SEARCH THE HSDL
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Stubbs, Megan" in: author
Set an Alert to get future results
Results 1 - 30 (of 72) sorted by relevance sort by date
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Locally Operated Levees: Issues and Federal Programs [April 5, 2011]From the Document: "Locally operated levees and the federal programs that assist and accredit them are receiving increasing congressional attention. Congressional authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), expires on September 30, 2011. The pending reauthorization has increased congressional awareness of the link between the condition of locally operated levees, FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and levee accreditation (which determine which NFIP requirements and premiums apply in an area), and programs providing federal disaster assistance for these levees. Congress is considering whether and how to change current programs, federal funding, and the existing division of levee responsibilities. Options are complicated by the desire to promote state, local, and individual decisions and investments that reduce flood risk; concerns about the local costs associated with NFIP purchase and levee accreditation requirements; and consideration of whether to expand federal responsibilities and potential liability. Even though similar issues also exist for some of the federally operated levees, this report focuses on locally operated levees since these dominate the national levee portfolio. Approximately 22% of U.S. counties across the country, representing almost half of the U.S. population, contain levees. Economic damage from floods in leveed areas ranges between $5 billion and $10 billion annually. Levees play an important role in protecting property against flood damage. More than 100,000 miles of levees may exist, with the federal government operating roughly 2,100 miles. One estimate puts the five-year level of investment needed for new construction or maintenance of the nation's levees at $50 billion."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan; Keegan, Natalie2011-04-05
-
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): Status and Issues [April 19, 2011]"The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, 2008 farm bill) created the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). The two main purposes of BCAP are (1) to support the establishment and production of eligible crops for conversion to bioenergy in selected areas, and (2) to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material for use in a biomass conversion facility. BCAP is intended to assist with the bioenergy industry's hurdle of continuous biomass availability. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Farm Service Agency (FSA) implemented one portion of BCAP--the Collection, Harvest, Storage, and Transportation (CHST) matching payment program--on June 11, 2009, through a Notice of Funds Availability in the Federal Register. The partial implementation created a possible unintended consequence of market competition for wood shavings, wood chips, sawdust, and other wood 'scraps' between traditional purchasers--namely landscapers and particleboard manufactures--and facilities that convert biomass to energy. The issuance of the BCAP proposed rule on February 8, 2010, suspended CHST program enrollment and proposed rules for the implementation of the remainder of the BCAP program. USDA issued the BCAP final rule on October 27, 2010, implementing both program components. The two main components of BCAP are split into two forms of payments: annual and establishment payments, which share in the cost of establishing eligible biomass crops and maintaining production; and matching payments, which share in the cost of the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of biomass to an eligible biomass conversion facility. The payments have different eligibility and sign-up requirements, payment rates, and contract lengths. Funding for the program is mandatory through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and was originally authorized at a 'such sums as necessary' level. Recent congressional actions have capped the program in FY2010 and FY2011. In response to these reductions, USDA has temporarily suspended the matching payment portion of the program. The annual and establishment payment portion of BCAP is still accepting proposals."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2011-04-19
-
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress [January 13, 2011]"Cellulosic biofuels are produced from cellulose (fibrous material) derived from renewable biomass. They are thought by many to hold the key to increased benefits from renewable biofuels because they are made from potentially low-cost, diverse, non-food feedstocks. Cellulosic biofuels could also potentially decrease the fossil energy required to produce ethanol, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic biofuels are produced on a very small scale at this time--significant hurdles must be overcome before commercial-scale production can occur. The renewable fuels standard (RFS), a major federal incentive, mandates a dramatic increase in the use of renewable fuels in transportation, including the use of cellulosic biofuels--100 million and 250 million gallons per year (mgpy) for 2010 and 2011, respectively. After 2015, most of the increase in the RFS is intended to come from cellulosic biofuels, and by 2022, the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be 16 billion gallons. Whether these targets can be met is uncertain. In March 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule that lowered the 2010 cellulosic biofuel mandate to 6.5 million gallons. In December 2010, EPA lowered the 2011 mandate to 6.6 million gallons. Research is ongoing, and the cellulosic biofuels industry may be on the verge of rapid expansion and technical breakthroughs. There are no large-scale commercial cellulosic biofuel plants in operation in the United States. A few small-scale plants came online in 2010. The federal government, recognizing the risk inherent in commercializing this new technology, has provided loan guarantees, grants, and tax credits in an effort to make the industry competitive by 2012. In particular, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill, P.L. 110-246) supports the nascent cellulosic industry through authorized research programs, grants, and loans exceeding $1 billion. The enacted farm bill also contains a production tax credit of up to $1.01 per gallon for fuels produced from cellulosic feedstocks. Private investment, in many cases by oil companies, also plays a major role in cellulosic biofuels research and development."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceSchnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-; Bracmort, Kelsi; Stubbs, Megan2011-01-13
