Agricultural Conservation
USDA Should Improve Its Management of Key Conservation Programs to Ensure Payments Promote Environmental Goals Gao ID: GAO-07-370T January 17, 2007The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), are designed to promote conservation goals. In recently issued reports on these programs, GAO assessed (1) NRCS's process for allocating EQIP funds to the states to optimize environmental benefits, (2) NRCS's measures to monitor EQIP's performance, and (3) the legislative and regulatory measures available to prevent duplication between CSP and other conservation programs, such as EQIP.
Because farmers and ranchers own and manage about 940 million acres, or about half of the continental United States' land area, they are among the most important stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat. EQIP provides assistance to farmers and ranchers to take new actions aimed at addressing identified conservation problems, whereas CSP rewards farmers and ranchers who already meet very high standards of conservation and environmental management on their operations. In fiscal year 2006, EQIP and CSP provided about $1 billion and $260 million, respectively, in financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. Efficient and effective management of these programs by NRCS is especially important in light of the nation's current deficit and growing long-term fiscal challenges. GAO found the following weaknesses in the management of EQIP and CSP. NRCS's process for providing EQIP funds to states is not clearly linked to the program's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits; as such, NRCS may not be directing funds to states with the most significant environmental concerns arising from agricultural production. To allocate most EQIP funds, NRCS uses a general financial assistance formula that consists of 31 factors and weights. However, NRCS does not have a documented rationale for how each factor contributes to accomplishing the program's purpose. In addition, some data that NRCS uses in applying the formula are questionable or outdated. NRCS has begun to develop long-term, outcome-oriented performance measures for EQIP. Such measures can provide information to better gauge program performance and also help NRCS refine its process for allocating funds to the states by directing funds to areas of the country that need the most improvement. However, NRCS did not have plans to link these measures to the EQIP funding allocation process. Despite legislative and regulatory provisions, it is still possible for producers to receive duplicate payments through CSP and other USDA conservation programs because of similarities in the conservation actions financed through these programs. However, NRCS did not have a comprehensive process to preclude or identify such duplicate payments. In reviewing NRCS's payments data, GAO found a number of examples of duplicate payments. Ensuring the integrity and equity of existing farm programs is a key area needing enhanced congressional oversight. Such oversight can help ensure that conservation programs, such as EQIP and CSP, benefit the agricultural sector as intended and protect rural areas from land degradation, diminished water and air quality, and loss of wildlife habitat.
GAO-07-370T, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Management of Key Conservation Programs to Ensure Payments Promote Environmental Goals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-370T
entitled 'Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Management
of Key Conservation Programs to Ensure Payments Promote Environmental
Goals' which was released on January 17, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S.
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:
Wednesday, January 17, 2007:
Agricultural Conservation:
USDA Should Improve Its Management of Key Conservation Programs to
Ensure Payments Promote Environmental Goals:
Statement of Lisa Shames, Acting Director Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-07-370T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-370T, testimony before the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
Conservation Security Program (CSP), administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), are designed to promote conservation goals. In recently
issued reports on these programs, GAO assessed (1) NRCS‘s process for
allocating EQIP funds to the states to optimize environmental benefits,
(2) NRCS‘s measures to monitor EQIP‘s performance, and (3) the
legislative and regulatory measures available to prevent duplication
between CSP and other conservation programs, such as EQIP.
What GAO Found:
Because farmers and ranchers own and manage about 940 million acres, or
about half of the continental United States‘ land area, they are among
the most important stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat.
