Trouble Downstream: Upgrading Conservation Compliance: » Finding #1

Finding #1: Due to lax standards and implementation problems, the conservation compliance program is missing cost-effective opportunities to make further, substantial reductions in soil erosion on U.S. cropland.

The conservation compliance program is not working as well as it could to reduce soil erosion because: a) the soil conservation plans in many cases require only modest reductions in erosion and; b) because implementation and enforcement of the program has diminished over time.

In enacting the HELC policy, Congress did not set a specific standard for the amount of erosion producers should be expected to achieve, stating only that a “substantial reduction” in erosion was required in order for affected producers to comply. Initially, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—the agency responsible for the technical aspects of compliance—proposed to use the soil loss tolerance level (symbolized as “T”) as the standard for achieving a substantial reduction in erosion. T is intended to represent a rate of erosion, in tons of soil lost per acre per year, which can be sustained with no long-term loss in soil productivity.

In response to claims from some farm organizations that achieving T would create economic hardship for some producers, NRCS instead developed standards for two types of conservation compliance plans. A “basic plan” would reduce erosion to “T” when the plan could be implemented without creating economic hardship; an “alternative system” that did not reduce erosion to T was used in all other cases. The erosion reductions required by alternative systems varied between regions and states depending on soil characteristics. To some degree, the Conservation Reserve Program, which was also established by the 1985 Farm Bill, was intended to provide a paid, long-term retirement option for land that had erosion hazards so severe that conversion to grass or tree cover was the most cost-effective conservation practice.

Currently, two standards for “substantial reduction in erosion” are used to make a “compliance determination” during a status review. Conservation plans developed prior to July 3, 1996—whether a basic plan or an alternative system was required—are automatically considered to be meeting the substantial reduction standard provided the plan or the system is maintained. If the plan or system was developed after July 3, 1996, then a substantial reduction is defined as a 75 percent reduction in potential erodibility. On these latter tracts of eligible cropland, NRCS field staff should review crop residue levels and use water and wind erosion prediction equations to check if a 75 percent reduction in potential erodibility is being met.

Unfortunately, because NRCS does not systematically collect or maintain several types of data, the agency is unable to fully evaluate how effectively conservation compliance is working. As of 2007, there were 4.5 million tracts of subsidized cropland subject to HELC compliance. However, of these 4.5 million tracts, NRCS does not differentiate what proportions are covered by a "basic" plan or an "alternative" system. Finally, because NRCS and FSA maintain two separate databases for conservation compliance information, compliance staffs at both agencies concede that tract violation information is irreconcilable between the two databases.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2003 questioned the NRCS claim that 98 percent of tracts reviewed were in compliance since:

(1) NRCS selected about 20 percent of the tracts annually with little or no potential for non-compliance (such as permanent rangelands),
(2) NRCS does not have an automated system to send the list of sample tracts to the field offices for compliance reviews to be conducted during the critical erosion periods,
(3) NRCS does not consistently collect and analyze the results of the field offices’ compliance reviews to identify unusual enforcement patterns across regions and states and over time, and the
(4) USDA Office of Inspector General noted that improvements in NRCS’ implementation of the program, including, avoiding issuing waivers that are not warranted, are needed to strengthen the agency’s ability to provide accurate and reliable assessments of farmer compliance.

EWG compiled and analyzed available data to provide the following snap shots of the implementation of the conservation compliance provisions over time:

(1) NRCS significantly reduced the annual compliance status reviews conducted over time (See Chart 1);
(2) NRCS and FSA consistently overturned violation rulings using multiple waivers, exemptions, and Variances, while consistently reinstating federal farm benefits (See Chart 2); and
(3) NRCS field staff gave a variety of reasons to explain the difficulty in implementing the provisions (See Chart 3).

Source: Data for years 1993 to 1999 were taken from the 2003 GAO report while data for years 2000 to 2006 were provided by NRCS.
Note: Data for tracts reviewed and data for tracts with violations includes both HELC and WC violations.

Source: GAO (2003,2006).

Source: GAO (2003).