-
Renewable Energy Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill [December 8, 2010]"The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, the 2008 farm bill) extends and expands many of the renewable energy programs originally authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171, 2002 farm bill). The bill also continues the emphasis on the research and development of advanced and cellulosic bioenergy authorized in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140). Farm bill debate over U.S. biomass-based renewable energy production policy focused mainly on the continuation of subsidies for ethanol blenders, continuation of the import tariff for ethanol, and the impact of corn-based ethanol on agriculture. The enacted bill requires reports on the economic impacts of ethanol production, reflecting concerns that the increasing share of corn production being used for ethanol had contributed to high commodity prices and food price inflation. Title VII, the research title of the 2008 farm bill, contains numerous renewable energy related provisions that promote research, development, and demonstration of biomass-based renewable energy and biofuels. The Sun Grant Initiative coordinates and funds research at land grant institutions on biobased energy technologies. The Agricultural Bioenergy Feedstock and Energy Efficiency Research and Extension Initiative provides support for on-farm biomass energy crop production research and demonstration."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2010-12-08
-
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): Status and Issues [November 8, 2010]"The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, 2008 farm bill) created the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). The two main purposes of BCAP are (1) to support the establishment and production of eligible crops for conversion to bioenergy in selected areas, and (2) to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material for use in a biomass conversion facility. BCAP is intended to assist with the bioenergy industry's hurdle of continuous biomass availability. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Farm Service Agency (FSA) implemented one portion of BCAP-the Collection, Harvest, Storage, and Transportation (CHST) matching payment program-on June 11, 2009, through a Notice of Funds Availability in the Federal Register. The partial implementation created a possible unintended consequence of market competition for wood shavings, wood chips, sawdust, and other wood "scraps" between traditional purchasers-namely landscapers and particleboard manufactures-and facilities that convert biomass to energy. The issuance of the BCAP proposed rule on February 8, 2010, suspended CHST program enrollment and proposed rules for the implementation of the remainder of the BCAP program. USDA issued the BCAP final rule on October 27, 2010, implementing both program components. The two main components of BCAP are split into two forms of payments: annual and establishment payments, which share in the cost of establishing eligible biomass crops and maintaining production; and matching payments, which share in the cost of the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of biomass to an eligible biomass conversion facility."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2010-11-08
-
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): Status and Issues [August 13, 2010]"The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, 2008 farm bill) created the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). The two main purposes of BCAP are (1) to support the establishment and production of eligible crops for conversion to bioenergy in selected areas, and (2) to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material for use in a biomass conversion facility. BCAP is intended to assist with the bioenergy industry's hurdle of continuous biomass availability. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Farm Service Agency (FSA) implemented one portion of BCAP--the Collection, Harvest, Storage, and Transportation (CHST) matching payment program--on June 11, 2009, through a Notice of Funds Availability in the Federal Register. The partial implementation created a possible unintended consequence of market competition for wood shavings, wood chips, sawdust, and other wood 'scraps' between traditional purchasers--namely landscapers and particleboard manufactures--and facilities that convert biomass to energy. The issuance of the BCAP proposed rule on February 8, 2010, suspended CHST program enrollment and proposed rules for the implementation of the remainder of the BCAP program. According to USDA's proposed rule, the two main components of BCAP are split into two forms of payments: annual and establishment payments, which share in the cost of establishing eligible biomass crops and maintaining production; and matching payments, which share in the cost of the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of biomass to an eligible biomass conversion facility. The payments have different eligibility and sign-up requirements, payment rates, and contract lengths. Funding for the program is mandatory through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) at 'such sums as necessary' through FY2012."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2010-08-13
-
Land Conversion in the Northern Plains [April 5, 2007]From the Document: "Land is being converted from native grass or rangeland into crop production in the Northern Plains region, especially in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana. Advocates of wildlife protection and enhancement, and grazing interests, are concerned that landowners in this region will continue to convert grasslands to crop production, especially to corn production, as long as market prices remain high. As the rate of land conversion accelerates, those concerned suspect it will have significant environmental impacts and reduce the amount of land available for both wildlife habitat and grazing. They are seeking changes in public policy that might slow, halt, or reverse this process. […] While the forces encouraging the conversion of land are not discussed in depth in this report, it is widely thought that the recent push for renewable energy from biofuels, rising market prices for corn, and advances in biotechnology are intensifying the conversion rate. Some of the possible conversion forces, such as expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contract acres, commodity support program policy, and existing conservation compliance policy, might be reviewed by Congress in the context of the upcoming farm bill. Discussion on topics such as current policy, technological advances in crop production, changes in wildlife habitat and population, regional economics, and environmental sustainability could assist anticipated farm bill discussions."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2007-04-05
