Is this still an issue for
farmers in Texas?
Mr. Boening. Yes, sir, it is somewhat. Yes.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much. Well, I am sure that you
will also then, hopefully, support my legislation, which is the
Honor Farmer Contracts Act (H.R. 2396), which stops the USDA
from indiscriminately closing NRCS offices and requires the
Federal Government to honor its already-signed contracts with
American farmers and ranchers. Thank you, Mr. Boening.
I want to thank you all for your support of these
bipartisan legislative priorities that I hope get to see the
light of day both in this Committee and the House Natural
Resources Committee, because these are important priorities in
which, if we have the absence of an actual farm bill, we can
pass to help support farmers and ranchers across the country.
And that is why I have introduced this full package of
legislation designed to meet those goals.
These are practical bills that are crafted with input from
farmers and ranchers that strengthen conservation partnerships,
expand wildlife corridors, and help producers sustain and grow
their operations. I believe this is the kind of work that we
should be focused on, both in our subcommittees and in the full
Committee, delivering real solutions that producers in New
Mexico and across the country are asking for. Instead, and
unfortunately, the priorities of this Committee have advanced a
bill that just cut SNAP and delayed or eliminated billions of
dollars from farmers, families and food retailers. So if we are
serious about supporting farm country, we should act like it.
I urge my colleagues to continue to support farmers and
hold legislative hearings just like this one and markups on
commonsense bills like mine that I laid out today, bills that
actually solve our problems for our constituents and for
farmland, and for farmers and ranchers across the country.
Thank you so much. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
sharing your testimonies in Committee today.
My son-in-law owns a farm together we bought a few years
ago, which, by the way, the neighboring farmer that plants it
uses no-till, so we try to address good soil practices. To
address some drainage and erosion problems, we have put in
drain tile and had some earthen dams built. While it solved the
erosion and runoff issues, it bore a hefty price tag, and it
will take us about 3 years from the cash rent to pay off the
upgrades that we put on that property. On the Committee, we say
all the time, farmers are the best stewards of our land, but
investing in soil conservation practices is neither cheap or
risk free. The programs we are discussing here today help
producers bridge the gap.
Mr. Boening, in your testimony, you mentioned that
technical service providers play a vital role in helping
producers reach their conservation goals, especially as they
work through the application process. One of the complaints I
hear from farmers back home is the complexity of the program
application. To give some context, could you share what a
typical application looks like and why it could present a
barrier to entry?
Mr. Boening. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and
just as a quick aside, you mentioned drainage tile. And as a
young farmer many years ago from south Texas, I had to figure
out what drainage tile was, why it was important, because we
don't have that issue in most of Texas, as you well know. There
is really not a typical application process. That is really the
deal. They vary immensely often from county-to-county and
state-to-state, for sure. There are a multitude of programs, as
you well know. There are different environmental and
conservation practices that work in those different areas.
There is a ranking and scoring component of these applications.
So I guess, not to disagree with your question, but I would
just say that there is not a really typical application
process. And for us, that is why it ties back to the technical
service providers that local folks that know the areas, that
know their county, that know their region, that can provide
that expertise, as our farmers and ranchers navigate these
application processes.
Mr. Messmer. Well, thank you. Mr. McLeland, would you like
to comment on the application issue from the lens of the RCPP?
Mr. McLeland. Yes, absolutely. I think just to start to say
that the RCPP program has been effective. The 2014 version was
very streamlined. It allowed us as technical service partners
to provide support and get dollars in the hands of the
producers very, very quickly, very expeditiously. In the
process of the 2018 Farm Bill, again, the process is a little
bit more lengthy, which kind of doesn't make it as expeditious
in terms of going through the application process, the planning
process, and getting the resources to the producer, so a little
bit of a longer time lag there with RCPP as it stands right
now, and, generally, that has to do with some administrative
bottlenecks.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your insight,
Mr. McLeland. The last thing I want to have is a stack of
papers that separates private landowners from incredible
opportunities for conservation. While we are on the topic of
RCPP, I want to praise the success of the public-private
investment model. By encouraging skin in the game from private
entities, these partnerships allow conservation efforts to be
tailored, innovative, and follow a business-minded approach.