EQIP provides assistance to farmers and ranchers to take new actions
aimed at addressing identified conservation problems, whereas CSP
rewards farmers and ranchers who already meet very high standards of
conservation and environmental management on their operations. In
fiscal year 2006, EQIP and CSP provided about $1 billion and $260
million, respectively, in financial and technical assistance to farmers
and ranchers. Efficient and effective management of these programs by
NRCS is especially important in light of the nation‘s current deficit
and growing long-term fiscal challenges. GAO found the following
weaknesses in the management of EQIP and CSP:
* NRCS‘s process for providing EQIP funds to states is not clearly
linked to the program‘s purpose of optimizing environmental benefits;
as such, NRCS may not be directing funds to states with the most
significant environmental concerns arising from agricultural
production. To allocate most EQIP funds, NRCS uses a general financial
assistance formula that consists of 31 factors and weights. However,
NRCS does not have a documented rationale for how each factor
contributes to accomplishing the program‘s purpose. In addition, some
data that NRCS uses in applying the formula are questionable or
outdated.
* NRCS has begun to develop long-term, outcome-oriented performance
measures for EQIP. Such measures can provide information to better
gauge program performance and also help NRCS refine its process for
allocating funds to the states by directing funds to areas of the
country that need the most improvement. However, NRCS did not have
plans to link these measures to the EQIP funding allocation process.
* Despite legislative and regulatory provisions, it is still possible
for producers to receive duplicate payments through CSP and other USDA
conservation programs because of similarities in the conservation
actions financed through these programs. However, NRCS did not have a
comprehensive process to preclude or identify such duplicate payments.
In reviewing NRCS‘s payments data, GAO found a number of examples of
duplicate payments.
Ensuring the integrity and equity of existing farm programs is a key
area needing enhanced congressional oversight. Such oversight can help
ensure that conservation programs, such as EQIP and CSP, benefit the
agricultural sector as intended and protect rural areas from land
degradation, diminished water and air quality, and loss of wildlife
habitat.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommended that NRCS (1) ensure that the factors and weights used
in EQIP‘s general financial assistance formula are documented and
linked to program priorities, and data sources are accurate and
current, (2) continue to analyze and use information from its
performance measures to revise the financial assistance formula, and
(3) develop a comprehensive process to preclude and identify duplicate
payments between CSP and other conservation programs. USDA agreed that
the EQIP financial assistance formula needed review and said it has
improved oversight to cross-check payments to determine if duplicate
payments have been made. USDA did not agree that the EQIP funding
process lacked a clear link to the program‘s purpose.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-370T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Lisa Shames, (202) 512-
3841, ShamesL@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) management of two of its agricultural conservation
programs--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
Conservation Security Program (CSP). Because farmers and ranchers own
and manage about 940 million acres, or about half of the continental
United States' land area, they are among the most important stewards of
our soil, water, and wildlife habitat. EQIP and CSP, administered by
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), are designed to
encourage and reward activities that promote conservation goals. EQIP
provides assistance to farmers and ranchers to take new actions aimed
at addressing identified conservation problems, whereas CSP rewards
farmers and ranchers who already meet very high standards of
conservation and environmental management in their operations.
We at GAO are anxious to assist the 110th Congress in meeting its
oversight agenda. To that end, we have recommended that ensuring the
integrity and equity of existing farm programs is a key area needing
congressional oversight.[Footnote 1] The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002[Footnote 2] (2002 farm bill) authorized funding
for several agricultural conservation programs, among them EQIP and
CSP, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $20.8 billion
for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. In fiscal year 2006 alone, EQIP and
CSP provided about $1 billion and $260 million, respectively, in
financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. Given the
size and significance of these programs in protecting rural areas from
land degradation, diminished water and air quality, and loss of
wildlife habitat, it is essential that they be managed effectively and
efficiently. Appendix I provides information on authorized funding for
these and other key USDA conservation programs.
