Soil and water resources conservation act program report and environmental impact statement, revised draft

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

tj,
V&,
1981
4 rogram Report and
Environmental
Impact Statement

Revised Draft

Soil and Water

j0r-n rse r v at i o n
Resources

Act

:Z@)

900
S65
1981

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES
CONSERVATION ACT

PROGRAM REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Revised Draft

United States Department of Agriculture

Property of CSC Library

Issued November 1981

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

s900 .565 1981
8004100
MAR 11 1997

REVISED DRAFT PROGRAM REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR A
NATIONAL SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Prepared in response to Section 6 of the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA)
by
The United States Department of Agriculture

Abstract: Section 6 of Public Law 95-192, the Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
develop a national soil and water conservation program to guide the Depart-
ment's future conservation activities on the Nation's private and other
nonfederal lands. This document, prepared in response to the Act, is based
on an appraisal of existing resource conditions and trends and projected
resource needs. It-discusses the status of soil, water, and related resources;
identifies resource problem areas; analyzes the effectiveness of existing
conservation programs; establishes objectives for a national soil and water
conservation program; develops alternative programs for meeting these objec-
tives; assesses environmental impacts that would result from implementing the
alternative soil and water conservation programs; and presents the procedures
under which the new programs would be evaluated. In preparing the appraisal,
program report, and environmental impact statement, the Department of Agricul-
ture considered fully the views expressed by the public through public partici-
pation activities. This revised draft presents a preferred program and two
alternatives that the Department considered in response to the Act. The
preferred program provides for continuing the programs of the Department of
Agriculture with redirection of some funds and personnel, encouraging state.
and local governments to assume additional responsibility for developing and
implementing con servation programs, and giving priority to protection of soil
resources and reduction of upstream flood damage. The two alternative programs
are (1) continuation of current program trends, and (2) redirection of the
present program with an emphasis on high-priority resource problem areas.

Comments on this document should be sent to the appropriate state office of
the Soil Conservation Service. A preaddressed response form is supplied for
this purpose. The Soil Conservation Service will consider all comments
mailed no later than January 15, 1982, in formulating the final soil and
water conservation program. For further information, contact the Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., (202) 382-8059.

CONTENTS

Page
List of Figures ----------------------------------------------------- viii

List of Tables ------------------------------------------------------ ix

Chapter 1. Executive Summary --------------------------------------- 1-1
The Problems --------------------------------------------------- 1-1
The Solutions -------------------------------------------------- 1-2
What to Expect ------------------------------------------------- 1-4
Program Evaluations -------------------------------------------- 1-4
Consulting the Public ------------------------------------------ 1-5
How to Comment ------------------------------------------------- 1-5

Chapter 2. Why Action is Needed ------------------------------------ 2-1
Changing Perspectives ------------------------------------------ 2-2
The Soil and Water Resources Conservation.Act of 1977 ---------- 2-2

Chapter 3. The Status, Condition, and Trends
of Soil, Water, and Related Resources ----------------------------- 3-1
Major Resource*Uses -------------------------------------------- 3-1
Soil Resources -------------------------------------------- 3-1
Water Resources ------------------------------------------- 3-1
Related Resources ----------------------------------------- 3-3
Major Resource Problems ---------------------------------------- 3-3
Soil Erosion -----------------------t------------------------ 3-3
Flood Damages ----------- 7 --------------------------------- 3-9
Water Conservation ---------------------------------------- 3-9
Water Quality --------------------------------------------- 3-11
Related Resources ----------------------------------------- 3-11
References --------------------- 7 ------------------------------- 3-12

0
Chapter 4. Future Re source Demands, Conditions, and Problems ------- 4-1
Assumptions and Projections ------------------------------------ 4-1
Domestic Population --------------------------------------- 4-1
Gross National Product (GNP) ------------------------------ 4-1
Demand for Agricultural Products -------------------------- 4-3
Agricultural Prices --------------------------------------- 4-5
Technological Growth -------------------------------------- 4-5
Resource Problem Analyses and Findings ------------------------- 4-5
Soil Resources -------------------------------------------- 4-5
Upstream Flood Damages ------------------------------------ 4-9
Water Quality --------------------------------------------- 4-10
Water Supply and Conservation ----------------------------- 4-11
Urban and Community Resource Conservation and Development- 4-13
Fish and Wildlife Habitat --------------------------------- 4-13
Energy Conservation and Production ------------------------ 4-14
Organic Waste Management ---------------------------------- 4-15
References ----------------------------------------------------- 4-16

Chapter 5. Effectiveness of Present Programs ----------------------- 5-1
Findings of the RCA Appraisal ---------- ------------------------ 5-2
Findings of Audits and Evaluations ----------------------------- 5-2
Conservation Technical Assistance Program ----------------- 5-3
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) ------------------- 5-4
Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) ------------------ 5-6
Water Bank Program ---------------------------------------- 5-7
Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program ---------- 5-8
Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D) ------ 5-8
Forestry Incentives Program ------------------------------- 5-9
Impact and Capability of Soil and Water Conservation
Practices ----------------------------------------------- 5-10
Findings of the 1977 GAO Study --------------------------------- 5-11
Implications for Program Formulation --------------------------- 5-12
References ----------------------------------------------------- 5-14

Chapter 6. Program 'Alternatives and Options Considered ------------- 6-1
Objectives for a Soil and Water Conservation Program ----------- 6-1
Priorities ------------------------------------------------------ 6-2
Program Alternatives ------------------------------------------- 6-3
Funding Levels for Alternatives 2 and 3 ------------------------ 6-3
Program Actions for the First Five Years
(Short-Term Objectives) -------------------------------------- 6-4
Alternative 1: Continuation of Current Program Trends --------- 6-6
Summary of Effects ---------------------------------------- 6-6
Alternative 2: Redirection of USDA Programs Toward Critical
Agricultural Resource Problems ------------------------------- 6-10
Highlights ------------------------------------------------ 6-10
Designation of National Priority Areas -------------------- 6-10
Interagency Coordination ---------------------------------- 6-11
Conservation Tillage and Other Cost-Efficient Systems ----- 6-11
Upstream Flood Damage Reduction --------------------------- 6-11
Rangeland Management: Systems ------------------------------ 6-12
Woodland Management Systems ------------------------------- 6-12
Other Important Elements of a Redirected USDA Program ----- 6-12
Pilot Projects -------------------------------------------- 6-12
Summary of Effects ----------------------- 0----------------- 6-13
Alternative 3: Increased Local 9nd State Role ----------------- 6-17
Highlights ------------------------------------------------ 6-17
Setting Priorities ---------------------------------------- 6-18
Cooperative Agreements ------------------------------------ 6-19
Local and State Programs ---------------------------------- 6-19
USDA Soil and Water Conservation Program ------------------ 6-21
Matching Grants to States --------------------------------- 6-21
Pilot Projects -------------------------------------------- 6-22
Conservation Plans for FmHA loans ------------------------- 6-24
Tax Incentives -------------------------------------------- 6-26
Intergovernmental Cooperation ----------------------------- 6-28
Monitoring and.Evaluation --------------------------------- 6-28
Legislation Needed ---------------------------------------- 6-28
Summary of Effects ---------------------------------------- 6-29

Additional Options Considered ---------------------------------- 6-41
Cross-Compliance ------------------------------------------ 6-41
State Conservation Practices Acts ------------------------- 6-44
Organization for Providing Solutions --------------------------- 6-47
Retain Present Structure ---------------------------------- 6-47
Increased Coordination and Cooperation -------------------- 6-47
Integrated Soil and Water Conservation Program ------------ 6-47
Reassignment of Agency Roles by Function ------------------ 6-48
Conclusion ------------------------------------------------ 6-48
References ----------------------------------------------------- 6-49

Chapter 7. The Preferred Program ----------------------------------- 7-1
Highlights of the Preferred Program ---------------------------- 7-2
Effectiveness of the Preferred Program ------------------------- 7-3
Funding for the Preferred Program ------------------------------ 7-4

Chapter 8. Environmental Consequences ------------------------------ 8-1
Physical and Biological Consequences --------------------------- 8-1
,Preferred Program ----------------------------------------- 8-1
Alternative 1: Continuation of Current Program Trends ---- 8-2
Alternative 2: Redirection of USDA Programs Toward
Critical Agricultural Resource Problems ----------------- 8-3
Economic Consequences ------------------------------------------ 8-3
Preferred Program ----------------------------------------- 8-4
Alternative 1: Continuation of Current Program Trends ---- 8-4
Alternative 2: Redirection of USDA Programs Toward
Critical Agricultural Resource Problems ----------------- 8-5
Social Consequences ------------------------------------- M------- 8-6
Preferred Program ----------------------------------------- 8-6
Alternative 1: Continuation of Current Program Trends ---- 8-6
Alternative 2: Redirection of USDA Programs Toward
Critical Agricultural Resource Problems ----------------- 8-6
Civil Rights --------------------------------------------------- 8-7
Threatened and Endangered Species ------------------------------ 8-7
Cultural Resources --------------------------------------------- 8-7
Unavoidable Adverse Effects ------------------------------------ 8-8
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources --------- 8-8
Possible Areas of Controversy ----------------------------------- 8-8

Chapter 9. Evaluation of the Preferred Program ------------------- 9-1
Evaluation of Individual Programs ------------------------------ 9-1
The Annual RCA Evaluation Report ------------------------------- 9-2

Chapter 10. Public Consultation and Preparation
and Distribution of the Report ------------------------------------ 10-1
Public Consultation -------------------------------------------- 10-1
List of Preparers ---------------------------------------------- 10-2
Distribution of the Report ------------------------------------- 10-3
References ----------------------------------------------------- - 10-8

Appendix. Addresses of State Offices of the Soil Conservation
Service ----------------------------------------------------------- A-1

Index --------------------------------------------------------------- I-1

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Chapter 3. The Status, Condition, and Trends
of Soil, Water, and Related Resources
Figure l.--Use of nonfederal land in the United States and
Caribbean Area, 1977 ----------------------------------------- 3-2
Figure 3-2.--Irrigated acreage in the United States, 1977 ------ 3-4
Figure 3-3.--Comparison of irrigated and nonirrigated
cropland, by crop production region, 1977 -------------------- 3-4
Figure 3-4.--Sheet and rill erosion on cropland in the
United States, by erosion rate, 1977 ------------------------- 3-7
Figure 3-5.--Estimated total annual soil loss resulting from
sheet and rill erosion on cropland, by crop production
region, 1977 ------------------------------------------------- 3-8
Figure 3-6.--Estimated average annual rate of sheet.and rill
erosion on cropland, by crop production region, 1977 --------- 3-8
Figure 3-7.--Water depletion areas in the United States -------- 3-10
Figure 3-8.--Number of months that water requirements
exceed supplies in the conterminous United States ------------ 3-10

Chapter 4. Future Resource Demands, Conditions, and Problems
Figure 4-l.--Index of population and food consumption ---------- 4-4
Figure 4-2.--Projected and actual exports, 1967-2030 ----------- 4-4
Figure 4-3.--Areas where potential for degradation of water
quality.is high because of agricultural nonpoint source
pollutants --------------------------------------------------- 4-12

Chapter 8. Environmental Consequences
Figure 8-1.--Projected gross erosion under the preferred
program and alternatives at the end of 5 years and 50 years- 8-9
Figure 8-2.--Projected acreage of croplanderoding at an
annual rate of more than 5 tons per acre under the preferred
program and alternatives at the end of 5 years and 50 years- 8-9
Figure 8-3.--Projected sediment from agricultural sources
under the preferred program and alternatives at the end of
5 years and 50 years ----------------------------------------- 8-10
Figure 8-4.--Projected water depletions resulting from
agricultural uses under the preferred program and
alternatives at the end of 50 years -------------------------- 8-10
Figure 8-5.--Projected rangeland productivity under the
preferred program and alternatives at the end of 50 years ---- 8-11
Figure 8-6.--Projected wildlife habitat quality on agricultural
land under the prferred program and alternatives at the end
of 50 years ---------------------------------------- ---------- 8-11
Figure 8-7.--Projected upstream flood damages under the
preferred program and alternatives at.the end of 5 years
and 50 years -------------I------------------------------------ 8-12
Figure 8-8.--Projected food and fiber production costs under
the preferred program and alternatives at the end of
50 years ----------------------------------------------------- 8-12

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Chapter 3. The Status, Condition, and Trends
of Soil, Water, and Related Resources
Table 3-1.--Trends in the use of nonfederal land and small
water areas, 1958, 1967, and 1977 ---------------------------- 3-2
Table 3-2.--Gross annual erosion on nonfederal land in the
United States, 1977 ------------------------------------------ 3-5
Table 3-3.--Annual sheet and rill erosion on cropland and
the amount of erosion in excess of 5 tons per acre,
by erosion rate, 1977 ---------------------------------------- 3-6
Table 3-4.--Estimated flood damages, 1975 ---------------------- 3-9

Chapter 4. Future Resource Demands, Conditions, and Problems
Table 4-l.--Population of the United States projected
to 2030 ------------------------------------------------------ 4-2
Table 4-2.--Projections of annual domestic per-capita
consumption of selected commodities -------------------------- 4-2
Table 4-3.--Planted acreage of crops, by crop production
region, 1969, 1974, 1980 ------------------------------------- 4-6

Chapter 6. Program Alternatives and Options Considered
Table 6-l.--Projected fifth-year distribution of funds among
major components, alternative 1 ------------------------------ 6-9
Table 6-2.--Projected fifth-year distribution of funds among
major components, alternatives 1 and 2 ----------------------- 6-15
Table 6-3.--Projected fifth-year percentage distribution of
funds among major components, alternatives 1 and 2 ----------- 6-16
Table 6-4.--Projected fifth-year distribution of funds among
major components, alternatives 1, 2, and 3 ------------------- 6-33
Table 6-5.--Projected fifth-year percentage distribution of
funds among major components, alternatives 1, 2, and 3 ------- 6-34
Table 6-6.--Projected consequences of alternative programs on
selected indicators by the fifth year ------------------------ 6-35
Table 6-7.--Projected fifth-year percentage distribution of
funds among resource problems, alternatives 1, 2, and 3 ------ 6-36
Table 6-8.--Features of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 under the
different funding levels ------------------------------------- 6-37

Chapter 7. The Preferred Program
Table 7-l.--Projected fifth-year distribution of funds
among major components, preferred program -------------------- 7-4

Chapter 9. Evaluation of the Preferred Program
Table 9-1.--Status of evaluations of USDA soil and water
conservation programs, 1981 ---------------------------------- 9-3

CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this Revised
Draft Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement in response to
provisions of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA).
This Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to appraise the condition of
the soil, water, and related resources on the nonfederal lands.of the United
States and to develop a national soil and water conservation program to guide
USDA's future conservation activities on those lands.

Passage of the Act followed a growing awareness of the seriousness of resource
problems in the Nation. American agricultural production has doubled in just
the last 30 years in response to domestic and foreign demands for agricultural
commodities. So far, American farmers have been able to meet those demands,
but unless the resulting pressures on the Nation's agricultural resources are
relieved, tomorrow's farmers may not be able to. Chapter 2 of this report
outlines the need for action.

In the Act, Congress asked the Secretary three basic questions:

� What are the resource problems?

� How do you propose to solve these problems?

� What are the expected results of your solution?

The Problems

The Secretary conducted an appraisal to determine the status, condition, and
trends of-the Nation's soil, water, and related resources. The 1980 RCA
Appraisal showed that conservation problems threaten to reduce agricultural
productive capacity and increase production costs. Specific findings of the
Appraisal include:

0 Much agricultural land is eroding faster than the soil can rebuild
itself through natural processes. Unless corrective actions are taken,
the acreage of this excessively eroding land will increase further.

� Floods threaten human life, property, livestock, and crops in upstream
watersheds. The likelihood is for greater damage in the future.

� Depletion of ground water threatens the continuation of irrigated agri-
culture in extensive areas of the West.

� Deterioration of water quality limits potential use of water for irriga-
tion, municipal and industrial supply, fish and wildlife habitat, and
other purposes.

The 1980 RCA Appraisal is a detailed record of these and other resource prob-
lems and conditions. Chapters 3 and 4 of this report summarize the 1980
Appraisal. Chapter 5 presents the results of evaluations of several USDA
conservation programs and recommends improvements.

The Solutions

Armed with appraisal data, analyses of resource condition, evaluations of
existing programs, and the results of public participation activities, the
Secretary set major objectives and established priorities for future soil and
water conservation activities. He reviewed alternative ways for dealing with
current and projected resource problems, and selected a preferred program.

The foundation of the preferred program is greater cooperation among local
and state governments and the federal government in solving conservation
problems and redirecting present programs. Cooperative solutions to
conservation problems are not new. Local conservation districts and ASC and
extension advisory committees have-worked closely with their local USDA
offices for years to provide assistance to land owners. The preferred program
retains these existing organizations and relationships to recognize and solve
conservation problems.

The program moves away from the "cafeteria," or "first come, first served,"
approach of traditional USDA conservation programs. It addresses instead
specific national resource priorities. It targets soil conservation
activities, reducing the most serious erosion and correcting related.resource
problems that impair the Nation's agricultural productivity..

The preferred program--

0 establishes clear national priorities for addressing problems associated
with soil, water, and related resources over the next 5 years. The
highest priority is reduction of soil erosion to maintain the long-term
productivity of agricultural land. The next highest priority is reduc-
tion of flood damages where risks are highest in upstream areas. Water
conservation and supply management, water quality improvement, and
community-related conservation problems have next priority. Fish and
wildlife habitat improvement and organic waste management are an integral
part of solutions to these problems.

0 strengthens the existing partnership among land owners and users, local
and state governments, and the federal government. Through this
partnership, the program--

- provides federal matching block grants .to states for an expanded
role in developing and implementing conservation programs, the
federal funds to be obtained by reducing current federal conservation
program funds.

- provides for a Local Conservation Coordinat ing Board made up of
representatives of the conservation district,'county ASC.committee,
extension advisory committee, and other interested parties. This
board will appraise local conditions and needs and develop a program

1-2

through existing local, state, and federal institutions. The local
board will identify critical resource problem areas and set
priorities for action to achieve program objectives.

provides for a State Conservation Coordinating Board, with members
appointed by the Governor, to appraise overall state resource
conditions and needs. This board will build on local programs in
identifying statewide critical problem areas, setting priorities,
and developing the state program.

establishes a USDA National Conservation Board to advise the Secretary
of Agriculture on conservation matters.

bases state and federal cooperative conservation actions on an
agreement between each Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture%

� provides for increased and more efficient cooperation and budget coor-
dination among USDA agencies with conservation program responsibilities.

� continues or initiates actions to--

- target an increased proportion of USDA conservation program funds
and personnel to critical areas where soil erosion or other resource
problems threaten the productive capacity of soil and water resources.

- emphasize conservation tillage and other cost-efficient measures
for reducing soil erosion and solving related problems.

- evaluate tax incentives as an inducement to increased use of
conservation systems.

- increase emphasis on technical and financial assistance to farmers
and ranchers who plan and install needed and cost-efficient conser-
vation systems.

- target USDA research, education, and information services toward
problems that impair agricultural productivity, while continuing
basic research into the cause and cures of resource degradation.

- set up pilot projects to test new solutions to conservation problems.

- require land owners to have a conservation plan in order to be
eligible for Farmers Home Administration loans.

- minimize conflicts among features of USDA farm programs that limit
achievement of conservation objectives.

- strengthen collection and analysis of resource data.

- evaluate and analyze conservation progress.

- expand the use of long-term agreements in providing conservation
assistance to farmers or ranchers.

1-3

In addition to the preferred program, the Secretary looked at many options
and developed and considered two other alternatives. (1) Under the first of
these alternatives, current trends in USDA soil and water conservation programs
would continue. -These trends, if continued, would result in lower funding
and further degradation of soil, water, and related resources. (2) Under the
second alternative, USDA would redirect its programs so that it would target
a larger share of its assistance to solving critical resource problems.
Resource conditions would at best improve only slightly from what they are
now.

The Secretary rejected these alternatives as too weak to solve the problems
and unresponsive to public opinion.

Chapter 6 shows the alternatives and options that the Secretary developed and
considered. Chapter 7 presents the Secretary's preferred program.

What to Expect

As a result of implementing the Secretary's preferred program, the following
can be expected:

� Conservation efforts will be more effective because they will be planned
and carried out in response to clear objectives and priorities.

� Emphasis on cost-efficient solutions to conservation problems should
increase the acceptance and adoption of conservation methods and accom-
plish more for each private and public dollar spent.

� The loss of soil and water resources will be slowed but not reversed.
Implementing a program to reduce degradation of soil to tolerable limits
would be prohibitively expensive.

� State and local governments,will have a steadily expanding role in
developing and implementing conservation programs.

Chapter 8 outlines the environmental, economic., and social effects that would
likely follow implementation of the preferred program.

Program Evaluations

Once the program is in place, USDA will conduct continuing evaluations to
ensure.that all of its conservation activities are effective and well managed.
Each agency will evaluate the specific programs for'which it is responsible.
Annually, the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service will prepare an,RCA
evaluation report for consideration by the Secretary and transmission to the
Congress. Chapter 9 outlines procedures for evaluating USDA's soil and water
conservation programs.

1-4

Consulting the Public

The Secretary has consulted the public at key points during program development.
Public opinion has helped to shape the preferred program and is essential to
preparation of a-final program that the people of the Nation can encourage
and support. Chapter 10 outlines public participation activites conducted to
date, presents a list of those who prepared this report, and shows who received
copies.

How to Comment

USDA has distributed 30,000 copies of this program report and 400,000 copies
of a summary of this report nationwide. The summary includes a form that,you
can use for commenting on provisions of the preferred program. Please mail
your comments to the appropriate state office of the Soil Conservation Service
no later than January 15, 1982.

The Secretary welcomes your comments and will consider them in developing the
final program as required by the Act.

1-5

CHAPTER 2
WHY ACTION IS NEEDED

World food and fiber production and consumption increased at unprecedented
rates in the last three decades. Foreign production of agricultural
commodities increased from 540 million metric tons in 1950 to more than 1.3
billion metric tons in the late 1970's; consumption increased from 555 million
tons to more than 1.45 billion tons. Agricultural exports from the United
States increased ninefold--from 16 to 145 million tons. Total U.S. production
doubled, reflecting a slower rate of growth in domestic demand relative to
world demand.

American farmers and exporters have developed a world market for their
commodities. This market has been a major influence on farm income and has
helped reduce the deficit in the Nation's balance of trade. With the expected
growth in world population, the outlook for commodity demands and consumption
over the next decade or two indicates a continued strong expansion of U.S.
production in response to world demands. It also indicates increasing pressures
on the Nation's available cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, and
water for agricultural production.

Food prices will rise if world population and income grow more rapidly than
world food production. Any extensive use of cropland to produce biomass for
energy rather than food would likewise drive food prices up. Rising energy
prices would also increase food prices because the costs of production would
increase.

The forecasts of foreign demand and supply suggest that the 1980's, like the
last 5 years, will be a period of record or near-record growth in demand,
slower growth in production, and increased dependence on supplies from the
United States.

Domestic demands are basically influenced by population and income trends.
Declining birth rates and slowing of real rates of economic growth in the
United States suggest a slower growth in domestic food consumption over the
next several years than in recent decades. In addition, any extensive use of
domestic agricultural commodities as biomass for energy production would
increase total domestic demands for agricultural commodities.

Considering both foreign and domestic demand together, it is clear that use
of American agricultural resources will intensify and expand to produce more
agricultural commodities. The United States has the resources and capability
to expand production of agricultural goods. The extent of that capability
will be influe@ced most significantly by the rate at which agricultural
productivity can be enhanced through existing and emerging technology. It
will depend to a lesser degree on the extent to which society can limit the
steady shift of agricultural land, especially cropland, to nonagricultural
uses. The success of efforts to slow conversion of agricultural land will be
influenced strongly by the availability, suitability, and location of non-
agricultural lands for these other uses and by the actions that states and
communities take to guide such development.

2-1

Above all, there is a need to protect and maintain the productivity of agricul-
tural lands through actions that prevent gradual degradation caused by excessive
soil erosion. Soil erosion occurring at rates that could reduce the sustained
productive capacity of agricultural lands is the most critical of the resource
problems identified in the RCA Appraisal. Although increases in.agricultural
productivity through application of technology may temporarily and partially
offset yield losses attributable to erosion, erosion should be kept at a
tolerable level. Continued excessive erosion will reduce the capability of
the Nation's agricultural soils to respond to the available technology and
produce yields that reflect their full productive capacity. Programs for
more effective erosion control should be emphasized to prevent loss of this
productive capacity.

Changing Perspectives

Given these prospects'for demand and supply, the emphases of food and
agricultural policy and the day-to-day concerns of managing this policy will
focus strongly on avoiding or overcoming shortages, encouraging production,
and enhancing productivity. The conservation and wise use of land and water
resources--including the reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation,
preservation of prime agricultural lands, prevention of flood damages,
conservation of water used in irrigated agriculture, enhancement of water
quality, and conservation and production of energy--must be an integral part
of future food 'and agricultural policies and production practices.

The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977

Recognizing the growing pressures on agricultural soil and water resources
and the need to improve the effectiveness of soil and water conservation
efforts, Congress enacted the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of
1977 (RCA). The Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make an appraisal
of the soil, water, and related resources of the Nation. The federal govern-
ment, state soil and water conservation agencies, land owners and users, .
local units of government, and others will use the appraisal in making informed
long-range policy decisions regarding soil and water resources.

The Act further directs that programs administered by the Secretary of
Agriculture f'or the conservation of.soil, water, and related resources be
responsive to the long-term needr, of the Nation, as determined by the appraisal.
It requires the Secretary to--

0 develop and periodically update a program for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing soil, water, and related resources consistent with
the roles and responsibilities of other federal agencies and state
and local governments.

0 provide Congress and the public with the appraisal and program
report and provide Congress with an annual evaluation report.

2-2

In response to the Act, the United States Department of Agriculture developed
procedures to--

0 appraise soil,.,water, and related resources.

0 project future demands on and requirements for these resources.

0 provide for public participation.

0 analyze'the appraisal and the projected demands on these resources.

0 define specific resource problems.

0 establish feasible soil and water conservation objectives to resolve
the problems.

0 develop and compare alternative programs to achieve the objectives.

0 select a program for implementation.

This Revised Draft Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement presents
the Secretary's preferred program and the other alternatives that were
considered. It differs from the 1980 Draft Program Report and Environmental
Impact'Statement, which focused primarily on conceptual strategies.

2-3

CHAPTER 3
THE STATUS, CONDITION, AND TRENDS
OF SOIL, WATER, AND RELATED RESOURCES

One of the first steps in meeting the requirements of the Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA) was to compile data on the quantity,
quality, and use of soil, water, and related resources in the United States.
These data provide an accurate picture of the present condition of these
resources and serve as the basis for analyses of resource problems. This
chapter summarizes Part I of the 1980 RCA Appraisal.

Major Resource Uses

Soil Resources

There are 1.5 billion acres of nonfederal land in the United States (3)
(fig. 3-1). The use of this nonfederal land is changing (table 3-1). The
acreages in cropland and forest land are decreasing, while the acreages in
pastureland and rangeland are increasing. The acreage devoted to urban,
built-up, and transportation uses is increasing at a growing rate. From 1958
to 1967, the acreage in cropland decreased from 449 to 438 million acres--
slightly over I million acres annually. In the following decade, this
acreage decreased an additional 25 million acres. Recent data, however, show
that this trend has changed. Since the mid 1970's, the acreage in cropland
has been increasing.

Across the Nation, residences, factories, shopping centers, roads, and
related structures now stand on land that once supported crops, trees, or
grass. From 1958 to 1967, about 10 million acres of rural land were con-
verted for these purposes. Between 1967 and 1977, another 29 million acres
were converted. Each acre of land claimed by development may mean that one
additional acre or more is isolated-and lost for food or fiber production.
Once converted, such lands cannot be farmed again without extensive and
costly reclamation. About one-third of the land converted, nearly 1 million
acres per year, is prime farmland.

Nearly I billion acres of nonfederal rural land are not now cropland. About
127 million acres have medium or high potential for conversion to cropland.
This land is now mostly rangeland, pastureland, or forest land. Considerable
investment would be required to convert the 91 million acres rated as having
medium potential.

Water Resources

Each year, an average of 30 inches of precipitation falls onto the conter-
minous United States. This precipitation is unevenly distributed, ranging
from less than 4 inches annually in parts of the Great Basin and Lower
Colorado regions to more than 200 inches in the coastal area of the Pacific
Northwest (6).

3-1

Table 3-1 .--Trends in the use of nonfedera I land and sma I I water areas,
1958, 1967, and 1977 1/

Land use 1958 1967 1977

(millions of acres)

Cropland --------- 7 ----------- 449 438 413
Irrigated --------------- 37) 44) 58)
Nonirrigated ------------ (412) (394) (356)
Pastureland and rangeland ---- 486 483 548
Pastureland ------------- (102) (134)
Rangeland --------------- (380) (414)
Forest land ------------------ 453 463 377 3/
Urban land (over 10 acres)
and rural transportation --- 51 61 90
Small areas of open water ---- 7 7 9 4/
Other ------------------------ 67 57 88 5/

Total ---------------------- 1,513 1,509 1,525

1/ Some land use definitions changed slightly from one inventory to
another. See indi-vidUal Source document for the land use definitions in effect
at the time of inventory.
21 Data not available.
3/ Part of this change is Caused by a redefinition of the land use.
4/ 1977 data include I million acres of water bodies covering less than
2 acres.
5/ 1977 data include 4 million acres of built-up land covering from
one-fOUrth acre to 10 acres.
SOU rces: 1958 data from basic statistics of the 1958 National inventory of
Soil and Water Conservation Needs. 1967 data from basic statistics of the 1967
National inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs. 1977 data from 1977
National Resource Inventories (1) adjusted to include Alaska.

9%
Pastureland
l134
million
acres)

12% 27%
Othe' Cropland
(178 million acres) (413 million acres@

25%
Forest,td
(377 m lion acres)
27%
Rangeland
l414 million acres)

Figure 3-1.--Use of nonfederal land
in the United States and Caribbean
Area, 1977 (2, 3) .

3-2

Most areas in the western half of the United States receive less than 30
inches of precipitation a year, but seasonal and year-to-year variations tend
to be greater there than in other regions. To increase water supply in the
West and in other parts of the Nation, dams and reservoirs have been construc-
ted, upstream watersheds managed, water transferred between regions, and
ground water sources tapped.

The total area of surface water in the United States, including the Great
Lakes and coastal areas, is 108 million acres. Surface waters yield more
than 250 billion gallons of water daily in withdrawals. Total ground water
withdrawals exceed 80 billion gallons per day, including 21 billion gallons
per day of ground water withdrawals in excess of natural recharge. In 1975,
ground water withdrawals accounted for about one-fifth of the fresh water
consumed in the United States.