Mr. McLeland, given your experience with Ducks Unlimited, can
you share how programs that encourage private investment
increase the reach and efficiency of these conservation
programs?
Mr. McLeland. Absolutely. Producers bring resources to bear
in these projects all the time, and these projects can be
expensive, and so continued investment is very important. And
so, from our standpoint, looking to maximize the outcomes as
best we can and primarily assuring that we achieve the
producer's goals and objectives, resources are provided. So the
more partners involved, the additional investments that are
made generally helps ensure quality of the projects and
maximizing the scale and scope of the projects.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back the
remainder of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
turns to the gentlelady from Illinois for 5 minutes.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, and thank you,
Ranking Member Tokuda. I am really excited to get to serve on
this Subcommittee again. I represent a district in central and
southern Illinois with issues around conservation and
biotechnology, are incredibly relevant, so it is great to be
back. My district is the home to some of the most productive
soil in the world. In the last Census of Agriculture, multiple
counties in my district were in the top 15 corn- and soybean-
producing counties in the entire country, and the farmers in my
district are extremely driven to protect that valuable
resource, especially as we see increased frequency of severe
weather.
Over the last few years, my district has seen dry enough
drought conditions, that we had a fatal dust storm along
Interstate 55, as well as several tornadoes, severe flooding,
and a derecho that hit the Springfield community as well.
Severe weather events like these increase the risk of
agricultural operations across the country and threaten long-
term soil health. That is why USDA conservation programs are so
important to my district. They can help reduce risk on the
farm, protect soil and crops for our farmers, and improve water
and air quality for all of us.
With that in mind, I want to talk about how we can help
farmers access the critical programs to reduce the risk of
their operations. Just as an example, in Illinois, at the state
level, we have the Cover Crops Premium Discount Program that
allows a $5 per acre premium discount on crop insurance for
acres where cover crops are planted. This is a great program
that many farmers have taken advantage of, but $5 an acre is
certainly below the cost of adoption for cover crops. Mr. Fink,
if I could ask you this question. I know that American Farmland
Trust has been active in uplifting conservation practices as a
part of risk management. In your opinion, how could the Federal
Crop Insurance Program be updated to better reflect proven
risk-reducing properties of conservation?
Mr. Fink. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. I
will say, first and foremost, we need to make sure the crop
insurance system is not conflicting with these good farming
practices. There has been a lot of progress on that front.
There is still probably more progress to be made. I think the
other aspect is that, when we look at the crop insurance
system, if we are talking about creating additional incentives,
it is something that has to be actuarially sound. And the good
news is when we look at cover crop adoption, we have seen a lot
of the research, it is reducing overall indemnity payments in
the face of a lot of these extreme weather events. It is also
reducing prevent planting payments. And so whatever we can do
that looks at the actuarial soundness, builds the research to
make that case, and ultimately, our goal is to reward farmers
for practices that are saving the public money and saving
themselves money.
Ms. Budzinski. Great. Thank you, and maybe just a follow-up
question for any of the panelists. If you could share how
conservation practices have reduced risk for you or members of
your organization, I would love to hear about that as well.
Ms. Galase. Some of the most important conservation
practices that have been funded have been things like invasive
species removal to reduce fire fuel loads and cutting fire
breaks. This is protecting not only the ranch and the producer,
but the community around the ranch, which makes them a good
neighbor. It helps their business, and it is better for the
planet.
Ms. Budzinski. Great. Anyone else?