My testimony today is based on our recent reports evaluating NRCS's
implementation of EQIP[Footnote 3] and CSP.[Footnote 4] I will focus on
three primary issues discussed in these two reports: (1) NRCS's process
for allocating EQIP funds to the states to optimize environmental
benefits, (2) NRCS's measures to monitor EQIP performance, and (3) the
legislative and regulatory measures available to prevent duplication
between CSP and other USDA conservation programs and the duplication
that has occurred. To perform this work, we reviewed relevant statutory
provisions, NRCS regulations, program documentation, and guidelines for
implementing EQIP and CSP and spoke with NRCS officials. Our work was
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
In summary, we reported that NRCS's process for allocating EQIP funds
to the states does not clearly link to the program's purpose of
optimizing environmental benefits; as such, NRCS may not be directing
EQIP funds to states with the most significant environmental concerns
arising from agricultural production. We also reported that NRCS has
developed long-term, outcome-oriented measures to assess changes to the
environment resulting from EQIP practices as part of its 2005 strategic
planning effort. These measures could help the agency refine its
process for allocating funds to the states through its financial
assistance formula by directing funds toward areas of the country that
need the most improvement. However, at the time of our report, NRCS had
not yet done so. Finally, with respect to CSP, we reported that despite
provisions in the 2002 farm bill and NRCS regulations and procedures
designed to reduce the potential for duplication between CSP and other
conservation programs, duplicate payments for the same conservation
practice or activity on the same land have occurred. On the basis of
these findings, we made recommendations to improve USDA's process for
allocating EQIP funds to the states and to develop a process to
preclude and identify duplicate payments between CSP and other
conservation programs.
NRCS's Process for Allocating EQIP Funds to the States Does Not Link to
the Program's Purpose of Optimizing Environmental Benefits:
NRCS's process for providing EQIP funds to the states is not clearly
linked to the program's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits.
In particular, NRCS's general financial assistance formula, which
accounts for approximately two-thirds of funding provided to the
states, does not have a documented rationale for each of the formula's
factors and weights, which are used to determine the allocation of
funds to the states to address environmental issues. Thus, it is not
always clear whether the formula factors and weights direct funds to
the states as effectively as possible. In addition, the financial
assistance formula relies on some questionable and outdated data. As a
result, NRCS may not be directing EQIP funds to states with the most
significant environmental concerns arising from agricultural
production.
NRCS Does Not Have A Documented Rationale for Formula Factors and
Weights:
In fiscal year 2006, approximately 65 percent of EQIP funds were
considered general financial assistance--funds for installing
conservation practices--and were allocated using a general financial
assistance formula. This formula contains 31 factors related to the
availability of natural resources and the presence of environmental
concerns or problems. For example, factors in the formula measure acres
of wetlands and at-risk species habitat, pesticide and nitrogen runoff,
and the ratio of commercial fertilizers to cropland. NRCS assigns each
of the formula's factors a weight that determines the funds to be
allocated to states based on that factor. For example, factors with the
highest weights include acres of highly erodible cropland, acres of
fair and poor rangeland, the quantity of livestock, and the quantity of
animal waste generated. A state's total allocation is composed of the
funds it receives for each of the 31 factors.
NRCS has periodically modified factors and weights to emphasize
different national priorities, most recently in fiscal year 2004,
following the passage of the 2002 farm bill. However, NRCS has not
documented the basis for its decisions regarding the formula factors
and weights nor explained how they achieve the program's purpose of
optimizing environmental benefits. Thus, it is not always clear whether
the formula factors and weights help direct funds to the states as
effectively as possible.
For example, NRCS has not demonstrated that it has the most appropriate
water quality factors in its formula. Specifically, the formula
includes a factor addressing impaired rivers and streams but no factor
for impaired lakes and other bodies of water. Moreover, it is not
certain whether the impaired rivers and streams factor results in funds
being awarded on the basis of general water quality concerns or water
pollution specifically caused by agricultural production. As a result,
it was not certain whether the formula allocates funds as effectively
as possible to states with water quality concerns arising from
agricultural production.
