"Supporting Farmers, Strengthening Conservation, Sustaining Working Lands"

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                    SUPPORTING FARMERS, STRENGTHENING5                     CONSERVATION, SUSTAINING WORKING6                                 LANDS7=======================================================================89                                HEARING1011                               BEFORE THE1213                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, RESEARCH,14                              AND BIOTECHNOLOGY1516                                 OF THE1718                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE19                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             FIRST SESSION2425                               __________2627                              JUNE 5, 20252829                               __________3031                            Serial No. 119-63233[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3435          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture36                         agriculture.house.gov3738                                __________3940                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4161-618 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254243-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4445                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE4647                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman4849FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking50AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member51Chairman                             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia52ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JIM COSTA, California53SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts54DOUG LaMALFA, California             ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina55DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut56TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice57DON BACON, Nebraska                  Ranking Minority Member58MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas59DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon60JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina61TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii62RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois63MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois64BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico65KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois66BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan67JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ADAM GRAY, California68RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan69MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama70ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia71DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         JOSH RILEY, New York72DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             JOHN W. MANNION, New York73TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland74ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine75Pennsylvania                         SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California76MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana77MARK HARRIS, North Carolina78DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio7980                                 ______8182                     Parish Braden, Staff Director8384                 Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director8586                                 ______8788       Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology8990                   FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman9192JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana, Vice Chair  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii, Ranking93DON BACON, Nebraska                  Minority Member94RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina95MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas96JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois97RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois98DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico, Vice99ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            Ranking Minority Member100Pennsylvania                         EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia101MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana             JOHN W. MANNION, New York102                                     APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland103104                                  (ii)105106                             C O N T E N T S107108                              ----------109                                                                   Page110Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,111  opening statement..............................................     7112    Prepared statement...........................................     8113Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,114  opening statement..............................................     1115    Prepared statement...........................................     3116Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from117  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     6118    Submitted letter on behalf of Andrew W. LaVigne, President119      and Chief Executive Officer, American Seed Trade120      Association................................................    61121Tokuda, Hon. Jill N., a Representative in Congress from Hawaii,122  opening statement..............................................     4123    Prepared statement...........................................     5124125                               Witnesses126127Boening, Russell W., President, Texas Farm Bureau, Poth, TX......     9128    Prepared statement...........................................    11129McLeland, Christopher, Managing Director of Agriculture Programs,130  Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Hallsville, MO..........................    17131    Prepared statement...........................................    19132Sebert, Ph.D., Dan A., original Charter Member, Senior Policy133  Advisor, National Watershed Coalition, Pawnee, OK..............    22134    Prepared statement...........................................    23135Fink, Tim, Vice President of Policy, American Farmland Trust,136  Washington, D.C................................................    26137    Prepared statement...........................................    28138Galase, Nicole K., Managing Director, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council,139  Hilo, HI; on behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association...    33140    Prepared statement...........................................    35141    Submitted questions..........................................    