Agriculture is the Nation's largest consumer of water. Four times more water
is consumed to produce food and, fiber than for all other purposes combined.
Although grown on only about 12 percent of the Nation's cropland, irrigated
crops account for about 25 percent of the total value of crop.production in
the United States (4). Figure 3-2 shows where irrigation is concentrated in
the United States, and figure 3-3 compares the acreages of irrigated and
nonirrigated cropland, by crop production region.

Related Resources

Soil and water are the Nation's basic natural resources. Related resources
help meet a variety of agricultural, environmental, esthetic, and recrea-
tional needs and values. Such closely related resources--organic residues,
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational areas, for example--
affect and in turn are affected by the basic resources.

Major Resource Problems

Soil Erosion

Many soils, including some of the most productive, have been and continue to
be severely eroded. 1/ Erosion can reduce soil productivity if it occurs
faster than the topsoil can be replenished through natural processes. As a
rule of thumb, on deep soils commonly used for cropland, pastureland, and
forest land, 4 or 5 tons of soil per acre can be lost annually without
damaging the soil's productive potential; on the thinner and more fragile
soils commonly used for rangeland, only 2 or 3 tons per acre can be lost
annually. Holding erosion within these rates permits sustained use of the
soils. In recent decades, increases in productivity as a result of improved
technology have masked the effects of soil erosion on crop yields.

I/ Soil erosion is usually measured or estimated in terms of tons of
soil moved per acre annually. A ton of soil is roughly equivalent to a cubic
yard. A one-inch layer of soil over one acre weighs about 150 tons. Thus, a
soil losing 5 tons per acre annually would lose an inch in about 30 years.
Topsoil thickness generally ranges from a few inches to a few feet.

3-3

V
z

Figure 3-2.--Irrigated acreage in the United States, 1977. One dot equals
8,000 acres where irrigation facilities are in place. Total irrigated
land equals 58 million acres, 1977 (3).

Pacif ic
States

Mountain
States

Southern . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plains

Northern
Plains
Lake EvIl.
States

Corn
Belt

Delta
States

Southeastern
States

.....................
Appalachian
States
Northeastern Nonirrigated
States irrigated
Hawaii &
Caribbean
0 10 20 30 40 50 @O 7'0 8'0 90 100

Million Acres
Figure 3 - 3. - - Compari .son of irrigated
and nonirrigated cropland, by crop
production region, 1977 (3).

3-4

Table 3-2 shows a nationwide summary of sheet, rill, and wind erosion on
agricultural lands combined with total erosion on streambanks, gullies, roads
and roadsides, and construction sites. The table shows that more than 140
million acres of cropland are losing more than 5 tons of soil per acre
annually through combined water and wind erosion (3). Combined water and
wind erosion exceeds tolerable levels for maintaining soil resources on
almost 300 million acres of nonfederal cropland, pastureland, forest land,
and rangeland.

The Nation's total water erosion is about 11 percent from streambanks, 6
percent attributable to gullies, 3 percent from roads and roadsides, and 2
percent from construction sites. The remaining 78 percent is sheet and rill
erosion. The average annual rate of sheet and rill erosion on cropland in
the conterminous United States is 4.7 tons per acre.

Table 3-3 and figure 3-4 show sheet and rill erosion on cropland by erosion
rate. More than 77 percent of the Nation's cropland is eroding at 5 tons per
acre annually or less; soil loss at this rate represents only about 27 percent
of all cropland erosion. On more than 90 percent of the cropland, the annual
erosion is 10 tons per acre or less; soil loss at this rate represents 46
percent of all cropland erosion and 11 percent of all excessive erosion.
Therefore, it is on a relatively small acreage of cropland--the remaining
10 percent--that most cropland erosion occurs, some at rates of 100 tons per
acre or more annually. Controlling the erosion on the most severely eroding
10 percent of the cropland would reduce total cropland erosion by 54 percent
and excessive erosion on cropland by 89 percent. Even with such treatment,
however, serious erosion problems would remain. Erosion would continue to
gradually degrade extensive acreages of productive cropland now eroding less

Table 3-2.--Gross annual erosion on nonfederal land in the United States, 1977

Sheet, rill, and wind erosion
on agricultural land Total
acreage
Land use <2 2-5 5-13.9 14+ in
tons/ tons/ tons/ tons/ land Total
acre acre acre acre use 1/ erosion

(millions (billions
of acres) of tons)

Cropland ---------------- 158.6 113.6 93.1 48.0 413.3 2.82
Pastureland ------------- 105.0 14.0 9.5 5.0 133.6 0.35
Forest land ------------- 327.0 26.0 11.7 4.9 369.7 0.44
Rangeland --------------- 283.5 55.5 40.1 28.8 407.9 1.71

Total sheet, rill, and
wind erosion ---------- --- --- --- --- --- 5.32

Total erosion on stream-
banks, gU I I ies, roads
and roadsides, and con-
struction sites -------- --- --- --- --- 1.10

Total 1/ ------------- 874.1 209.1 154.4 86.7 1,324.5 6.42

I/ Totals may not add because of @OUnding.
Source: 1977 National Resource inventories (3).

3-5

Tab I e 3-3.--Annua I sheet and ri I I erosion on crop I and and the amount of erosion in excess of 5 tons per acre,
by erosion rate, 1977

Total Total erosion CUML118tive
Cumulative sheet Cumulative in excess of percentage of
AnnUa I Total percentage and ri It percentage 5 tons erosion in excess
erosion rate acres of acreage e ros ion of erosion per acre of 5 tons per acre

(millions (millions
(tons per acre) (millions) of tons) of tons)

0-1 --------- 131.6 31.8 49.2 2.6 0.0 0.0
1-2 --------- 74.6 49.8 110.6 8.3 0.0 0.0
2-3 -----7 --- 51.5 62.3 127.5 14.9 0.0 0.0
3-4 --------- 35.9 71.0 125.0 21.4 0.0 0.0
4-5 --------- 26.0 77.3 116.3 27.4 0.0 0.0

5-6 --------- 17.6 81.6 96.2 32.4 8.2 0.9
6-7 --------- 12.6 84.6 81.8 36.6 18.6 2.9
7-8 --------- 9.3 86.9 69.4 40.2 23.0 5.4
8-9 --------- 7.3 88.7 62.0 43.4 25.4 8.1
9-10 -------- 5.8 90.1 54.6 46.2 25.8 10.9
10-11 -------- 4.8 91.3 50.2 48.8 26.3 13.7
11-12 -------- 3.7 92.2 43.1 51.0 24.4 16.3
12-13 -------- 3.0 92.9 36.9 52.9 22.1 18.7
13-14 -------- 2.8 93.6 37.1 54.8 23.3 21.2
14-15 -------- 2.4 94.2 34.6 56.6 22.7 23.6
15-20 -------- 7.8 96.1 134.8 63.6 95.8 33.9
20-25 -------- 4.4 97.1 98.0 68.7 76.0 42.1
25-30 -------- 2.9 97.8 80.6 72.9 65.8 49.2
30-50 -------- 5.5 99.1 209.9 83.8 182.4 68.8
50-75 -------- 2.3 99.6 133.8 90.7 122.5 82.0
75-100 ------- 0.8 99.8 64.4 94.0 60.6 88.5
100 ---------- 0.7 100.0 109.8 100.0 106.3 100.0

Total ------ 413.3 1,925.8 929.2

Source: 1977 National Resource Inventories (3).

dramatically, but still seriously, at 5 to tons per acre. Furthermore,
conservation measures would need to be maintained on the cropland that is now
adequately protected from erosion.

Erosion in key agricultural areas.--Sheet and rill erosion is a serious
problem in many parts of the Nation, but it is especially so in key agri-
cultural areas where erosion rates significantly exceed tolerable levels.
Four examples of these special problem areas follow (1).

� The Corn Belt is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the
world. Intensive cultivation of clean-tilled crops such as soybeans
contributes to a serious erosion problem. About 37 percent of the
cropland is eroding at annual rates of 5 tons per acre or more.

� The Palouse and Nez Perce Prairies and the Columbia Plateau in Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho are major producers of dryfarmed legumes and small
grains. The combination of steep slopes and seasonally intense rainfall
have produced erosion rates of 50 to 100 tons annually.

� The Southern Mississippi Valley Silty Uplands in Kentucky, Tennessee,
and Mississippi are used intensively for row crops. In many areas,
annual soil losses exceed 20 tons per acre, and the rate of erosion on
cropland over the entire area.is nearly double the national average.

� Aroostook County, Maine, is one of the major potato-producing areas in
the Nation. The intense cultivation normally used in growing this crop
has reduced topsoil depth by 24 inches in some parts of the county,
reducing crop yields and endangering the local economy.

14 and over

c: 2-4.9
0

o 50 100 150 200
Million Acres

Figure 3-4.--Sheet and rill erosion
on cropland in the United States, by
erosion rate, 1977 (3).
14 and overr
- 0
5139

3-7

Pacific
States

Mountain
States

Southern
Plains

Northern
Plains

Lake
States

Corn
Belt

Delta
State

Southeas
State.

Appalachian
States

Northeastern
States

Hawaii &
Caribbean

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Million tons
Figure 3-5.--Estimated total annual soil loss resulting from sheet and rill
erosion on cropland, by crop production region, 1977 (3).

Pacific
States

Mountain
States

Southern
Plains

Northern
Plains

Lake
States

Corn
Belt

Delta
States

Southea
States

Appalachian
States

Northeastern
States

Hawaii &
Caribbean

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Tons/Acre

Figure -3-6. --Estimated average annual rate of sheet and rill erosion on
cropland, by crop production region, 1977 (3).
, rrn

3-8

Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show, respectively, estimated total annual sheet and rill
erosion and average annual rate of sheet and rill erosion on cropland, by
crop production region. The total amount of soil eroded from cropland in the
Corn Belt is double that in any other region. The average rate of erosion on
cropland in Hawaii and the Caribbean Area is triple that of any other region,
but the average rate also exceeds 5 tons per acre in the Appalachian States,
Corn Belt, Delta States, and Southeastern States.

Flood Damages

More than 175 million acres of nonfederal rural lands are subject to flooding.
Nearly half of this acreage is in the southeastern United States. The Nation's
flood-prone land is about 29 percent forest land, 28 percent rangeland, 20
percent cropland, 11 percent pastureland, and 12 percent other land (3).
Twenty-one thousand communities experience flooding problems, including 6,000
with populations exceeding 2,500. In 1975, total flood damages in the United
States exceeded $3.4 billion (table 3-4).

Water Conservation

Some water is lost in irrigation. The efficiency of irrigation systems
averages 78 percent for delivering water to the farm and 53 percent for using
water on the farm (5). Inefficient irrigation can degrade water quality,
cause irrecoverable losses, waste energy used for pumping, reduce instream
flows, and increase production costs. Return flows to streams from irrigated
fields are important to downstream water rights and users.

Table 3-4.--Estimated flood damages, 1975

Kind of area Upstream 1/ Downstream 2/ Total

(millions of 1975 dollars)

Agricultural ------------------ 1,024 611 1,635
Urban and built-up areas ------ 295 852 1,147
other (rural utilities, roads,
railways, homesteads, forest
and grasslands, refuges,
parks, etc.) ---------------- 308 339 647

Total -------------------- 1,627 1,802 3,429

]_/ Upstream areas are adjacent to main strea,ros and tributaries that drain
a basin of 400 square miles or less.
2/ Downstream areas are all other areas of the river.
Source: Second National Water Assessment (6).

3-9

Boundaries

Water resources
region
t
Subregion

Explanation

70 percent depleted in average year

70 percent depleted in dry year

Less than 70 percent depleted
Figure 3-7. --Water depletion areas in the United States (7).

j ^1

No months in avg. yr. but
9-12 months in dry yr.

1-6 months in avg. yr.
7-12 months in avg. yr. Requirements include both offstrearn (withdrawal)
and instrearn (flow) requirements.

Source: Second National Water Assessment
Figure 3-8.--Number of months that water requirements exceed supplies in the
conterminous United States (7).

3-10

Nationwide, 5.4 percent of the replenishable water supply is consumed
(depleted) annually. The percentage consumed in the humid regions is less
than the national average, but in the arid regions this percentage is so high
that it approaches the total repleni'shable supply. Figure 3-7 shows where
the percentage of water consumed is very high or will be high before the turn
of the century, if current trends continue.

Even in an average year, streamflow deficiencies occur in the Colorado, Rio
Grande, and Great Basin regions. During dry years--an average of every 2 to
10 years when offstream requirements increase and flows are abnormally low--
the instream supplies do not meet flow requirements. Figure 3-8 shows
inadequate streamflow by subregion.

Water Quality

Bacteria, nutrients, dissolved solids (salinity), suspended solids (sediment),
and toxic materials are the most common and most serious nonpoint source
pollutants in the Nation's waters. Agriculture is the most widespread cause
of nonpoint source pollution. This pollution comes mainly from runoff or
irrigation return flow. Runoff generally increases the levels of bacteria,
sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. Irrigation return flow generally increases
the level of dissolved solids, nutrients, and pesticides.

'Related Resources

Changes in farming practices have brought about changes in the American
landscape. Fields have become larger and hedgerows ha-@e disappeared. In
many areas, a single crop dominates the landscape. This increase in
monocultural cropping patterns has been a major factor in reducing the
diversity of wildlife habitat in many areas.

Runoff has car'ried agricultural chemicals and sediment into once-pure rivers
and lakes. The degraded water in those areas can support much smaller numbers
of fish and harm the animals that live near the streams.

The pKessures to increase production have brought about the draining of
thousands of acres of wetlands annually. These wetlands provide habitat for
an incredible variety of wildlife species and serve as sediment and nutrient
traps for the streams that flow into and through them.

3-11

References

(1) Austin, Morris E. 1972. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource
Areas of the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). U.S. Department
of Agriculture Handbook No. 296, 82 pp.

(2) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980. An
Assessment of the Forest and Range Land Situation in the United States.
636 pp.

(3) United States Department of',Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1978. 1977 National Resource Inventories.

(4) United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1974.
Irrigation and Drainage on Farms.

(5) United States Department of the Interior, United States Department of
Agriculture, and United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1979.
Irrigation Water Use and Management: An Interagency Task Force Report.
(6) United @tates Water Resources Council. 1978. The Nation's Water
Resources, 1975-2000. Second National Water Assessment, Vol. 2, Water
Quantity, Quality, and Related Land Considerations.

(7) United States Water Resources Council. 1978. The Nation's Water
Resources, 1975-2000. Second National Water Assessment, Vol. I)
Summary.

3-12

CHAPTER 4
FUTURE RESOURCE DEMANDS, CONDITIONS, AND PROBLEMS

The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA) requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to project future demands and the potential impact
that meeting those demands will have on the Nation's soil and water resources.
These resources are under intense pressure to produce food and fiber for
domestic consumption and export. At the same time, the Nation's future
agricultural productive capacity is uncertain because of continuing damage
from soil erosion, pollution, and flooding; conversion of farmland to other
uses; and shortages of water. Degraded soil, water, and related resources
reduce the quality of the environment and affect the standard of living in
many areas of the country. This chapter summarizes the analyses of resource
conditions. More detail is presented in Part II of the 1980 RCA Appraisal.

Assumptions and Projections

Projecting demands on the Nation's natural resources requires certain assump-
tions about future economic, social, and environmental trends. Historical
trends are the result of major social, political, technological, and institu-
tional forces that until recently did not change easily or quickly. Such
patterns of stability, however, have been broken in the last decade, and new
patterns have not yet been clearly established. In the absence of reliable
new patterns, the assumptions and projections used in the appraisal are, for
the most part, extrapolations of recent trends.

Domestic Population

Population growth directly affects demands for food and fiber, outdoor
recreation, and water. It also influences the characteristics of the labor
force, which is one of the major determinants of economic activity and use of
materials. The 1980 RCA Appraisal used the Series II population projections
of the United States Department of Commerce to estimate future demands for
agricultural commodities (3) (table 4-1).

Gross National Product (GNP)

In recent decades, changes in the consumption of many resource products have
been closely associated with changes in the Nation's GNP. Between 1940 and
1975, the GNP, measured in constant 1972 dollars, increased more than five
times--rising at an average annual rate of about 3.7 percent. Annual changes
have fluctuated widely, from +16.1 percent to -14.8 percent. Such factors as
differences in the rates of change in the size of the labor force, unemploy-
ment, hours worked per year, and productivity will continue to cause fluctua-
tions in the GNP. RCA analysts used the projections of GNP made by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis, United States Department of Commerce. These
projections show a GNP growth rate slowing from an annual increase of
3.6 percent in 1980-85 to an annual increase of 2.1 percent by 2030.

4-1

Table 4-l.--Population of the United States projected to 2030

Year Series 1 1/ Series 11 2/ Series 111 3/

(millions of people)

1976 --------- 215.2 215.2 215.2
2000 --------- 282.8 260.4 245.9
2020 --------- 354.1 290.1 253.0
2030 --------- 392.8 300.3 249.3

.1/ Annua I growth rate ranges from 1.0 to 1.3 percent.
21 Growth rate increases to 0.9 percent in the 1980's, then declines
to 0.6 percent by 2000 and to 0.3 percent by 2030.
I/ Annual growth rate drops to 0.3 percent by 2000. By 2030, there
will be a slight decline in population.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (3).

Table 4-2.--Projections of annual domestic per-c apita consumption
of selected commodities

Commodity 1975-77 average 2000 2030

(pounds)
Wheat -------------------------- 153 158 173
Rice --------------------------- 10.5 14.2 15.3
Corn --------------------------- 83 126 140
Peanuts ------------------------ 8.6 11.0 11.4
Cotton ------------------------- 16.1 14.0 13.4
Sugar -------------------------- 100 95 94
Citrus fruit ------------------- 116 139 145
Noncitrus fruit ---------------- 102 log 115
Vegetables and melons ---------- 246 273 290
Irish potatoes ----------------- 120 134 140
Dry beans and peas ------------- 6.6 5.3 4.3
Beef and veal ------------------ 129 140 152
Pork --------------------------- 59 70 74
Lamb --------------------------- 1.9 1.4 1.2
Chicken ------------------------ 43 65 58
Turkey ------------------------- 9.0 11.7 13.9
Eggs --------------------------- 36 33 30
Milk --------------------------- 549 529 493

Source: Economic Research Service.

4-2

Following long-established trends, transportation, trade, and other services
will account for a slowly growing share of the total GNP. The United States
will, however, continue to produce huge quantities of physical goods, which
means that large supplies of energy, minerals, and other raw materials will
be needed.

Disposable personal income--income available for spending or saving--is an
important determinant of demand. Since 1929, disposable personal income has
equaled about 70 percent of the GNP. -The RCA analysts assumed that this
fairly constant relationship will continue for the next 50 years.

Demand for Agricultural Products

RCA projections of demands for agricultural products are based on the 1979
OBERS Program Report (4). 1/ The OBERS series projects economic activity for
the Nation, individual states, and economic and hydrologic areas. It includes
projections of population, personal income, employment, and earnings by
individuals and industry. The agricultural projections include agricultural
land use and commodity production and value. Domestic and foreign demands
are built into the projections. The projections were extended to the year
2030 for use in RCA analyses.

Domestic demand.--As consumer incomes increase, the demand for beef and veal,
chicken, turkey, and vegetables tends to increase and the demand for eggs,
milk, dry beans and peas, and cereal products tends to decrease (table 4-2).
Per-capita food consumption increased about 5 percent from 1967 to 1980.
Because of population growth, however, total food consumption increased by
nearly 20 percent (fig. 4-1).

Export demand.--The projections of export demand that ERS developed for RCA
assume a 2.3 percent annual increase in exports until the year 2000 and a 0.6
percent annual increase from 2000 to 2030. The growth rate from 1976 to 2000
reflects a continued expansion of international markets for feed grains to
meet the needs of expanding livestock industries in developed countries and
for good grains in many countries as those countries seek to upgrade the
diets of their people. I

The projection that the rate of growth in exports will be slower from 2000 to
2030 is based on the assumption that meeting expanding export markets will result
in higher production costs. Higher commodity prices are expected to dampen
the rate of growth of international demand for American agricultural exports.

The export projections are considered "moderate." They are based on the
assumption that countries will continue their existing import policies.
Changes in the food production and import policies of importing countries
could significantly affect the level of projected American agricultural exports.

1/ The OBERS series is a major product of a program of economic measure-
ment, analysis, and projection conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA), formerly the Office of Business Economics (OBE), of the U.S. Department
of Commerce, and the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA). The program acquired the acronym "OBERS," signifying
a united effort of OBE and ERS.

4-3

% of 1967

120

115 -
Total food Population o
consumption N 10
110 - 0 W

Per capita
105 - 0000 food consumption M-1
00
....................
100 r*l
1967 70 75 80

Figure 4-1.--index of population and
food consumption. Total food con-
sumption based on retail weight
using constant retail prices as
index weights. Civilian population
on July 1, 1980, for 50 states.

350 - - Actual
........... Projected
351

300 -

290

X 250 D

0
CL C
X A 1977 level of exports
W 200 - 6
B 1978 level of exports
A
C 1979 level of exports

150 - 169 D 1980 level of exports (estimated)

100 1 1 1 1
__F70 1 80 90 2000 10 20 2030
1967 1975-77
Year

Figure 4-2.--Projected and actual
exports, 1967-2030.
)
D

169

4-4

Figure 4-2 shows projected export trends through 2030. Actual exports since
1977 have been significantly higher than the projections. If growth in
export levels continues to follow the pattern of the last three years, the
RCA projections will be low. Therefore, the pressure of foreign demands on
the soil and water resources in the United States could be greater than
expected, especially in the next decade or so.

Agricultural Prices

For RCA projections, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) used
normalized prices (5) to estimate the gross value of agricultural production.
However, to evaluate the economic consequences of alternative conservation
programs, it estimated commodity prices to reflect the cost of producing the
last unit of output demanded by the market.

Technological Growth

Technological growth is one of the main factors influencing the capability of
American agriculture. It can have a major impact on the intensity of pro-
duction methods that farmers use and on the corresponding need for conserva-
tion practices to maintain soil productivity and to minimize damage to the
environment. Over the past 50 years, improvements in technology have caused
agricultural productivity to grow at an average rate of 1.6 percent annually.
Because the rate of productivity growth has been slowing in recent years, RCA
analysts assumed an average annual growth rate of 1.1 percent. They also
analyzed the effect of investments for research and extension activities that
would maintain the historic rate of 1.6 percent and the effect of a decline
in real investments for research and extension that would result in a rate of
growth of 0.6 percent.

Resource Problem Analyses and Findings

Soil Resources

Growing demands for food and fiber caused large acreages of land to be brought
into crop production during the 1970's. Table 4-3 shows that acreages planted
to crops (excluding very minor crops) increased from nearly 299 million acres
in 1969 to about 364 million acres in 1980. Over two-thirds of this increase
occurred in the Appalachian, Corn Belt, Lake States, and Northern Plains
regions. Row crops increased by 49.7 million acres; about 79 percent of this
increase occurred in these same four regions. The acreage in wheat increased
nationally by 27 million acres; more than half of this increase occurred in
the Northern Plains and Southern Plains. With the exception of rice, acreages
of other close-grown crops declined. The harvested acreage of hay remained
stable.

Much of the increase in the acreage of cultivated crops occurred in regions
identified in chapter 3 as having high average per-acre rates of sheet and
rill or wind erosion (see fig. 3-6). Most of the increased acreage of culti-

4-5

Table 4-3.--Planted acreage of crops, by crop production region, 1969, 1974, 1980

1969 1974 1980

Tota I row Tota I non- Total Total row Total non- Total Total row Total non- Total
Region crops 1/ row crops 2/ crops crops row crops crops crops row crops crops

(thousands of acres)

Northeast ------------ 3,975 8,075 12,024 5,006 7,858 12,864 5,690 7,869 13,379
Appalachian ---------- 8,896 6,753 15,649 11,153 5,868 18,011 13,908 7,257 21,165
Southeast ------------ 8,192 2,631 .10,823 9,647 2,828 12,475 11,912 3,681 15,593
Delta ------- 7 -------- 12,376 2,487 15,963 12,746 3,931 16,677 15,543 5,298 20,842
Southern Plains ------ 16,313 17,290 3 3, 603 16,294 19,660 35,954 16,934 21,160 38,094
Corn Belt ------------ 53,791 19,258 73,049 64,650 18,630 83,280 71,641 17,819 89,460
Lake States ---------- 14,506 16,754 31,260 21,260 17,127 36,424 22,704 16,991 39,695
Northern Plains ------ 21,437 47,283 68,720 21,154 51,701 76,855 29,672 52,533 82,205
Mountain ------------- 3,992 20,851 24,843 3,976 22,153 26,129 4,368 23,755 28,123
Pacific -------------- 2,325 10,662 12,987 2,792 11,596 14,388 3,105 12,070 15,175

Total ----------- 145,805 153,118 298,923 170,716 162,342 3 3 3, 058 195,477 168,253 363,730

1/ Includes planted acreage of corn, sorghum, soybeans, flaxseed, peanuts, sunflowers, cotton, dry beans, sugar
beets, potatoes, and harvested acreage of tobacco.
21 Includes planted acreage of oats, barley, wheat, rice, rye, and harvested acreage of hay.
Source: Economic Research Service.
01

vated crops was planted to soybeans. Land on which soybeans are planted is
generally clean tilled and thus more susceptible to erosion. Furthermore,
these newly planted crop acreages previously were in other crops or in noncrop
uses that probably were less erosive. These other uses include diverted
lands under government programs, temporarily idle cropland, cropland tempo-
rarily in pasture, permanent pastureland, rangeland, and idle forest land.

Erosion.--Studies have shown that the short-term private economic incentives
for soil conservation are weak (1). Two general characteristics of soil
erosion control investments may contribute to slow recent progress in reducing
excessive erosion. (1) Because erosion occurs slowly, its long-term effects
are in many cases not apparent to a land owner or operator. Moreover, on
many soils improvements in technology permit yields to increase despite the
soil loss. It is therefore difficult for some land owners or operators to
perceive erosion as a serious short-term problem until costs increase or
yields decline. (2) Returns to land owners and operators from many erosion
control investments accrue slowly over long periods of time. A large portion
of these investments may not be recovered within the relatively short time in
which most operators evaluate their investments. Furthermore, some of the
short-term benefits accrue to other land owners, resource users, and the
general public rather than to the land,owners and operators who apply the
practices and bear the costs.

For the National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS), estimates of productivity
loss caused by erosion were made in terms of "acre-equivalents" of cropland
(2). Based on the NALS estimate of 1.01 billion tons of sheet and rill
erosion in excess of 5 tons per acre per year, the Nation is losing the
equivalent of 1.01 million acres of cropland annually to erosion. Wind
erosion in the 10 Great Plains states results in the loss of an additional
240,000 acre-equivalents. If the 1977 rate of wind and water erosion continued
over the next 50 years, up to 62 million acre-equivalents of productive
capacity could be lost. Using a computer model and a different set of
assumptions, USDA calculated that up to 32 million acre-equivalents could be
lost by the year 2030 as a result of sheet and rill erosion alone.

These estimates are based on existing information on the relationship between
soil erosion and soil productivity. The available data, however, are not
reliable enough to provide accurate estimates of such relationships. The RCA
Appraisal indicated that high priority should be given to expanded research to
better quantify the relationship between soil erosion and soil productivity.

Much of the analysis for determining the potential for reducing excessive
erosion was done through a linear programming model at the Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University. The
findings varied according to changes in the basic constraints placed upon the
model.

In the base analysis, the model selected activities, including conservation
treatment, that minimized the cost of crop production if offsite benefits
were assigned no value and if farmers were assumed to plan for returns over
50 years. In the model, the most cost-efficient combination (under these
assumptions) of crop rotation, cropland use, and conservation treatments
resulted in about 1.3 million tons of sheet and rill erosion from cropland in
2030.

4-7

The CARD model indicates that, under the assumptions given, total erosion
could be reduced 40 percent below the amount projected in the base analysis
without significantly increasing the cost of food and fiber production.
Total costs for conservation practices would increase as additional efforts
were made to reduce erosion. A 40-percent reduction in erosion would mean
that the annual erosion rate on nearly 98 percent of the cropland would be
less than 5 tons per acre (the average rate would be 2.1 tons per acre).
Erosion control practices would maintain crop yields and thus in the long run
increase the incomes of farmers who operated erodible land. The total cost
of producing food and fiber, however, would remain about the same because of
the additional costs associated with controlling erosion.

Availability of cropland.--The CARD model was also used to test the influence
of land availability on future crop production costs. The following assump-
tions were made for this analysis: (1) the 413 million acres of cropland
identified in the 1977 National Resource Inventories (NRI) were the initial
base; (2) 44 million acres of this cropland would be irreversibly lost to
urban, transportation, and similar uses by 2030; (3) agricultural productiv-
ity would increase by 1.1 percent annually as a result of improvements in
technology; (4) total production would be less than the maximum possible; and
(5) additional land would be available for conversion to cropland. The
analysts compared the model's results for two potential cropland acreages:
the 127 million acres of potential cropland identified in the 1977 NRI and
the 25 million acres of wet soils having high potential for conversion.

Using the 25-million-acre limitation, the model projects that food and fiber
costs (in constant dollars) for the average consumer would be about 170
percent of the 1977 unit costs. Using the entire 127 million acres of high
and medium potential cropland, however, the model projects that food and
fiber production costs could drop to about 77 percent of current costs (in'
constant dollars).

If erosion were reduced by 40 percent and all 127 million acres of potential
cropland were brought into production, the following impacts would likely
occur: (1) the average cost of producing food and fiber would not change
significantly, (2) pesticide use would increase, (3) some of the erosion
reduction would be accomplished because some production would be shifted to
less erodible soils or to different regions; (4) fewer practices, including
minimum tillage, would be needed to protect future productivity than would be
needed if only 25 million acres were available for conversion; and (5) costs
of conservation practices for erosion control would be lower than if only
25 million acres of potential cropland were converted.

Changes in the growth rate of technology.--The rate of increase in crop
yields as a result of changes in technology is one of the most important
factors considered in the analyses. Three separate estimates were tested: a
yield increase of about 0.6 percent per year, one of about 1.1 percent, and
one of about 1.6 percent. Using the 0.6 percent annual increase, the CARD
model projects that not enough land would be available to meet production
needs in 2030. The Nation would find it impossible to meet projected export
and domestic demands at a reasonable cost.

Using the projected 1.6 percent annual increase in technological growth, the
model projects that food costs would remain relatively stable and that very

4-8

little of today's potential cropland would be needed to produce enough
food and fiber to meet projected domestic demands and the moderate projected
level of exports. This land could be available for other uses, such as
producing biomass (for energy production), other crops for a larger export
market, forage, or timber.

An effective research program that permitted a growth of 1.6 percent annually
in crop yields would offer more options regarding land use, total crop pro-
duction, and level of exports. A smaller rate of growth in productivity
reduces the range of options and places greater emphasis on policies to
retain prime agricultural lands for cultivation, at least for the next 50
years.

Impact of higher energy_costs.--Analyses were conducted to evaluate the
potential impact of increasing energy costs for alternative demand levels.
These analyses show that major effects of energy price increases would be to
reduce the amount of land irrigated with pumped water, increase the use of
conservation or minimum tillage, and increase the unit cost of producing food
and fiber.