While the factors in the EQIP general financial assistance formula
determine what resource and environmental characteristics are
considered when allocating funds, the weights associated with the
factors directly affect how much total funding is provided for each
factor and, thus, the amount of money each state receives. Small
differences in the factor weights can shift the amount of financial
assistance directed at a particular resource concern. For example, in
2006, if the weight of any of the 31 factors had increased by 1
percent, $6.5 million would have been allocated on the basis of that
factor at the expense of one or more other factors. Such a shift could
affect the amount of financial assistance received by each state. The
potential for the weights to significantly affect the amount of funding
a state receives underscores the importance of having a well-founded
rationale for assigning them.
Some stakeholders we spoke with questioned NRCS's assignment of weights
to certain factors in the financial assistance formula because they did
not believe NRCS's formula adequately reflected the states'
environmental priorities. For example, the formula allocates 6.3
percent of EQIP funds to the states on the basis of factors
specifically associated with animal feeding operations. However, states
have spent more than 6.3 percent of their EQIP funding on conservation
practices related to animal feeding operations. For example, in fiscal
year 2005, states spent a total of 11 percent of EQIP financial
assistance, or $91.1 million, on just one such practice--the
construction of animal waste storage facilities. This discrepancy
suggests that the weights in the formula may not reflect states'
priorities.
Financial Assistance Formula Relies on Some Questionable and Outdated
Data:
Weaknesses in the financial assistance formula are compounded by NRCS's
use of questionable and outdated data as they apply to the formula.
Accurate data are key to ensuring that funds are distributed to states
as intended. However, we identified several methodological weaknesses
in the data sources: (1) data that were used more than once in the
formula, (2) data sources whose accuracy could not be verified, and (3)
data that were not as current as possible.
First, 5 of the 29 data sources in the financial assistance formula
were used more than once for separate factors, potentially causing NRCS
to overemphasize some environmental concerns at the expense of others.
For example, NRCS uses the same data--data estimating the potential for
pesticide and nitrogen runoff from agricultural land--for two factors
in the formula intended to represent unique environmental concerns.
Using the same data for multiple factors may result in more emphasis
being placed on certain environmental concerns than intended.
Furthermore, using data created for one factor for a second factor also
makes the formula less transparent and potentially less reliable for
allocating state funding.
Second, NRCS could not confirm the source of data used in 10 factors in
the formula; as such, we could not determine the accuracy of the data,
verify how NRCS generated the data, or fully understand the basis on
which the agency allocates funding. For example, we could not verify
how NRCS generated data for factors measuring the quantities of
livestock and animal waste. NRCS said it had not retained documentation
on how the data for these factors were calculated. As a result, it was
uncertain whether NRCS had chosen the most appropriate data as its
basis for allocating funds to states with pollution problems from
livestock or whether the data were accurately calculated.
Third, NRCS does not use the most current data for six factors in the
formula. For example, according to NRCS, the source of data on the
ratio of commercial fertilizers to cropland was a 1995 report by the
Association of American Plant Food Control Officials. We found a 2005
version of the same report with more current data. The absence of the
most recent data for these six factors raises questions about whether
the formula allocates funds to areas of the country that currently have
the greatest environmental needs, because recent changes in a state's
agricultural or environmental status may not be reflected.
Because of our concerns about the general financial assistance formula,
we recommended that NRCS ensure its rationale for the factors and
weights was documented and addressed program priorities, and the data
sources used in the formula were accurate and current. In responding to
our report, USDA agreed that the EQIP formula needed review but did not
agree with our assessment that NRCS's funding process lacked a clear
link to the program's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits. We
continue to believe, however, that the weaknesses we identified in the
general financial assistance formula lessen its ability to optimize
environmental benefits. Additional information describing its reasons
for including or excluding factors in the formula would help ensure
that EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits is more
evident.
NRCS Has Begun to Develop More Outcome-Oriented Performance Measures
for EQIP, but Has Not Yet Linked Them to the Funding Allocation
Process:
NRCS has begun to develop more long-term, outcome-oriented performance
measures to assess changes to the environment resulting from EQIP
practices. In addition to providing information to better gauge program
performance, these measures could also help NRCS refine its funding
allocation process to the states by directing funds to areas of the
country that need the most improvement. However, at the time of our
report, NRCS did not yet have any plans to link these performance
measures to the EQIP funding allocation process.