-
Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation [December 11, 2012]"Natural disasters can have varying effects on the landscape. For agricultural producers, natural disasters are part of the inherent risk of doing business. The federal role for mitigating weather risk is primarily through federal crop insurance and a suite of agricultural disaster assistance programs to address a producer's crop or livestock production loss. Other, separate U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs are designed to repair agricultural and forest land following a natural disaster and potentially mitigate future risk. These programs offer financial and technical assistance to producers to repair, restore, and mitigate damage on private land. Agricultural land assistance programs include the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program. In addition to these programs, USDA also has flexibility in administering other programs that allow for support and repair of damaged cropland in the event of an emergency. This report describes these emergency agricultural land assistance programs. It presents background on the programs- purpose, activities, authority, eligibility requirements, and authorized program funding levels, as well as current congressional issues."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2012-12-11
-
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues [October 18, 2012]"The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides payments to agricultural producers to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production and install resource conserving practices for 10 or more years. CRP was first authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. [Public Law] 99-198, 1985 farm bill) and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) with technical support from other USDA agencies. Participants offer land for enrollment through two types of sign-up: general and continuous. General sign-ups are competitive and only open during select times. Continuous sign-ups are not competitive, always open for enrollment, and offer additional financial incentives to those who qualify. Continuous sign-ups are targeted to specific environmental and resource concerns and operate through a number of initiatives. The largest and most well known is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which partners with states to address agricultural-related environmental concerns in specific geographic regions. While the majority of current acres enrolled were under general sign-ups (24.3 million acres), an increasing number are enrolled under continuous sign-ups (5.3 million acres). Program and funding authority for CRP expired on September 30, 2012. Without reauthorization or an extension of authority the agency cannot approve any contracts or process any offers for enrollment. Congress continues to debate the reauthorization or extension of the 2008 farm bill, which authorized CRP to enroll up to 32 million acres. Both the House Agriculture Committee-reported (H.R. 6083) and the Senate-passed (S. [Senate bill] 3240) farm bill would reduce the authorized number of acres to 25 million and reauthorize the program through FY2017."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2012-10-18
-
Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [January 11, 2010]"The bill provides funding for locally built wastewater and drinking water treatment projects through assistance programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). For the EPA wastewater program, the enacted bill provides $4.0 billion. For the EPA drinking water program, P.L. 111-5 provides $2.0 billion in additional funds. These funds were allocated to states according to established formulas, and states will award actual assistance to projects and communities. For the USDA programs that benefit rural communities, the Recovery Act provides $1.38 billion in grants and loans; USDA state offices are making individual project decisions. Additional funding in the bill for these programs is three to four times more than the level of regular appropriations. The enacted legislation provides funding for water resources development and management projects administered by four agencies. It provides $4.6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and $1.0 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The legislation also provides $340 million for USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) agricultural watershed program, and $220 million for the Department of State's International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) for levee and dam upgrades. Congress directed that the funds be used consistent with the eligibility and prioritization constraints and direction provided in P.L. 111-5 and the accompanying conference report, H.Rept. 111-16. Discretion regarding which specific water resource projects received funds was largely left up to the Administration."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceCopeland, Claudia; Cody, Betsy A.; Stubbs, Megan2010-01-11
-
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues [February 5, 2009]"The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary program that provides farmers with financial and technical assistance to plan and implement soil and water conservation practices. EQIP is the largest agriculture conservation financial assistance program for working lands. EQIP was first authorized in 1996 and was most recently revised by Section 2501 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, the 2008 farm bill). It is a mandatory spending program (i.e., not subject to annual appropriations) and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Funding is currently authorized to grow to $1.75 billion in FY2012. Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, pasture, non-industrial private forestland, and other land on which resource concerns related to agricultural production could be addressed through an EQIP contract. With the 111th Congress facing tighter budget constraints, EQIP could face similar challenges with a potential reduction in mandatory funding levels and a continuing backlog of unfunded applications. A change in income limitations along with a new waiver created in the 2008 farm bill could also raise issues for the program. EQIP will also continue to face challenges in measuring environmental and program accomplishments."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2009-02-05
-