Mr. McLeland. Yes, I would just add that, from our
standpoint, conservation programs like WRE, Wetland Reserve
Easement, they add to the safety net. You don't know, in my
home State of Missouri, we see flooding somewhat frequently,
and so the opportunity to have a program like WRE that can do a
wetland restoration projects and be available as an option to a
producer, is part of risk management. It can be a solution
there in terms of taking a loss on those acres 3 out of 5
years, so it is really important, and it is decisions that we
see get made, and we are thankful to have options for producers
like that.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Sebert. One of the things that hasn't been mentioned
this morning is the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. It
is a component of the Small Watershed Program, which, when
administered, helps areas recover from the type of disasters
that you are talking about, and it is an opportunity for NRCS
to have a role in that recovery and provide that safety net to
producers.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you.
Mr. Boening. Just one thing quickly that hasn't been
mentioned and as far as conservation, the feral swine program
that was initiated in the 2018 Farm Bill is very important to
Texas, very important to much of the southern states. And as we
go forward, and I know this Subcommittee and the full Committee
has probably already heard about the New World screwworm issue
moving North. I think those types of programs are still going
to be very, very important. Just wanted to get that mentioned.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back, and that is an
understatement by the President of Texas Farm Bureau about the
nature of screwworms and the curse called feral hogs, and add
in Eastern Red Cedar, too. With that, the chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bresnahan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking
Member for holding this hearing. I am honored to represent
Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District, home to the scenic
Pocono Mountains, and the Delaware and Susquehanna River
watersheds. Interwoven throughout these national treasures,
northeastern Pennsylvania is also home to over 1,000 family
farms that help and feed to sustain our local communities. The
continued success of this relationship between our working
lands and our natural landscapes that surround them depends on
a strong commonsense conservation programs like the ones we are
discussing today.
Mr. McLeland, I appreciated hearing your testimony and dual
perspective, not only as a representative of Ducks Unlimited,
but also as someone who runs a cow-calf operation. I
specifically want to hear more insights from your boots-on-the-
ground perspective. Could you speak to how Ducks Unlimited
works with the dairy and cattle industry when it comes to
conserving land and supporting our farmers and ranchers?
Mr. McLeland. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that question,
too. For us it really is multifaceted. We try our best to be
technical assistance providers, boots-on-the-ground, so
starting working one-on-one with those producers to help them
achieve their conservation goals and assess opportunities for
conservation and operational efficiency. So it starts there
from a conservation planning standpoint, and we are grateful to
get to work with those producers and very grateful for all that
they do. To take it a step further there, if there are
opportunities for or a need for financial incentives to do
conservation programs that will also increase their
profitability, provide wildlife habitat and ecosystem services,
we are going to help facilitate that process and bring that
needed financial to bear to get them again where they want to
go. So that is our role is to facilitate that process, to be a
source of information and help and guide them along the way as
much as we can, and we are grateful for the opportunity to work
in that space.
Mr. Bresnahan. What are the NRCS programs that are most
utilized by farmers and ranchers like yourself?
Mr. McLeland. Yes. Otherwise we have been discussing here
today, it all starts with conservation technical assistance. It
starts there with conservation planning, getting those initial
site visits, and then the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program is a program that has been very important to farmers
and ranchers. And so taking that a step further, prescribed
grazing practices that provide infrastructure for increased
profitability and utilization of pasture planting, native
plantings things like that have been very popular in our
practices that we work with quite a bit, in addition to wetland
restoration, the suite of wetland restoration practices where
applicable.
Mr. Bresnahan. I think it is important to point out the
direct help that conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited
provide to our farmers. Just one last question. Can you expand
on the technical assistance that Ducks Unlimited provides and
how that partnership with NRCS actually works?
Mr. McLeland. Absolutely. So we try our best to be a force
multiplier for NRCS. We are grateful for the partnership with
them, and in many cases, we are not in every state, but in
states of need or high workload where our missions overlap, we
are generally working right alongside NRCS. So we have the
ability to do conservation planning and provide technical
assistance, again, to help facilitate participation in
conservation programs that address the needs of the producer.
So again, I use that phrase, force multiplier. We try to be
added lift out there to help address the demand. Again, it is
to be a service to the producer, and so we are there to provide
our expertise and support as best we can, hand-in-hand with
NRCS.