61142143   SUPPORTING FARMERS, STRENGTHENING CONSERVATION, SUSTAINING WORKING144                                 LANDS145146                              ----------147148                         THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025149150                  House of Representatives,151 Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology,152                                  Committee on Agriculture,153                                                   Washington, D.C.154    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., Room1551300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas156[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.157    Members present: Representatives Lucas, Baird, Rose,158Jackson, Newhouse, Bresnahan, Messmer, Thompson (ex officio),159LaMalfa, Tokuda, Adams, Davids, Budzinski, Sorensen, Vasquez,160Vindman, Mannion, McClain Delaney, Craig (ex officio), Costa,161and Riley.162    Staff present: John Busovsky, Laurel Lee Chatham, Sofia163Jones, Joshua Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, John Konya, Suzie164Cavalier, Kate Fink, Ari Perlmutter, Ashley Smith, Michael165Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.166167 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN168                     CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA169170    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome and171thank you for joining today's hearing entitled, Supporting172Farmers, Strengthening Conservation, and Sustaining Working173Lands. After brief opening remarks, Members will receive174testimony from our witnesses today and then the hearing will be175open to questions.176    In consultation with the Ranking Member and pursuant to177Rule XI(e), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware178that other Members of the full Committee may be joining us179today.180    Good morning. Welcome to today's Conservation, Research,181and Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing. Today we will be182examining farm bill conservation programs and hearing from a183distinguished panel of witnesses from their perspectives. Title184II of the farm bill authorizes a suite of conservation programs185that are critical for supporting the long-term viability of186farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. These programs have187the dual benefit of supporting the producer and addressing188pressing natural resource concerns at the local level. As we189have today's discussion, hear about the programs, and discuss190potential improvements, it is important that we have some191context for why and how our system of farm conservation192developed over many years.193    The roots of our conservation system date back to the 1930s194and the actions that the Federal Government took in response to195the Dust Bowl. In the 19th century, the Homestead Act (Pub. L.19637-64) was enacted with the best of intentions, but it had197unintended consequences. When settlers came West in search of198fertile land to farm, it didn't take long for them to realize199that the sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains were200susceptible to erosion when unprotected, or not protected, I201should say, by native vegetation. Coupled with severe drought202conditions, this led to massive dust storms in Oklahoma, Texas,203and Kansas in the 1930s. Perhaps the worst fell on April 14,2041935, a day that has become known as Black Sunday. The dust205storms were so severe, their effects were felt far beyond the206Southern Great Plains, gathering attention of lawmakers in207Washington.208    Only 13 days after Black Sunday, President Roosevelt signed209legislation into law establishing the then-named Soil210Conservation Service. Renamed the Natural Resources211Conservation Service in 1996, the agency administers most of212the farm bill conservation programs and provides technical213assistance for others administered by the Farm Service Agency.214Voluntary conservation practices are critically important for215supporting agriculture and ensuring we don't have another Dust216Bowl again. With this year marking the 90th anniversary of both217Black Sunday and the establishment of the now-named NRCS,218today's hearing is timely to hear more about these programs and219how Congress may be able to further improve them.220    We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm221Bill, and rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the222current status of agriculture and the rural economy. This223extends to conservation programs and reforms we can include to224build on the progress we have made in recent farm bills. Last225year's Committee-passed farm bill proposed historic new funding226for conservation programs by rescinding the unobligated227Inflation Reduction Act funding and reinvesting it in Title II.228The House-passed reconciliation bill similarly reinvested the229unobligated IRA funding into the conservation title.230Reallocating those dollars would increase the title's baseline231over the long-term, making it a permanent investment in232conservation programs. It also allows for continued support for233orphan programs, increased funding for successful programs like234Small Watershed Program, and the creation of new forestry235easement program.236    In addition to funding, last year's bill placed an emphasis237on science, technology, and innovation. The bill makes238precision agriculture specifically eligible for cost-share239under EQIP and CSP, requires more frequent updates to240conservation practice standards, and creates an office of241innovation at the Office of the Secretary. The bill streamlines242RCPP, provides commonsense flexibility for ACEP, and reforms243the Technical Service Provider Program. The bill also proposes244a modernization of CRP and focusing the program on marginal245lands by incorporating soil capacity class into rental rates246for general enrollment. These are all welcome changes intended247to improve program administration and make them more producer248friendly.249    Farm bill conservation programs have been so successful250because they are voluntary, incentive based, and producer-251first. The programs have also been so effective because they252are locally-led, which allows for states and regions to253determine the priority natural resource concerns. As we think254about the next farm bill, it is important for us to keep all of255this in mind. Conservation programs have been so effective256because of the flexibility built into them and because we have257continually encouraged the local-led process to work. I am258proud of the work that this Committee has done over the past259several farm bill cycles to improve the programs because we260know voluntary conservation works.261    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]262263Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress264                             from Oklahoma265    Good morning. Welcome to today's Conservation, Research, and266Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing. Today we will be examining farm267bill conservation programs and hearing from a distinguished panel of268witnesses for their perspectives.269    Title II of the farm bill authorizes a suite of conservation270programs that are critical for supporting the long-term viability of271farmers, ranchers and rural communities. These programs have the dual272benefit of supporting the producer and addressing pressing natural273resource concerns at the local level.274    As we have today's discussion, hear about the programs, and discuss275potential improvements, it is important that we have some context for276why and how our system of farm conservation developed over many years.277The roots of our conservation system date back to the 1930s and the278actions that the Federal Government took in response to the Dust Bowl.279    In the Nineteenth century, the Homestead Act was enacted with the280best intentions, but it had unintended consequences. When settlers came281west in search of fertile land to farm, it didn't take long for them to282realize the sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains were susceptible283to erosion when not protected by native vegetation. Coupled with severe284drought