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy [April 9, 2013]"The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant conservation provisions designed to reduce production and conserve soil and water resources. Many of the provisions remain in effect today, including the two compliance provisions--highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster). The two provisions, collectively referred to as conservation compliance, require that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production. […] One of the most controversial issues has been the idea that crop insurance subsidies should be added to the list of benefits that could be lost if a producer is found to be out of compliance. Federal crop insurance subsidies were originally included as a benefit that could be denied under the compliance provisions. However, they were removed in the 1996 farm bill to increase producer flexibility, while at the same time direct payments were added. Presently, high commodity prices have resulted in few or no counter-cyclical payments, leaving conservation program participation and direct payments as the remaining major benefits that might motivate producer compliance with conservation requirements."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2013-04-09
-
Potential Implications of a Carbon Offset Program to Farmers and Landowners [ February 26, 2010]"Congress is currently debating climate legislation which could affect the U.S. agriculture and forestry sectors. In June 2009, the House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. In November 2009, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works completed markup of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, by approving a 'Manager's Amendment' as a substitute, and ordered S. 1733 reported. Both the House-passed and the Senate-reported bills would establish cap-and-trade systems to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as address energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other energy topics. Both bills would require major reductions in GHG emissions from entities comprising roughly 85% of current U.S. GHG emissions. Covered sectors would include electricity production, natural gas distribution, petroleum refining, and specific industrial sectors. These and related bills and issues are currently being debated in Congress. For more detailed information see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R40896, 'Climate Change: Comparison of the Cap-and-Trade Provisions in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733'. Numerous studies have attempted to estimate the economic effects of potential climate legislation currently being considered by Congress. These studies have examined both the economy-wide effects, as well as the effects to specific sectors, such as the U.S. agriculture and forestry sectors. Some of these studies have also examined the potential market and industry effects from the proposed climate legislation, including possible resource shifts such as land use conversions and related crop production changes. Some studies further examine the potential economy-wide market effects, such as possible changes to retail food prices and supplies. This first section of this report describes results from some of the studies and discusses limitations and uncertainties associated with the economic models and their results. The second and third sections examine two particular concerns raised by the modeling results, involving (1) lands converted from agriculture to forestry, and (2) potential unequal opportunities and costs of carbon markets in various sectors of the agricultural community. The final section provides some conclusions."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan; Gorte, Ross W.; Ramseur, Jonathan L. . . .2010-02-26
-
Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79) [April 24, 2014]"The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79) was enacted on February 7, 2014. After years of debate and deliberation, the enacted 2014 farm bill included a number of changes to the Conservation title (Title II), including program consolidation and reauthorization, amendments to conservation compliance, and a reduction in overall funding. Debate on the 2014 farm bill focused on a number of controversial issues. While many did not consider conservation to be controversial, nonetheless, a number of policy issues shaped the final version of the title and ultimately its role in the enacted farm bill. […] One of the most controversial issues in the 2014 farm bill debate was whether federal crop insurance subsidies should be included on the list of program benefits that could be lost if a producer were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible land and wetlands. Ultimately the 2014 farm bill did add federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of benefits that could be lost and extended limited protection for native sod in select states. The 2014 farm bill also reduced funding for the Conservation title by $3.97 billion over 10 years. Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding, and the Conservation title makes up 6% of the total farm bill 10-year baseline, or $58 billion of the total $956 billion in mandatory funding authorized in the 2014 farm bill."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2014-04-24
-
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues [April 14, 2014]"The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the largest federal, private-land retirement program in the United States. The program provides financial compensation for landowners to voluntarily remove land from agricultural production for an extended period (typically 10 to 15 years) for the benefit of soil and water quality improvement and wildlife habitat. The program was first authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill, P.L. 99-198), initially as both a supply management tool for removing land from agricultural production, thus lowering commodity supply and potentially raising prices, and for providing environmental benefits. Currently, close to 25.6 million acres are enrolled in the program with total funding of approximately $2 billion annually. Acres enrolled in CRP have shown a number of positive environmental benefits including reduced soil erosion; water quality improvements through vegetative cover, buffer strips, and reduced fertilizer application; and wildlife population improvement from increased habitat. While a number of natural resource improvements are attributed to the program, the program contains a number of controversial elements as well, including the economic and environmental effect of permitted activities, such as haying and grazing on CRP acres and the reduction of enrolled acres due to high crop prices and farm bill reauthorization. Program and funding authority for CRP was reauthorized and extended through FY2018 by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79)."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2014-04-14