Mr. Bresnahan. I appreciate that, and thank you to all the
witnesses for giving up a day here to come in and testify. With
that, I yield back. Thanks.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Maryland, Mrs. McClain Delaney.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, and thank you to all the panelists. I was listening in
from my office, and I was very impressed by all the testimony.
But I think I heard from all the stakeholders here that, from
the Texas Farm Bureau, to our cattle dairy industry, to
American Farmland Trust and Ducks Unlimited, that we all need
to make conservation programs more practical, accessible,
modernized, and, really, that there is adequate funding for
conservation programs, and I wholeheartedly agree.
I represent many farmers in farm country in Maryland, and I
am the daughter of an Idaho potato farmer, and I understand the
importance of responsible land stewardship. Our farmers and
ranchers are not just producers, they are the best stewards of
our land and resources, and programs promoting sustainable
agriculture and conservation are vital for protecting our soil,
water, and forests, while keeping farms productive for many
generations to come.
Our Committee, as you know, has a unique opportunity and
responsibility to strengthen these programs and invest in the
future of our land, but, most importantly, of our people. And
for over 200 years, and the reason I actually joined this
Committee, is that the House Agriculture Committee has worked
to feed the nation and support rural America, and it is always
done through bipartisan cooperation, and I really believe in
bipartisanship. This year has been a little bit different. I am
a new freshman, and instead of uniting around farmers and
conservation, unfortunately, ideology took a little bit of the
front seat. I look forward to working across the aisle to
strengthen USDA conservation programs and to support our
farmers, but I believe we must acknowledge that this
reconciliation bill needs to have some amendments so it does
not leave these conservation practices behind.
So Marylanders have long been stewards of conservation, and
they have worked hard to sustain their lands. I have spoken to
all my five farm bureaus and advocacy groups, and one example
of farm stewardship that they mentioned is the Mid-Atlantic
Dairy Farmers Producing Tangible Results Through Climate-Smart
Change. That is a mouthful. It is a project that is supported
by USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP, which
we have been talking about, and this program really touches
every quarter of my district and tracks air quality, energy,
and feedstock impacts. I am just going to ask Mr. Boening
really quickly, in your testimony, you mentioned the need to
simplify the RCPP application process. What barriers are
producers facing in RCPP, and what should our Committee
consider when strengthening RCPP to help more farmers access
these programs?
Mr. Boening. Thank you, Congresswoman. Could you repeat the
last part of your question, yes, about what the----
Mrs. McClain Delaney. What barriers are you facing in RCPP,
and what should we, as a Committee, really think about when
strengthening this program to help more farmers access the
program?
Mr. Boening. I am not intricately familiar with RCPP. I
mean, I know what it is. We don't use it that much in our area,
but from what I understand, it goes back to the same thing
about having technical assistance, having folks, boots-on-the-
ground so to speak, locally that can help producers navigate
it. That is from what I understand.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. And if any other panelists want to
add in.
Mr. McLeland. Yes. I might just add, to appreciate that
question, just to go back to RCPP on the whole, it is an
effective program. But one limitation from a partner standpoint
is just as written right now, it is a commitment to move that
program forward, and there are some administrative barriers and
costs that come with that, that ultimately kind of slows the
process down. And so, we want to be expeditious and get these
resources into the hands of the growers that need them, and so
there are some provisions that have been proposed that I think
would really make that process much faster and smoother.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. And I am happy. I am going to claim a
little bit of time back, but I am going to give a little
question and submit it, and so hopefully we can address that a
little bit more.
Another thing that was mentioned is, one of my top concern
with the reconciliation bill is its impact on key farm bill
programs. And one of them is that most critical programs, from
rural development interests to conservation, are at risk,
including programs like the Forest Landowner Support program
and, as we just spoke about, the Emergency Watershed Recovery
Program under RSCC. If funding is cut through the
reconciliation package for programs like this, how do you see
these impacting long-term efforts of conservation, and does it
make sense, and what do you think is the delay of splintering
the farm bill through this reconciliation process? I am just
really concerned. Any of you who can weigh in, maybe something?