Upstream Flood Damages

About 175 million acres of flood plains on nonfederal rural lands in the
conterminous United States are subject to flooding from a 100-year storm.
About 16 percent of the Nation's prime farmland is on flood plains. Flood
damages in 1975 to crops, pasture, urban property, and other properties such
as roads, bridges, and utilities were more than $1.7 billion (in 1975 dollars).

Projected total damages for the year 2000 are $2.3 billion. Ninety-eight
percent of the increase is expected to result from damage to urban and other
properties. The projections are based on two assumptions: (1) flood plain
regulations will be implemented at a rate faster than the current rate but
not at the maximum practical level, and (2) structural measures will be
installed at a slower rate than in the recent past.

The estimated damages to crops and pasture in 1975 were $1.1 billion. This
is about 4.8 percent of the estimated 1975 net agricultural income for the
Nation. This percentage would decline by 2000 as a result of expected
increases in total agricultural production and farm income, assuming that the
structural approach to flood control is continuous. Agricultural losses,
however, are projected to increase slightly (2 percent) from 1975 to 2000.

Urban and other damages are expected to increase by 83 and 86 percent,
respectively, by the year 2000. The increases are attributed to the
continued development of flood-prone lands.

Floods killed 3,738 people between 1925 and 1970. Actuarial estimates show
the general trend to be downward. This can, in part, be attributed to
improved flood-warning and flood-forecasting efforts, which are being
continued and improved.

Complete elimination of flood damages is not practical, but studies indicate
that losses could be reduced as much as 35 percent over 20 years by use of
measures other than structural (6).

4-9

It is very difficult to justify structural measures on the basis of
agricultural benefits alone. Agricultural damages on less intensively used
areas of the flood plain are not expected to be substantially reduced by
nonstructural alternatives. Changing from crops such as corn, soybeans, or
other high-value crops to pasture or woodland normally involves a loss in net
farm income even where the higher value crop has been damaged by floods.

Land use and construction controls could be more effective in slowing the
rate of increase of losses in urban areas. States, counties, and cities,
however, will have to enforce regulations and ordinances if flood losses are
to be kept from exceeding projected levels. Equitable arrangements need to
be instituted for social acceptance.

The environmental impact of flood control measures has to be assessed on a
project-by-project basis. The adverse environmental effects of nonstructural
measures will usually be less than those of structural measures. The latter
often involve environmental impacts related to the size of the area disturbed
or inundated by a reservoir and the location of the project.

Water Quality

Pollution from nonpoint sources is receiving wider attention as point sources
are gradually brought under control. Nonpoint source pollutants are gener-
ally diffused and may be more readily assimilated by the receiving waters than
are the more concentrated pollutants from point sources. Because nonpoint
source pollutants are generally released as pulse loads during rainfall,
violations of water quality standards may be intermittent rather than continuous
and therefore difficult to identify and quantify. The agricultural nonpoint
source pollutants analyzed in the RCA process are sediment, dissolved
solids (salinity), organic (animal) wastes, nutrients, and toxics.

Sediment.--Erosion and sedimentation are natural processes that can be accel-
erated by man's activities. Fine-grained particles of soil and organic
matter are highly susceptible to erosion and may transport pesticides and
nutrients to surface water. About 760 million tons of sediment annually
reach surface waters from cropland, according to analyses based on the
National Water Quality Model developed by Resources for the Future. This
represents about half of all sediment that reaches streams and lakes.
Conservation practices that reduce soil erosion and therefore sedimentation
improve water quality. Most of the nonpoint source sediment control needed
to achieve the objectives established by Congress for improving water quality
can be accomplished through agricultural land management and conservation
systems that reduce cropland erosion and protect the long-term productivity
of the soil.

Dissolved solids (salinity).--Increased salinity of return flows from
irrigated lands is the most significant water quality problem associated with
agricultural irrigation. Other pollutants--such as pesticides, nutrients,
and-sediment--from irrigated lands also degrade water quality. Erosion of
soils with high salt content produces a part of the 90 to 100 million tons of
salt that annually degrade water supplies in the western states.

4-10

Organic (animal) wastes.--Analysis of organic waste management was limited to
livestock wastes produced on animal feeding operations of less -than 300
animal units. Of the 718,000 operating units with less than 300 animal
units, 25 percent have a potential to produce runoff that can degrade water
quality. Land disposal of industrial and municipal wastes is becoming an
agricultural concern as a result of the increasing use of these wastes as
fertilizer. Crop residues can also be sources of water pollution.

Nutrients.--Agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus can enter surface and ground
water in runoff and sediment and through leaching losses. These nutrients
originate in animal wastes from confined feeding operations, wastes disposed
of on land, fertilizer, and crop residues. The total amount of nitrogen and
phosphorus that reaches surface and ground water depends upon fertilizer
application rates, soil properties, terrain, crop management practices, and
rainfall. It is estimated that 15 to 54 percent of the total applied nutrients
reach surface waters. The amount of nitrogen reaching surface water ranges
from 0.03 pound to 8.4 pounds per acre, and the amount of phosphorus, from
0.01 to 0.08 pound per acre.

Toxics.--In 1977, over 200 million acres of land were treated-with herbicides,
75 million acres with insecticides, and 8 million acres with fungicides.
Farmers used approximately 60 percent of the 1.5 billion pounds of pesticides
manufactured in the United States in 1977. Projections of current trends
indicate that farmers are likely to use 3.8 billion pounds of pesticides
annually by 2030.

Many investigations have found various agricultural pesticides in runoff from
treated lands. Nearly all investigations indicate that concentrations are
very low and that less than 5 percent of the application reaches surface
water unless heavy rainfall occurs directly after treatment. Some chemicals,
however, are so highly toxic to fish or other aquatic forms and can persist
for such a long time that even very low levels are a cause for concern.

Critical problem areas.--Figure 4-3 is a composite map that shows where one
or more agricultural-nonpoint source pollutants are likely to degrade water
quality.

Water Supply and Conservation

Total demands for water are projected to continue to rise in the future. The
use of water for manufacturing, mining, and generating electricity is expected
to increase much more rapidly than the use of water for agriculture. The
increase in total demand for water will intensify competition where supplies
are limited. RCA Appraisal findings include:

� Irrigation accounts for 47 percent of the fresh water diverted or with-
drawn and 81 percent of all water consumed in the United States.

� The average off-farm irrigation conveyance efficiency for the 17 western
states is estimated to be 78 percent and the average onfarm efficiency
is 53 percent. It is well within existing technical capability to
increase these efficiencies to much higher levels. Improvements in
efficiency could reduce net depletions by 1.1 million acre-feet

4-11

annually. Existing institutional and social factors that affect
irrigation efficiencies include interpretation and administration of
water laws and court decrees--such as "beneficial use, allocation for
instream flows, change in use, and conjunctive use--and substitution of
water where it is relatively cheap or free for labor and capital
investment.

� Irrigated acreage is expected to increase in the future, though at a
moderate rate. Increasing production through irrigation reduces the
need to cultivate additional croplands. New irrigation can be expected
on at least 13 million acres by the year 2030. Much of it will be based
on previously unexploited ground water in the eastern part of the 17
western states. Withdrawing additional ground water will decrease
instream flows and associated values in some areas. A careful
comprehensive assessment is needed of how the location of agricultural
production can be optimized in relation to future distribution of
available water supplies for irrigation and the productivity potentials
of agricultural land and water' resources.

� As ground water mining continues, the falling water table and increased
energy costs will make water uneconomical to pump in some areas. Rising
costs of labor and energy will cause some increases in the efficiency of
water use--and in some places discontinuation of irrigation--where water
must be pumped. Ground water is the water source for 32 percent of the
irrigated acreage in the 17 western states. Nearly half of the ground
water used in irrigation is mined.

Figure 4-3.--Areas where potential for degradation of water quality Is
IL

high because of agricultural nonpoint source pollutants.

4-12

0 Deficient soil moisture limits production on nonirrigated cropland in
the semiarid Great Plains. Improved management to directly modify
either the infiltration rate or evapotranspiration rate would maintain
higher soil moisture levels and enhance production.

0 In areas where water losses from irrigation systems result in artificial
wetland values, management improvements that eliminate or reduce this
water loss will lower the quality of the wetlands as wildlife habitat.

'Urban and Community Resource Conservation and Development

Proper site selection and use of erosion control measures can reduce erosion
and sedimentation problems on construction sites. Urban areas contribute 4
percent of the nonpoint source sediment in the Nation's waters. In 1978,
water erosion removed nearly 80 million tons of soil from construction sites
and 169 million tons from roads and roadsides. Up to 90 percent of the soil
erosion in urban areas takes place on land under development.

Soil stability problems are significant in urban communities and developed
areas in nearly every state. Cracked foundations, disrupted utilities, and
damaged roads, bridges, and other structures all indicate soil stability
problems. Nationwide, about 28 million acres of urban land are on wet soils.
Problems resulting from development on wet soils include wet basements,
ineffective septic systems, poor conditions for lawns and gardens, and high
maintenance costs for driveways and streets. An estimated 875,000 acres of
wet soils, including 175,000 acres of wetlands, are converted to urban uses
annually. Urban communities can reduce the growth of such problems by more
effective development planning to avoid wet soils.

Urban areas and rural transportation land occupy about 94 million acres in
the United States. Nearly 3 million acres of rural land are converted to
built-up uses annually, including nearly 1 million acres of prime farmland
and 875,000 acres of soils that have drainage problems or are susceptible to
flooding. Land used for urban areas is projected to increase to about 179
million acres by 2030, about double the current area.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Wetlands.--Shallow lakes and wetlands are highly productive wildlife habitat.
Marshes compare favorably with the best managed terrestrial systems in terms
of the primary production of plants. Between 1954 and 1977, the acreage of
wetlands in the United States declined from 82 million acres to 70.5 million
acres, an average annual loss of about 500,000 acres.

In the last decade, USDA programs have directly provided for the protection
of 23,000 acres of wetlands per year. By the end of 1981, the total acreage
protected is expected to be slightly less than 230,000 acres and will remain
at that level. In addition, the owners of about 550,000 acres of wetlands
annually receive technical assistance that is directed to maintenance and
management of the wetlands. It is estimated that 15.1 million acres of
wetlands will need to be converted to cropland to meet projected demands for
food and fiber in the most economical manner. Setasides are not effective in

4-13

deterring conversion of wetlands to crop production in the face of rising
demands for food and fiber.

Terrestrial wildlife habitat.--Some land uses, such as urban development, are
mostly incompatible with wildlife habitat, whereas others, such as agricul-
ture, may be complementary. Nonetheless, although wildlife may be able to
use agricultural land, the primary land use (agriculture) will determine the
land's effectiveness for the secondary land use (wildlife habitat).

0 Cropland wildlife habitat.--Agricultural technology enables farmers to
increase crop production while farming fewer acres more intensively. The
extent of hedgerows, field borders, grassy areas, woodlots, and other vege-
tation that provides diverse wildlife habitat near cropland has been reduced.
In 1977, residue was being removed from over 50 percent of the cropland and
vegetative diversity was low. Analyses of available data show that the
quality of wildlife habitat on cropland was at just above one-third of
potential.

0 Rangeland wildlife habitat.--The quality of wildlife habitat on
rangeland is influenced by the primary land management system. Poor
condition rangeland provides poor quality grazing for livestock and provides
poor habitat for range wildlife. The available data indicate that the
quality of rangeland habitat was at about one-third of potential in 1977.

0 Forest wildlife habitat.--The quality of wildlife habitat on forest land
is being reduced in some areas, primarily through grazing by domestic livestock or
grazing of forest types where livestock should be excluded. The estimated
quality of wildlife habitat on forest land is about two-thirds of potential.

Energy Conservation and Production

Some activities to conserve soil and water resources result in direct energy
savings or increase production per unit of energy used. The production of
biomass and other energy forms from,agricultural land, however, could lead to
increased soil erosion and other forms of soil degradation, particularly
between 2000 and 2030.
Unde@ current technology, ethanol production from grain crops has the most
potential for the production of energy. Intensive production of ethanol from
grain could result in changes in crops and cropping systems. It could also
result in cultivation of additional lands, some of which are likely to be
fragile and subject to erosion. Furthermore, the starch-producing crops most
feasible for ethanol production are row crops and thus are usually associated
with soil erosion problems.

The Energy Security Act of 1980 established a goal for agriculture to produce
an amount of alcohol equal to 10 percent of the Nation's annual gasoline
consumption by 1990. Twenty-eight million acres would have to be cultivated
for biomass crops tolmeet this goal (assuming an average yield of 300 gallons
of alcohol per acre from improved crop varieties). Distillers dry the grain
residues"that remain after ethanol production. These residues could be
substituted for soybeans in livestock feeds, thereby reducing the acreage of
soybeans by 12.9 million acres. Thus, the net additional acreage needed by
1990 for cultivated biomass crops would be 15.6 million acres.

4-14

Organic Waste Management

Modern agriculture produces great quantities of organic waste. Included are
over 430 million tons of.crop residues and 175 million tons of animal wastes
annually. Ninety percent of the animal wastes and 68 percent of the crop
residues are presently used to improve soil tilth and fertility. Current
management, however, results in the loss of a substantial part of the
benefits of these resources.

About 1 million tons of urban organic wastes, such as sewage, septage, and
refuse, are presently used in agriculture. An additional 2 million tons
could be used to help improve soil tilth and fertility and decrease the cost
of disposal. These amounts, however, are relatively small compared to
farm-generated wastes.

4-15

References

(1) Seitz, Wesley D., and Earl R. Swanson. 1980. Economics of Soil Conser-
vation from the Farmer Perspective. American Journal of Agriculture
Economics, vol. 62, No. 5, December 1980, pp. 1084-1088.

(2) United States Department of Agriculture and Council on Environmental
Quality (Co-chair). 1980. 'National Agricultural Lands Study. Soil
Degradation: Effects on Agricultural Productivity. Interim Report No.
4.

(3) United States Department of Commerce. 1977. Population Estimates and
Projections. Series P-25, No. 704.

(4) United States Department of Commerce. 1979. 1979 OBERS Projections:
Economic Activity in the United States. Vol. 1, Concepts, Methodology,
and State Data. (Draft)

(5) United States Water Resources Council. 1978. Guideline 2: Agricultural
Price Standards.

(6) White, Gilbert F., and J. Eugene Haas. 1977. Assessment of Research on
Natural Hazards. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

4-16

CHAPTER 5
EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENT PROGRAMS

The principal soil and water conservation programs of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) were begun in the mid-1930's. They were
established in the crisis atmosphere of the Great Depression. The droughts
and severe dust storms of that period coupled with a vigorous crusade against
soil erosion made people across the Nation aware of the need for soil and
water conservation and generated widespread support for the new programs.
There was little question of the need for federal action and little emphasis
on monitoring the progress of the new programs.

Basic information about the magnitude of soil erosion and related problems
was limited when the Soil Erosion Service was established in the Department
of the Interior in 1933. One of the first activities carried out by that
agency was the Reconnaissance Erosion Survey of 1934. Although completed in
only a few months and later criticized as being somewhat superficial, this
survey provided the first estimates of the severity of erosion problems
throughout the country and portrayed vividly how much work needed to be done.

The next national study of soil and water problems was the USDA Conservation
Needs Inventory (CNI) of 1958 (6). This inventory was led by the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), the successor to the Soil Erosion Service. The
1958 inventory was the first to use statistical sampling techniques. It
,provided considerable detail, down to the county level, on land use, land
capability, and conservation treatment needs. The information could not be
compared directly with erosion conditions as reported in the 1934 survey.
The difficulty in using the 1958 CNI was described by Held and Clawson:

They [the CNI data] do not give any hint as to whether erosion is
caused primarily by wind or water, and they provide no direct
information as to the trend in erosion in the past. The Inventory
is not an objective measurement and presentation of the facts
about the soil erosion which existed then and its trends, but is
primarily the conclusions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(and mainly of SCS) or its interpretations of facts which have
not been published in a form permitting others to test these
conclusions or to make other analyses. (5)

The lack of data made it difficult to gauge conservation progress from 1934
to 1958. A second Conservation Needs Inventory, conducted in 1967, used
essentially the same procedures as the 1958 inventory (7). Thus, it was
similarly lacking in details about the extent and severity of erosion and
other conservation problems and changes over time.

The 1977 National Resource Inventories, conducted by SCS, were designed to
overcome the shortcomings of the two previous inventories. These inventories
provided the first nationally consistent and statistically reliable estimates
of current erosion rates. Data from these inventories were reported in the
1980 RCA Appraisal Part 1 (14) and provided the basis for much of the analysis

5-1

displayed in RCA Appraisal Part 11 (15). These data and other information in
the Appraisal provide some insights into the effectiveness of present programs.

Findings of the RCA Appraisal

There appears to be a broad consensus that soil conservation programs and
practices have reduced and continue to reduce erosion from agricultural
lands. National surveys indicate, however, that progress in controlling
erosion has been slow. There is evidence that total soil erosion actually
increased during the 1970's because the acreage of row crops increased
substantially in response to growing world demands and favorable prices for
agricultural commodities. Survey data for 1967 and 1977 show that soil
losses on cropland increased from 2.6 billion tons in 1967 to 2.8 billion
tons in 1977 (7, 24).

The extent of serious erosion and other resource problems is evidence that
present programs with their historical funding and personnel levels have not
been fully successful. For example, the annual erosion rate exceeds 5 tons'
per acre on nearly one-fourth of the Nation's cropland. l/ In the Southeast,
over 40 percent of the cropland is eroding at excessive rates. Despite such
statistics, millions of acres of land have received conservation treatment as
a result of past and present USDA programs (11). Much of the erosion of the
1930's has been healed, but new problems have arisen due to several factors.
These include changes in farming enterprises and production practices brought
about by changes in crop prices, farm machinery, and new technologies;
changes in farm ownership; and conversion of grasslands and forest lands to
cropland. While USDA agencies can report substantial improvements in natural
resource conditions on some individual farms and ranches over the years,
serious national problems still exist.

Findings of Audits and Evaluations

A number of studies have been conducted over the years to determine the
effectiveness of ongoing conservation programs. These have included audits
by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as well as audits and evaluations by
various USDA agencies and outside organizations and individuals.

Many such reports are outdated. They describe natural resource conditions
and program policies that are no longer current. Not all programs have been
fully evaluated, even though some case studies of a particular program's
activities have been completed. For example, no comprehensive analyses have
been conducted of USDA activities dealing with flood protection, urban
conservation, or water quality. Nevertheless, a number of recent reports give
valuable insights into the performance of individual conservation programs.

l/ Erosion at an annual rate of 5 tons per acre or less is generally
consi-jered tolerable, although the actual rate varies from one soil to
another. Erosion at this tolerable rate does not reduce the long-term
productivity of the soil. When erosion exceeds the tolerable rate, soil is
lost-faster than natural soil-building process.es can replace it.

5-2

Program effectiveness was studied by the USDA Land and Water Conservation
Task Force, which was established in 1977 in response to a request from the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The task force
reviewed all available audits and evaluations of USDA conservation programs.
It found some useful analyses on individual programs but nothing that
encompassed the combined effects of two or more programs (11). The task
force reported the foltowing conclusions regarding program reviews:

0 Most program reviews gave less attention to program accomplishments and
benefits than to program costs, number of people employed, and other
general information.

0 Quantification and description of program benefits to the ultimate
recipient are poor to nonexistent in most reports.

0 No reviews were found that follow program effects through time to
discover how long the effects last or what benefit is derived.

In spite of the limitations noted above, audits and evaluations have been
useful in monitoring program performance and guiding program management. The
most recent studies are summarized below. Agency actions taken as a result
of the findings are indicated where appropriate.

Conservation Technical Assistance Program

Conservation Technical Assistance is conducted by SCS under the authority of
P.L. 74-46 (49 Statute 163, 16 U.S.C., 590 a-f). The core program of SCS, it
provides direct technical assistance to land owners and operators in nearly
3,000 conservation districts. Assistance is provided for onsite planning and
application of conservation treatment to meet the needs of the land user. Two
major reviews of this program have been conducted.

In December 1975, the SCS Administrator established a task force to study the
adequacy of conservation systems on cropland. The task force included SCS
staff members from national, state, and field levels. Their principal focus
was the impact of current agency policies and procedures on the establishment
and maintenance of adequate conservation treatment on cropland. The task
force report issued in April 1977 contained a number of recommendations (22).
Among the key items were the following:

0 Priority for field personnel should be redirected from project and
nonfarm activities to planning, application, and maintenance of resource
management systems on cropland.

0 Three actions should be taken to compensate for loss of field personnel:
(1) redirect field staff to locations having the most serious cropland
treatment needs, (2) reduce field level paperwork, and (3) increase
technical training and improve morale.

0 Conservation planning assistance should continue, but with decreased
paperwork, more flexibility available to the planner, and a 2-year
maximum interval between initial planning and revisitation.

5-3

0 Action should be taken to (1) support research into adaptation of
conservation technology to modern agriculture, (2) support an
information program to promote acceptance of conservation technology,
and (3) revise the progress reporting system to reflect physical impacts
of applied conservation measures.

The Conservation Technical Assistance program was recent-ly analyzed by GAO as
part of its larger study of USDA's soil conservation activities (2). This
study is discussed in more detail later in this chapter, but its major
findings with respect to the Conservation Technical Assistance Program are of
importance here. GAO determined that SCS has taken a generally passive
approach to carrying out the program by responding to farmers who seek
assistance. The report indicated that much time was being spent preparing
elaborate plans for individual farms, yet many plans reviewed by GAO were
outdated, forgotten by the farmer, or never carried out or used in farming
decisions. GAO recommended that SCS realign its priorities, aggressively
seek out farmers whose lands have critical erosion problems, and provide the
necessary technical and follow-up assistance.

As a result of the two studies described above, SCS changed the procedures
for conservation planning to place less emphasis on the plan document and
more emphasis on applied conservation. SCS also issued a new "National
Conservation Planning Manual" which streamlines the planning process. The
agency also refined its progress reporting system to emphasize land
adequately treated and protected and to de-emphasize reporting of individual
systems and practices. Targeting on the most critical areas is being
encouraged through redirection and allocation of funds.

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)

ACP was authorized in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of
1935 (P.L. 74-46, 49 Statute 1148, 16 U.S. Code 590 g-o, 590a, and 590g).
The program was implemented February 29, 1936, to assist agricultural
producers in carrying out approved soil and water conservation measures
through cost sharing. Two evaluations are summarized below.

GAO evaluated ACP to determine if cost-share monies were being used to
implement erosion control practices or production-oriented practices (2).
Their report pointed out that in recent years more money was spent for
practices of limited or temporary value for erosion control than for enduring
practices. GAO concluded that cost-shared practices involving drainage
systems, irrigation systems, and liming of cropland were production oriented
and had minimal soil conservation benefits. These practices were found to
provide sufficiently high returns that cost sharing would-not be a signi-
ficant factor in a farmer's decision to apply such practices. GAO suggested
some redirection of program emphasis with funding emphasis and priority given
to critically needed and enduring conservation practices.

As a result of the GAO audit, ACP program emphasis for 1978 was placed on
enduring practices. For 1979, the ACP redirection efforts were further
strengthened by placing approval authority for county programs under the
purview of state and national ACP development committees.

5-4

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), in cooperation
with several other USDA agencies, recently completed the first phase of an
evaluation of ACP (18). Three types of program impacts were studied: soil
saved through application of sheet or rill erosion control practices, water
conserved by application of improved irrigation efficiency measures or by
construction of water impounding facilities, and effects of ACP forestry
practices.

Information was coll-ected from a stratified sample of 171 counties. ACP
practices applied in the sample counties from 1975 through the first half of
the 1978 program year were included in the study. Overall, 60,836 cases were
reviewed. Each case represented a practice for which a farmer received
cost-share assistance in a sample county. Erosion control impacts were
estimated using the universal soil loss equation.

The evaluation showed a number of areas in which cost-effectiveness could be
improved, particularly with respect to erosion control practices:

0 Soil loss is being prevented and water is being conserved by the
installation of most ACP practices. However, practice costs and results
varied considerably by region of the United States and within each
region.

0 More than 52 percent of all erosion control practices studied were
installed on lands eroding at annual rates of less than 5 tons per acre.
About 27 percent and 21 percent of the erosion control practices were
installed on lands eroding at annual rates of 5 to 14 tons per acre and
over 14 tons per acre, respectively.

0 61 percent of the seeding practices are on land with annual sheet and
rill erosion of less than 5 tons per acre.

0 The cost-effectiveness of the nine erosion control practices studied was
high in some cases and low in others. For example, establishing
permanent vegetative cover ranked sixth in cost per ton of erosion
reduction where annual erosion rates were less than 30 tons per acre.
Stripcropping ranked among the more efficient practices in terms of cost
per ton of erosion reduction. Interim cover was the least cost-efficient
of all practices in reducing erosion regardless of the rate of erosion
prior to treatment.

0 In some cases, ACP practices are being applied on land where soil loss
is already very low. Although other benefits such as water quality
improvement may occur as a result, the cost per ton of soil saved is so
high that investment in the practice is questionable.

ASCS has provided the evaluation results to agency officials and to state and
county ASC committees for guidance in program development. The agency plans
to expand the analysis beyond the 171-county sample area for future studies.

5-5

Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP)

GPCP was authorized in 1956 by Public Law 84-1021 to minimize the hazards to
agriculture in the plains states as a result of the area's erratic climate.
In 1969, Public Law 91-118 expanded GPCP to provide for long-term contracts
on nonfarm lands that were being severely eroded. Technical and financial
assistance are provided through long-term contracts with land owners and
operators who have a satisfactory conservation plan for their entire acreage
and who have a timetable for implementation of the plan. Five evaluations of
GPCP are summarized below.

The USDA Office of Audit examined GPCP in 1973 (8, 9). The objective was
to determine whether or not SCS offices had " . . . effectively planned,
developed, and implemented the GPCP in accordance with SCS procedures,
guidelines, and within the spirit and intent of the program." The audit's
findings were that contract modifications and rescheduling of practice
installation were problems throughout the GPCP states. As a result of those
findings, the GPCP Handbook was completely rewritten in 1976 to simplify
program operations and to allow more flexibility in obligation changes and
practice scheduling.

A 1974 SCS study analyzed program effects on erosion losses, the effects of
alternative allocations of cost-share funds on selected program objectives,
and the balance of impacts between erosion reduction and enhancement of
agricultural income (19). It determined that GPCP cost sharing resulted in
erosion reduction of @_bout 221 million tons per year. If cost-share funds
were allocated to states in such a way as to maximize erosion reduction,
using the same combinations of practices then used, an erosion reduction of
256 million tons annually could be achieved. If funds were allocated among
states as in the past, but with an optimal combination of erosion control
practices used within each state, an annual erosion reduction of 367 million
tons could be attained. Complete optimization of use of cost-share funds
among both states and practices could produce an annual erosion reduction of
396 million tons. Therefore, at the time of the study, GPCP was achieving 56
percent of the estimated maximum level of erosion reduction. Subsequently,
SCS revised its method of allocating GPCP funds among the states to some
degree, although not to the full extent recommended in this study.

In 1976, GAO analyzed GPCP along with other USDA soil conservation programs
(2). The report concluded that SCS had not made satisfactory progress in
alleviating soil erosion problems in terms of the objectives established in
1956. Millions of acres of agricultural land remained in need of conservation
treatment. GAO reported that some cost-share funds had been used for practices
that had little impact on soil erosion. It also found that some land that
had been seeded to permanent vegetative cover with GPCP cost sharing,was
being converted back to cropland at the end of the contract period. GAO
recommended that SCS work more effectively with the farmers and ranchers who
have the most critical erosion problems.

In response to this report, SCS revised its procedures to require that each
state SCS office develop criteria for se tting priorities that are tailored to
the specific resource needs of the state. The agency is currently preparing
a program environmental impact statement for GPCP. This process will lead to
publication of new rules and regulations that will provide for more emphasis
on high-priority program objectives.

5-6

In 1976, precipitation in South Dakota was about 50 to 55 percent of normal.
As a result of the ensuing drought, the governor directed the formation of a
committee to evaluate GPCP for its impacts on productivity in terms of prac-
tices that influenced soil moisture. He wanted to know how well GPCP
"drought-proofed" the land. Statewide results from the survey showed that
over twice as many nonparticipating units experienced drought-related
problems as did participating units (22). For example, the ratio of non-
participants to participants was 2.3:1 where stock water was inadequate,
2.6:1 where wind erosion damage was moderate or severe, and 2.4:1 where
emergency pasture was needed.

South Dakota suffered from widespread drought again in 1980, and another
study was made (25). This study also found that over twice as many non-
participating units experienced drought-associated problems as did
participating units. The ratio of nonparticipants to participants was 2.2:1
where stock water was inadequate, 3.7:1 where wind erosion damage was moderate
or severe, and 2.1:1 where emergency pasture was needed.

Water Bank Program

The Water Bank Program was authorized in 1972 by P.L. 91-559 (84 Statute
1468, 16 U.S.C. 1301) to conserve surface water, to preserve and improve
migratory waterfowl habitat and other wildlife-related resources, to reduce
runoff and water and wind erosion, to improve flood control, to contribute to
improved soil moisture, to reduce acres of new land brought into agricultural
production, to retire lands now in production, to enhance landscape esthetics,
and to promote comprehensive water management planning.

ASCS studied this program for the purposes of inventorying national wetland
preservation needs, reviewing interactions with programs of the Department of
the Interior (USDI), and analyzing past and current program effectiveness
(16). ASCS found that program benefits exceeded costs when the level of
waterfowl production was raised by an average of at least one duck per two
acres. Potential conflicts between the program's wetland protection objective
and the agricultural production emphasis of other USDA programs were noted.
The report recommended that the Water Bank Program be strengthened by increasing
USDI involvement, especially in identifying lands for participat 'ion in the
program. It also suggested that there be greater coordination of the program
with wetlands acquisition programs administered by USDI.

Steps have been taken since this evaluation to increase 1JSDI involvement in
the program. For example, USDI is currently assessing wetland values in all
wetland areas covered by 1972 water bank agreements in 5 states. These
agreements will expire in 1981, and the assessments will help determine if
any should be renewed. The assessments also will identify wetland areas that
may be eligible for participation in one of USDI's programs.

A subsequent report by GAO criticized the Department for not including other
benefits such as flood control and ground water recharge in the benefit-cost
ratio for the program (3). The report also recommended several changes in
the program's authorizing legislation.

5-7

The RCA Appraisal examined trends in agricultural land use and conversion of
wetlands. These trends were compared to past accomplishments of the Water
Bank Program in protecting wetlands. The analysis concluded that the program
would not-substantially reduce the rate of conversion of wetlands to
agricultural use (15).

Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program

Authority for the Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program is derived
from Section 8, Reorganization Plan No. IV of 1940, 26 Statute 653, and
54 Statute 1234. Appropriations were increased in fiscal year 1975 to allow
for implementation of the snow survey telemetry (SNOTEL) network. Through
this program, SCS collects data on precipitation and the depth and moisture
content of the snow pack on over 1,700 sites in the west. Analysis of these
data serves to provide advance information about forthcoming seasonal water
supply for streams that derive most of their flow from snowmelt. The program
provides water users and water management groups in the western states with
water supply forecasts. Forecasts are issued 3 to 6 times annually from.
January to June for nearly 500 western river locations.

SCS evaluated this program in 1975 to determine the effectiveness of the
program and to estimate its benefits (21). SCS found that snow survey-based
forecasts were more accurate in estimating snowmelt volumes than were fore-
casts based on precipitation data alone. The potential benefit-cost ratio
calculated for the SNOTEL automated data collection network within the program
ranged from '2.8:1 to 4:1. With full implementation of SNOTEL, the program
was projected to generate agricultural irrigation benefits of approximately
$50 million per year due to increased production and improved efficiency in
resource use. These benefits would be generated at a total annual cost of
$2.5 million, for a benefit-cost ratio of 20:1. The study also showed that
over 7,400 users received the monthly snow survey reports and forecasts.
Fifteen categories of users were reported. Agricultural users--including
both individual farmers and ranchers, irrigation districts, and financial and
commercial concerns that provided service to agriculture--made up over 50
percent of those who requested and received the reports.

Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D)

The Resource Conservation and Development Program is conducted under authority
of Section 102 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (P.L 87-703), which
amended portions of the Bankhead-Jories Farm Tenant Act (P.L. 75-210) and
other existing Departmental authorities. SCS administers the program and
provides technical and financial assistance for authorized projects. Several
other USDA agencies (the Economic Research Service [ERS], the Extension
Service [ES], the Farmers Home Administration [FmHA], and the Forest Service
[FSI) also participate directly with RC&D funding.

This program provides technical and financial assistance to qualified local
sponsors in designated project areas. The principal objectives of the program
are (1) to promote the development, improvement, conservation, and use of
natural resources and thereby provide economic opportunities to people of the
project.area, and (2) to assist local leaders in using new and existing
agricultural programs in planning and implementing a program of natural

5-8

resource conservation and development. A key feature of the program is the
formation of an organization known as the "RC&D council" to provide local
leadership for planning and coordinating program activities to best meet
locally identified needs and priorities. Each RC&D council is ma de up of
representatives of local sponsoring agencies and organizations as well as
other individuals from the RC&D area. SCS facilitates formation of the
council and assists in the planning and implementation of the council's
action program. Three studies of the program have recently been conducted as
summarized below.

SCS completed an evaluation of selected impacts of the RC&D program in 1975
(20). The report concluded that:

0 RC&D councils have been successful in implementing a program of tech-
nical and financial assistance that responds to perceived needs in
local areas. Councils have been able to tap numerous state and federal
sources of assistance and channel this aid into visible community
improvements.

0 More realistic project goals should be identified to guide the RC&D
council in using RC&D technical and financial assistance more
effectively.

0 Detailed analysis of changes in total employment, median income, and
per-capita income showed no statistically significant difference
attributable to RC&D projects.

The report discussed several limitations of the methodology used.in the
evaluation, including the length of time the projects had been in place,
sensitivity of secondary data, and use of cross-sectional data. It noted
that the average RC&D project studied was less than four years old and
therefore too new to have significantly affected county economic trends.

The USDA Office of Audit followed the SCS study with its own report (10).
This report stated that project objectives were too broadly defined for
progress to be measured and that the program's effectiveness could not
clearly be determined nationally or in individual project areas.

These two studies led the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a special
task force to study opportunities for program changes. The task force con-
ducted field inspections of several projects, interviewed local citizens and
RC&D council members, held public hearings, and reviewed the earlier reports.
The task force concluded that while the program had been successful in
achieving many of its objectives, it could be strengthened (12). The task
T7
force made 17 recommendations for program improvement and re irection.

At the time of printing, another GAO report on the Resource Conservation and
Development Program was ready for release. This report (1) urges Congress to
consider discontinuing use of program funds for financing project installation
and (2) recommends fine-tuning of the overall management of the program (4).

Forestry Incentives Program

The Forestry Incentives Program was first authorized in 1973 and implemented
in 1974. It currently operates under the authority of the Cooperative

5-9

Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313). The Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service administers this program and provides cost sharing
for tree planting, timber stand improvement and other forestry practices to
increase the supply of timber and to enhance other forest resources. An
evaluation of the first year's program was completed in 1977 (17). This
analysis identified the most cost-efficient forestry p1ractices in use at that
time and identified several administrative actions that would improve the
program's efficiency. The benefit-cost ratio for the program was estimated
to be 5.6:1. Actions taken as a result of the evaluation include setting a
minimum 10-acre size limit for planting, deleting the 5-year prior harvest
rule, allowing for cost sharing more than once on the same acre to increase-
silvicultural and economic efficiency, and changing some rules to improve use
of the limited forestry technical assistance.

Impact and Capability of
Soil and Water Conservation Practices

The USDA Land and Water Conservation Task Force studied the impact and
capability of soil and water conservation practices as part of its
comprehensive review of conservation programs in 1979 (13).

The principal objective of the study was to evaluate the relative contri-
bution of various conservation practices to these 13 conservation concerns:

Watershed Protection Waste Management
Water Supply Timber Productivity
Cropland Productivity Outdoor Recreation
Pasture/Range Productivity Land Reclamation
Flood Control Wind Erosion
Drainage Habitat Development
Irrigation Water Management

Conservation practices include structural or agronomic measures that require
site-specific design and installation as well as land and crop management
techniques that are adopted by the land user. 2/ One of the key issues
examined in this study was whether greater efficiency in'conservation
accomplishments could be achieved by emphasizing certain of these practices
in USDA programs.

The study team used a reiterative series of questionnaires to gather expert
opinions about the impact of various conservation practices. Groups of eight
to eleven people knowledgeable about soil and water conservation participated
within each of 21 state-Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA's) across the United
States. Participants within each MLRA received feedback about the group
response and had the opportunity to revise their answers on the next round in
light of this feedback. The sample of state-MLRA units was selected to

2/ Structural and agronomic practices include such items as terraces,
diversions, grassed waterways, and contour stripcropping. Management
practices include conservation cropping systems (crop rotation), cover
cropping, and conservation tillage.

5-10

represent a diversity of conservation problems rather than a nationally
representative sample. The key findings are summarized below:

� Individual practices do not fully control resource problems. The level
of problem control most commonly reported was only about 50 percent.
The findings indicate that performance of many individual practices may
not achieve the conservation objectives. Combinations of practices are
usually more effective than individual practices.

� Overall conservation value and cost-effectiveness are higher for some
management practices than for engineering practices. Management
practices related to objectives for cropland productivity and pasture or
range productivity commonly affect other objectives such as watershed
protection and flood control. These management practices tend to have a
higher conservation value than structural practices. Management prac-
tices are frequently more cost-effective and may need to receive
increased program emphasis, even if they must be repeated annually.

� The costs to users and the levels of education and apathy among users
limit the adoption of conservation practices. Installation and
maintenance costs tend to be the most impoytant factors in limiting the
use of structural practices. This suggests the need for increased
financial assistance for structural practices and greater educational
and motivational effort coordinated among the various federal agencies
and state institutions. Additional program emphasis on these areas
would increase the annual demand for technical assistance.

Findings of the 1977 GAO Study

In February 1977, the GAO issued its report on three major USDA conservation
programs--Conservation Technical Assistance (Conse 'rvation Operations
Program), Agricultural Conservation Program, and Great Plains Conservation
Program. Specific findings for each program were reported earlier in this
chapter. Perhaps more important than the individual results was the
composite picture presented by the report.

The study focused on erosion control and found that each program fell short
of achieving its objective. Two major problems were common to all three
programs. First was lack of attention to the objective of erosion control,
which GAO considered to be a national priority to sustain agricultural pro-
ductivity. Program personnel and financial resources were found to be
directed toward other objectives such as water management and production
enhancement to a substantial degree, even though serious erosion problems
were present in the areas studied. 3/ Second was a lack of priority setting.
GAO found little or no effort being made by the agencies to give priority
assistance to farmers and ranchers with the most serious erosion problems.

3/ Later in 1977, GAO issued a report that criticized the Department for
not providing enough financial assistance for water conservation in irrigated
areas (1). The report cited the growing demand for water in the West as a
reason to direct more ACP funds to assist in the reorganization of irrigation
systems. These two reports exemplify the difficulty in evaluating
multiple-purpose conservation programs.

5-11

None of the three programs was concentrating scarce resources on the most
effective erosion control measures, nor were they working with the people who
most needed help in reducing erosion.

In its analysis of conservation technical assistance, GAO identified a
problem of interagency coordination that has implications for USDA conser-
vation activities in general. For example, the report cited a number of
instances where farmers received conflicting recommendations for soil and
crop management from Extension Service personnel and SCS conservationists.
Conflicts between soil conservation objectives and the operation of some USDA
price support and allotment programs were also identified. Although program
modifications since the time of this study have resolved some of these con-
flicts, the potential for such difficulties should be considered in the
future.

Both ASCS and SCS made program changes in response to the GAO study, as noted
earlier in this chapter. These changes included increased emphasis on
enduring conservation practices, revision of conservation planning
procedures, and redirection and targeting of funds. The results of such
changes have yet to be evaluated.

Implications for Program Formulation

The foregoing studies identified the strengths and weaknesses of present soil
and water conservation programs. The findings, taken collectively, suggest
the following for use in the formulation of future programs..

0 Clear program objectives and priorities are needed. A lack of clear
purpose for individual programs and for USDA's soil and water conser-
vation efforts collectively have led to inefficiencies and reduced
program effectiveness. Too many human and financial resources are being
spent on conservation activities that have little impact on major
problem areas. Fi 'eld personnel need more definitive guidance on policy
objectives and priorities.

0 Identification of critical problem areas is important at all levels.
Knowing where and with whom to work and to whom to provide assistance
are just as critical as knowing what objectives are paramount. The RCA
Appraisal shows that conservation problems are not uniformly distri-
buted. Some regions are more,critical from a national perspective, and
within regions some localities and farms have more critical resource
problems than others.

0 The effectiveness of conservation systems varies by geographic region
of the'countr . The costs and benefits of conservation systems vary by
region. Programs and policies should allow for selection of conser-
vation systems that most effectively meet local needs and still meet
national objectives.

0 Local involvement is needed. Involvement of individuals and local
organizations in program decisions increases program acceptance and
effectiveness.

5-12

� Management practices should receive appropriate emphasis in solving
critical resource problems. Such practices can be more cost-effective
than structural practices in some situations.

� Better coordination is needed among USDA agencies. Conservation efforts
have been somewhat hindered by policies, procedures, and assistance of
different agencies that are not fully compatible. A concerted USDA
effort to address serious soil and water conservation problems would be
more effective if more unanimity of purpose were achieved.

� Conservation systems are generally more effective than single practices.
Findings indicate that application of an individual practice may not
achieve the maximum cost-effectiveness in solving a resource problem.
USDA programs should provide for systems of conservation practices that
address identified problems on a particular site most cost-effectively.

� The full impacts of USDA soil and water conservation programs must
be monitored and evaluated. For example, conservation tillage appears
to be a very cost-effective erosion control practice. However, the
effects of increased herbicide and pesticide use in conjunction with
this practice need to be monitored to determine if the direct benefits
ate being offset by other forms of resource degradation.

5-13

References

(1) General Accounting Office. 1977. More and Better Uses Could Be Made of
Billions of Gallons of Water by Improving Irrigation Delivery Systems.
PAD-79-10 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

(2) General Accounting Office. 1977. To Protect Tomorrow's Food Supply,
Soil Conservation Needs Priority Attention. CED-77-30 U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

(3) General Accounting Office. 1979. Better Understanding of Wetland
Benefits Will kelp Water Bank and Other Federal Programs Achieve Wetland
Preservation Objectives. CED-77-117 U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

(4) General Accounting Office. 1981. Continuation of the Resource
Conervation and Development Program Raises Questions. CED-81-120
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

(5) Held, R. Burnell, and Marion Clawson. 1965. Soil Conservation in
Perspective. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

(6) United States Department of Agriculture. 1962. Basic Statistics of the
National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs. Statistical,
Bulletin No. 317.

(7) United States Department of Agriculture. 1971. Basic Statistics of the
National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs. Statistical
Bulletin No. 461.

(8) United States Department of Agriculture. 1973. Soil Conservation
Service--Great Plains Conservation Programr-as of May 10, 1973. USDA
Office of Audit, Washington, D.C.

(9) United States Department of Agriculture. 1973. Soil Conservation
Service--Great Plains Conservation Program--as of May 19, 1973. USDA
Office of Audit, San Franciso, California.

(10) United States Department of Agriculture. 1976. Resource Conservation
and Development Program--Soil Conservation Service--as of September 9,
1976. USDA Office of Audit, San Francisco, California.

(11) United States Department of Agriculture. 1977. Initial Report on the
Land and Water Conservation Program of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. USDA Land and Water Conservation Task Force.

(12) United States Department of Agriculture. 1978. Report of the Task
Force on USDA's Resource Conservation and Development Program.

(13) United States Department of Agriculture. 1979. Impact and Capability
of Soil and Water Conservation Practices. USDA Land and Water
Conservation Task Force.

5-14

(14) United States Department of Agriculture. 1981. Soil, Water, and
Related Resources in the United States: Status, Condition, and Trends.
1980 RCA Appraisal Part I.

(15) United States Department of Agriculture. 1981. Soil, Water, and
Related Resources in the United States: Analysis of Resource Trends.
1980 RCA Appraisal Part II.

(16) United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. 1976. A Review and Analysis of the USDA Water
Bank Program.

(17) United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. 1977. Timber Yield and Financial Return
Performance of the 1974 Forestry Incentives Program.

(18) United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. 1981. National Summary Evaluation of the
Agricultural Conservation Program, Phase I.

(19) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1974. A Program Evaluation of the Great Plains Conservation Program.

(20) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1975. An Evaluation of Selected Impacts of the Resource Conservation
and Development Program.

(21) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1977. An Evaluation of the Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting
Program.

(22) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1977. Drought Impact on Great Plains Conservation Program Participants
and Nonparticipants in South Dakota. SCS, Huron, South Dakota.
(Unpublished Report)

(23) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1977. Task Force Report on Adequacy of Conservation Systems on Cropland.

(24) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1980. Basic Statistics, 1977 National Resource Inventories (Revised
February 1980)

(25) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1980. Great Plains Conservation Program: Evaluation of Drought Impact
on Program Participants and Nonparticipants in South Dakota. SCS,
Huron, South Dakota. (Unpublished Report)

5-15

CHAPTER 6
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS CONSIDERED

In developing the program required by the Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA), the Secretary of Agriculture was directed to
identify and evaluate "alternative methods for the conservation, protection,
environmental improvement, and enhancement of soil and water resources." To
comply with this provision of the law, the Secretary first set long-term
conservation objectives and then, within budgetary limitations, developed
program alternatives for meeting these objectives.

This chapter presents the alternatives that were developed and shows the
likely environmental, social., economic, and physical effects of each. The
Secretary's preferred program is presented in chapter 7.

Objectives for a Soil and Water Conservation Program

In the RCA Draft Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement (3) that
was distributed for public review in January 1980, the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed twenty objectives for a program of
soil and water conservation on nonfederal lands. The following long-term
conservation objectives were decided upon after considering the responses
from the public (4) on the proposed objectives, the findings of the RCA
Appraisal, and the results of the survey conducted for RCA by Louis Harris
and Associates, Inc., (1) in October and November 1979:

(1) Develop a program that will lead toward nondegradation of the Nation's
soil and water resources. Address erosion and other factors that reduce
the long-term productive capacity of these resources to maintain the
quality of the resource base. Assist land owners in applying and main-
taining soil and water conservation systems that assure sustained pro-
ductivity on 297 million acres--141 million acres of cropland, 124
million acres of rangeland, 17 million acres of forest land, and 15
million acres of pastureland--threatened by excessive erosion. Maintain
conservation systems on lands that would be subject to excessive erosion
unless they were treated.

(2) Reduce flood damages by the year 2000 by 16 percent from projected
levels. Use modern technology to apply structural and nonstructural
solutions in areas where the threat to human life, agri 'cultural lands,
and property is greatest. Move toward more emphasis on nonstructural
means of reducing upstream flood damages. Help the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation (FCIC) identify soils where the risk of flood
damage is high, occurs frequently, or is excessive, to avoid use of
all-risk flood insurance without full consideration of these conditions.

(3) Improve 245 million acres of rangeland currently in "poor" or "fair"
condition as identified in the 1977 National Resource Inventories to
"good" condition.

6-1

(4) Assist land owners in increasing the onfarm and off-farm levels of
irrigation efficiency from the present. 53 and 78 percent to 66 and 87
percent, respectively. Target program efforts to areas where irrigation
has a major impact on surface and ground water supplies, water quality,
instream flows, and economic stability. Limit water.conservation assis-
tance to better management where ground water supplies are being
depleted so fast that withdrawals of ground water may soon be
infeasible. Provide appropriate assistance to help individuals make the
transition to dryland farming or other occupations in these areas.

(5) Achieve more effective use of water, including soil moisture, in meeting
demand for agricultural output in a manner that is environmentally and
economically defensible. Support state efforts to modify legislation
and institutions to develop a more market-oriented system for water
resource allocation, use, and conservation. Improve the reliablility of
available water supplies needed for agricultural use.

(6) Continue the present USDA role of responding to initiatives by state and
local governments and the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce
agricultural nonpoint source pollution of water. Conduct research and
analysis to establish the quantitative relationships between soil
erosion and the amount of nutrients and toxics that enter surface.water.
Evaluate the effects and effectiveness of alternative resource manage-
ment systems in reducing nonpoint source pollution from agriculture.
Approach a zero level discharge of toxic pollutants at the earliest
feasible date. Give highest priority to areas of greatest threat to
human health and safety. Reduce erosion and sedimentation below the
levels required to maintain soil productivity where necessary for
protecting lakes, reservoirs, harbors, and fish spawning areas as these
needs are determined and initiatives taken by the states.

(7) Encourage and advocate the retention of prime and unique farmland to the
maximum extent possible under prevailing policies and through support of
state and local initiatives.

Priorities

From the public comments received, the findings of the RCA Appraisal, and the
results of the Harris survey, the following soil and water resource priori-
ties were identified to be applied in developing program alternatives. These
priorities apply more fully to alternatives 2 and 3 than alternative 1, since
alternative I reflects primarily a continuation of existing program trends
without any major redesign of existing programs. The priorities, in order,
are: (1) reduction of excessive soil erosion; (2) reduction of upstream
flood damages; (3) conservation of water, enhancement of water quality and
supply, and conservation'of resources related to urban areas and communities;
and (4) improvement of fish and wildlife habitat, and increased use of
organic waste. Actions in support of the first and second priorities will
contribute significantly to achievement of objectives for the other
priorities.

6-2

Program Alternatives

The alternative soil and water conservation programs address both short- and
long-term resource problems, but they are developed in detail only for the
next 5 years. This is consistent with the RCA legislation, which provides
for updating the program at 5-year intervals. The three basic alternatives
are:

Alternative l.--Continuation of current program trends.
Alternative 2.--Redirection of federal programs toward agricultural
resource problems with emphasis on targeting to critical
problem areas, especially agricultural soil erosion.
Alternative 3.--Expanded emphasis on state and local roles and
leadership with redirection in federal programs as
described in alternative 2.

Funding Levels for Alternatives 2 and 3

In designing alternatives 2 and 3, different levels of funding were
considered. Three funding levels were presented as options within each
alternative: (1) the current funding level sustained in constant dollars,
(2) an increase in funding (the "upper bound"), and (3) a decrease in funding
in constant dollars (the "lower bound").

Current (1981) funding for soil and water conservation programs, aside from
loans, is $837 million in constant 1979 dollars. The first scenario would be
to maintain this funding level, in constant dollars, for 5 years.

The upper bound scenario would permit a 3-percent annual increase, compounded
in constant 1979 dollars, from 1981 appropriations. Funding would increase
from $837 million in the base year to $971 million, excluding loans, in the
fifth year.

The lower bound scenario would require a 6-percent reduction from the $837
million base the first year and a 3-percent annual reduction, compounded in
constant 1979 dollars, each of the following 4 years. Funding would decline
to about $698 million by the fifth year.

These limits represent the probable range of spending for conservation
programs over the first 5 years, barring national emergency. The selection
of a preferred alternative does not depend on a specific funding level.

If there were no changes in program design, reducing soil erosion to the
nondegradation level would require an annual increase of about 13 percent,
compounded in constant dollars, for 5 years and expenditures held at that
level through 50 years.

Under alternative 1, erosion would continue at the present rate unless
increasing demands for agricultural commodities caused cultivation of large
acreages of marginal land. At that time, total erosion would increase
rapidly. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce erosion slowly, with.the greatest
reduction at the upper bound scenario. Even with the most optimistic
outlook--the upper bound scenario of alternative 3--soil erosion after

6-3

50 years would still exceed the nondegradation level. These effects
are more fully explained under each alternative.

Program Actions for the First Five Years (Short-Term Objectives)

The following actions will be taken regardless of the program alternative
selected. Emphases will vary, however, according to the alternative
selected and the funding level.

(1) Target increased efforts to areas where erosion threatens long-term'
agricultural productive capacity. Focus on conservation measures that
are most cost-efficient in sustaining agricultural productivity. Im-
prove the information base for evaluating the relationships between soil
erosion and agricultural productivity.

(2) Concentrate efforts to reduce upstream flood damages where total damages
to rural communities, cropland, and pastureland are high. Permit up-
stream flood prevention activities to be targeted to areas where there
is serious damage to high-priority environmental and social values.

(3) Continue the current level of effort to conserve water and improve
supply. Respond to initiatives of private individuals and local and
state governments, who will finance water conservation and supply activ-
ities. Analyze and evaluate the influence of projected long-term
changes in water and energy supply on the costs and benefits of agri-
cultural production and determine the implications of the findings for
future land use policies and priorities. Identify private benefits,
public issues, and opportunities for more effective action in conserving
and improving water supplies. Accelerate appropriate research and
education services to meet basic technology and information needs.

(4) Continue experimental and research activities to improve and evaluate
water quality. Initiate new or expand existing pilot projects to cover
all important water quality problems. Implement projects only after an
adequate design for evaluation of effectiveness has been prepared. Use
current fundings to the extent possible for pilot projects. Continue
cooperative relationships with state and local governments and the
Environmental Protection Agency and respond to requests from these
sources for technical assistance and education.

(5) Continue to respond to requests from communities for information and
technical assistance. Respond to requests for assistance from states
and localities in planning and developing land use guidelines and regu-
lations. Provide information for flood hazard studies consistent with
available resources and the lead roles of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Army Corps of Engineers.

(6) Provide technical assistance for cost-efficient, energy-conserving
practices in onfarm operations consistent with the protection of the
resource base.

Continue to provide educational and technical assistance for fish and
wildlife habitat improvement as funds and time permit. Give priority to

6-4

developing and analyzing data to portray the net social value of fish
and wildlife habitat improvement activities.

(8) Continue the current level of assistance to those who use organic
wastes. Conduct appropriate research on effective ways of handling and
using organic wastes for improving soil tilth and fertility.

6-5

Alternative 1
Continuation of Current Program Trends

No major change in conservation program content would be initiated under this
alternative. Continuation of recent trends would result in changes in the
program assistance offered. These trends would be altered only when and to
the degree that the budget authorization for a given fiscal year altered the
historical pattern. Table 6-1 presents the trends in funding for major .
components of the program since 1969 and 1976. It also shows the projected
changes through the 5-year RCA program period.

Summary of Effects

Under alternative 1, funding in constant dollars for USDA.soil and water
conservation programs by the fifth year would be 86 percent of funding for
fiscal year 1981. If current trends continued--

� funding for research, education, data collection, and analysis would
increase. These activities would help USDA better identify and under-
stand resource conditions, trends, and problems.

� cost-share funds for installing conservation measures' on agricultural
lands would decline sharply, from about 33 to 23 percent of the total by
the fifth year.

� funding for technical assistance would remain constant.

� an increased portion of the available funding would be used to provide
financial assistance for group action and rural community soil and water
conservation projects. Although these are popular and useful activities,
they are not always directed toward the high-priority problems of soil
erosion and upstream flood damages.

� funding for group loans to nonprofit associations and public entities
for watershed protection , irrigation and drainage, and resource conser-
vation and development projects would decrease. If appropriate priorities
and targeting were applied, these loans could contribute substantially to
achieving the objectives of the RCA program.

� USDA commitments to authorized Experimental Rural Clean Water Projects
would provide information for use in evaluating the potential effective-
ness of soil and water conservation systems in reducing pollution from
nonpoint agricultural sources.

o initial USDA efforts to target on critical problem areas would be hampered
by declining funding for cost sharing.

0 the proportion of program funds dedicated to reducing upstream flood
damages would increase, but total funding for this purpose would decline

6-6

slightly. The proportion of funding for conservation of soil re;ources
would be reduced. These funding trends would not allow the Department
to address adequately the priorities established through the RCA pro-
cess.

� reduced funding levels for cost sharing could threaten the continuation
of the county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) committee
system in some counties.

� total soil erosion would decrease slightly. The acreage of cropland
with sheet and rill erosion in excess of tolerable limits would also
decrease by a small amount.

State and local response.--Under alternative 1, USDA's direct capability to
promote soil and water conservation measures on agricultural lands would be
reduced. Total financial assistance to communities and groups for addressing
resource-related problems would decline. Thus, the Department would have to
rely more on local and state governments, other federal agencies, and private
organizations and individuals for conservation on agricultural lands.

There has been a trend toward increased funding and servicing of conservation
programs by state and local governments. These commitments, however, usualiy
rely on sustained or expanded USDA research, information, and financial and
technical assistance. There is no assurance that this trend would continue
as USDA program funding declined. USDA programs in research, education, and
data collection and analysis, however, could provide information useful to
local and state governments in identifying problems and establishing priori-
ties. Suppying this information would result in increased activity at the
local and state level, where the financial and technical capability may exist
to deal with these problems despite reduced funding for USDA programs.

Relationship to the public's comments.--Alternative I would not respond to
the public's desire to reduce soil erosion and maintain soil productivity. A
substantial majority of the comments on the 1980 RCA draft documents indicated
that soil and water conservation should be given a higher priority and that
the federal government should do more and not less in addressing these needs.

Political and legislative considerations.--No new legislation would be required
for adoption of alternative 1. Expiring program authorities would need to be
reauthorized.

Although soil and water conservation has widespread popular support, public
opinion favors improvements in program effectiveness. Alternative I is
likely to be viewed as being unresponsive to public opinion.

Distributional effects.--Alternative 1 would result in slight increases in
production costs because of the bffects of increased soil erosion. Rural
communities would benefit from actions to reduce upstream flood damages. The
effects on water quality would be mixed. Areas protected from upstream
flooding and lands treated for erosion control would improve, but areas with
inadequate conservation treatment would deteriorate. The long-term effects
of alternative 1 could be examined more fully and actions redirected as .
appropriate in subsequent appraisals and program recommendations through the
RCA process.

6-7

It is unlikely that land owners and operators would receive all the assis-
tance and incentives they would need to meet the Department's soil and water
conservation objectives. USDA would likely provide more program services to
large producers in order to lessen the long-term impact of erosion and other
resource problems.

6-8

Table 6-l.--Projected fifth-year distribution of funds among major components., alternative I
[Dollar figures are in constant 1979 dollars rounded to the nearest million.)

1981 fiscal year funding level Projections

Annual percentage
Major component Millions of change from-- Percentage of Millions Percentage of
of dollars 1969 1976 total funding of dollars total

1. Technical assistance ---------- 198 -0.1 No Change 23.7 198 27.5

2. Financial assistance:
a. Cost shares to
operators ----------------- 278 -5.9 -5.4 33.2 167 23.2

b. For project activities ---- 177 No Change -2.9 21.2 161 22.4

C. Total financial
assistance ---------------- (455) ---- ---- (54.4) (328) (45.6)

3. Education/ Information
(Extension Service) ----------- 12 +5.1 +2.4 1.4 14 1.9

4. Research and technology
development ------------------- 74 +1.6 +0.2 8.8 76 10.6

5. Data collection and
analysis ---------------------- 81 +2.3 +3.9 9.7 86 12.0

6. Emergency programs I/ --------- 17 ---- --- 2.0 17 2.4

TOTAL --------------------------- 837 ---- ---- 100.0 719 100.0

Loans --------------------------- (77) ---- ---- ---- (50) ----
Held constant -because emergencies cannot be predicted.

Alternative 2
Redirection of USDA Programs
Toward Critical Agricultural Resource Problems

Alternative 2 is designed to use the existing conservation programs but to
emphasize problem-solving activities in areas of critical concern. Conser-
vation activities in other areas would continue to receive attention. Such
redirection of program activities would help to control the most serious
resource problems while maintaining resource conditions in other areas.

Highlights

Alternative 2 focuses more strongly than alternative 1 on solving critical
resource problems. Alternative 2 would provide for--

� funds and program services targeted to high-priority problems
(especially soil erosion and upstream flood damages).

� commitment by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of an additional 5 per-
cent of their budget each year to 'specified high-priority areas until 25
percent of their financial assistance and technical assistance funds are
committed to these areas.

0 budget coordination through a policy-level committee established by the
Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that budget and program plans among
USDA conservation agencies are consistent with each other and with
priorities developed by the Department.

0 special emphasis on conservation tillage and other cost-efficient
conservation systems in all program components.

0 pilot projects for testing new approaches to soil and water conserva-
tion.

0 continuation of water conservation and supply activities at current
levels and of experimental water quality protection activities.

0 minimize conflict among features of USDA farm programs that would impede
attainment of conservation objectives.

Designation of National Priority Areas

Under alternative 2, USDA would designate geographical high-priority resource
problem areas, normally multi-county areas. Designation would be based on
the existence of excessive agricultural erosion, high annual upstream flood
damages, or other serious resource problems, and the likelihood of voluntary
land owner participation.

6-10

Some of the available funds and personnel would be directed toward these
target areas. The objective would be to concentrate technical and financial
assistance to solve problems in these areas. These efforts would tend to
focus on the worst problems first to achieve the highest possible result.

Each year for the next 5 years, SCS and ASCS would commit an additional 5
percent of their technical and financial assistance funds to these specified
high-priority areas until 25 percent of these funds were committed to these
areas.

Interagency Coordination

USDA would use the existing budget formulation and execution process to
achieve coordination of conservation programs in all agencies. The Secretary
would establish a committee to review requests and ensure that budgets are
coordinated among the soil and water conservation agencies. Extensive exchange
of data and information combined with guidance from the Secretary would
result in agency budgets and program plans that were consistent with established
priorities and objectives and that were coordinated for the most effective
program delivery at the local level.