-
Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs [August 15, 2014]"This tabular presentation provides basic information covering each of the programs. In each case, a brief program description is followed by information on major amendments in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, 2014 farm bill); national scope and availability; states with the greatest participation; the backlog of applications or other measures of continuing interest; program funding authority; FY2014 funding; FY2015 Administration budget request; FY2015 proposed funding where available; sequestration effects in FY2015; statutory authority; the authorization expiration date; and a link to the program's website."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2014-08-15
-
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues [August 29, 2014]"The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides payments to agricultural producers to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production and install resource conserving practices for 10 or more years. CRP was first authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Farm Service Agency (FSA) with technical support from other USDA agencies. [...] A number of factors have impacted CRP enrollment recently, mainly high commodity crop prices. These strong prices have encouraged farmers to put CRP acres, even marginal acres, back into production. This pressure could potentially reduce the number of CRP acres offered for reenrollment once they have expired or cause existing current CRP participants to seek an early release from their CRP contract. Some participants also have cited a potentially low CRP rental rate compared to the market rental rate as a reason for decreased enrollment interest. Despite these factors, enrollment has increased under continuous sign-ups and demand for the program, in general, still exceeds the current enrollment level. CRP has contributed to a number of environmental benefits including reduced soil erosion, improved water quality through wetlands and field buffers, reduced fertilizer use, and increased wildlife habitat. The recent expiration of a number of acres from the program, and a reduced reenrollment, has some concerned that a number of the environmental benefits gained under CRP could be lost or reduced if land is returned to production."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2014-08-29
-
Agricultural Conservation Issues in the 111th Congress [September 21, 2010]"Agricultural conservation has been a public policy issue for more than 60 years. Congress has repeatedly taken action on the issue through water and soil legislation, often as part of omnibus farm bills. Early policy decisions were directed at addressing natural resource concerns on the farm, primarily reducing high levels of soil erosion and providing water to agriculture in quantities and quality that enhanced farm production. In more recent years, conservation policy has shifted to concerns about the off-farm impacts of agricultural activities. The latest farm bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. [Public Law] 110-246), reauthorized most existing conservation programs, modified several programs, and created a few new programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) conservation efforts have centered on implementing these conservation programs through working land conservation practices, retiring land from production or establishing conservation easements, and providing technical assistance. Program implementation controversies could lead to congressional oversight or action, especially given the recent financial statement audit reports on conservation program payments at USDA. Other emerging issues in the 111th Congress could have a significant impact on agricultural conservation. The climate change debate and use of ecosystem services markets has brought conservation to the forefront of discussion on the role of agriculture in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the effect of ethanol production on natural resources and changes in land use is an ongoing concern in the area of biofuels policy."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2010-09-21
-
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill [February 12, 2013]"Reauthorization of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill) failed to pass in the 112th Congress, leaving it to the 113th Congress to continue the farm bill debate. The conservation title continues to receive attention and interest from farmers and ranchers as well as environmental and conservation organizations. Contentious issues raised in the 2012 farm bill debate might continue in the 113th Congress, specifically calls to reduce overall funding levels, including conservation, and the addition of crop insurance as a benefit lost under conservation compliance. Other issues from the 2012 farm bill reauthorization debate include consolidating duplicative programs, using public-private partnerships to extend federal funding, and amending existing programs by adding new options to protect and restore resources on agricultural lands. Budgetary concerns continue to drive the farm bill reauthorization discussion, with additional emphasis placed on reducing mandatory spending. In the past 25 years, conservation has received an increasing level of mandatory funding authorized through farm bills. Nutrition, direct payments, crop insurance, and conservation make up 99% of the 10-year estimated baseline funding for farm bill programs."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2013-02-12
-
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy [July 24, 2012]"The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. [Public Law] 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant conservation provisions designed to reduce production and conserve soil and water resources. Many of the provisions remain in effect today, including the two compliance provisions--highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster). The two provisions, collectively referred to as conservation compliance, require that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production. Conservation compliance affects most USDA benefits administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These benefits can include commodity support payments, disaster payments, farm loans, and conservation program payments, to name a few. If a producer is found to be in violation of conservation compliance, then a number of penalties could be enforced. These penalties range from temporary exemptions that allow the producer time to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is ineligible for any USDA farm payment and must pay back current and prior years' benefits."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2012-07-24