[No response.]
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes, I am just concerned about, as we
look at all of these programs and we are looking at
reconciliation, that we leave some of these priorities behind
that are so very important. I am running out of time, but I
will again submit this. I know it takes a little bit more to
think about, but I know that 360 million acres of private
working lands or forests are in the U.S. and I am just very
concerned about how our reconciliation process might not----
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, and also, thank you to
Ranking Member Tokuda for holding this hearing, and thank you
to our witnesses for taking time to be with us here today.
I believe it is fitting to begin my remarks by praising my
fellow Committee Members and Chairman Thompson for their work
in passing our portion of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This
historic legislation redirects nearly $14 billion from the
Inflation Reduction Act to critical farm bill conservation
programs, securing permanent baseline funding. We still have
plenty of work to do to pass a complete farm bill, but the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act provided significant and long-overdue
investments for our hardworking farmers in rural America.
As of 2022, 98 percent of the over 10,500 farms in
Tennessee's 6th Congressional District are family farms. Today
we have heard exceptional testimony advocating for working
lands programs and urging Congress to refrain from allowing
programs to retire productive and arable land. Mr. Boening, can
you elaborate on the impact on family farms if working lands
programs are not prioritized and if efforts to retire arable
lands are not curbed?
Mr. Boening. Well, I think it will force farmers out of
business. That is what it will come down to, and it is very
important that that we keep moving forward with our working
lands, and the lands that are most productive need to be
treated that way. And then when we look at things like CRP and
we talked about doing the soil classification and those type of
things, I think that is what it was intended for, and that is
the route we need to go down.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. I agree on that. And by the way, a
special thank you to you. My sister, Redonna, who worked in
Farm Bureau in Tennessee for many years, says hello and wanted
me to say that. So I know you have a proud tradition as a
fourth-generation farmer and it is good to have you, here and
thank you for taking time from what no doubt is a busy
schedule.
Mr. Boening. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rose. Mr. Boening, staying with you, technical
assistance accessibility from the NRCS for conservation
programs has been an ongoing issue for years. The provisional
changes in the Farm, Food and National Security Act address
these changes on many levels. Can you explain in detail the
urgency in passing these changes and what we will experience if
adjustments to technical assistance are not prioritized?
Mr. Boening. Well, thanks for the question, and it goes
back to what we have been talking about. From what I have
mentioned and several other people have mentioned, we need
those folks that are locally based and that technical
assistance because there are so many different environmental
and conservation concerns. Issues vary from state to state, and
having that technical assistance there at a local level to help
those producers navigate what is best for their operation. What
is best in south Texas may not be best in Tennessee, and I
think we all know that. So that having those technical service
providers as boots-on-the-ground locally just enhances the
programs, and it makes them much more effective all across the
board.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. I couldn't agree more. Mr. Fink,
between 2017 and 2022, Tennessee lost over 141,000 farming
acres and nearly 6,900 farms. How can Congress utilize NRCS
conservation programs to enhance environmental stewardship
while also reversing the downward trend in production
agriculture acres and operations?
Mr. Fink. One of the foremost priorities, of course, is the
transfer of the IRA funding and providing more funding to the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. That will enable
more of those acres to remain in agriculture. And I would
emphasize that it is not just the easement lands, it is that
areas every farm that has lost makes another farm more
vulnerable, so having one easement has a direct impact on other
farms in the community. And then continuing the investment in
these conservation practices, they are a part of what it means
to keep farms viable. They are what makes the farms more
resilient in the face of some of the weather that you have
experienced. And I also want to congratulate your state for
joining the ranks of so many other states and having one of
those Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.