Conservation Tillage and Other Cost-Efficient Systems

Conservation tillage is one of the newest and most successful techniques for
erosion control. Residue from a previous crop is left on the land surface
and tillage operations are reduced. This method can be highly effective in
reducing excessive erosion at a reasonable cost. It offers promise as the
initial stage of a conservation farming system for controlling erosion and
preserving the productive capacity of cropland.

Conservation tillage has both benefits and drawbacks. It reduces or elimi-
nates soil disturbance and uses less fuel than conventional tillage. In-
creased use of chemicals to control undesirable weeds and-insects is required,
however, resulting in a greater potential for environmental degradation.
Conservation tillage is less effective where special problems such as wet or
cold soils exist. The specialized farm equipment needed for conservation
tillage is expensive.

Alternative 2 would give high priority to applying and maintaining conser-
vation tillage methodg on excessively eroding cropland. It would emphasize
on educational and technical assistance to land owners for successful application
of existing conservation tillage technology, research.on integrated pest
management, and development of technology adapted to cold or wet soils.
Increased research would identify the long-term effects of conservation
tillage on soil structure, tilth, moisture holding capacity, and other factors
important to sustained productivity.

Upstream Flood Damage Reduction

Reducing damage to rural communities and agricultural lands from flooding
would be a priority second only to erosion control and maintenance of soil
productivity.

6-11

USDA's watershed protection and flood prevention activities would be targeted
to areas where excessive soil erosion and actual or potential and high
average annual flood damages are problems for agriculture and rural commun-
ities. Emphasis would be given to the most cost-effective techniques for
solving the problems. USDA would give additional help to local communities
in assembling and interpreting resource data and in applying nonstructural
remedies to flooding problems.

Rangeland Ma nagement Systems
Emp@asis would be given to the adoption of soil conserving management systems
on nonfederal rangeland and pasture land. The objective would be to reduce
soil erosion and increase the future productivity of these resources by
encouraging and supporting the adoption of scientific principles and methods
of managing forage resources.

Woodland Management-Systems

USDA programs to encourage increased use and application of conservation
methods to sustain and improve the productivity of nonfederal woodlands were
presented in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA)
report developed by the Forest Service and submitted to Congress in
June 1980.

Other Important Elements of a Redirected USDA Program

USDA would provide information and support for state and local initiatives
that address problems associated with the conversion of agricultural land to
nonagricultural uses. Programs for water conservation, water supply manage-
ment, and water quality protection would continue at the current proportion
of total funding. Water quality protection activities would continue as
experimental projects until there were sufficient data and analyses to
evaluate needs and develop effective programs.

Pilot Projects

Alternative 2 would include pilot projects and special studies for solving
resource problems and furthering soil and water conservation objectives. The
primary purpose of pilot projects or special studies would be to find more
effective solutions to existing problems and to test potential solutions to
persistent or emerging problems and issues. Projects or studies could be
initiated to--

� introduce and evaluate promising new technology for conserving soil and
water.

� evaluate the long-term consequences of reliance on specific technol-
ogies, priorities, or policies for soil and water conservation.

6-12

0 evaluate alternative program mixes and components for achieving conser-
vation objectives. Examine the relative roles of technical and finan-
cial assistance and education and information activities in accomplish-
ing soil and water conservation objectives. Examine the relative merit
and effectiveness of annual payments, long-term agreements, and subsi-
dized loans as incentives to adoption of soil and water conservation
systems.

0 test and evaluate increased use of regulatory authorities, conservation
easements or endowments, performance payments, or tax incentives as
tools in soil and water conservation. Such projects could be carried
out in cooperation with state or local governments.

Summary of Effects

Adoption of alternative 2 would have the following effects by the fifth year
relative to alternative 1:

0 More erosion would be controlled and upstream flood damages reduced.
Estimates indicate that by the fifth year, total annual sheet and rill
erosion could be reduced, compared to altervative 1, by 300 million tons
at level funding, by 420 million tons at upper bound funding, and by 90
million tons at lower bound funding.

0 The need for additional cropland because of increasing demand for agri-
cultural commodities would bring a significant acreage of erodible land
into production. Therefore, erosion would be excessive on 126 million
acres at level funding, 121 million acres at upper bound funding, and
131 million acres at lower bound funding. This compares to an estimate
of 135 million acres of excessively eroding cropland under alternative 1.

0 Annual upstream flood damages would be reduced, compared with current
trends, by $7 million at upper bound funding, by $4 million at level
funding, and by $2 million at lower bound funding.

0 No significant savings of water used in agriculture would be expected
under alternative 2 compared to alternative 1 because of the emphasis
on erosion control and the reduction of upstream flood damages.

0 More assistance would be provided to land users with significant conser-
vation problems through targeting of programs to critical areas. (There
would be a corresponding reduction in the amount of assistance available
to non-targeted areas, especially at lower bound or level funding.)

0 Use of energy in agricultural operations would be more efficient because
of increased use of conservation tillage and reduction of upstream flood
damages.

0 The amount of sediment that reached streams and lakes would be further
reduced.

0 Research and education services for defining solutions to resource
problems and for providing needed technology would be expanded.

6-13

Under alternative 2, some programs or program components could be phased out
as more attention is given to priority objectives. These adjustments would
affect mostly fish and wildlife habitat improvement and organic waste manage-
ment programs. The lower bound funding scenario would likely result in a
delay in completing field mapping for the National Cooperative Soil.Survey.

Implementation of alternative 2 would permit oontinuing degradation of the
Nation's resources. Excessive erosion would continue to reduce the long-term
productivity of some agricultural lands, especially at lower bound funding.

State and local response.--States and localities included in targeted areas
could be expected to respond favorably to this alternative because they would
receive more direct assistance.. Conversely, states and localities not in
targeted areas could be expected to object to any reduction in services. The
level of support and potential participation by state and local governments
could be influenced by the designation of targeted areas.

The public comments about the 1980 RCA draft documents, including a large
segment of the comments from respondents representing state and local entities,
indicated a strong preference for a more active state and local role in
conservation programs.

Political and legislative considerations.--No legislation would be required
to authorize redirection of existing programs beyond the extension of any
components that are scheduled to expire during this 5-year period. There
would be considerable political support for a redirected program. Areas that
would not directly benefit from a redirected program, however, might oppose
alternative 2.

Distributional effects.--Targeting on high-priority areas could tend to
reduce participation in soil and water conservation programs in non-targeted
areas. This shift probably would reduce assistance to small and part-time
farmers more than to larger operators. Increased incentives to cover the
higher costs that.small and part-time farmers would incur in adopting acceptable
conservation systems, however, could be provided in nationally identified
critical areas.

Program costs and staffing.--By the fifth year, federal program funding would
be expected to fall between about $971 million (the upper bound), in constant
1979 dollars, excluding loan programs, and about $698 million (the lower
bound).

Staffing requirements would tend to reflect the program services needed for
the particular funding level selected. Total employment could increase by as
much as 10 percent over current levels under upper bound funding. Similarly,
employment could decrease an estimated 10 percent from current levels by the
fifth year at lower bound funding. Actual staff requirements would be
influenced by the combination of activities undertaken and the actions of
state and local governments in funding and staffing conservation programs.

Table 6-2 displays how available funds would be redirected to give increased
.emphasis to high-priority resource problem areas. *Table 6-3 shows how the
percentage distribution of funds would change under different funding scenarios.

6 -14

Table 6-2.--Projected f ifth-year distribution of funds among major components, alternatives 1 and 2

[Al I f igures are in constant dol lars rounded to the nearest mi I I ion. I

Alternative 1 Alternative 2
1981 Current
Major component (Base trend Level Upper Lower
year) continued f Lind i ng bound bound

1. Technical assistance ------- 198 198 @19 225 185

2. Financial assistance:
a. Cost shares to
operators --------------- 278 167 261 328 209

b. For project activities- 177 161 167 211 134

c. Total financial
assistance -------------- (455) (328) (428) (539) (343)

3. Educat ion/ I nformat ion
(Extension Service) -------- 12 14 14 15 10

4. Research and technology
V development ---------------- 74 76 80 88 71

5. Data collection and
analysis ------------------- 81 86 79 87 72

6. Emergency programs 1/ ----- 17 17 17 17 17

TOTAL 21 -------------------- 837 719 837 971 698

Loans ----------------------- (77) (50) (72) (80) (60)

1/ Held constant because emergencies cannot be predicted.
?/ Total funds were projected using a linear regression method separately from the individual
components. The latter were then adjusted to fit the total.

Tab I e 6-3. --Projected f if th-yea r percentage d i stri but ion of funds among major components,
alternatives 1 and 2

Alternative 1 Alternative 2
1981 Current
Major component (Base trend Level Upper Lower
year) continued funding bound bound

1. Technical assistance ------ 23.7 27.5 26.2 23.2 26.5

2. Financial assistance:
a. Cost shares to
ope ra to rs -------------- 33.2 23.2 31.2 33.8 29.9

b. For project activities- 21.2 22.4 19.9 21.7 19.3

c. Total financial
assistance ------------ (54.4) (45.6) (51.1) (55.5) (49.2)

3. EdUcation/Information
(Extension Service) ------ 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4

4. Research and technology
development -------------- 8.8 10.6 9.6 9.1 10.2

5. Data collection and
analysis ----------------- 9.7 12.0 9.4 9.0 10.3

6. Emergency programs 1/ ---- 2.0 2.4 2.0 1.7 2.4

TOTAL ---------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total dollars (millions) --- (837) (719) (837) (971) (698)

Held constant because emergencies cannot be predicted.

Alternative 3
Increased Local and State Role

Alternative 3 recognizes and enhances support for the growing involvement and
commitment by state and local governments for conserving and sustaining the
productive capacity of the nonfederally owned soil and water resources of the
Nation. This trend, coupled with the projected need for a more effective
soil and water conservation program, indicates that it is timely and appro-
priate to give more formal recognition to this expanding partnership. Under
alternative 3, total federal, state, and local resources devoted to conser-
vation would be greater than under alternatives 1 or 2 for a given level of
federal funding. Conservation accomplishments and program effectiveness
would also be greater because of increased local and state awareness and
participation and stronger leadership in program development.

Highlights

Alternative 3 includes the emphasis on solving critical resource problems and
the other features of alternative 2. Furthermore, alternative 3 strengthens
the role of state and local governments in developing and implementing con-
servation programs. Alternative 3 provides for--

0 cooperative efforts with state and local governments in targeting a
larger share of available USDA conservation funds and personnel to
critical areas where erosion threatens the long-term productive capacity
of the soil. Concentrates efforts to reduce upstream flood damages in
areas where total damages to rural communities, cropland, and pasture
are high. Emphasizes conservation measures, such as minimum tillage,
that are most cost-efficient in reducing erosion.

0 an agreement between the Governor and the Secretary as the basis for
more effective cooperation in meeting soil and water conservation
objectives.

0 a Local Conservation Coordinating Board to use the existing local,
state, and federal relationships and programs more effectively in meeting
the needs and priorities identified in the statewide soil and water
conservation program.

0 a State Conservation Coordinating Board to develop the state conservation
programs after consideration of the local programs. These state boards
would be assisted by a technical committee composed of representatives
of state agencies, USDA agencies, and other federal agencies.

0 a National Board, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, to consider
the state programs, make recommendations on allocation of matching funds
to states, and establish priorities for treating problem areas.

6-17

� variable-rate matching USDA grants to a state agency designated by the
Governor for financial and technical assistance to carry out state or
local activities in critical resource problem areas of national signi-
ficance.

� pilot projects to evaluate actions needed to deal more effectively with
persistent conservation problems and test potential new solutions.

� conservation plans consistent with locally determined standards for
eligibility for Farmers Home Administration loans.

� tax incentives as an inducement to increased use of conservation systems.

� USDA support for states to develop conservation practices acts, such as
the ones that Iowa, Illinois, and other states have already developed.

Alternative 3 would provide technical and financial assistance to land owners
and operators for planning and applying conservation measures. This assis-
tance could be available through regular USDA programs and, where appro-
priate, through state and local programs funded in part by federal grants.
The source of the assistance would vary depending on the ability of the state
to provide it.

Alternative 3 includes the concept o f a "base plus special emphasis" approach
for federal technical assistance. A "base level" of USDA presenc'e would be
determined for each state according to what was needed to gather and inter-
pret resource data, to assist in the development of resource plans, to main-
tain existing conservation practices and projects, and to provide basic USDA
services to program participants. The "base level" would vary among the
states. States with a high degree of technical and administrative capability
would tend to rely less on USDA than would those states lacking these abilities.

Also, the severity of conservation problems, and consequently the program
needs, would influence the base level staffing for USDA agencies. Staffing
above the base level would correspond to the severity of the problem.

Setting Priorities

At the local level, alternative 3 provides for the identification of soil and
water conservation problems by members of a Local Conservation Coordinating
Board. The local board would establish Priorities for treatment of problems,
identify what treatment is needed, and recommend a conservation program to a
State Conservation Coordinating Board.

The state board would review the county-level programs and priorities and
from them develop a state plan and priorities that would guide the state
program. The state plan would be reviewed at the national level. The
designated state agency would develop and administer the state's cost-sharing,
loan, and technical assistance programs, supported with federal-state matching
funds, with which land owners and operators would meet the needs identified
in the approved state plan.

6-18

A National Conservation Board would review the state programs and recommend
the allocation of matching funds to the states and the establishment of
priorities for treating areas with resource problems of national signif-
icance. Up to 50 percent of the federal share of the matching funds would be
allocated to national priorities designated by the Secretary. The rest
would be allocated among participating states according to needs identified
at the state level.

Cooperative Agreements

Alternative 3 would be carried out through a memorandum of understanding
entered into by the Governor of each participating state and the Secretary of
Agriculture. The primary purposes of the agreement would be to (1) establish
a cooperative local-state-federal soil and water conservation program, (2)
provide for local, state, and national boards 'to develop and implement the
cooperative program, (3) jointly identify priorities for controlling agri-
cultural.soil erosion and sedimentation and other problems affecting resource
productivity, and (4) provide for matching federal, state, and local funds to
help land owners reduce soil erosion and sedimentation.

The agreement would stipulate that--

� agricultural land'is a local, state, and national resource, as well as a
resource that is mostly privately owned.

� the management and use of that land "'Ifluence both current and long-term
agricultural productivity, water qua@,.,ity, and other environmental values
affecting state, regional, and natiofial welfare.

� decisions, almost entirely local, about the use and management of agri-
cultural land have cumulative impacts on the economy and the environ-
ment. Those impacts are occuring and will continue to occur at state,
regional, national, and even international levels because of the strong
demand foreseen for food, fiber, and new energy resources to be produced
on agricultural land.

� states and the federal government must work with local interests*to
minimize the adverse impacts of critical soil erosion and sedimentation
on agricultural productivity, water quality, and other public values.

Local and State Programs

Local program.--Local soil and water-conservation programs.would be developed
for individual counties, or for groups of counties, through the leadership of
Local Conservation Coordinating Boards.

Each Local Conservation Coordinating Board would be established under pro-
cedures defined by a State Conservation Coordinating Board. The local board
would provide the leadership for identifying local resource problems and
developing and implementing the local programs consistent with statewide
guidelines and standards.

6-19

This board--composed of representatives of conservation districts, the county
ASC and extension advisory committees, and locally determined representatives
of user groups and elected officials--would develop the conservation program
and establish priorities. In developing and carrying out the program, it
would use existing USDA programs and services to the extent that they are
available. Where additional program resources are needed to meet high-priority
objectives, the needs can be brought to the attention of the State Conservation
Coordinating Board. USDA agencies would designate local representatives of
their agency as technical advisors to the Local Conservation Coordinating
Board.

The local program would include provisions for identifying areas of critical
soil erosion, sedimentation, and other resource problems and developing plans
of work for those critical areas. Both land owners and the general public
would participate in@developing the plans of work. Critical areas already
identified by the water quality management program (Section 208, PL 92-500)
under the established statewide erosion and gediment control legislation and
programs, or through the statewide RCA planning process, would qualify as
critical areas.

The local board would be encouraged and assisted to develop programs that
reflected national priorities and objectives to the extent that problems of
national significance existed in the area. It would also be encouraged to
emphasize cost-efficient methods for solving resource problems and protecting
agricultural productive capacity. It is anticipated that local boards and
programs would advocate conservation tillage and other cultural and
management practices that met local needs and also contributed to achieving
state and national priorities.

State program.--The local programs would be considered in designing the
statewide cooperative soil and water conservation program.

At the state level, the Governor would assign primary leadership for the
state soil and water conservation program to a state agency. The Governor
would also appoint representatives to the State Conservation Coordinating
Board from other state agricultural and natural resource agencies. This
board Would be assisted by a technical committee that included represen-
tatives of the USDA conservation agencies. Non-USDA agencies could also be
included as appropriate. The technical committee would provide information
and assistance to the state board.

The State Conservation Coordinating Board would provide leadership and direc-
tion in (1) preparing the state soil and water conservation program; (2)
securing the necessary administrative and legislative approval for adoption
of the program; and (3) negotiating memoranda of understanding or 'Other
appropriate instruments that define cooperative working relationships and
roles for developing and implementing a cooperative statewide conservation
program.

The state board would inform the Governor of critical resource problems that
affected the long-term productive capacity of soil and water resources. It
would recommend priorities for local, state, and federal funding. Treatment
of high-priority critical areas could begin before the statewide soil and water
conservation program was completed. During preparation of the program, these

6-20

identified priority areas could be the basis for proposing and negotiating
agreements for USDA soil and water conservation matching grant funds. '

States would be eligible to apply for USDA soil and water conservation matching
grants when they could identify high-priority problems, when they could show
that they could solve these problems in a cost-efficient manner, and when
state or local funds were available for use in connection with the USDA
grants. The proportion of USDA funds to state and local funds would vary
depending on the problems to be addressed, the potential effectiveness of
plans for dealing with the problems, and the ability of the state or local
government to pay. These variable-rate conditions would be negotiated and
reflected in an agreement between the Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture.

USDA Soil and Water Conservation Program

The USDA program would establish for the first time clear objectives, priorities,
and action plans for addressing national needs for soil and water conservation
in a timely and cost-efficient manner. The Secretary would appoint a'National
Conservation Board from recommendations made by the governors. This board
would provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the implement 'ation
of the USDA conservation program. It would also review and recommend action
on requests from states for matching grants.

Existing USDA programs would continue to the extent that they were funded.
The regulations and procedures for administering these programs would be
modified as needed to meet the needs and priorities identified in the statewide
conservation programs.

SCS would have the lead USDA responsibility for monitoring progress and
evaluating the effectiveness of the cooperative local-state-federal program.
Other participating agencies would provide needed information and assist in
evaluating findings. Their views, if different from those of SCS, would be
included in the evaluation reports.

Matching Grants to States

USDA soil and water conservation grants to states would encourage local and
.state governments to assume a more active role in soil and water conservation
programs. Grants to states would augment local or state funding for soil and
water conservation programs.

States with existing soil and water conservation programs that met the require-
ments for a cooperative local-state-federal conservation program would be
eligible for USDA grants to the extent that their programs would contribute
to achieving high-priority objectives.

The total federal variable-rate matching grant funds in the initial years
probably would be $50 to $100 million, depending on state participation.
States that have established similar programs limited the funding from
$0.5 to $3.0 million in the early years, probably because of limited resources,
administrative problems in getting a new program under way, and the need to
acquire experience to determine need and demand or effectiveness. A few states

6-21

with programs that have lasted have increased funding. Iowa, for example,
currently funds its cost-share program at $5 million. A "grandfather" clause
would make states with existing cost-share programs eligible immediately for
matching grants.

The USDA funds available for matching grants would be distributed on the basis
of an agreement developed between each Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture.
The agreement would specify the extended use and the proportion of local and
state funds that would be provided for their share of the,program effort.

Matching grant funds would be used primarily for additional technical assis-
tance or financial incentives to land owners who planned and applied conser-
vation methods in their agricultural operations. When the agreement so
specified, states could use USDA matching grant funds to revise and update
conservation programs, to conduct pilot projects, or for other purposes that
led to meeting the objectives identified in the agreement.'

Administration of matching grants.--States would apply for USDA soil and
water conservation grants after they had identified high-priority conser-
vation problems and if they were ready to provide more program assistance in
the high-priority areas. Grants would be most acceptable at the local and
state level if they were "new money" reflecting a higher national priority
for soil and water conservation. Nonetheless, options for grants were also
considered at the level and lower bound funding scenarios. Some increase in
accomplishments is possible at level funding, depending on how willing local
and state governments are to expand their activity with little change in USDA
programs. The potential for increased local and state participation at
reduced USDA funding is speculative and unlikely to result in much change
during the 5-year program period.

Grant funds would be managed and administered by the responsible state agency
as designated by the Governor or in state legislation. There would be
latitude for states to authorize the administration of grant funds at the
local level subject to rules, and procedures adopted by the state.

The Local Conservation Coordinating Board would receive, review, and approve
or reject applications for assistance in treating problems in designated
high-priority resource problem areas. Local boards would be encouraged to
use long-term agreements for technical and financial assistance as an incen-
tive for installing conservation systems. With the cooperation and assist-
ance of the local SCS and ASCS representatives, the local board would approve
a land owner's implementation plan and establish priorities for technical and
financial assistance.

States could use part of the USDA matching grants for equity capital as-
leverage to attract more private monies for use in-low-interest loans to
install conservation practices.. Funds could be used in this manner if the
agreement so specified.

Pilot Projects

States and USDA agencies would have the latitude to evaluate actions needed
to deal more effectively with persistent conservation problems or to test

6-22

potential solutions to new problems. Pilot projects could be proposed as
elements of a state plan or as cooperative projects of local, state, and USDA
agencies. They would be established and monitored during the first 5-year
period to provide guidance for subsequent p ,rogram development. Pilot pro-
jects could be established in various areas throughout the country to study
their comparative effectiveness under different natural resource, agricul-
tural, and institutional settings. They could be designed to test new ideas
or approaches and explore alternative incentives and delivery systems.

Examples of the pilot tests that could be implemented and evaluated follow:

� Conservation incentives. The effectiveness of different types of con-
servation incentives in solving priority problems could be tested. The
pilot tests would evaluate land users' responses to incentives as well
as the net economic impact of each incentive.

� Conservation performance payments. Payments could be made to farmers
who voluntarily agreed to take measures to reduce excessive soil loss by
cultural means. Farmers would receive a lump sum cash payment for such
actions and would be free to use those products of the land that could
be removed without causing excessive erosion. The pilot tests could
experiment with annual payments and with long-term contractual arrangements.

� Conservation easements and diversion payments. The purchase of con-
servation easements from a land user could be tested. Purchase of ease-
ments would end the use as cropland of land prone to excessive erosion.
.Easements would be purchased by a state or local agency but would be
partly funded by a USDA grant. Or, if the land did not need to be
retired indefinitely from crop production but only diverted temporarily,
the farmer could receive a diversion payment.

� Bonuses as an incentive for cross-compliance.--The feasibility of giving
increased program benefits to operators who conformed to "acceptable"
resource management options while participating in other USDA farm programs
could be tested. This approach, when earlier proposed, was known as the
"Green Ticket." These projects would be limited to specific geographic areas
where erosion is a significant problem, where participation in USDA commodity
and production adjustment programs is high, and where there is local interest
in this approach. The incentives offered could be marginally higher target
prices or income support payments. Tests of this approach would include
evaluations of procedures for performance, certification, and appeals.

� Low-interest loans. The use of loans could be tested. USDA would
provide low-interest or interest-free loans to land owners who installed
cost-efficient conservation practices that were particularly effective
on lands with excessive erosion. Repayment periods would be commen-
surate with the life of the practices.

� Tax incentives. USDA could work with the Treasury Department and
selected states to evaluate economic conditions and characteristics of
ownership where expanded use of tax deductions,.credits, or income
exclusions could effectively encourage investment in cons@ervation practices.
"Simulated" tax incentives are particularly well adapted for pilot
testing.

6-23

Successful pilot tests could result in modification of programs or procedures
or might result in legislative proposals.

Conservation Plans for FmHA Loans

The eligibility requirements for Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) loans
could be modified to help in achieving USDA conservation objectives. Program
policies would begin to require a conservation plan on property for which
farm ownership and soil and water loans were requested.

Prospective borrowers could be provided technical assistance to prepare a
conservation plan consistent with locally adopted conservation standards.
These plans would be reviewed and have the concurrence of the local conser-
vation district prior to approval of a loan. Loan applicants who did not
have an existing plan would be considered to have met this qualification re-
quirement once they applied to their local conservation district. Borrowers
would be encouraged to apply and maintain the conservation system in accordance
with their conservation plan.

Locally adopted standards.--Specifications for acceptable resource management
systems would be developed by the Local Conservation Coordinating Board, or
jointly by the local conservation district and county ASC committee in the
absence of such a board. Local representatives of state and USDA resource
agencies would provide information and assistance as appropriate. The SCS
Technical Guide and state conservation practices acts, where they existed,
would be the principal sources for determining acceptable resource management
systems.

A state committee composed of state level representatives of the agencies on
the National Committee plus the State Soil and Water Conservation Agency and
State Agricultural Experiment Station would develop guidelines and procedures
for use at the county level in each state.

National guidelines and procedures, if needed, would be developed by a USDA
Committee consisting of representatives of the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State
Research Service, Economic Research Service, Extension Service, Farmers Home
Administration, Forest Service, and Soil Conservation Service.

Other program assistance.--Loan applicants could request technical assistance
from USDA or state agencies in developing a conservation plan to meet eligi-
bility requirements for a loan. Borrowers could elect to apply for USDA,
local, and state conservation program assistance to apply the resource
management systems necessary to maintain their eligibility for the FmHA loan
programs.

Certification procedures.--The local conservation district or SCS technician
could certify that a loan applicant had an approved conservation plan.
Status of plan implementation would be determined during reviews of the
applicant's loan.

Effectiveness of conservation standards for FmHA loans. Adoption of this
feature would make producers ineligible for further FmHA loans if they
exploited their resources. It is expected that potential borrowers would

6-24

increase their demands for technical assistance to prepare conservation plans
required to be eligible for loans. It is also expected that borrowers would
seek assistance from USDA or other technical assistance and cost-share programs
to implement their plans. This would require SCS, ASCS, and perhaps states
to place new priorities among and within states to service the most pressing
demands. No data are available for use in projecting the percentage of
borrowers who have excessive erosion or other problems that affect the
long-term productive capacity of their resources. This requirement would
demonstrate that the federal government expects .responsible stewardship from
owners and operators of farms and ranches in return for assistance through
federal programs.

State and local response. This program feature would complement and be
supportive of initiatives to solve conservation problems at the local and
state levels.

The public comments on the draft program report that was distributed for
review in early 1980 indicate that this feature could be controversial.
Forty-nine percent of the comments on the cross-compliance alternative
strategy described in that report supported it, and 51 percent opposed it.
However,-60 percent of the comments indicated that the respondents thought
it would be effective. The Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., Poll found
that 75 percent of those surveyed believed that USDA should not provide other
program benefits to farmers who do not properly care for and protect soil
and water resources. These people also insist that there must be equity
between the private and public costs and benefits in satisfying this condi-
tion.

In general, FmHA borrowers have limited resources and operate smaller than
average units. They may find it difficult to comply with an added eligi-
bility requirement for adoption of acceptable conservation standards even
when it would be in their long-term interest to do so.

Program costs and manpower.--There is no basis for a reliable estimate of the
costs and manpower requirements of implementing this requirement. It is
assumed that demands for technical assistance and cost sharing will increase
for the 20,000 new borrowers each year.. Demand for conservation planning
assistance could increase by 250 to 400 staff-years annually. Additional
staff capability would be needed to provide technical assistance and to cover
the increased administrative requirements related to installation and main-
tenance of resource management systems. The workload for application would
expand annually until an equilibrium between new participants and loan
redemptions existed.

Impact on program administration and institutions.--This feature would result
in increased compatibility between USDA loan programs and conservation objec-
tives. It would require a free exchange of information and cooperation among
FmHA, SCS, and ASCS in establishing priorities. The conservation programs of
state and local resource agencies would be affected. There is no assurance
that FmHA loan applicants would be located in priority problem areas.

Political and legislative considerations. Some agribusiness interests could
be expected to oppose this feature because of the constraints it would place
on potential customers. If FmHA borrowers were given a high priority for

6-25

assistance from other programs, it could be viewed as preferential treatment.
The Secretary already has the authority to initiate this eligibility require-
ment by revising the admini-strative regulations for FmHA loans.

Distributional effects.--Adoption of this requirement for FmHA loan parti-
cipants could increase the short-term operating costs of borrowers. This
increase could be offset by long-term benefits in maintaining or improving
soil productivity. Major adjustments could be needed for operators with
serious resource problems. It would expose.operators who exploited their
resources and those situations where a proposed loan could adversely affect
the future productive capacity of resources. The general effects would be
negligible.

Small farmers could find it more difficult to comply with this provision
without increased financial assistance.

Tax Incentives

Reductions in federal income taxes for land owners and operators who conserved
the soil could be provided through special tax incentives. Section 175 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 allows qualifying farm owners and operators
to treat soil conservation expenditures on the land as expenses deductible in
the year that they are incurred, rather than as merely capital improvements
to land. To qualify, the taxpayer must be "engaged in the business of farming."
Thus, only active farmers are eligible. Cash-rental landlords who improve
their land for conservation purposes are not eligible for this deduction. The
limit for this deduction is 25 percent of the gross income received from
farming during the tax year.

The most recent data available, for 1977, show that in that year 115,000
farmers reported conservation expenses totalling $93.6 million. This number
represented less than 5 percent of all taxpayers.who filed Schedule F Farm
Tax Returns.

Several members of Congress have introduced legislation in the current session
(97th Congress, First Session) to allow direct tax credits for soil conser-
vation as an alternative to the expense deduction allowed in Section 175.

The first such legislation was introduced on February 24, 1981. S.569 was
sponsored by Senator Jepsen of Iowa and co-sponsored by Senator Heflin of
Alabama, the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the
Senate Agricultural Committee's Subcommittee on Soil and Water Conservation.
A companion bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2515, was introduced by
Representative Evans of Iowa. Under this legislation, the taxpayer--who
could be either a working farmer or a cash-rental landlord--could take a 10
percent tax credit instead of treating the expenditure as an expense. This
legislation would provide a broader incentive for soil conservation for two
reasons. First, unlike existing Section 175, an incentive would be available
to the cash-rental landlord as well as to the working farmer. Second, the
credit taken against tax liability would be a more valuable tax incentive
than the deduction in existing law is to the many farm owners who have tax
liability but are in low tax brackets.

6-26

Senator Grassley of Iowa, on July 31, 1981, introduced S.1561. This bill
would provide a tax credit equal to 20 percent of soil conservation expen-
ditures made during the tax year. This bill broadens the definition of soil
conservation measures eligible for the tax credit to include any amount paid
and incurred "for purposes of soil conservation, prevention of soil erosion,
or the reduction or control of agriculture-related pollution." It also includes
the type of land improvements to which the existing Section 175 deduction is
limited.