-
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Rural Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 [February 23, 2009]"On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. [Public Law] 111-5). The ARRA is a response to the depth of the economic recession facing the United States (and the rest of the world) at the beginning of 2009. It is billed as an economic stimulus package to improve the situation of individuals and businesses. The ARRA boosts government spending on various infrastructure programs and government benefits programs, and offers individual and business tax benefits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the ARRA will cost $787 billion over 10 years, although most of its budget authority is slated for two fiscal years (FY2009-FY2010). Agriculture programs--including nutrition assistance, rural development, farmer assistance, and conservation--would receive about $26.6 billion of the $787 billion in the enacted ARRA (about 3.4%)."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceMonke, James; Richardson, Joe; Stubbs, Megan . . .2009-02-23
-
Technical Assistance for Agriculture Conservation [June 29, 2007]"Defining exactly what conservation technical assistance is and does, and reaching agreement on a definition, is difficult. Broadly defined, it is information, technical expertise, and a delivery system for providing assistance to landowners and users with respect to conservation and use of natural resources. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - the federal agency that provides this assistance - defines it as 'getting conservation on the ground.' While this definition lacks specificity, it is the one most often used. Technical assistance has been discussed extensively at congressional hearings on agriculture conservation. Producers, ranchers, environmentalists, and wildlife advocates continue to raise the issue of technical assistance and the need or desire for additional support. Though Congress is to discuss conservation technical assistance in the 2007 farm bill, other issues related to it exist outside of the traditional farm bill debate. A broader perspective on technical assistance raises questions about the capacity of the current technical assistance structure as well as future limitations. A perceived lack of definition and understanding of what technical assistance is and is not creates questions around this capacity that are not easily answered or understood."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2007-06-29
-
Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs [April 2, 2015]"The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently administer close to 20 programs and subprograms that are directly or indirectly available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural lands. The differences and number of these programs have created general confusion about the purpose, participation, and policies of the programs. While recent consolidation efforts removed some duplication, a large number of programs remain. […] This tabular presentation provides basic information covering each of the programs. In each case, a brief program description is followed by information on major amendments in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, 2014 farm bill); national scope and availability; states with the greatest participation; the backlog of applications or other measures of continuing interest; program funding authority; FY2014 and FY2015 funding; FY2016 Administration budget request; statutory authority; the authorization expiration date; and a link to the program's website."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2015-04-02
-
Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs [March 18, 2015]"Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use, it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is more frequently being asked to authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water supplies for M&I use. This report provides background information on the types of water supply and wastewater treatment 'projects' traditionally funded by the federal government and the several existing 'programs' to assist communities with water supply and wastewater recycling and treatment. These projects and programs are found primarily within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). […] Federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly. For example, in FY2015 Congress provided $907 million in appropriations for grants to states under EPA's State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water facilities and $1.45 billion for EPA's SRF program for wastewater facilities; funds appropriated for the USDA's rural water and waste disposal grant and loan programs are $451 million for FY2015; HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (used partly but not exclusively for water and wastewater projects) are $3.07 billion for FY2015."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceTiemann, Mary; Copeland, Claudia; Cody, Betsy A. . . .2015-03-18
-
Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy [August 25, 2015]"The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant agricultural conservation provisions designed to reduce farm production and conserve soil and water resources. Many of the provisions remain in effect today, including the two compliance provisions--highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster). The two provisions, collectively referred to as conservation compliance, require that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production. Conservation compliance affects most USDA benefits administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These benefits can include commodity support payments, disaster payments, farm loans, and conservation program payments, to name a few. If a producer is found to be in violation of conservation compliance, then a number of penalties could be enforced. These penalties range from temporary exemptions that allow the producer time to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is ineligible for any USDA farm payment and must pay back current and prior years' benefits. […] The leveling off of erosion reductions leaves broad policy questions related to conservation compliance, including whether an acceptable level of soil erosion on cropland has been achieved; whether additional reductions could be achieved, and, if so, at what cost; and how federal farm policy could encourage additional reductions in erosion."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2015-08-25
-
Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs [January 12, 2015]"The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently administer close to 20 programs and subprograms that are directly or indirectly available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural lands. The differences and number of these programs has created general confusion about the purpose, participation, and policies of the programs. While recent consolidation efforts removed some duplication, a large number of programs remain. [...] This tabular presentation provides basic information covering each of the programs. In each case, a brief program description is followed by information on major amendments in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, 2014 farm bill); national scope and availability; states with the greatest participation; the backlog of applications or other measures of continuing interest; program funding authority; FY2014 funding; FY2015 Administration budget request; FY2015 funding; sequestration effects in FY2015; statutory authority; the authorization expiration date; and a link to the program's website."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2015-01-12
-
Big Data in U.S. Agriculture [January 6, 2016]"Recent media and industry reports have employed the term big data as a key to the future of increased food production and sustainable agriculture. A recent hearing on the private elements of big data in agriculture suggests that Congress too is interested in potential opportunities and challenges big data may hold. While there appears to be great interest, the subject of big data is complex and often misunderstood, especially within the context of agriculture. […] Big data may significantly affect many aspects of the agricultural industry, although the full extent and nature of its eventual impacts remain uncertain. Many observers predict that the growth of big data will bring positive benefits through enhanced production, resource efficiency, and improved adaptation to climate change. While lauded for its potentially revolutionary applications, big data is not without issues. From a policy perspective, issues related to big data involve nearly every stage of its existence, including its collection (how it is captured), management (how it is stored and managed), and use (how it is analyzed and used). It is still unclear how big data will progress within agriculture due to technical and policy challenges, such as privacy and security, for producers and policymakers. As Congress follows the issue a number of questions may arise, including a principal one--what is the federal role?"Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2016-01-06
-
Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs [March 17, 2016]"Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use, it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is more frequently being asked to authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water supplies for M&I use. This report provides background information on the types of water supply and wastewater treatment projects traditionally funded by the federal government and the several existing programs to assist communities with water supply and wastewater recycling and treatment. These projects and programs are found primarily within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). […] Federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly. For example, in FY2016 Congress provided $863 million in appropriations for grants to states under EPA's State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water facilities and $1.39 billion for EPA's SRF program for wastewater facilities; funds appropriated for the USDA's rural water and waste disposal grant and loan programs are $385 million for FY2016; HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (used partly but not exclusively for water and wastewater projects) are $3.01 billion for FY2016. In contrast, Reclamation's Title XVI reclamation/recycling projects received $23.4 million in appropriations for FY2016."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceCopeland, Claudia; Carter, Nicole T.; Cody, Betsy A. . . .2016-03-17
-
Agricultural Disaster Assistance [April 14, 2016]"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers several programs to help farmers recover financially from natural disasters, including drought and floods. All the programs have permanent authorization, and only one requires a federal disaster designation (the emergency loan program). Most programs receive mandatory funding amounts that are 'such sums as necessary' and are not subject to annual discretionary appropriations. The federal crop insurance program offers subsidized policies designed to protect crop producers from unavoidable risks associated with adverse weather and weather-related plant diseases and insect infestations. Policies must be purchased prior to the planting season. Eligible commodities include most major crops and many specialty crops (including fruit, tree nut, vegetable, and nursery crops), as well as forage and pastureland for livestock producers. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill; P.L. 113-79) enhances the crop insurance program by expanding its scope, covering a greater share of farm losses, and making other modifications that broaden policy coverage. Producers who grow a crop that is currently ineligible for crop insurance may apply for the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2016-04-14
-
Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation [January 5, 2015]"Natural disasters can have varying effects on the landscape. For agricultural producers, natural disasters are part of the inherent risk of doing business. The federal role for mitigating weather risk is primarily through federal crop insurance and a suite of agricultural disaster assistance programs to address a producer's crop or livestock production loss. Other, separate U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs are designed to repair agricultural and forest land following a natural disaster and potentially mitigate future risk. These programs offer financial and technical assistance to producers to repair, restore, and mitigate damage on private land. Agricultural land assistance programs include the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program. In addition to these programs, USDA also has flexibility in administering other programs that allow for support and repair of damaged cropland in the event of an emergency. This report describes these emergency agricultural land assistance programs. It presents background on the programs--purpose, activities, authority, eligibility requirements, and authorized program funding levels, as well as current congressional issues."Library of Congress. Congressional Research ServiceStubbs, Megan2015-01-05