Mr. Rose. Absolutely, and I will just second that, very
proud to see the General Assembly advance a plan there to
provide those conservation easements. And I think it is an
important first step, but, indeed, a first step in my view. We
have to do more to protect our farmland, and it is a delicate
issue because we don't want to intrude upon people's rights to
do with their property as they see fit, but we do need to
safeguard farmland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair sees no
one else seeking recognition to ask questions.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Before we adjourn today, I would like to
invite the Ranking Member to share any closing comments she
might have.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much to
our panel of witnesses for a robust and very, I believe,
productive conversation. Some of the things that we definitely
heard was increasing investments in conservation programs are
something we can all 100 percent agree on. We cannot fund
enough, especially given that the demand often and quite
frankly, outpaces the resources that we are able to put toward
it. But just as important as the money is the technical
assistance and support, especially for farmers in rural, under-
served communities, just like my home State of Hawaii. We need
to make sure those farmers, ranchers, and producers have access
to that kind of support and technical assistance so that they
can actually have access to these resources and increasing, not
slashing or even steadily decreasing. Support for programs like
the conservation technical assistance, CTA program, is
absolutely critical. This not only increases access, but it
makes sure that the support and solutions are local, and that
is something that we have also heard that as being very
important today.
We have heard a lot of talk today about flexibility, but I
believe another important word is stability. It is very
important that we understand that farmers, ranchers, and
producers need to be able to rely on something, and oftentimes,
that is the NRCS staff. And so when we take a look at the
closures in offices, the reduction in staffing and funding, the
impact will be felt across the board from our small farmers to
our large producers as well.
And in the case of Partnerships for Climate-Smart
Commodities, now called the AMP initiative, you have 14,000
farmers and ranchers and $3 billion in awarded funding left in
limbo, and for many farmers, they have been left with receipts
in hand. Too many have had to fire employees, abandon projects
that would have been lifelines for their operations, and as
Rep. Vasquez talked about with his Honor Farmers Contract Act,
farmers and ranchers don't want us to be flexible with their
funds and deliverables once it has been awarded and a contract
signed. Stability is being true to our word, and that is
something we also need to live up to in this building.
And so I truly thank you for this robust conversation, and
I look forward to future ones as well. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I recognize
myself for much time as I might consume for a closing set of
comments.
It is a pleasure, my friends, to be back here and have the
honor of chairing the Committee with jurisdiction over not just
biotechnology and research, but conservation. I have lived my
entire tenure in Congress, and now being the longest-serving
Member of the Agriculture Committee, focused on conservation
issues: how to preserve the soil, the water, the air, how to
make sure that these wonderful assets that were given to us by
our predecessors, how we make sure that those assets pass on to
our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, so
that this nation can enjoy the things that we have. We started
out in this great nation, as all legislative bodies do, with
glorious intentions: the Homestead Act, a classic example of an
effort to give every individual who wanted to work hard enough
the ability to settle on 160 acres of land, to create their own
legacy, their own future, and to feed the nation and the world,
a legacy that was designed for the Midwest, which didn't work
quite so well in different soil and different climate types.
My home county had 14,000 people in the 1930 Census, as I
have told many of you, and after the bad economic decisions of
Congress and the Federal Government, and the Federal Reserve
System and the Great Depression, and, it so happens, the Dust
Bowl, and the drought of the 1930s, my home county has now made
it back to 3,400 people. But the things that we have done since
then, policy-wise, have made a huge difference, whether it is
the upstream flood control dams or the educational practices on
conservation and efficiently using our resources, or the money
we have invested on ag research to make precision agriculture
possible.
This Committee, this Subcommittee, while we have a variety
of opinions and perspectives about how to implement those
policies, have historically worked together. Our battles in
passing farm bills, while we disagree sometimes by region, or
crop, or perspective, we come together in this Subcommittee and
this Committee, and we fight our battles on the floor with
those who may not understand the issues that we have discussed
in our hearings, and in our field trips, and in our work
together, and from our constituents.
I simply challenge all my friends, Congress is changing,
this Committee is changing, but the principles of how the
Agriculture Committee works, whether it is conservation or the
other practices, still have to stand. We have to come together
to move as a common group when we get to the farm bill. And
whether it is fleshing out what is not done in budget
reconciliation, the Big Beautiful Bill, or whatever the process
may be, we have to come together and work as a team and build
on the efforts of all of our predecessors, of all parties'
persuasions and regions.