Finally, Representative Tauke of Iowa, on August 4, 1981, introduced H.R. 4411.
It is co-sponsored by four other Representatives: Beilenson of California,
Erdahl of Minnesota, Neal of North Carolina, and Railsback of Illinois.
H.R. 4411 would allow taxpayers "engaged in the trade or business of farming"
a specified tax credit per acre of cropland on which a farmer practiced
conservation tillage. The annual credit would be $10 an acre for the first
200 acres, $8 an acre for the next 200 acres, and $5 an acre for any additional
acres.

While the incentives in all of these pending bills would appear to be induce-
ments for farmers and land owners to practice conservation, a major limitation
to the effectiveness, of tax incentives, whether deductions or credits, is
that the taxpayer must first have-a tax liability in order to benefit. When
expenditures charged as conservation expenses were analyzed in 1968, the data
showed that 1.2 million farm proprietors (39 percent) reported net losses. Of
the more than 190,000 farmers who claimed conservation deductions, 36 percent
reported net losses.

Data from the 1978 Resource Economic Survey indicate that proportionally more
farmland owners with-@high incomes, especially high nonfarm incomes, already
invest in conservation measures. If a significant target group for tax
incentives, namely higher income farmers, already make these investments, it
could be asked whether tax incentives to this group are as necessary to
promote soil conservation as are other measures reaching a broader income
class of farmers, such as cost sharing.

In general, incentives are effective in targeting conservation investments to
erosion problems when a strong positive relationship exists between operator
income and farmland erodibility. Land owners with high net farm income (more
than $15,000) own more than their proportionate share (20.9 percent) of crop-
land needing erosion control. Slightly more than one-third (35.4 percent of
the cropland needing erosion control is owned by those whose combined farm and
nonfarm income is more than $15,000. These patterns are relatively consistent
across farm production regions.

It would appear from these relationships that some modification of the cur-
rent tax laws could provide additional incentives for conservation invest-
ments that reduce soil erosion. These adjustments could extend tax benefits
to cash rental landlords and farm operators who invest in equipment needed to
install or maintain conservation management systems such as conservation
tillage, which requires some new, specialized farm equipment. Tax incentives
could also increase conservation application where direct incentives for
installing practices are limited or not available. Tax incentives would
require further study before legislation wis proposed. A simulated test
of tax incentives would not require legislation, and is proposed as a pilot
project on page 6-23, above.

6-27

Intergovernmental Cooperation

Existing USDA and state soil and water conservation programs would continue
to operate under current procedures. The regulations, rules, and procedures
would be modified to require consideration of the needs and priorities iden-
tified in the state conservation program and in their local counterparts.
Closer coordination and cooperation among ASCS, SCS, and other USDA resource
conservation agencies would be essential at the federal, state, and local
levels. SCS would be available to provide technical staff support to the
local and state efforts for a cooperative program. SCS assistance could take
the form of direct technical support or grants to states and conservation
districts to employ permanent professional staff.

US DA program coordination would be strengthened by the establishment of a
policy level committee to oversee the budget formulation and agency action
plans as described in alternative 2.

Monitoring and Evaluation

USDA would monitor the application of resource management systems, evaluate
the amount of reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation, and assess the
improvements in agricultural productivity, water quality, and other social
values. Other federal agencies and state and local cooperating agencies
could provide advice and technical assistance.

Evaluation reports would contain recommendations for revising programs where
the installed treatment measures are not cost-efficient in reducing erosion
and sedimentation or addressing otherproblems.

Legislation Needed

The authority already exists for USDA to establish priorities, increase
program emphasis on critical areas, and increase coordination and cooperation
among USDA agencies. Once a program is selected, it would be appropriate to
consider-a legislative proposal that would provide for its implementation as
a package.

Federal legislation would be necessary or desirable for implementing the
following components:

0 Provision for Local and State Conservation Coordinating Boards; recog-
nition of local and state conservation programs as instruments for
achieving national conservation objectives and priorities; use of
variable-rate matching grants to states for technical or financial
assistance to implement state and local programs; and federal
recognition of local conservation standards adopted in response to state
conservation practices acts in states that enact such legislation.

0 Definition of the organizational and institutional arrangements for
implementing a cooperative local, state, and federal conservation
program, including formal agreements between the Secretary and state
governors.

6-28

0 Authority to conduct pilot studies to test new ideas, provide more
effective solutions to problems, or address new issues.

0 Increased tax incentives for achieving conservation objectives.

0 Provision for an expanded role for and increased participation of local
and state governments in a cooperative conservation program.

Legislation would also be needed or desirable at the state level for the
following components. The precise needs would vary among states.

0 Provision for the preparation of local and state soil and water con-
servation programs that are based on appraisal of conditions, projection
of resource needs, and identification of priorities. These programs
could be developed in conjunction with state conservation practices acts
such as the ones that Iowa, Illinois, and other states have already
enacted.

0 Authority for the Governor to negotiate cooperative agreements with the
Secretary of Agriculture for use in the development and implementation
of state conservation programs.

0 Authority to develop a program and designate responsibility to provide
state technical or financial assistance to land owners and operators in
planning and applying conservation systems that meet local standards
consistent with state guidelines.

0 Monitoring, evaluation, and periodic updating of local and state
programs.

0 Funding and authorization for participation in a cooperative local,
state, and federal conservation program.

Summary of Effects

Adoption of alternative 3 would have the following effects by the fifth year:

0 It is estimated that gross annual soil erosion would be 340 million tons
less than under alternative I at level funding, 500 million tons less at
upper bound funding, and about the same at lower bound funding.

0 The analysis indicates that 135 million acres of cropland would be
eroding at rates in excess of 5 tons per acre if alternative 1 were
adopted. This acreage would be reduced to an estimated 126, 121, and
131 million acres, respectively, at level, upper bound, and lower bound
funding.

0 Upstream flood damages would be reduced; compared with current trends,
by $5.0 million at level funding, by $9.0 million at upper bound
funding, and by $2.0 million at lower bound funding.

0 Annual sediment loading in streams, lakes, and rivers would be reduced
by about 34 million tons at level funding, by 40 million tons at upper

6-29

bound funding, and by 25 million tons at lower bound funding for
alternative 3. This compares to an estimate of 12 million tons if.
alternative 1 were implemented.

No significant change in annual savings of water for agriculture as a result
of federal action could be expected under alternative 3 because of the
emphasis on erosion control and upstream flood damage reduction. Private
efforts, however, would be expected to continue and to result in some water
conservation.

Even at upper bound funding, alternative 3 would not approach nondegradation
of the Nation's resources. Excessive erosion would continue to lower the
long-term productivity of some nonfederal agricultural lands. However, the
1985 RCA appraisal and program update would measure progress and assess
resource problems and prospects. At that time, USDA could adjust programs
and priorities.

State and local response.--Alternative 3 would offer local and state govern-
ments a clear leadership role in controlling soil erosion and sedimentation.
USDA programs and priorities would be influenced by the comprehensive state
programs that were developed from locally developed programs and priorities.
Alternative 3 proposes stronger USDA financial support through a new matching
grant program for control of erosion and sedimentation on agricultural land
with critical erosion problems. Alternative 3 would also permit targeting of
financial assistance to those areas. It builds on the existing institutional
structure at the local and state levels and provides for closer coordination
of soil and water conservation efforts. Alternative 3 is a major step toward
increased effectiveness and efficiency in soil and water conservation. The
USDA emphasis is on cooperation, voluntary participation, and strengthened
mutual support. The state and local response should be positive and
constructive.

Public acceptance.--In the survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates,
Inc., a majority of those sampled said that the federal government had a role
in and should assume part of the responsibility for conservation of soil and
water resources. However, this federal role was perceived as a partnership
with state and local governments and with land owners and users. Of the
comments on the 1980 RCA draft documents that addressed the state role,
51 percent favored and 49 percent opposed state leadership for soil and water
conservation programs. As in the Harris survey, a significant number of
comments supported a federal partnership role in those programs.

Impact on existing institutions.--Implementation of alternative 3 would mean
that existing institutional arrangements would provide the basis for future
conservation programs but that the role of state and local governments in
conservation program planning and priority setting would be strengthened.
Coordination among state and USDA programs would also be strengthened. All
USDA and state programs for controlling erosion and reducing sedimentation
would be operated according to a statewide cooperative soil and water
conservation program. The fle *xibility of USDA and state agencies in the
assignment of personnel and allocation of money would be reduced because new
resources would be targeted to critical areas. Some adjustment in allocation
of these resources among counties within states might also occur. Integrating

6-30

other federal and state authorities such as the EPA water quality management
program (Section 208) and state erosion and sediment control programs could
produce efficiencies in achieving related federal and state objec,tives.

Political and legislative considerations.--The intent and purpose of
alternative 3 should have widespread support. The alternative is built on
local participation. If any regulatory features were included, nearly
all would come from initiatives of state government.

Major shifts in the allocation of funds and technical assistance to targeted
areas, especially between states for existing programs such as ACP, GPCP, or
SCS technical assistance, could generate some complaints. Within states, the
leadership and participation of state and local governments in program devel-
opment should minimize such complaints and might even lead to more optimal
allocations within states. The greater involvement of state and local govern
ments, however, could cause some disruption of longstanding federal program
arrangements and levels of activity in some localities and states. Legislation
would be required to authorize matching grants.

Program costs and staffing.--Table 6-4 shows how available federal funds
would be spent if local and state governments took a stronger role in con-
servation programs. Table 6-5 shows how the percentage distribution of
funding would change under the different funding scenarios.

0 Level funding scenario.--Redirection of programs to priority objectives
and targeted areas would cause some adjustment in the use of funds and staffing
patterns. Funding for direct technical assistance wouild be augmented by
grants that would be matched by states. By the fifth year, total funding for
technical assistance would be about 16 percent above funding in the base
year, in constant dollars. USDA funds for direct cost-share programs would
be reduced by about 3 percent by the fifth year. This reduction would be
offset by $105 million in grants that states would match to carry out state
cost-share programs. Thus, the net impact by the fifth year would be a net
increase of almost 24 percent for the combined USDA and state cost-share
programs. Funding for research, technology development, and education would
be increased. These funding increases would support the development and
transfer of technology designed to solve high-priority problems.

0 Upper bound funding scenario.--About $175 million would be available for
technical and financial assistance grants and loans by the fifth year. These
grants would be augmented by matching funds provided by state or local govern-
ments. Thus, total program funding could be as high as $1.1 billion by the
fifth year, depending on the extent of state matching funds.

USDA funding for education, research and technology development, and data
collection and analysis would increase. Total funding for technical and
financial assistance would increase significantly if state and local govern-
ments responded favorably.

Total USDA staffing would remain at about current levels, but major shifts in
the location and activities of staff would occur. Location of targeted areas
addressing high priority objectives and increased emphasis on education,
research, and data collection and analysis would influence those shifts.

6-31

0 Lower bound funding scenario.--Direct technical assistance provided by
USDA would be reduced by 12 percent from current levels by the fifth year.
This reduction could be partly offset by grants for technical assistance.
The recipient states would match these grants. Thus, the real reduction in
technical assistance capability by the fifth year would be about 9 percent in
constant dollars.

USDA's direct cost-sharing funds would be reduced by about 21 percent, in
constant dollars, by the fifth year. This reduction would be partly offset
by the grants to be matched by receiving states. Funding for research,
technology development, and education would be reduced by 3 percent com-
pounded annually. The net result would be a declining USDA capability to
carry out a national soil and water conservation program.

Depending on state and local response, increased demand for and conversion of
agricultural land to nonagricultural uses would tend to offset accomplish-
ments in solving soil and water conservation problems. Some program elements
would be eliminated. USDA staffing for soil and water conservation programs
would be reduced by about 5 percent by the fifth year.

Distributional effects.--The larger land owners and operators in critical
areas would probably respond most favorably to alternative 3. Where erosion
control could be achieved with conservation tillage, the cost of production
could be lowered. Long-term benefits to the land owners and operators would
be the maintenance of soil productivity and associated lower costs of production.
Lower costs of production and higher yields resulting from reduction of
critical erosion on agricultural lands significantly below current trends
should lower long-term Prices to consumers.

Tables 6-6 and 6-7 show projections of funding and effects for each of the
USDA soil and water conservation programs for the first five years of each of
the three alternatives at each funding level. Table 6-6 displays the projected
consequences on the major RCA objectives. Table 6-7 shows the projected
distribution of soil and water conservation program funds among resource
problem areas.

Table 6-8 compares major features of alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

6-32

Table 6-4.--Projected f ifth-year distribution of funds among major components, alternatives 1, 2, and 3
[All figures are in constant 1979 dollars rounded to the nearest million.]

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
1981 Current
(Base trends Level Upper Lower Level Upper Lower
Major Component year) continued funding bound bound funding 1/ bound 2/ bound 3/
1. Technical assistance---- 198 198 219 225 185 211 212 185

2. Financial assistance:
a. Cost share's to
operators ----------- 278 167 261 328 209 164 166 179

b. For project
activities ---------- 177 161 167 211 134 167 211 134

c. Total financial
assistance ---------- (455) (328) (428) (539) (343) (331) (377) (313)
3. USDA matching funds ----- -- -- -- -- -- 105 175 30

4. EdUcation/Information
(Extension Service) ----- 12 14 14 15 10 14 15 10

u, 5. Research and technology
development ------------- 74 76 80 88 71 80 88 71

6. Data collection and
analysis ---------------- 81 86 79 87 72 79 87 72
7. Emergency programs 4/ --- 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
TOTAL 5/ ------------------ 837 719 837 971 698 837 971 698
Loans --------------------- (77) (50) (72) (80) (60) (72) (82) (60)

and 3/ Includes $105, $175, and $30 mi Ilion, respectively, for grants for technical assistance, financial
assistance and loans.
4/ Held constant because emergencies cannot be predicted.
2/ Total funds were projected using a linear regression method separately from the individual components.
The latter were then adjusted to fit the total.

Ta b I e 6-5. - - P roj ected f i f th-yea r pe reenta ge d i st r i but i on of f und s among maj o r component s, a I te rna t i ve s 1 o 2, a nd 3

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
1981 Current
Base trends Level Upper Lower Level Upper Lower
Ma.0or Component Year continued funding bound obund f Lind i ng bound bound

1. Technical assistance--- 23.7 27.5 26.2 23.2 26.5 25.3 21.8 26.5

2. Financial assistance:
a. Cost shares to
operators ---------- 33.2 23.2 31.2 33.8 29.9 19.6 17.2 25.6

b. For project
activities --------- 21.2 22.4 19.9 21.7 19.3 19.9 21.7 19.3

c. Total financial
assistance --------- (54.4) (45.6) (51.1) (55.5) (49.2) (39.5) (38'.9) (44.9)

3. USDA matching funds ---- -- -- -- -- -- 12.5 18.0 4.3

4. Education/information
(Extension Service) ---- 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.4

5. Resexrch and technology
development ------------ 8.8 10.6 9.6 9.1 10.2 9.6 9.1 10.2

6. Data collection and
analysis --------------- 9.7 12.0 9.4 19.0 10.3 9.4 9.0 10.3

7. Emergency programs 1/-- 2.0 2.4 2.0 1.7 2.4 2.0 1.7 2.4

TOTAL --------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10000 100.0

Total Dollars (Millions)-- (837) (719) (837) (971) (6981 (837) (971) (698)

J/ Held constant because emergencies cannot be predicted.

Table 6-6. --Projected consequences of a Iternative programs on se I ected ind ica to rs by the f if th year

Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Unit of Current Upper Lower Upper Lower
Indicator Measure 1977 trend Level bound bound Level --"
,,pild bound

1. Reduce erosion:
a. Annual reduction
in gross erosion-- Million tons - 79 119 143 95 123 150 95
b. Gross erosion ------ Billion tons 5. 3 3 4.81 4.51 4.39 4.72 4.47 4.31 4.72

2. Reduce cropland acreage
eroding excessively:
a. Annual reduction
in cropland acres
eroding at , 5 tons
per acre per year-- Million acres 0.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 2.5 4.0 1.5
b. Cropland acres
eroding at , 5 tons
per acre per year-- Million acres 141 1 3 5 126 121 131 126 118 131

3. Reduce upstream flood
damages:
a. Annual reduction in
upstream flood
damages ----------- Millions of - 2.6 3 . 3 3.9 2.9 3.6 4.4 2.9
dollars
b. Upstream flood
damages ----------- Millions of 1,805 1,782 1,778 1,775 1,780 1,777 1,773 1,780
dollars

4. Reduce net water
depletions to achieve
water conservation:
a. Annual reduction in
water depletions --- millions of - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
acre-feet
b. Water depletions --- millions of 86.6 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4
acre-feet
5. Reduce sediment
loading from agri-
cultural sources:
a. Annual reduction in
sediment loading --- Million tons - 26 39 47 31 40 49 31
b.- Sediment loading --- Billion tons 1.76 1.64 1.47 1.43 1.51 1.42 1.36 1.51

Table 6-7.--Projected f ifth-year percentage distribution of funds among resource problems,
alternatives 1, 2, and 3

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
1981 C u r rii-n -t
(Base trends Level Upper Lower Level Upper Lower
MaAor resource problems year) continued funding bound bound funding bound bound

1. Soil resources -------- 30.5 30 38 39 36 38 39 36

2. Upstream flood
damages --------------- 13.1 15 16 16 16 16 16 16

3. Rural community
and urban resource
conservation ---------- 25.5 24 22 22 21 22 22 21

4. Water quality --------- 13.2 13 11 11 12 11 11 12

5. Water conservation ---- 10.7 11 9 8 10 9 8 10

6. Fish and wildlife
habitat --------------- 3.7 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

7. Energy conservation --- 1.9 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

8. Organic waste
management ------------ 1.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total ------------------- 100.0 100 100 100 '10o 100 100 100

Table 6-8.--Features of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 under the different funding le@,els

X feature present 0 feature absent
XX increased emphasis d decreased emphasis
XXX major emphasis

1 2 3
Continue
Current
Fea tU re Trends Level Upper Lower Level Upper Lower

A. USDA CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES THROUGH THE YEAR 2030:

1. Reduce erosion to the rate at which soil productivity can be 0 xx xx x xx xx x
maintained.

2. Reduce f lood damages in upstream watershed areas to the most 0 xx xx x xx xx x
practical and cost-eff icient level by poncentrating efforts
where floods pose the greatest threat to human life,
agricultural lands, and property.

3. Improve rangeland presently in poor or fair condition to at 0 x xx x x xx x
least good condition.

4. Increase the efficiency Of using irrigation water both on 0 x xx x x xx x
and off the farm to the highest practical and cost-efficient
level.

5. Reduce nonpoint pollution of water and enhance water quality x x xx x x xx x
through the Support of state and local governmental
initiatives.

6. Increase water Supplies and solve other water resource x x x d x x x
problems through continuation of present efforts.

7. Help retain prime farm lands in agricultural uses through x x x x x x x
Support for state and local governmental initiatives.

B. PRIORITIES FOR USDA CONSERVATION ACTION THROUGH 1985:

1. Highest priority: Reduce erosion on U.S. agricultural lands. 0 x xx x xx xxx x

2. High priority: Reduce flood damages in upstream areas. 0 x xx x xx xx x

3. Medium priority: Improve water quality, water conservation 0 x x d x x d
and supply, and community related conservation activities.

4. Lesser priority: Improve fish and wildlife habitat and 0 d x d d x d
organic waste utilization.

Table 6-8.--Features of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 under the different funding levels--Continued

2 3
(5ontinue
Current
Fea tU re Trends Level Upl)er Lower Level Upper Lower

C. DEVELOPING CONSERVATION PROGRAMS:

I . Provide for local joint decisionmaking among the 0 0 0 0 x x x
conservation district, county ASC committee, and other
interested parties, in identifying critical resource
problem areas, setting priorities for action, and
developing the local conservation program. Make the local
conservation program the key building block for state
and national conservation programs.

2. Provide for joint decisionmaking among state soil 0 0 0 0 x x x
conservation agency, USDA state-level offices, and other
interested parties, in identifying state critical resource
problem areas, setting priorities for action, and 'developing
the state conservation program, taking local conservation
programs into account.

3. Establish a USDA National Conservation Board to advise 0 0 0 0 x x x
ON the Secretary of Agriculture on conservation matters and
I
11 national critical resource problem areas, and to recommend
00 national conservation priorities.

4. Use the program prepared by the state as the basis for an 0 0 .0 0 x x x
agreement between the Governor and the Secretary of
-Agriculture, outlining conservation actions to be taken
cooperatively.

5. With advice of the USDA National Conservation Board, the@ 0 0 0 0 x x x
Secretary of Agriculture sets national conservation
priorities and develops the national conservation program,
taking state and local conservation programs into account.

6. Achieve closer budget coordinat.ion among USDA agencies 0 x x x x x x
with conservation program responsibilities.

D. USDA PROGRAM ACTIONS THROUGH 1985:

1. Target a larger share of available USDA conservation funds 0 x 'xx x xx xxx x
and pe.rsonnel to critical areas where erosion threatens
the long-term productive capacity of the soil.

2. Emphasize conservation measures, such as minimum tillage, 0 x xx x xx xx x
that are most cost efficient in reducing erosion.

3. Concentrate efforts to reduce flood damages to areas with 0 x xx x x xx x
high total damages to human life, agricultural lands and
property.

Table 6-8.--Features of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 under the different funding level s--Continued

2 3
Continue
Current
Feature Trends Level Upper Lower Level Upper Lower

4. Provide variable-rate USDA grants to states for financial 0 0 0 0 XX XXX 0
and technical assistance to carry out state and/or local
activities in critical resource problem areas of national
significance.

5.. Support states that enact laws that assure treatment of 0 0 0 0 X X X
critical resource problem areas in accordance with
locally determined conservation standards.

6. Strengthen tax incentives, such as federal 0 X X X X X X
tax credit for investments in conservation practices
or accelerated depreciation of capital, investments
for installing conservation measures.

7. Give priority to providing technical assistance to farmers d X XX X X XX X
and ranchers for planning and installing conservation
systems.

funds
8. Increase the proportion of total USDA conservation d X X 0 X XX 0
used for sharing with farmers and ranchers the costs of
installing conservation practices.

9. Increase the availability of low-interest USDA loans for d X XX d XX XXX X
installing conservation systems on farms and ranches.

10. Target research efforts to solve priority conservation 0 X XX X XX XXX X
problems.

11. Target education and information activities for 0 X XX X XX XXX X
conservation, emphasizing conservation tillage.

12. Conduct pilot projects to test new conservation strategies. 0 X X X X X X

13. Minimize features of USDA farm programs that limit the 0 X X X X X X
achievement of conservation objectives.

14. Strengthen data collection for better analysis of resource X X X X X X X
conditions and trends.

15. Evaluate conservation programs to determine their X XX XXX XX XX XXX XX
effectiveness and efficiency.

16. Expand the use of long-term contracts between USDA and 0 X XX X X XX XX
farmers and ranchers for financial and technical assistance.

17. Establish the requirement that land owners have a con- 0 0 0 0 X X X
servation plan in order to be eligible to participate
in FmHA loan programs.

Table 6-8.--Features of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 under the different funding level s--Cont inued

2 3
Cont i nUe
Current
Feature Trends Level Upper Lower Level Upper Lower

E. PROJECTED ACHIEVEMENT OF REDUCING GROSS EROSION REDUCTION:
(1977 CONDITION = 5.33 BILLION TONS/YEAR)

5th year, erosion (billion tons/year) 4.81 4.51 4.39 4.72 4.47 4.31 4.72

50 years, erosion (billion tons/year) 5.83 4.78 4.24 5.60 4.37 3.83 5.46

F . RESPONSIVENESS TO PROGRAM EVALUATION NEEDS x xx xxx

G. CONSISTENCY WITH PUBLIC COMMENT Inconsistent Consistent Consistent

all

Additional Options Considered

Cross-compliance and state conservation practices acts were fully considered
for use with any of the alternatives. Selected elements of these options
were adopted in the preferred program.

Cross-Compliance

USDA could improve the consistency with which its farm and conservation pro-
grams respond to national soil and water conservation objectives. This could
be accomplished in either of two ways: (1) requiring that management of
lands with serious resource conservation problems conform with acceptable
resource managfment systems as a condition of eligibility for participating
in specified USDA programs, or (2) offering increased benefits from specific
programs to land owners or operators who meet acceptable resource management
standards. The basic concept of the two methods discussed here is generally
referred to as "cross-compliance."

General guidelines for the operation of cross-compliance for acceptable
resource management systems would be developed by a national USDA committee.
The committee would consist of representatives of agencies that were directly
involved in resource program operations or that furnished technical consul-
tation in the development of program criteria and operating procedures at
state and local levels. Represented agencies would include the Agricultural
Research Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
Cooperative State Research Service, Economic Research Service, Extension
Service, Farmers Home Administration, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation,
Forest Service, and Soil Conservation Service.

Consistent with the general guidelines developed by the national committee,
state committees would develop guidelines and general procedures for use at
the county level in each state. The guidelines and procedures would assist
responsible parties in achieving desired objectives at the local level while
allowing sufficient flexibility to adapt the program to local conditions.
State committee membership would include state representatives of agencies
that are members of the national committee and representatives of the state
soil and water conservation agency and the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations.

Specifications for "acceptable" and "unacceptable" resource management
systems would be jointly developed by conservation district officials and
county ASC committees with technical assistance provided by local represen-
tatives of state and USDA resource agencies. No system would be designated
as "acceptable" if it resulted in excessive erosion and if alternative man-
agement systems that would further reduce erosion on similar lands were
available and practical in the community. However, it would not be necessary
to achieve T-value if this level of erosion control reduced farm incomes
under local conditions.- Both the required and voluntary approaches would
require procedures for performance measurement, spot-checking certifications,
and appeals.

Required conformance.--Integrated program management for erosion reduction
probably could be most easily applied to USDA loan programs. It is poten-
tially applicable to price support, commodity, and production adjustment

6-41

programs. Achievement of erosion control objectives would not be uniform for
all regions of the country because the rate of participation in these pro-
grams varies greatly. Based on recent participation rates, a majority of the
cropland in principal wheat-producing states would be affected, but only
about one-fourth of the cropland in the Eastern Corn Belt, Appalachia, and
the Southeast, and limited amounts in the Northeast would be affected.

If adopted, this approach would be applied only to those parts of a farm
where conservation standards are not met. Portions of farms in compliance
would be eligible for regular farm program benefits.

Effectiveness of cros-compliance.--In order for such integrated program
management approaches to be effective in accomplishing conservation objec-
tives, they must provide the short-run financial incentive necessary to
stimulate participation among land owners and operators. To minimize their
conservation costs, it is expected that land owners and operators would
increase their demands for cost-sharing or bonus payments and technical
assistance more rapidly than additional resources could be provided to accom-
modate them. This would require ASCS and SCS to place new priorities in the
allocation of ACP and technical assistance both among and within states to
meet the most pressing demands under the required conformance approach.

Assuming that this option were based on commodity programs, an RCA analysis
estimated that "only about 25 percent of the lands needing conservation
..practices would be covered by a cross-compliance requirement between USDA's
commodity and conservation programs" (3). Furthermore, when demand for
agricultural commodities is high, income support programs are reduced or
nonexistent. Yet, pressure on the resource base is the greatest. Thus, when
the need for conservation measures is greatest, the actual incentives would
be smallest. Therefore, if projections of strong demand for agricultural
commodities during the 1980's are accurate, the effectiveness of cross-
compliance in reducing soil erosion would be limited to years when acreage
setasides were required to reduce production.

It is likely that less than half of the Nation's cropland would be affected
by a cross-compliance feature if recent participation rates in commodity
programs continue.' This'estimate of the maximum impact is based on an assum-
ption that added costs for erosion reduction would induce more participants
to drop out than would be accomplished by new participants entering the
program.

State and local response.--Because this option would modify a perceived
firight" of land owners and operators to participate selectively in USDA
programs, it probably would have only limited support among farm operators.
Opposition would vary regionally. An analsyis of the public response to the
RCA draft documents indicated that cross-compliance to achieve conservation
objectives was opposed by 51 percent of the respondents (4). Opposition
among farmers and ranchers was more pronounced, about 63 percent. However,
about 60 percent of all respondents said that cross-compliance would be
effective. In addition, among the 7,000 citizens surveyed by Harris and
Associates, 75 percent stated that farmers who abused the soil should not be
eligible to receive benefits of USDA farm programs. Sixty two percent of the
farmers surveyed agreed. Any effort to implement this option would probably
need to move gradually to ensure adequate support.

6-42

Limiting this option to excessively eroding lands would be a step in that
direction,. A requirement for conformance with acceptable management systems
as a requirement for participation in other USDA programs would be more
acceptable under the bonus approach than under the mandatory approach.

Specification of acceptable soil conserving resource management systems,
certification of compliance, and monitoring would be local functions that
would tend to place additional responsibilities on local citizens and federal
officials. The certification procedures would increase workloads and
expenses of conservation districts and county ASC committees.

Program costs and manpower.--Although there is no basis for a reliable esti-
mate, there would be added administrative and technical assistance costs. The
most significant cost increa-s@ might result from increased demands for
cost-share assistance from land owners and operators who need to comply with
acceptable resource management systems. One analysis of cross-compliance
concluded: "Requiring farmers to cross-comply, i.e., to meet certain conser-
vation standards to become eligible to participate in supply control and
other programs, may be very expensive. Either (a) the rate of participation
in voluntary supply control and other programs will be greatly diminished; or
(b) the incentives necessary to get farmers to participate in these programs
will have to be increased substantially." (2)
1
These increased demands could'exceed funding for the Agricultural Conservation,
Great Plains Conservation, Forestry Incentives, and Rural Clean Water Programs.
Also, technical assistance and cost-share demands may require geographic
reallocation of resources by SCS,and ASCS to meet the most pressing national
needs for erosion control. If bonuses went primarily to those already in
compliance, costs could be very high in relation to benefits unless targeting
was implemented or operators of land not in compliance were subject to
reduced benefits or were barred from receiving benefits.

Impact on program administration and institutions.--Cross-compliance would
closely tie USDA nonconservation programs to conservation objectives and
programs. It would require closer coordination at federal, state, and local
levels and would increase the complexity of program administration in the
early years. A more significant impact would be the reduction of individual
USDA agency independence in determining eligibility of applicants or levels
of benefits for programs. This problem would be most difficult at the field.
level, where program decisions would be made.

There may be reduced participation in nonconservation programs, particularly
where the most serious erosion problems occur, where the cost of control is
high, and where smaller farms are concentrated. Cross-compliance,could
impede accomplishment of some nonconservation program objectives. However,
where increased costs or FCIC premiums preclude profitable operation of lands
that are highly erodible and unsuitable for long-run crop production, the net
result would be reduction of excessive erosion and protection of residual
long-term soil productivity.

Political and legislative considerations.--Land owners and operators and
nonconservation program clients, special interest groups, and secondary
beneficiaries of USDA programs such as banks and equipment dealers would
likely oppose this option to some degree because of the additional con-

6-43

straints placed on qualification for USDA program benefits. To the extent
that technical and cost-sharing assistance were reallocated, there could be
delayed political reaction from clients formerly served by the reallocated
resources. New legislative authority may be required to implement this
option, particularly under the bonus approach.