In 2000, we reported that performance measures tied to outcomes would
better communicate the results NRCS intended its conservation programs
to achieve and would be more useful in judging NRCS's performance in
carrying out its mission.[Footnote 5] In 2002, NRCS established annual
performance measures for EQIP. However, they were primarily program
outputs--the number and type of conservation practices installed--and
as such provided limited information for decision makers.
Subsequently, as part of its 2005 strategic planning effort, NRCS
developed long-term, outcome-oriented performance measures to assess
changes to the environment resulting from the installation of EQIP
conservation practices. These measures include such things as reducing
sediment runoff from farms, improving soil condition on working
cropland, and increasing water conservation. They also include proposed
targets for each measure to be achieved by 2010, such as reducing
sediment runoff by 18.5 million tons annually. According to NRCS, it
has developed baselines for these performance measures, and plans to
assess and report on them once computer models and other data
collection methods that estimate environmental change are completed.
According to the Director of NRCS's Strategic Planning and Performance
Division, NRCS expects to assess and report on the status of all
measures by 2010 but will be able to assess the results of some
measures sooner, such as improved soil condition on working cropland.
In the meantime, the agency will continue to use its existing annual
measures to assess performance. The director acknowledged that the
outcome-oriented measures were not as comprehensive as needed but
represented measures NRCS could reasonably assess using modeling and
data collection methods that would soon become available. NRCS plans to
continue to improve its performance measures.
Although we did not assess the comprehensiveness of the EQIP
performance measures, the additional information they provide about the
results of EQIP outcomes should allow NRCS to better gauge program
performance. As a next step, such information could also help the
agency refine its process for allocating funds to the states through
its general financial assistance formula by directing funds toward
practices that address unrealized performance targets and areas of the
country that need the most improvement. The Chief of NRCS's
Environmental Improvement Programs Branch agreed that information about
program performance might eventually be linked to the EQIP funding
allocation process. However, at the time of our report, the agency did
not have plans to make this linkage.
We recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct NRCS to
continue to analyze current and newly developed outcome-oriented
performance measures for EQIP and use this information to make any
further revisions to the financial assistance formula to ensure funds
are directed to areas of highest priority. In its response, NRCS stated
that the current measures have been revised to reflect the most recent
results of its effort to track and report program performance.
Legislative and Regulatory Measures Reduce the Potential for
Duplication between CSP and Other Programs, but the Potential Remains
for Duplicate Payments, and Such Payments Have Occurred:
A number of legislative and regulatory actions have been taken that
reduce the potential for duplication between CSP and other USDA
conservation programs, such as EQIP. For example, the 2002 farm bill
provides that CSP may reward producers for maintaining conservation
practices that they have already undertaken, whereas other programs
generally provide assistance to encourage producers to take new actions
to address conservation problems on working lands or to idle or retire
environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production. In
addition, the 2002 farm bill explicitly prohibits duplicate payments
under CSP and other conservation programs for the same practice on the
same land. It also prohibits CSP payments for certain activities that
can be funded under other conservation programs, such as the
construction or maintenance of animal waste storage or treatment
facilities.
In addition, CSP regulations, promulgated by USDA, were designed to
prevent duplication between CSP and other conservation programs. For
example, the regulations establish higher minimum eligibility standards
for CSP than for other programs, which help to differentiate the
applicant pool for CSP from the potential applicants for these other
programs. The regulations also encourage CSP participants to implement
conservation actions, known as enhancements, to achieve a level of
treatment that generally exceeds the level required by other USDA
conservation programs.