With that, thank you, witnesses, for an outstanding set of
testimony, a willingness to answer in the most precise and
straightforward way you possibly can, a variety of questions
from us. This discussion will continue as the work of this
Subcommittee and this body continues, but never forget our
common goal for the good of the American people, and with that,
this Subcommittee is adjourned.
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 questions for
witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation Research
and Biotechnology is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania; on Behalf of Andrew W. LaVigne, President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Seed Trade Association
June 5, 2025
Hon. Frank D. Lucas, Hon. Jill N. Tokuda,
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.;
Hon. James R. Baird,
Vice Chair,
Subcommittee on Conservation,
Research and Biotechnology,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Lucas, Vice Chair Baird and Ranking Member Tokuda:
Thank you for holding the hearing today focused on supporting
farmers, strengthening conservation and sustaining working lands.
Voluntary farm bill conservation programs provide farmers, ranchers and
foresters with a variety of approaches to incorporating or expanding
conservation practices on their agricultural operations. A variety of
program types, as included in past farm bills, is important to allow
individuals to undertake conservation practices appropriate to their
operation, local geography and conservation goals. One of those
programs is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
CRP offers agricultural producers another form of risk management
for their operation, in addition to the conservation and environmental
benefits. By enrolling environmentally sensitive or marginal production
land into CRP, producers can balance their overall operation, producing
crops and livestock on the most productive acreage and voluntarily
enrolling the sensitive land into CRP. CRP not only supports local
communities through the environmental benefits, improving water
quality, air quality and wildlife habitat and potentially generating
revenue through increased hunting and fishing opportunities and through
those industries and conservation experts that support practice
adoption.
Members of the American Seed Trade Association support the
continued reauthorization of CRP and providing agricultural producers
with the opportunity to enroll acreage each year.
Over the last 2 years, enrollment in CRP has been included in
annual farm bill extensions, but long term planning and management of
the program provides certainty to farmers, program managers, and the
industries supporting conservation practice adoption. We urge Congress
to continue work on farm bill reauthorization, including continuation
of annual enrollments in CRP.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Andrew W. LaVigne,
President & CEO.
______
Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. Sharice Davids, a Representative in
Congress from Kansas
Response from Nicole K. Galase, Managing Director, Hawaii Cattlemen's
Council; on behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Question 1. According to the Kansas Association of Conservation
Districts, in my state the Natural Resource Conversation Service (NRCS)
field offices have lost almost \1/3\ of their workforce to deferred
resignations. There are now 18 offices in Kansas without a full-time
NRCS employee. Your testimony refers to the importance of local NRCS
offices. How will reducing NRCS field office staffing impact the
ability of producers to access technical assistance and farm bill
conservation programs?
Answer. The NRCS field offices were already understaffed, and
reducing this force will mean less resources for producers to pull on.
It means longer wait times, less knowledge in the office, and less
access to the conservation programs that producers often need
assistance with. People and relationships are a key part of
agriculture, and will less people to connect with, ranchers will have
less access to key funding that keeps our food system going.
Question 2. Your testimony refers to the importance of specific
conservation solutions that meet the needs of local communities. I
frequently hear from producers in my state about the unique conditions
they face and how solutions that work in other regions do not fit their
needs. How do you believe NRCS can do a better job of supporting
region-specific conservation practices?
Answer. This is especially relevant in Hawaii, where we have higher
costs of goods and more transportation issues to worry about. When
standards are based on the continental needs, it leaves Hawaii
producers with less options that work for them on an island state with
tropical climates. NRCS can do a better job of supporting region-
specific practices by having enough people on the ground to learn about
those specific needs. Often, these practices [are] more cost effective
because they match the region. Ranchers are keen to do things in the
most efficient and effective way, and NRCS could learn a lot by
listening to the needs of ranchers through field visits and
consideration of amendments to practice standards.
[all]