Distributional effects.--In the short run, this option would probably result
in slightly higher production costs because of the additonal conservation
investments, a portion of which could be passed on to consumers in slightly
higher food prices. The effects, however, probably would be negligible. As
soil productivity was maintained because of soil erosion reduction, the
long-run effects on production costs and consumer pri.ces_lwould probably be
favorable.,

Land owners and operators of small and part-time farms could be excluded from
participation in nonconservation programs unless full incentives to cover
their costs of adopting acceptable soil conserving resource management
systems were provided. Land owners and operators who had limited resources
might not have the available capital for their share of the conservation
investment.

Regardless of the size of the operation, land owners and operators in the
more erodible areas of the country would probably have to make the greatest
adjustments in their operations to come into compliance with acceptable soil
conserving management systems. Thus, it is expected that participation in
nonconservation programs would decline in erosion-prone areas.

State Conservation Practices Acts

Individual land owners and users have a major stake in and responsibility for
use of conservation systems to protect the productive capacity of soil,
water, and related resources. However, community, state, and national
interests are also affected by the manner in which these resources are used.
The appraisal of current conditions and trends weighed against projected
resource demands for the future reflect the need for stronger efforts to
prevent activities that exploit or abuse soil and water resources.

Traditionally, soil and water conservation objectives have been promoted by
emphasizing society's long-term responsibilities for resource conservation.
Participation in these programs has been voluntary, relying on commitment to
a conservation ethic and incentives. It has resulted in major achievements
in protecting the resource base. However, traditiona1programs and
approaches appearto be reaching the limits of their effectivenesss in
bringing about full achievement of soil and water conservation objectives.

Proscriptions for remedying soil and water conservation problems that go
beyond voluntary participation rest most appropriately at the local and state
levels. USDA could encourage and support the adoption of state soil and
water conservation practices acts. USDA would provide information on soil
and water conservation problems and the need to act on them more effectively.
Local and state institutions would administer the provisions of such acts.
This would provide a means of achieving approved conservation standards where
land owners and users do not meet them voluntarily.- It could significantly

6-44

reduce the time required to attain a stable condition for the remaining
agricultural resources and ensure their capacity to meet future needs. The
cooperative local-state-federal program would provide an added incentive to
states where there is a need to address this issue.

If USDA wanted to further strengthen state conservation practices acts, it
could provide for bonus grants to states that enacted such legislation.
States could use.these grants in establishing procedures for carrying out the
law.

Effects.--State conservation practices acts provide a means for remedying
those difficult and persistent problems that cannot be solved voluntarily.
They avoid inappropriate incursion of the federal government in matters where
local and state authorities could protect the public interest. State con-
servation practices acts that include provisions for adoption of local con-
servation standards that are technically and economically feasible and
strengthen the basis for solving problems by targeting on critical problem
areas.

A state with a conservation practices act could be more effective in resource
conservation as the cooperative local-state-federal partnership in resource
programs is expanded.

Several states have developed legislation in response to needs identified in
water quality studies under Section 208 of the Water Quality Act. These laws
tend to address problems of erosion and sedimentation where they pose serious
problems in maintaining water quality.

State and local response.--This option recognizes and responds to an estab-
lished trend toward increased use and adoption of state conservation prac-
tices acts. Twenty states, including Iowa and Illinois, as well as the
Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia adopted some form of a
conservation practices act during the 1970's. Six states established soil
and water conservation cost-sharing programs during this same period. USDA
would provide data and*technical advice in response to state requests for
assistance.

Relationship to public comments.--Previous public comments strongly supported
a partnership among all levels of government in soil and water conservation.
The strong preference was that more decisions affecting program implementa-
tion be made at the local level. Most respondents believed that land owners
and operators have an obligation to protect and conserve resources for man-
kind as long as there is equity between private and public costs and bene-
fits. Groups opposed to any potential infringements on private property
rights could oppose this option. However, passage of conservation practices
acts in some-states in the 1970's indicate that this opposition is waning in
some areas.

Political and legislative considerations.--This option relies on legislative
initiatives by state governments.

Program costs and staffing.--This option could have a varied impact on USDA
staffing. It could have a major impact on the location and assignments of
USDA personnel in response to the demand for assistance to meet approved

6-45

conservation standards. If states provided additional staff of their own,
demands on USDA staffing could be reduced.

Distributional effects.--The application of state conservation practices acts
involves providing program services to operators who need assistance to
comply with local standards. Therefore, priority would be given to meeting
their needs. Services to operators who seek conservation assistance for
purposes other than complying with local standards and alleviating local
problems could be reduced, but this would depend on total funding levels.

Increased private costs and investments in practices that maintain long-term
productive capacity would push production costs upward in the short term.
Long-term public interests, including consumer prices and environmental
quality, would be favorably affected by these same initiatives.

6-46

Organization for Providing Solutions

The existing arrangement of.programs in USDA has evolved over a period of
years. Local organizations, including county ASC committees, conservation
districts, and extension advisory committees play significant roles in
creating public awareness and delivery of USDA program services. USDA con-
servation programs have therefore tended to reflect individual, local, and
state wants and needs but have not emphasized targeted national priorities.

Four options for organizing for soil and water conservation programs within
USDA were examined. These options are discussed below.

Retain Present Structure

USDA's present organizational structure provides for elements of the current
USDA soil and water conservation program to be dispensed through seven dif-
ferent agencies. These agencies report to and receive policy guidance
through five of the seven Under Secretary/Assistant Secretary/Director
positions that report to the Secretary.

This organizational structure has been criticized at times from various
sources. The issue of organization was mentioned in 4,757 of the 11,856
comments directed to USDA and its agencies in response to the RCA Draft
Documents in January-March 1980. Most of the comments indicated that the
organization for soil and water conservation programs is satisfactory as now
constituted.

Increased Coordination and Cooperation

This option assumes that the Department's present organization is funda-
mentally sound. It also assumes that improved coordination and cooperation
among USDA agencies would result in more effective program delivery.

The primary mission of the agencies would not c@ange. Therefore, no re-
organization would be necessary. The Secretary would establish a budget
coordination committee that would ensure that the Department's priorities
were reflected in the budget proposals for conservation programs. Agency
budget proposals would be based on a uniform method of workload analysis,
monitoring, and evaluation of performance.

This option is part of alternatives 2 and 3.

Integrated Soil and Water Conservation Program

Another option would be to create a completely new agency, a Soil and Water
Conservation Agency. This action would require new legislation. It would
require merging the soil and water conservation program components of USDA's
other conservation agencies to the new organization.

There are derivations of the integrated program concept that may be feasible
and worthy of consideration. Data collection and interpretation, soil and

6-47

water conservation grants and cost sharing, soil and water conservation
research and technology development, and conservation technical assistance
programs are closely related and should reflect uniform policies, technical
capability, and administrative procedures. A partial integration of USDA
programs within a single agency would satisfy many critics of the present
structure. This partial integration could begin with a merging of technical
and financial assistance with date gathering and interpretation. Then,
research and technology development could be integrated. It is unlikely that
an incremental approach would go beyond this level. Education and infor-
mation, loans, and Forest Service programs would remain as they are.

The potential for improved services and increased effectiveness from the
integrated program concept is sufficient to merit further study and analysis.
However, the institutional and political implications are complex and
far-reaching enough to require additional evaluation.

Reassignment of Agency Roles by Function

This strategy envisions a reassignment of the various soil and water conser-
vation functions among existing USDA agencies. Each agency would specialize
in the function or functions assigned to it.

The concept of functional assignment offers some potential improvements over
the current structure. It is not an "all-or-nothing" decision, and timing is
not a critical factor. This option deserves continuing study after prepara-
tion of the recommended RCA program.

Conclusion

The existing organizational structure can be made more effective and respon-
sive to national priorities and problems. The potential benefits of
strengthening the current organizational structure by improved coordination
and increased cooperation outweigh the long-term negative effects of con-
tinuing the current arrangement. No organizational changes are proposed at
this time.

6-48

References

(1) Fischer, Victor; John Boyle; Mark Schulman; and Michael Bucuvalas Inc.
1980. A Survey of the Public's Attitudes Toward Soil, Water, and
Renewable Resources Conservation Policy. Louis Harris and Associates,
Inc. Study No. 792802.

(2) Skold, Melvin D. 1979. Cross-Compliance. Department of Economics,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. (Unpublished paper)

(3) 'United States Department of Agriculture. 1980. Program Report and
Environmental Impact Statement. Soil and Water Resources Conservation
Act. (Review draft)

(4) United States Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report of the Public's
Comments on the RCA Draft Documents, January-March 1980.

6-49

CHAPTER 7
THE PREFERRED PROGRAM

After considering the alternatives as presented in chapter 6, the Secretary
of Agriculture selected alternative 3 as the one most likely to approach,
within the overall budgetary guidelines of this Administration, the require-
ments for protection of the Nation's soil and water resources.

The preferred program is based on cooperative actions among local and state
governments and the federal government for solving resource problems.
Cooperative solutions to resource problems are not new. Local conservation
districts, county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) commit-
tees, and extension advisory committees work closely with the local offices
of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), and Extension Service (ES) to provide technical
assistance, financial assistance, and information and education services to
land owners. The preferred program retains these existing organizations and
relationships to expand the capacity of state and local g overnments to
recognize and solve resource problems.

The preferred program moves away from the "cafeteria," or "first come, first
served," approach of traditional conservation programs conducted by the United
States Department of Agriculture. It addresses instead specific national
resource conservation priorities. The top priority is the reduction of soil
erosion, and the second priority is the reduction of upstream flood damages.
The cornerstone of the preferred program is the targeting of soil conserva-
tion actions to reduce soil erosion and related conservation problems that
impair the Nation's agricultural productivity.

USDA developed the preferred program after carefully considering the
responses received during the 1980 RCA public comment period and views
obtained from the 1979 public opinion survey conducted by Louis Harris and
Associates, Inc. These activities show that the public favors a program that
achieves conservation objectives through voluntary participation with more
emphasis on decisions made at local and state levels. People view soil,
water, and related resources as,national assets that should be used but not
wasted and are concerned that not enough is being done to preserve the
capacity of the Nation's resources to meet future needs. The public says
that adopting specific objectives would lead to more effective action on
addressing critical resource problems and that agricultural use should be
given priority over other uses of these scarce resources.

Most of all, the public expects a cooperative partnership among land owners
and users, local and state governments, and the federal government in meeting
national priorities and protecting the public interest in the conservation of
soil and water resources. Therefore, the preferred program is the most
responsive and practical approach for meeting national, state, and local
needs as identified in the appraisal, the analysis of alternatives, and the
public's comments.

7-1

This chapter presents an overview of the preferred program. To review a full
description of alternative 3, see again pages 6-18 through 6-33.

Highlights of the Preferred Program

The preferred program--

� establishes clear national priorities for addressing problems associated
with soil, water, and related resources over the next 5 years. The
highest priority is reduction of soil erosion to maintain the long-term
productivity of agricultural land. The next highest priority is reduc-
tion of flood damages in upstream areas. Water conservation and supply
management, water quality improvement, and community related conserva-
tion problems have next priority. Fish and wildlife habitat improvement
and organic waste management are an integral part of solutions to these
problems.

� strengthens the existing partnership among land owners and users, local
and state governments, and the federal government. This partnership
will identify needs and develop and implement soil and water conserva-
tion programs. Through this partnership, the program--

- provides federal matching block grants to states for an expanded
role in developing and implementing conservation programs, the
federal funds to be obtained by reducing current federal conservation
program funds.

- provides for a Local Conservation Coordinating Board made up of
representatives of the conservation district, county ASC committee,
extension advisory committee, and other interested parties. This
board will appraise local conditions and needs, develop programs,
and work through existing local, state, and federal institutions.
The local board will concentrate on solving problems and achieving
program objectives.

- provides for a State Conservation Coordinating Board, with members
appointed by the Governor, to appraise overall state conditions and
needs. The state board will use programs adopted at the local
level to develop and implement state soil and water conservation
programs.

- establishes a USDA National Conservation Board to advise the
Secretary of Agriculture on conservation matters.

- bases state and federal cooperative conservation actions on an
agreement between each Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture.

� provides for increased and more efficient cooperation and budget
coordination among USDA agencies with.conservation program responsi-
bilities.

� continues or initiates the following program actions to achieve conser-
vation objectives. The program--

7-2

targets an increased proportion of USDA conservation program funds
and personnel to critical areas where soil erosion or other resource
problems threaten the long-term productive capacity of soil and
water resources.

emphasizes conservation tillage and other cost-efficient measures
for reducing soil erosion and solving related problems.

calls for evaluation of tax incentives as an inducement to increased
use of conservation systems.

increases emphasis on technical and financial assistance to farmers
and ranchers who plan and install needed and cost-efficient conser-
vation systems.

targets USDA research, education, and information services toward
immediate and long-term objectives that will protect and maintain
the productive capacity of agricultural lands.

permits and supports the use of pilot projects to evaluate solutions
for persistent resource problems and to test potential new solutions.

requires conservation plans consistent with locally determined
standards-for recipients of Farmers Home Administration loans.

minimizes conflicts among features of USDA programs that limit
achievement of conservation objectives.

strengthens collection and analysis of data on resource conditions
and trends and conservation needs and provides data useful at the
state and local levels.

provides for systematic evaluations and analyses of conservation
programs to determine their effectiveness and progress in achieving
conservation objectives.

expands the use of long-term agreements in providing technical and
financial assistance to farmers and ranchers.

Effectiveness of the Preferred Program

Evaluations of current soil and water conservation programs were considered
in formulating the preferred program, as discussed in chapter 5. Therefore,
the preferred program--

� establishes clear program objectives to increase efficiency.

� sets priorities to help field personnel plan and schedule their work to
improve program implementation.

7-3

� recognizes the diversity of resource conditions and formulates national
policies and procedures that can be adapted to state and regional needs
to increase program effectiveness.

� encourages the involvement of individuals and organizations-in changing
the program to make it more effective and acceptable.

� emphasizes increased research, education, and technical assistance to
develop resource management and conservation systems that are
cost-efficient.

� provides for better coordination among USDA agencies to achieve
unanimity of purpose in planning and budgeting for conservation
programs.

� requires monitoring and evaluation that lead to prompt adjustments in
the program to achieve maximum effectiveness and acceptability.

Funding for the Preferred Program

The distribution of federal funds under the preferred program over the next 5
years -is shown in table 7-1.

Chapter 8 shows the expected consequences of implementing the preferred
program.

Table 7-l.--Projected fifth-year distribution of funds
among major components, preferred program 1/

1981 Fund i@nq
Major component (base Level Upper Lower
year) funding bound bound
(millions of dollars)

1. Technical assistance---- 198 211 212 185

2. Financial assistance:
a. Cost shares to
operators ----------- 278 164 166 179
b . For project
activities ---------- 177 167 211 134
C. Subtotal financial
assistance ---------- (455) (331) (377) (313)

3. USDA matching funds ----- --- 105 175 30

4. Educat i on/ I nf o rmat i on
(Extension Service) ----- 12 14 15 10

5. Research and technology
development ------------- 74 80 88 71

6. Data collection and
analysis ---------------- 81 79 87 72

7. Emergency programs 2/ --- 17 17 17 17

TOTAL ----------------------- 837 837 971 698

Loans ----------------------- (77) (72) (82) (60)

.1/ All funds are shown in millions of constant 1979 dollars rounded
to the nearest million.
a/ Held constant because it is impossible to.predict emergencies.

7-4

CHAPTER 8
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter identifies significant consequences that would likely follow
adoption of the preferred program or one of the alternatives. These conse-
quences are presented in three categories: physical and biological, economic,
and social. Physical and biological consequences include effects on the
quality of soil, water, air, and habitat for fish and wildlife. Economic
consequences include program costs and benefits. Social consequences include
factors that affect the quality of life.

None of the program alternatives would reverse the trends that threaten the
productive capacity of the Nation's soil and water resources. The preferred
program, however, would have the greatest effect in slowing the loss of this
capacity.

Although nondegradation of these resources should be the ultimate national
objective for soil and water conservation programs, additional analysis and
preparation will be required for designing and implementing plans for
approaching this goal.

The likely short-term (5-year) and long-term (50-year) consequences of the
preferred program and each alternative at level funding are described in the
following narrative. The consequences at other funding levels are displayed
in figures 8-1 through 8-8 (pages 8-9 through 8-12) and further detailed in
chapter,6.

Physical and Biological Consequences

Preferred Program

The preferred program provides for more conservation activity than do the
alternative programs and consequently would have the greatest positive effect
on soil and water resources. Degradation of the resource base would continue,
but at a reduced rate. The following short-term physical and biological
effects could be expected.

0 Gross annual erosion would be about 860 million tons less than the
amount reported in the 1977 National Resource Inventories (NRI).

0 The acreage of cropland eroding at rates more than 5 tons per acre
annually would be reduced from the 141 million acres reported in the NRI
to 126 million acres.

0 The amount of sediment that reached surface waters from agricultural
nonpoint sources would be about 320 million tons less than the amount
reported in the NRI.

8-1

Preferred Program

Under the preferred program, the following short-term economic consequences
would likely occur:

0 Production costs and consumer prices would probably increase modestly.

0 Annual upstream flood damages would be about $28 million less than in
1977.

0 Federal matching grant funds in the initial years probably would be $50
to $100 million annually, depending on the amounts that states were
willing and able to match.

Over the long term, the following effects could be expected:

0 The unit cost of producing food and fiber would decrease from an index
of 230 in 1977 to 200 by the year 2030. Land owners and operators and
society would benefit from maintenance of long-term soil productivity.
Where erosion could be controlled with low-cost measures such as conser-
vation tillage, even the short-term costs of production might decline.

0 Annual upstream flood damages would be about $390 million less than in
1977.

Alternative 1: Continuation of Current Program Trends

If current program trends continued, the following short-term consequences
could be expected:

0 Funding for research, education, data collection, and analysis would
increase. These activities would contribute to a better understanding
of resource conditions, trends, and problems.

0 The amount of funds available for cost-share assistance for conservation
measures on agricultural lands would decline from about 33 to 26 percent
of total USDA conservation funds. Reduced funding available for cost
sharing could threaten the continuation of the county Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) committee system in some counties.

0 Total funding for technical assistance would decline by about 9 percent.
Because of cuts primarily in the level of cost sharing and loans to
individuals, however, the proportion of total funding for technical,
assistance would increase from 23 percent to 26 percent.

0 Initial USDA efforts to target on critical problem areas would be
hampered by declining funds available for technical and cost-share
assistance.

0 Annual upstream flood damages would be about $23 million less than in
1977.

8-4

The following long-term consequences could be expected:

0 Food and fiber production costs would increase more than 38 percent.
Prices to consumers would also increase.

0 Annual upstream flood damages would be $240 million less than in 1977.

0 Initially, direct costs--such as those required for additional
fertilizer--to program participants would not increase. As the soils
were further eroded and as new developments in conservation technology
were slowed, direct costs to the farmer would increase because of
reduced productivity. Consequently, conservation would likely be
foregone in the interest of short-term profits.

0 Reduced federal activity would result in increased reliance on local and
state governments and private individuals to provide the conservation
measures necessary to maintain the productive capacity of soil and water
resources.

Alternative 2: Redirection of USDA Programs
Toward Critical Agricultural Resource Problems

The following short-term consequences could be expected:

0 Funds would be targeted to high-priority problem areas.

0 If maximum cost efficiency were achieved, the costs of production would
not increase significantly and public benefits could increase. The
number of employees in federal conservation programs would remain about
the same or would increase slightly if funding were increased.

0 The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) would commit an additional 5 percent of
their financial and technical assistance budget each year to specified
high priority areas until 25 percent of the soil and water conservation
funds were committed to these areas.

0 Annual upstream flood damages would be $27 million less than in 1977.

The following long-term effects would likely occur:

0 The unit cost of producing food and fiber would increase by about 16
percent.

0 Annual upstream flood damages would be about $360 million less than in
1977.

8-5

Social Consequences

Preferred Program

The preferred program can be expected to have a net beneficial effect on both
urban and rural populations. Government agencies will work with individuals
and local groups to reduce the adverse effects of critical soil erosion,
sedimentation, and flooding on agricultural productivity. As a result, the
quality of life in these critical areas and in other areas will be improved
through opportunities for increased income; improved quality of air and
water; and decreased risk of death, injury, and property loss from flooding.
Rural communities will benefit from maintenance of high levels of food and
fiber production, flood damage reduction, improvement of air and water
quality, increased opportunities for employment, stabilization of the farm
population, and enhancement of rural life.

Activities associated with development of local conservation programs should
foster community cohesiveness and provide a mechanism through which any
potentially negative social effects of proposed conservation strategies could
be identified and mitigated early.

The greatest social benefit of the preferred program is long term: the
preservation of the resource base so that the quality of life for future
generations will be maintained or improved.

Implementation of the preferred program would somewhat affect existing
institutional arrangements and the operations of such institutions. Under
the preferred program, USDA soil and water conservation activities would be
carried out in closer cooperation with state and local governments. USDA
agencies would have less flexibility in the allocation of personnel and
financial resources because resources would be targeted to critical areas.
The emphasis on critical areas and on stronger mutual planning of statewide
conservation programs might necessitate some adjustments in conservation
practices applied. Present allocation of resources within and among counties
might require adjustment. The integration of other federal and state
authorities, such as the EPA water quality management program, into the
conservation program could produce efficiencies in achievement of related
federal and state objectives.

Alternative 1: Continuation of Current Program Trends

Continuation of the existing institutional arrangements would tend to
minimize any controversy. Long-term benefits to society, however, would be
reduced because resource productivity would decline.

Alternative 2: Redirection of USDA Programs
Toward Critical Agricultural Resource Problems

Any major shifts in the allocation of funds and technical assistance to
targeted areas--especially between states for existing programs such as the
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), Great Plains Conservation Program

8-6

(GPCP), or SCS technical assistance--could generate some opposition. Parti-
cipation by state and local governments in program development could lead to
more optimal allocations of budget and personnel within states. These
adjustments, however, could disrupt some conservation activities.

Civil Rights

USDA examined the preferred program and alternative programs for their
potential effect on civil rights and concluded that there would be no adverse
effects on minorities or women. USDA conducts its programs in compliance
with all nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 C.F.R. Sec.
15.1-15.12), which provide that no person in the United States shall, because
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any activity
receiving federal financial assistance. Further, it is USDA policy not to
discriminate against any individual because of sex, age, or handicap.

Threatened and Endangered Species

As of August 1979, 214 animals and 24 plants were on the federal list of
endangered or threatened species, as authorized by the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. These species are sporadically and irregularly distributed
throughout the United States. Some of these species would almost certainly
be encountered as conservation measures were applied to private rural lands.
In accordance with the law, USDA procedures are designed to ensure that no
action will jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy
their habitats. For purposes of this analysis, USDA assumed that its future
conservation programs would be conducted so that there would be no signifi-
cant detrimental consequences to threatened or endangered species or their
critical habitats.

Cultural Resources

Conservation of our natural resources is not complete without consideration
of our cultural environment. Many of our conservation problems and practices
today are the result of past successes and failures, as evidenced by remaining
cultural resources (archeological and historic). If we are to profit from
the past, cultural resource preservation must be an integral part of our
conservation efforts.

Over 22,000 important cultural resources are listed on the National Register
of Historic Places maintained by the Department of the Interior. Many more
are known to exist throughout the United States.

In implementing these programs, USDA will comply with its planning and cul-
tural resources protection procedures (7 C.F.R. 3100) and with applicable
historic preservation laws to ensure the protection of our Nation's cultural
heritage.

8-7

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The analysis indicates that if soil and water conservation programs are not
effective there will be continued degradation of the soil resource base
through erosion, continued threat to human life and agricultural and other
lands as a result of flooding, and continued degradation of water quality
from agricultural pollutants. Increases in the efficiency of agricultural
irrigation will be slight, and wetland losses will continue.

It may be necessary to remove some highly erodible land from crop production.
Some land owners may consider this requirement controversial. USDA
anticipates no other significant unavoidable adverse effects.

USDA considers that the limited temporary increases in noise, air pollution,
and soil erosion that may result from the installation of conservation
practices and the associated minor losses of wildlife habitat will be
insignificant from a national viewpoint.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Funds, labor, materials, and energy expended to install conservation systems
would be irretrievably committed. Lands on which permanent structural
measures are installed would be committed for the foreseeable future.

Possible Areas of Controversy

0 In some years, converting land from agricultural production to less
intensive use would conflict with perceived needs for increased agricul-
tural production.

0 Some individuals may think that strong economic incentive programs
conflict with efforts to establish a voluntary basis for soil and water
stewardship.

0 Implementation of the preferred program could generate controversy about
allocation of funds and personnel.

0 In areas where conservation practices would affect water supply and
conservation, controversy should be expected over the possible effects
on wildlife habitat and the responsibilities for mitigation of losses.

0 The impact of the preferred program on the other USDA programs may
stimulate controversy.

8-8

50 year
5 year 1977 Base

Alternative I (Current trends)
ON

Alternative 2 Level ;. .. .....
(Redirected)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Alternative 3 Level Q V
(Preferred)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Nondegradation

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Billions of tons per year

Figure 8-1.-Projected gross erosion under the preferred program and
alternatives at the end of 5 years and 50 years.

50 year
5 year 1977 Base

Alternative I (Current trends)

Alternative 2 Level
(Redirected)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Alternative 3 Level
(Preferred)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Nondegradation

0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Millions of acres

Figure 8-2.--Projected acreage of cropland eroding at an annual rate of
more than 5 tons per acre under the preferred program and alternatives
at the end of 5 years and 50 years.

8-9

50 year
5 year 1977 Base

Alternative I (Current trends) ..
X

Alternative 2 Level
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . . . . . . . . . .
(Redirected)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Alternative 3 Level RM
(Preferred)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Billions of tons per year

Figure 8-3.--Projected sediment from agricultural sources under the
preferred program and alternatives at the end of 5 years and 50 years.

I I I I I I 1 1
1977 Base I I

Alternative I (Current trends)

Alternative 2 Level
(Redirected)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Alternative 3 Level
(Preferred)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

0 25 50 75 100
Millions of acre-feet per year

Figure 8-4.--Projected water depletions resulting from agricultural
uses under the preferred program and alternatives at the end of 50 years.

8-10

1977 Base

Alternative I (Current trends)

Alternative 2 Level
(Redirected)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Alternative 3 Level
(Preferred)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

0 1 0 125 150 175 200 225
Millions of animal-unit-months

Figure 8-5.--Projected rangeland productivity under the preferred
program and alternatives at the end of 50 years.

1977 Base

Alternative I (Current trends)

Alternative 2 Level
(Redirected)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Alternative 3 Level
(Preferred)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Index

Figure 8-6.--Projected wildlife habitat quality on agricultural land
under the preferred program and alternatives at the end of 50 years.

8-11

50 year
5 year 1977 Base I I I I

Alternative I (Current trends)

Alternative 2 Level ..................
599
(Redirected) ........
Upper Bound X
-, .........3

Lower Bound .........................
- - - - - - - - - - -

Alternative 3 Level --- ...
K 0'
(Preferred) Upper Bound
070010n,

Lower Bound
M.-N.

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Billions of 1979 dollars

Figure 8-7.--Projected upstream flood damages under the preferred
program and alternatives at the end of 5 years and 50 years.

I I I I I I I I 1 1
1977 Base I I I I

Alternative I (Current trends)

Alternative 2 Level
(Redirected)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Alternative 3 Level
(Preferred)
Upper Bound

Lower Bound

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Index

Figure 8-8.--Projected food and fiber production costs under the
preferred program and alterna tives at the end of 50 years.

8-12

CHAPTER 9
EVALUATION OF THE PREFERRED PROGRAM

Program evaluation is the analysis of how well a program achieves its objectives.
Evaluations provide policy officials and program managers with information on
the need and opportunity for improving the management and effectiveness of
ongoing programs.

This chapter establishes the evaluation concepts and organizational structure
that will guide the evaluation of the program presented in chapter 7. Program
evaluation is needed to meet requirements set forth in section 7(c) of the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA):

The [annual RCA] report, prepared in concise summary form with detailed
appendices, shall contain pertinent data from the current resource
appraisal . . . shall set forth the progress in implementing the program
. . . and shall contain appropriate measurements of pertinent costs and
benefits.

Program evaluation usually deals with a single program that may have single
or multiple objectives. Under RCA, however, the situation is more complex.
The soil and water conservation programs of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) are administered by eight of the Department's agencies.
These programs have different legislative authorities and employ different
delivery systems to assist land owners and operators in installing conserva-
tion systems.

Evaluation of Individual Programs

Evaluation of a specific program is the responsibility of the agency that
administers the program. Each agency will consider the recommendations of an
interagency evaluation work group in establishing its priorities for evaluation.
Each agency will submit to the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
an annual report detailing the status of evaluation of its programs. The SCS
Chief will use these reports in preparing the annual RCA evaluation report.

Each evaluation will analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of each program
and the degree to which it contributes to the overall RCA objectives. Table
9-1 summarizes the status of specific program evaluations.

For each evaluation, the responsible agency will prepare a plan of work,
which will include--

� a statement of overall program objectives and those that will be evaluated.

� discussion of the major issues or concerns associated with the program
that relate to achieving program and RCA objectives.

� evaluation criteria.

9-1

� procedures for measuring program effectiveness.

� description of the analytical techniques and data sources to be used in
the evaluation.

� schedules and assignments.

The major components of each evaluation report will be technical assistance,
financial assistance, research, extension, loans, and data collection and
analysis. Interrelationships with other USDA programs will be considered.

The Annual RCA Evaluation Report

The SCS Chief will coordinate the preparation of the annual RCA evaluation
report with guidance from the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural
Resources and Environment. An interagency evaluation work group, composed of
representatives from USDA conservation agencies and from the USDA Office of
Budget and Program Analysis, will advise the SCS Chief on technical matters
and review the evaluations that the individual USDA agencies made.
Responsibilities of the group include--

� facilitating the exchange of information, data,-and available evaluation
methodologies among agency evaluation staffs.

� recommending evaluation schedules for RCA-related programs to agency
administrators.

� providing guidance and assistance in developing and preparing program
evaluations.

� developing indicators to measure progress toward meeting program objec-
tives.

The RCA evaluation report will place paramount importance on the ability of
USDA agencies to document specific questions and issues. Although quantifi-
cation is convenient and helps define the dimension in which issues or questions
may be addressed, it is not necessarily all-inclusive. Intangible attributes,
both positive and negative, need to be documented and included in the narrative.

The report will--

� contain appropriate measures of pertinent program costs and benefits for
regional areas as well as nationwide.

� assess factors that affect the economy and environmental quality.

� assess new program directions that should be taken as a result of
evaluation activity.

� identify needed legislative changes.

The Secretary of Agriculture will submit the report to Congress through the
President. The report will accompany the President's budget to Congress.