Despite these actions, the potential for duplicate payments still
exists because of similarities in conservation actions financed through
CSP and other programs, and our analysis has revealed that duplicate
payments have occurred. Our analysis of 2004 payments data showed that
172 (or 8 percent) of the 2,180 producers who received a CSP payment in
2004 also received an EQIP payment that year. Among the 172 producers,
we identified 72 who received a total of 121 payments that appeared to
be for similar or related conservation actions. We then selected 11 of
these producers, who received a total of 12 payments under each
program, for more detailed analysis and found that in 8 cases duplicate
payments had occurred. For example, four of these duplicate payments
were made to producers who received a CSP enhancement payment and an
EQIP payment for conservation actions that appeared to be similar. In
one of these cases, a producer received a CSP pest management
enhancement payment of $9,160 for conservation crop rotation and, on
the same parcel of land, an EQIP payment of $795 for the same
conservation action--conservation crop rotation.
NRCS state officials agreed that the payments made in these four cases
were duplicates. They stated that they were unaware that such
duplication was occurring and that they would inform their district
offices of it. NRCS headquarters officials stated that the agency lacks
a comprehensive process to either preclude duplicate payments or
identify them after a contract has been awarded. Instead, these
officials said, as a guard against potential duplication, NRCS relies
on the institutional knowledge of its field staff and the records they
keep.
NRCS has the authority to recover duplicate payments. CSP contracts, by
way of reference, include a clause stating that CSP participants cannot
receive duplicate payments. Under a CSP contract, as required in the
2002 farm bill, a producer agrees that on violation of any term or
condition of the contract to refund payments and forfeit all rights to
receive payments or to refund or accept adjustments to payments,
depending on whether the Secretary of Agriculture determines that
termination of the contract is or is not warranted, respectively.
Duplicate payments reduce program effectiveness and, because of limited
funding, may result in some producers not receiving program benefits
for which they are otherwise eligible. For these reasons, we
recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS
to (1) develop a comprehensive process, such as an automated system, to
review CSP contract applications to ensure that CSP payments, if
awarded, would not duplicate payments made by other USDA conservation
programs; and (2) develop a process to efficiently review existing CSP
contracts to identify cases where CSP payments duplicate payments made
under other programs and take action to recover appropriate amounts and
to ensure that these duplicate payments are not repeated in fiscal year
2006 and beyond.
Regarding the first recommendation, in July 2006, NRCS said it had
created an automated system within its contracting software to conduct
a comparison between existing contracts for EQIP and other conservation
programs and new CSP applications to reveal potential areas of
overlapping practices. In addition, NRCS indicated that for the fiscal
year 2006 CSP sign-up, it would require applicants to complete a form
that asks an applicant to certify whether or not they are receiving
payments from another conservation program on any of the land being
offered for enrollment in CSP. These actions appear to be steps in the
right direction, but we have not assessed their effectiveness.
Regarding the second recommendation, NRCS indicated that all identified
duplicate payments would be dealt with according to the NRCS
contracting manual. We do not know the extent to which NRCS has
identified and recovered duplicate payments.
In conclusion, EQIP and CSP are key agricultural conservation programs
that can play an invaluable role in encouraging farmers and ranchers to
act as stewards of the nation's natural resources. However, the
weaknesses we identified in the management of EQIP and CSP funds may
lessen these programs' effectiveness. Refining the EQIP allocation
formula to ensure funds are provided to states in a manner that
optimizes environmental benefits, continuing to develop outcome-
oriented performance measures to help refine its funding allocation
process, and developing processes designed to eliminate duplicate
payments between CSP and other programs would enhance the programs'
ability to effectively promote conservation among U.S. agricultural
producers. Furthermore, oversight of these programs, such as today's
hearing, helps ensure funds are spent as economically, efficiently and
effectively as possible and benefit the agricultural sector as
intended. Such oversight is especially critical in light of the
nation's current deficit and growing long-term fiscal challenges.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee
may have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further
information about this testimony, please contact Lisa Shames, Acting
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, (202) 512-3841 or
ShamesL@gao.gov. Key contributors to this statement were James R.
