The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 ( P.L. Funding authority for most of these programs expired at the end of FY2012, and was extended until the end of FY2013 by the American Taxpayer Relief Act ( P.L. 112-240 ). As the title has grown in both size and interest, so too have questions and concerns about program funding, policy objectives, individual program effectiveness, comparative geographic emphasis, and the structure of federal assistance. Programs by Type

Generally, farm bill conservation programs can be grouped into the following four categories based on similarities: working land programs, land retirement and easement programs, conservation compliance programs, and other programs and overarching provisions. Other programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) use a combination of long-term and permanent easements as well as restoration contracts to protect wetlands and grasslands from production. One of several concerns regarding conservation funding in the next farm bill centers on the possible reduction of mandatory program spending, without an increase in discretionary spending, thereby reducing the total level of conservation funding. Upon passage of the 2008 farm bill, the conservation title was one of the few titles to have received an increase in mandatory funding levels, which was seen as a victory by many in the conservation and environmental communities. Issues for the Next Farm Bill

Current budgetary constraints continue to drive the debate related to the next farm bill. Many of the conservation issues discussed in the 112 th Congress continue to be discussed, including program consolidation, environmental regulation, and conservation compliance. The three largest sources of funding after nutrition are crop insurance, conservation, and commodity support (namely direct payments). Conservation Programs With No Baseline

Thirty-seven provisions in the 2008 farm bill received mandatory budget authority but are not assumed to receive such funding in the budget baseline beyond the original expiration of the 2008 farm bill (FY2012). Many supporters of conservation programs viewed this as a victory during the farm bill debate. Others, including those interested in reducing agricultural expenditures or in spending the funds for other agricultural purposes, counter that even with these reductions, overall funding for conservation has not been reduced. Because these five conservation programs were extended to the end of FY2014, they were unaffected by the 2012 farm bill expiration and extension. Just as the savings from conservation reductions in appropriations bills are not always redirected toward other conservation activities, the reestablishment of the farm bill baseline through expiring conservation programs does not guarantee that future farm bills or appropriations will extend the same level of support for conservation. The current conservation portfolio includes more than 20 distinct programs with annual spending over $5 billion. Both the House-reported ( H.R. 6083 ) and Senate-passed ( S. 3240 ) farm bills in the 112 th Congress included several program consolidation measures. Under the original provisions enacted in 1985, a producer could lose the following farm program benefits if found to be out of compliance: price and income supports and related programs, farm storage facility loans, crop insurance, disaster payments, storage payments, and any farm loans that contribute to erosion on highly erodible lands. This leaves conservation program participation and direct payments as the remaining major benefits that could be affected by compliance. Environmental and conservation organizations are asking Congress to consider requiring conservation compliance for crop insurance benefits or any new revenue assurance programs.
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. As a result, conservation is one of the four major sources of mandatory program spending that continues to be closely examined during reauthorization. Several conservation programs, provisions, and funding authorized in the 2008 farm bill expired at the end of FY2012 and were extended to the end of FY2013 by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240). This extension did not include additional baseline funding for the 37 farm bill provisions that do not have baseline funding beyond FY2012, five of which are within the conservation title.
The Senate-passed (S. 3240) and House-reported (H.R. 6083) farm bills in the 112th Congress included a number of program consolidations within the conservation title. The existing portfolio of conservation includes more than 20 programs, ranging in size and scope. The large number of programs has been cited as a source of confusion and redundancy, causing both the current and previous Administrations to request some form of consolidation. Other programmatic topics continue to be discussed and debated about conservation: (1) Should existing programs be amended, and if so, how? (2) How should funding be divided between programs for land retirement and for working lands? (3) Should conservation programs be subject to the same program limitations as other commodity support programs? (4) How will the debate be affected by new data that highlight the connection between conservation practices and positive environmental results? Various responses to these questions have been offered in extensive testimony at hearings, and are reflected in the policy options that Congress is considering.
The federal response to environmental concerns related to agriculture is generally viewed as both supportive and restrictive. One of the primary means of support is provided through the voluntary conservation programs established in the farm bill. These conservation programs are increasingly called upon to support best management practices to meet federal environmental requirements; however, these programs are being considered for funding reductions. Other conservation efforts, such as conservation compliance on highly erodible lands and wetlands compliance, might be viewed as restrictive. Potential changes in commodity programs could reduce the effectiveness of compliance programs. This has caused some to advocate for reestablishing compliance requirements to other farm program benefits, such as crop insurance.