9-2

Table 9-I.--Status of evaluations of USDA soil and water conservation programs, 1981

Responsible Priority
Program agency Status of evaluation of evaluation

Soil, Water, and Air Sciences
Research ------------------- ARS In process ---

Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP) ------- ASCS First phase completed ---
Second phase in process High
Emergency Conservation
Program (ECP) -------------- ASCS Planned ---
Forestry Incentives Program 1/ ASCS In process ---
Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP) ------------- ASCS In process High
Water Bank Program (WBP) ----- ASCS Planned

Cooperative Research in
Agriculture and Forestry --- CSRS In process ---

Natural Resource Economics
Research ------------------- ERS In process ---

Land and Water Conservation
Education ------------------ ES In process

Soil and Water Loans to
Individuals ---------------- FmHA In process ---

National Forest System ------- FS Not within RCA ---
Research --------------------- FS Needed-not planned Low
State and Private Forestry --- FS Planned ---

Conservation Operations ------ SCS In process High
Cooperative River Basin
Studies 2/ 3/ ------------- SCS In process High
Emergency @4_a'te_rshed
Operations (Section 216) --- SCS Completed ---
Flood Prevention Operations
(PL-534) ------------------- SCS Planned Low
Great Plains Conservation
Program -------------------- SCS Planned High
inventory and Monitoring ----- SCS Planned Medium
Plant Materials Centers ------ SCS In process Medium
Resource Conservation and
Development ---------------- SCS In process Medium
Rural Abandoned Mines
Program 3/ ----------------- SCS In process Medium
Snow Survey and Water
Supply Forecasting --------- SCS Planned Medium
Soil Survey ------------------ SCS Planned Medium
Watershed Planning and
Operations (PL-566) -------- SCS Planned High

1/ Coordinated with FS.
2/ Coordinated with SCS.
3/ Coordinated with ERS.

9-3

CHAPTER 10
PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE REPORT

Public Consultation

This Revised Draft Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement is the
culmination of the first stage of a process begun shortly after passage of
the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA). This process of
developing a national conservation program will continue through 1985. As
required by the law, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
involved the public at specific points in the process.

Three large-scale public participation activities have been conducted to
date: (1) a series of public meetings to solicit views on soil, water, and
related resource concerns and problems, (2) a public opinion survey conducted
by Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., and (3) a public review of earlier RCA
draft documents.

As the initial stage of the process of developing the program, USDA officials
and experts from a wide range of disciplines discussed soil and water re-
source problems and implications for the future. In the summer and fall of
1978, USDA learned from people across the Nation about their assessments of
resource problems. USDA agencies and cooperating organizations explained RCA
and discussed resource concerns at 9,000 local, state, and multistate meetings
attended by more than 164,000 people.

USDA representatives also presented information about RCA at many meetings
convened by other organizations. People were asked to identify resource
concerns and problems and to suggest possible solutions. The concerns
expressed most often at these meetings were: soil erosion; food and fiber
production; land use; water supply; water quality; flooding; irrigation;
rural development; drainage; and retention of prime, unique, and important
farmland.

In 1979, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) commissioned Louis Harris and
Associates, Inc., to survey the public's attitudes toward soil, water, and
related resources conservation policy. More than 7,000 adults, a statistically
representative sample, were interviewed. Findings of the survey are fully
described in a report published by the Harris organization (1).

As work progressed, USDA expanded the program development process to allow
more intensive work by eight USDA agencies, the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Council on Environmental Quality. This expanded phase led to
the publication of several major reports: the Draft RCA Appraisal Parts I
and II, the Draft Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement, and the
Summary of the Appraisal and Program Report. Early in 1980, the Department
invited people to submit written comments on these documents. After the
60-day review period, the Department analyzed 64,872 responses submitted by
118,213 people. Their comments are discussed in detail in a separate
report (2).

10-1

Decisionmakers and staff analysts carefully considered the views expressed
through each of these public participation activities as they formulated the
preferred national soil and water conservation program and alternative programs.
The draft proposal published in 1980 was refined to reflect current
conservation and budgetary philosophies. The USDA preferred national program
and alternative programs are now presented for review and comment in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act.

List of Preparers

This report was prepared by a special task force working under the guidance
of John B. Crowell, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural
Resources and Environment, and Richard D. Siegel, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment. Members of this task force included:

Kenneth L Williams, Deputy Chief for Planning and Evaluation, SCS, Team
Leader. B.S. (Agronomy), Brigham Young University; M.S. (Natural Resources
Administration), University of Michigan. Before he was assigned to his
present position, Mr. Williams served for 8 years as the Director of the SCS
West Technical Service Center and as the SCS Administrator's representative
to 13 western States. Before that, he served as State Conservationist, New
Mexico; Assistant State Conservationist, Arizona; and area, district, and
soil conservationist in Indiana, California, and Utah. He is a member of the
Soil Conservation Society of America.

David G. Unger, Associate Chief, SCS. B.A. (Earth Science), Antioch College;
M.A. (Political Science), University of Pennsylvania; M.P.A. Harvard University.
Before assuming his present position, Mr. Unger served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment. Prior to that,
he was Executive Vice President of the National Association of Conservation
Districts (NACD). Earlier, he served as Director of the Pennsylvania Soil
and Water Conservation Commission. He began his career with the Brandywine
Valley Watershed Association and the Upper Susquehanna Watershed Association.

Peter M. Tidd, Director, Appraisal and Program Developmen , SCS. B.S. (Re-
source Development), University of Maine; M.A.R.E., Univeisity of Maine;
M.P.A., Harvard University. Before he was assigned to his present position,
Mr. Tidd spent 4 years on the water resources staff at SCS Headquarters. His
earlier responsibilities involved water and related land resource programs in
Tennessee, Illinois, and Louisiana. Earlier, Mr. Tidd worked for 5 years in
Maine as soil conservationist and agricultural-economist.

Gary A. Margheim, Environmental Coordinator, SCS. B.S. (Civil Engineering),
Colorado State University; M.S. (Civil Engineering), Colorado State University;
Ph.D. (Sanitary Engineering), Colorado State University. Before assuming his
present position, Dr. Margheim was Director of Enviromental Services for SCS.
Earlier, he served as an engineer in Texas, Oregon, and Colorado. Dr. Margheim
is a member of the American Waterworks Association, the American Society of
Civil Engineers, the Soil Conservation Society of America, and the Water
Pollution Control Federation.

Ida D. Cuthbertson, Public Participation Coordinator, SCS. B.A. (Economics),
Ohio State University; M.U.A., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. Before being appointed to her present position, Ms. Cuthbertson

10-2

served in resource planning for SCS. Earlier, she was public health
statistician for the Ohio Department of Health, Columbus. She is a member of
the American Institute of Certified Planners (charter member), the American
Planning Association (charter member), the Soil Conservation Society of
America, and World Future Society.

James N. Benson, Writer-Editor, Appraisal and Program Development, SCS. B.A.
(English), University of Maryland; M.A. (American Studies), University of
Maryland. Before assuming his present position, Mr. Benson served as an
editor with SCS in Maryland and Texas.

Others who assisted in the preparation of this report were: John Fedkiw,
USDA Office of Budget and Program Analysis; Roy M. Gray, SCS; John L. Okay,
SCS; Clayton R. Miller, SCS; Emma B. Corcoran, SCS; and Enid C. Green, SCS.

Distribution of the Report

Interested federal, state, and local agencies and the public are invited to
review and comment on the USDA preferred program and alternative programs
published in this Revised Draft Program Report and Environmental Impact
Statement. USDA placed a Notice of Intent to adopt this program in the
Federal Register at the time of distribution. At the same time, about 2,000
copies of this document were sent to individuals, organizations, and govern-
mental agencies with a request for written comments on the preferred program.
In addition, 400,000 copies of a brief summary of the program and an attached
response form were distributed throughout the country. Interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies may contact the nearest office of the Soil
Conservation Service to obtain the summary or this report.

USDA sent this report to interested individuals and groups, including
agricultural, academic, business, industrial, labor, civic, consumer,
environmental, conservation, professional, religious, minority, and youth
organizations. Copies of the summary.were sent to people who commented on
the draft documents released in January 1980.

The following and other federal officials were sent copies of this report:

Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army
Institute for Water Resources, Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, U.S. Department
of Commerce
Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce
Director, Office of Federal Affairs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, U.S. Department of
the Interior
Coordinator, Water Resources, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of
Transportation

10-3

Federal Cochairman, Appalachian Regional Commission
Executive Secretary, Council on Historic'Preservation
Chairman, Board of Directors, Tennessee Valley Authority

In addition,, copies were sent to the following and other national organizations:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Agricultural Research Institute
Alliance for Environmental Education, Inc.
American Agronomy Society
American Association of Minority Enterprise
American Association of Nurserymen, Inc.
American Conservation Association, Inc.
American Council of Consumers' Interests
American Dairy Science Association
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Federation of Labor
American Feed Manufacturers Association
American Fisheries Society
American Forestry Association
American Land Forum
American Meat Institute
American National Cattlemen's Association
American Planning Association
American Public Works Association
American Rice Growers, Inc.
American Rivers Conservation Council
American Seed Trade Association
American Sheep Producers Council
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
American Society of Agriculture Consultants
American Society of Agromomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Farm Managers and Appraisers
American Society of Landscape Architects
American Water Resources Association
Association of State Soil Conservation Administrative Officers
Brookings Institution
Burley and Dark Leaf Tobacco Export Association, Inc.
Center for Rural Affairs
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for Small Business
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Agricultural Program
Community Nutrition Institute
Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies
Conservation Education Association
Conservation Foundation
Consumer Action Now, Inc.
Consumer Research Advisory Council
Consumers Federation of America
Consumers Union
Corn Refiners Association, Inc.
Council of Small Enterprises

10-4

Council of State Governments
Dairy Industry Committee
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Energy Action Committee
Environmental Action
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Fund
Environmental Law Institute
Food Marketing Institute
Food Research and Action Center, Inc.
Foundation for American Agriculture
Friends of the Earth
Future Farmers of America
Garden Clubs of America
Great Plains Wheat Market Development
International Apple Institute
International City Management Association
International Crane Foundation
Interreligious Task Force on Food Policy
Izaak Walton League
Keep America Beautiful-Foundation
Land Improvement Contractors of America
Latin American Manufacturers Association
League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters
National Academy of Sciences
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
National American Indian Cattleman's Association
National Association of Black Manufacturers
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Consulting Foresters
National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators
National Association of Counties
National Association of Farm Worker Organizations
National Association of Farmer-Elected Committeemen
National Association of Foresters
National Association of Regional Councils
National Association of Small Business Investment Companies
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
National Association of State Foresters
National Association of Town and Township Officials
National Association of Wheatgrowers
National Association of Women Business Owners
National Audubon Society
National Business League
National Canners' Association
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Consumers League
National Corn Growers Association
National Cotton Council of America
National Cottonseed Products Association
National Council of Farmer Co-ops
National Dry Bean Council Co.
National Economic Development Association

10-5

National Family Farm Coalition
National Farmers Organization
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Independent Business
National Forest Products Association
National Governors Association
National Grain Trade Council
National Grange
National Hay Association, Inc.
National Housewives League of America
National League of Cities
National Limestone Institute, Inc.
National Livestock Producers Association
National Milk Producers Federation
National Organization for Women
National Pork Producers Council
National Recreation and Park Association
National Research Council
National Rice Growers Association
National Science Foundation
National Small Business Association
National Solid Wastes Management Association
National Soybean Processors Association
National Sugarbeet Growers Federation
National Turkey Federation
National Water Resources Association
National Watershed Congress
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
National Wool Growers Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
No-Till Farmer, Inc.
Pacific Northwest Grain Export Association
Potato Association of America
Public Citizen-Congress Watch
Public Interest Economics Center
Public Lands Council, Legislative Office
Renewable Natural Resources Foundation
Sierra Club
Smaller Manufacturers Council
Society-of American Foresters
Soil Conservation Society of America
Soybean Growers of America
Sugar Association, Inc.
The Fertilizer Institute
The Wildlife Society
Tobacco Associates, Inc.
United Auto Workers, Conservation and Resource Development Department
United Egg Producers
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association
United States Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Water Resources Congress
Western Wheat Association, USA, Inc.

10-6

1@ Wilderness Society
Wildlife Management Institute
Women's National Farm and Garden Association, Inc.

10-7

References

(1) Fischer, Victor; John Boyle; Mark Schulman; and Michael Bucuvalas.
1980. A Survey of the Public's Attitudes toward Soil, Water, and
Renewable Resources Conservation Policy. Louis Harris and
Associates, Inc. Study No. 792802.

(2) United States Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report of the
Public's Comments on the RCA Draft Documents, January-March 1980.

10-8

APPENDIX
ADDRESSES OF STATE OFFICES OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Please mail your comments to the State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, at the
address listed for your state.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Wright Building 300 Ala Moana Blvd. 451 West Street
138 South Gay Street Room 4316 Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
Auburn, Alabama 36830 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 USDA. Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service Room 101
Suite 129, Professional Building Room 345 1405 South Harrison Road
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. 304 North 8th Street East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Boise, Idaho 83702 USDA, Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service 200 Federal Building & U.S. Court-
3008 Federal Building Springer Federal Building house
230 North 1st Avenue 301 North Randolph Street 316 North Robert Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 Champaign, Illinois 61820 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Federal Office Building, Room 5029 Corporate Square-West Federal Building, Suite 1321
700 West Capitol Street Suite 2200 100 West Capitol Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 5610 Crawfordsville Road Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Indianapolis, Indiana 46224
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
2828 Chiles Road USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1212 Clinkscales Road
Davis, California 95616 693 Federal Building, Rm. 823 Columbia, Missouri 65201
USDA, Soil Conservation Service 210 Walnut Street USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Diamond Hill, Building A Des Moines, Iowa 50309 32 E. Babcock
2490 West 26th Avenue USDA, Soil Conservation Service Bozeman, Montana 59715
Denver, Colorado 80211 760 South Broadway
Salina, Kansas 67401 USDA, Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service Federal Building, Rm. 345
Mansfield Professional Park USDA, Soil Conservation Service 100 Centennial Mall, N.
Route 44A 333 Waller Avenue Lincoln, Nebraska 68501
Storrs, Connecticut 06268 Lexington, Kentucky 40504 USDA, Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service U.S. Post Office Building
Treadway Towers, Suite 204 3737 Government Street 50 S. Virginia Street
9 East Lockerman Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 Reno, Nevada 89505
Dover, Delaware 19901 USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA Building Federal Building
Federal Building University of Maine Madbury Road
401 S.E. 1st Avenue Orono, Maine 04473 Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Gainesville, Florida 32602 USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service Hartwick Building, Rm.. 522 1370 Hamilton Street
Federal Building 4321 Hartwick Road Somerset, New 31.ersey 08873
355 E. Hancock Avenue College Park, Maryland 20740
Athens, Georgia 30613

USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service SDAI--'�-oil Conservation Service
517 Gold Avenue, S.W., Room 3301 Strom Thurmond Federal Building Federal Office Building
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 1835 Assembly Street, Room 950 100 East "B" Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Casper, Wyoming 82601
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Courthouse and Federal Bldg. USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Room 771 Federal Building Federal Office Building, Room 633
100 South Clinton Street 200 4th Street, S.W. Chardon Avenue
Syracuse, New York 13260 Huron, South Dakota 57350 Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Federal Office Building, Rm. 544 U.S. Courthouse, Room 675
310 New Bern Avenue 801 Broadway Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Nashville, Tennessee 37203
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Federal Building, Room 270 W. R. Poage Federal Building
Rosser Avenue and Third Street 101 S. Main Street
Bismarck, North Dakota 58502 Temple, Texas 76501
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Room 522 4012 Federal Building
200 North High Street 125 South State Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147
USDA, Soil Conservation Service USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Agricultural Center'Building 1 Burlington Square, Suite 205
Farm Road and Brumley Street Burlington, Vermont 05401
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service Federal Building, Room 9201
Federal Building, 16th Floor 400 North 8th Street
1220 S.W. Third Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23240
Portland, Oregon 97204
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service 360 U.S. Courthouse
Federal Building & Courthouse West 920 Riverside Avenue
Federal Square Station Spokane, Washington 99201
228 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 USDA, Soil Conservation Service
75 High Street - Room 301
USDA, Soil Conservation Service Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
45 Quaker Lane, Alderie Complex
West Warwick, Rhode Island 02893 USDA, Soil Conservation Service
4601 Hammersley Road
Madison, Wisconsin 53711

INDEX

Agencies, U.S. and state, see under specific name or type
Agreements
-federal and state: 1-3, 6-17ff, 6-28, 7-2; see also
Cooperation
-"long-term," see Long-term agreements
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP): 5-4 to 5, 5-11, 6-46, 6-47, 8-6
Agricultural Experiment Stations, state: 6-24, 6-41
Agricultural Lands Study, National: 4-7
Agricultural Research Service, USDA (ARS): 6-24, 6-41
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation committees (local): 1-2,
6-7, 6-20, 6-24, 6-25, 6-41, 6-43, 6-47, 7-1, 7-2, 8-4
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, USDA (ASCS): 5-10,
5-12, 6-10, 6-11, 6-22, 6-24, 6-26, 6-28, 6-41, 6-47, 7-1, 8-5
Agriculture, U.S. Department of (USDA): 1-1, 2-3, 4-7, 5-1, 6-1, 6-7,
6-10, 6-17ff, 6-28, 6-41, 9-1, 10-1; see also individual agencies
Alternative programs, see Program alternatives
Appraisal of resources: 3-lff, 4-lff, see also RCA Appraisal
Assistance to landusers: 1-2ff, 5-6, 5-11, 6-1, 6-4, 6-6, 6-7, 6-11, 6-13,
6-19, 6-22, 6-29, 6-48, 7-1, 7-3, 8-4; see also Conservation plans,
Long-term agreements
-Conservation Technical Assistance Program: 5-3 to 4

Built-up land, see Urban land

Center for Rural and Agricultural Development (Iowa State University):
4-7, 4-8
Civil rights: 8-7
-Civil Rights Act of 1964: 8-7
Comment, public, see Public participation
Comment on this report, how to: 1-5
Commerce, U.S. Department of: 4-1; see also Economic Analysis, Bureau of
Congress, United States: 1-1, 1-4, 2-2, 5-3, 6-26, 9-1
Consequences: 8-lff
-preferred program: 6-26, 6-29, 6-30, 6-32, 6-39, 8-iff
-alternative 1: 6-6, 6-7, 8-2ff
-alternative 2: 6-13 to 14, 8-3ff
-other options: 6-44, 6-45, 6-46
-economic: 8-3ff
-physical and biological: 8-lff, 8-7
-social: 8-6ff, see also Civil rights
Conservation Board, National: 1-3, 6-17, 6-18, 6-21, 7-2
Conservation Coordinating Boards
-Local: 1-2, 6-17ff, 6-24, 6-28, 7-2
-State: 1-3, 6-17ff, 6-28, 7-2
Conservation districts (local): 1-2, 6-20, 6-24, 6-43, 6-47, 7-1, 7-2

I-1

Conservation Needs Inventories, 1958 & 1967 (USDA): 5-1; see also Resource
Inventories, National
Conservation plans: 1-3, 5-6, 6-18, 6-24ff, 6-29, 7-3
Conservation practices acts, state: 6-18, 6-24, 6-44
Conservation Task Force, Land and Water: 5-3
Conservation Technical Assistance Program: 5-3 to 4
Conversion of land to urban uses: 2-1, 3-1, 4-8, 4-13, 6-12
Cooperation @
-USDA and state and local organizations: 1-2, 6-4, 6-17ff, 6-28, 6-30,
6-45, 7-1, 7-2; see also Agreements
-among federal agencies, see Coordination
Cooperative State Research Service, USDA (CSRS): 6-24, 6-41
Coordination of federal activities and budgeting: 1-3, 5-12, 5-13, 6-10
6-11, 6-47, 6-48, 7-2ff
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army: 6-4
Cost efficiency as an objective of the program: 1-3, 1-4, 4-7, 5-5, 5-11,
5-13, 6-4, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6-17, 6-20, 7-4, 8-5
Cost of alternative programs
-preferred program: 6-21, 6-25, 6-31
-alternative 2: 6-14
-options: 6-43, 6-45
Cost sharing: 5-4, 5-6, 6-6, 6-18, 6-48, 8-4
Critical resource problem areas: 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 4-11 and 12, 5-12, 6-6,
6-10, 6-17, 6-20, 6-22, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 8-2ff
Cropland
-potential: 3-1, 4-8
-irrigated: 3-4
-nonirrigated: 3-4
-erosion on, see Erosion
Cross-compliance
-for Farmers Home Administration loans: 1-3, 6-19, 6-24ff, 7-3
-other options: 6-23, 6-41ff
Cultural resources: 8-7

Data collection and analysis: 1-3, 6-4, 6-47, 7-3, 8-4
Degradation of land resource, see Erosion
Demand for farm products: 1-1, 2-1
-current: 2-1
-projected: 4-3 to 5
Departments, U.S., see under specific name

Economic Analysis, Bureau of, Department of Commerce (BEA): 4-1
Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS): 6-24, 6-41
Education services: 1-3, 6-4, 6-11, 6-13, 7-3, 8-4
Endangered species: 8-7
-Endangered Species Act of 1973: 8-7
Energy: 2-2, 4-9
-biomass production: 2-1, 4-14 to 15
-conservation: 4-14 to 15, 6-4, 6-11@ 6-13
-Energy Security Act of 1980: 4-14
Environmental impacts, see Consequences
Environmental Policy Act, National: 10-2

1-2

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 6-2, 6-4, 6-30
Environmental Quality, Council on (CEQ): 10-1
Erosion: 1-1, 3-3ff, 4-7 to 8, 5-1, 6-4, 6-10, 7-1, 8-1ff
-on cropland: 3-5ff, 4-7, 4-8, 5-2, 5-10, 6-13
-current: 3-5ff
-excessive: 2-2, 3-5, 3-7, 4-5, 4-7, 6-1, 6-7, 6-13, 6-14, 6-29, 6-43,
8-1ff, 8-9
-projected: 4-8, 6-7, 8-1, 8-9
-reducing: 1-2ff, 2-2, 3-5 to 7, 4-9, 5-6, 5-7, 5-11, 6-2, 6-7, 6-11ff,
6-29, 7-2, 8-2ff
-tolerable: 2-2, 3-3, 5-2
-and water quality: 4-10
Evaluation of resource conservation program: 1-3, 1-4, 2-2, 5-13, 6-21,
6-28, 6-29, 7-3, 7-4, 9-1ff
-process: 9-lff
-report to Congress, annual: 1-4, 2-2, 9-2
Experimental Rural Clean Water Projects: 6-6
Extension advisory committees (local): 1-2, 6-20, 6-47, 7-1, 7-2
Extension Service, USDA (ES): 5-12, 6-24, 6-41, 7-1

Farmers Home Administration, USDA (FmHA): 6-24ff, 6-41
-loan program: 1-3, 6-19, 6-24ff, 7-3
Farmland
-erosion on, see Erosion
-prime, see Prime farmland
Federal Crop Insurance Cooporation, USDA (FCIC): 6-1, 6-41, 6-43
Fish and wildlife habitat: 3-11, 4-13 to 14, 5-7, 5-10, 8-8, 8-12
-improvement: 1-2, 6-2, 6-4, 6-14, 7-2, 8-2ff
Flood damages: 1-1, 2-2, 3-9, 4-9 to 10, 4-13, 6-1, 6-4, 6-10, 6-13,
7-1, 8-10
-flood insurance: 6-1
-reducing: 1-2, 4-10, 5-7, 5-10, 5-11, 6-2, 6-4, 6-6, 6-11, 6-17, 6-29,
7-2, 8-2
-value of property damaged: 3-9, 4-9, 6-30, 8-4ff
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act: 6-12
Forestry Incentives Program (FIP): 5-9 to 10, 6-5, 6-47
Forest Service, USDA (FS): 6-12, 6-24, 6-41, 6-48
Funding
-current (1981): 6-3
-future (projected): 6-3, 6-6, 6-9, 6-15, 6-16, 6-31 to 32, 6-34 and 35,
6-40, 7-5
Funds, federal, see Grants, Loans

General Accounting Office (GAO): 5-2, 5-11
-review of soil conservation program, 1977: 5-11 to 12
Grants, federal to states: 6-21 to 22, 6-30@ 6-48, 8-4ff
-variable-rate matching: 1-3, 6-18, 6-28, 6-31, 7-2
Grants to land users, see Cost sharing, Long-term agreements
Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP): 5-6 to 7, 5-11, 6-47, 8-6
"Green Ticket": 6-23
Gross National Product, projections of: 4-1

Harris, Louis, and Associates, survey of public attitudes: 6-1, 6-2,
6-25, 6-30, 6-42, 7-1, 10-1

1-3

Historic Places, National Register of: 8-7
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD): 6-4

Impacts, see Consequences
Information services: 1-3, 5-4, 7-3
Interior, U.S. Department of the (USDI): 8-7
Internal Revenue Code of 1954: 6-26
Irrigation: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4-12, 5-10
-efficiency: 3-9, 4-11, 4-12, 5-8, 6-2, 8-8
-impairing water quality: 3-11, 4-10

Land and Water Conservation Task Force: 5-3
Landscape as resource: 3-11, 5-7
Land use: 3-1, 3-2, 4-5, 4-6
Legislative considerations
-preferred program: 6-25, 6-28, 6-31
-by states: 6-29
-alternative 1: 6-7
-alternative 2: 6-14
-other options: 6-43, 6-45, 6-47
Loans to land users: 6-6, 6-18, 6-23, 6-41, 8-4; see also Cross-compliance,
Farmers Home Administration
Local organizations and agencies see under name or type
Long-term agreements: 1-4, 5-6, 6-22, 7-2

Management and Budget, Office of (OMB): 10-1
Monitoring, see Evaluation

National Agricultural Lands Study: 4-7
National Cooperative Soil Survey: 6-14
National Environmental Policy Act: 10-2
National Register of Historic Places: 8-7
National Water Quality Model: 4-10
Nonpoint source pollution, see Pollution

OBERS Program Report: 4-3
Objectives of resource conservation program: 6-Iff, 7-3
Options, see Program alternatives
Organic residues: 4-15
Organic waste: 4-11, 4-15, 6-2
-management: 1-2, 5-10, 6-5, 6-14, 7-2

Participation, public, see Public participation
Pilot projects, see under Research
Pollution, nonpoint source: 3-11, 4-10, 4-12, 6-2, 6-6, 8-1ff
Population projections, Series II (Department of Commerce): 4-1
Preferred program: 6-17ff, 7-1ff, 8-1ff, 9-1ff
Prime farmland: 2-2, 3-1, 4-9, 4-13, 6-2
Priorities: 1-2, 1-4, 5-11, 5-12, 6-7, 6-19ff, 6-29, 7-lff
-of national program: 6-2
-procedures for setting: 6-18
Priority areas, national, see Critical resource problem areas
Problems in resource conservation: 1-1 to 2, 3-3ff, 4-5ff; see also
Solutions

1-4

Productivity: 5-11, 6-1, 6-4, 6-19, 6-20, 6-26, 7-Iff, 8-2ff, 8-11
-current: 5-10
-increasing: 2-1, 4-8, 6-12, 8-2
-maintaining: 1-2, 2-2, 4-10, 6-4, 6-17, 7-2
-threatened: 1-3, 3-3, 8-1
-lost to erosion: 3-3, 4-7
-lost to urban users, see Conversion
Program alternatives: 1-4, 6-lff, 8-1ff
-preferred program (alternative 3): 6-17ff, 7-lff, 9-Iff
-alternative 1: 6-6ff
-alternative 2: 6-10ff
-summary of: 6-37 to 40
-other options: 6-41 to 48
Public participation: 1-5, 5-12, 7-4, 10-lff; see also Harris

Research
-federal: 1-3, 5-4, 6-2, 6-4, 6-5, 6-11, 6-13, 6-52, 7-3, 8-4
-pilot projects: 1-3, 6-10, 6-12 to 13, 6-18, 6-22 to 24, 6-29
Research agencies, see Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State
Research Service, Economic Research Service
Resource Conservation and Development Program: 5-8 to 9
Resource Inventories, National, 1977: 4-8, 5-1; see also Conservation
Needs Inventories
Resources, see under kind; see also Problems in resource conservation
Resources Conservation Act, Soil and Water, of 1977 (RCA): 1-1, 2-2,
3-1, 4-1, 6-1, 6-3, 9-1, 10-1
RCA Appraisal (1980): 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-11, 5-1, 5-12, 6-30, 10-1
RCA Draft Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement (1980):
2-3, 6-1, 6-14, 6-30, 10-1
Resources for the Future: 4-10
Resources Planning Act: 6-5
Results of actions, see Consequences

Sediment: 2-2, 3-11P 4-10, 4-13, 6-2, 6-13, 6-29, 8-1ff, 8-10
Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program: -5-8
Soil
-resources: 3-1, 4-5ff
-erosion, see Erosion
Soil and water conservation agencies, state: 2-2, 6-24, 6-41
Soil Conservation Service, USDA (SCS): 1-4, 1-5, 5-1, 5-12, 6-10, 6-11,
6-21, 6-22, 6-24, 6-25, 6-28, 6-41, 6-43, 7-1, 8-5, 9-1, 10-1
Solutions to resource problems: 1-2, 6-47; see also Consequences
State and local activities
-current: 6-7
-expanded: 1-2, 1-4, 6-2, 6-7, 6-17ff; see also Conservation
practices acts, Cooperation

Targeting: 1-4, 5-12, 6-2, 6-4, 6-10, 6-12ff, 6-17, 6-30, 6-43, 7-1,
7-2, 7-3, 8-2ff; see also Critical resource problem areas
Tax incentives: 1-3, 6-19, 6-23, 6-26 to 27, 6-29, 7-3
Threatened and endangered species: 8-7
Treasury, U.S. Department of the: 6-23

1-5

Urban land, see Conversion

Voluntary participation: 6-10, 6-30, 6-44, 7-1, 8-8

Wastes, see Organic Wastes
Water: 3-1, 3-10; see also Irrigation
-ground: 1-1, 3-3, 4-12
-surface: 3-2, 3-3, 3-11, 5-7
Water Bank Program: 5-7 to 8
Water quality: 1-1, 3-11, 4-10 to 12, 6-2, 6-12, 6-19, 6-20, 6-31, 8-3;
see also Pollution
-improvement: 1-2, 2-2, 7-2
Water Quality Act, Sec. 208: 6-31, 6-45
Water Quality Model, National: 4-10
Water supply: 3-3, 4-11 to 12, 5-7, 5-8, 5-10, 6-2, 6-4, 6-10, 6-12,
7-2, 8-2ff, 8-8; see also Irrigation
-conservation: 1-2, 2-2, 3-9, 4-11 to 12, 5-4, 5-11n, 6-2, 6-4, 6-10,
6-12, 6-13, 6-30, 7-2
-depletion: 3-10, 3-11, 6-2, 8-11
-forecasting program: 5-8
Wetlands: 3-11, 4-13, 5-7, 8-8
Wildlife habitat, see Fish and wildlife habitat

-U.S. GOVERNMERT PRINTING OFFICE 1981 0-732-254/2680

1-6

3 6668 00001 3559