Jones, Jr., Assistant Director; Gary Brown; Thomas Cook; Paige
Gilbreath; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Description of Key USDA Conservation Programs:
Table 1:
Dollars in millions.
Program: Conservation Reserve Program;
Description: Provides annual rental payments and cost-share and
technical assistance to establish permanent vegetative land cover in
exchange for taking environmentally sensitive cropland out of
production for 10 to 15 years. Most program lands are enrolled through
the use of contracts and competitive bidding during designated sign-
ups. Some economic uses of enrolled land are allowed with a reduction
of annual rental payments, such as the installation of wind turbines
and managed haying and grazing. Up to 39.2 million acres may be
enrolled at any one time;
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: $11,118.
Program: Conservation Security Program;
Description: Offers various payments and technical assistance to
support ongoing stewardship of agricultural land through 5-to 10- year
contracts to promote conservation and the improvement of soil, water,
air, energy, and plant and animal life on private and tribal
agricultural lands. Unlike other USDA conservation programs that
provide assistance to take new actions aimed at addressing identified
conservation problems, CSP rewards farmers and ranchers who already
meet very high standards of conservation and environmental management
in their operations;
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: [A].
Program: Environmental Quality Incentives Program;
Description: Offers incentive and cost-share payments and technical
assistance through 1-to 10-year contracts to implement structural and
land management practices or to develop a comprehensive nutrient
management plan. At least 60 percent of annual funds made available for
cost-share and incentive payments are required to be targeted at
practices relating to livestock production;
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 5,800.
Program: Farmland Protection Program;
Description: Purchases easements or other interests in eligible land
(up to 50 percent of fair market value) for the purpose of protecting
topsoil by limiting nonagricultural uses of the land. Eligible land
means land on a farm or ranch that is subject to a pending offer for
purchase from an eligible entity and that has prime, unique, or other
productive soil or that contains historical or archeological resources.
Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, grassland, pastureland, and
forestland that is an incidental part of the agricultural operation;
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 597.
Program: Grassland Reserve Program;
Description: Offers permanent and 30-year easements and 10-to 30-year
rental agreements to grassland owners to assist owners in restoring and
conserving eligible land.[B] Up to 2 million acres may be enrolled;
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 254.
Program: Wetlands Reserve Program;
Description: Targets restoration of prior-converted and farmed wetlands
to a wetland condition. Acreage can be enrolled in the program through
the use of permanent easements, 30-year easements, and restoration cost-
share agreements. Program lands may be used for compatible economic
uses such as hunting, fishing, or limited timber harvests. Up to 2.275
million acres may be enrolled;
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 1,506.
Program: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program;
Description: Offers cost-share payments through 5- to 10-year
agreements to develop and protect and restore wildlife habitat. Allows
up to 15 percent of funds each year to be used for increased cost-share
assistance to producers who enter into 15-year agreements;
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 360.
Sources: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Congressional Budget Office information and the 2002 farm bill.
[A] Congress authorized the Conservation Security Program without
placing limits on either its funding or the number of acres enrolled,
although at times Congress has capped its funding in other legislation.
[B] In states that impose a maximum duration for easements, the
Secretary of Agriculture can use an easement for the maximum duration
allowed under state law.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress, GAO-07-
235R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006).
[2] Pub. L. No. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134 (2002).
[3] GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process for
Allocating Funds to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, GAO-06-969 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006).
[4] GAO, Conservation Security Program: Despite Cost Controls, Improved
USDA Management Is Needed to Ensure Proper Payments and Reduce
Duplication with Other Programs, GAO-06-312 (Washington, D.C.: April
28, 2006).
[5] GAO, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions
Needed to Strengthen Program and Financial Accountability, GAO/ RCED-00-
83 (Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2000).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