conditions, this led to massive dust storms in Oklahoma, Texas,285and Kansas in the 1930s. Perhaps the worst fell on April 14, 1935, a286day that has come to be known as ``Black Sunday.''287    The dust storms were so severe that their effects were felt far288beyond the Southern Great Plains, garnering the attention of lawmakers289in Washington. Only 13 days after Black Sunday, President Roosevelt290signed legislation into law establishing the then-named Soil291Conservation Service. Renamed the Natural Resources Conservation292Service in 1996, the agency administers most of the farm bill293conservation programs and provides technical assistance for others294administered by the Farm Service Agency.295    Voluntary conservation practices are critically important for296supporting agriculture and ensuring we don't have another Dust Bowl297again. With this year marking the 90th anniversary of both Black Sunday298and the establishment of the now-named NRCS, today's hearing is timely299to hear more about these programs and how Congress may be able to300further improve them.301    We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm Bill and302rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the current state of303agriculture and the rural economy. This extends to conservation304programs and reforms we can include to build on the progress we've made305in recent farm bills.306    Last year's Committee-passed farm bill proposed historic new307funding for conservation programs by rescinding the unobligated308Inflation Reduction Act funding and reinvesting it into Title II. The309House-passed reconciliation bill similarly reinvests the unobligated310IRA funding into the conservation title. Reallocating those dollars311would increase the title's baseline over the long term, making it a312permanent investment into conservation programs. It also allows for313continued support for the orphan programs, increased funding for314successful programs like the Small Watershed Program, and the creation315of a new forest easement program.316    In addition to funding, last year's bill placed an emphasis on317science, technology and innovation. The bill makes precision318agriculture specifically eligible for cost-share under EQIP and CSP;319requires more frequent updates to conservation practice standards; and320creates an office of innovation in the Office of the Secretary.321    The bill streamlines RCPP; provides commonsense flexibilities for322ACEP; and reforms the technical service provider program. The bill also323proposes a modernization of CRP and focusing the program on marginal324lands by incorporating soil capability class into rental rates for325general enrollment.326    These are all welcomed changes intended to improve program327administration and make them more producer friendly. Farm bill328conservation programs have been so successful because they are329voluntary, incentive-based and producer-first. The programs have also330been so effective because they are locally-led, which allows for the331states and regions to determine the priority natural resource concerns.332    As we think about the next farm bill, it's important for us to keep333all of this in mind. Conservation programs have been so effective334because of the flexibility built into them and because we have335continually encouraged the locally-led process to work. I'm proud of336the work that this Committee has done over the past several farm bill337cycles to improve the programs because we know that voluntary338conservation works.339    I'd like to welcome all of our witnesses today; and thank Ranking340Member Tokuda for her partnership on this hearing. With that, I yield341to the Ranking Member for any opening remarks she would like to342provide.343344    The Chairman. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses345today and thank Ranking Member Tokuda for her partnership on346this hearing. And with that, I yield of the Ranking Member for347any opening remarks that she would like to provide.348349 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JILL N. TOKUDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN350                      CONGRESS FROM HAWAII351352    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good353morning. Aloha, everyone. Thank you for being at our hearing354today. As Ranking Member, I am proud to join you and our355colleagues in reaffirming a shared commitment to supporting356America's farmers, ranchers, and producers through smart,357effective conservation policy. I also want to thank our panel358of witnesses for being here today and extend an especially warm359mahalo to Nicole Galase for traveling all the way--I think she360came the farthest--all the way from Hawaii to share the361perspective of food producers operating in some of the most362remote and climate vulnerable parts of the country.363    Now, let's begin with some common ground. USDA conservation364programs work, whether it is EQIP, CSP, ACEP, RCPP, the whole365alphabet soup of acronyms. These programs provide practical366tools to improve soil health, manage water more efficiently,367and keep operations productive and resilient, but here is the368hard truth. The weather isn't what it used to be. No matter369what you want to call it--climate change, extreme weather,370shifting seasons--our producers are living it every day. Longer371droughts, harder rains, heat waves in April, frost in May, it372is getting harder to grow the food, fuel, and fiber that this373country relies on, and that is not a partisan talking point. It374is reality for farmers and ranchers across this country.375    Programs like EQIP and CSP can help producers adapt, but376they have been chronically under-funded for decades, turning377away thousands of qualified farmers each year, not because the378programs don't work, but because demand far exceeds supply.379That is why the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) was380such a turning point. The conservation investments in the IRA381weren't just a budget line, they were a statement, a bold time-382limited, once-in-a-generation effort to meet demand head on and383finally give producers the access and the technical support384they need to take on the challenges they are facing today.385    Now, yes, we have seen bills that move IRA dollars into the386baseline USDA conservation budget. And that is a good thing,387and on the surface that might look like a step towards388stability, but let us not lose sight of what made the IRA389conservation funding different and powerful. The IRA wasn't390about business as usual. It was about breaking the log jam. It391opened the flood gates to let more farmers and more ranchers392get the support they have been asking for, for many, many393years, and let me be clear: this is not about left or right. It394is about forward.395    Whether you are in red states, blue states, purple states,396or farm country, right in between, producers are not asking for397politics. They are asking for access, for flexibility, for398conservation tools that make their land more resilient, their399water more efficient, and their operations more secure because400their livelihoods, as you all know, depend on it and so does401our nation's food supply. So as we move forward, whether a farm402bill or broader conservation planning, let's protect not just403the dollars, but the spirit behind what was in the IRA:404urgency, scale and the recognition that changing conditions405require bold action, not modest tweaks. So let's make sure that406in the name of stability, we don't slip back into scarcity. Our407producers don't need diluted promises. They need real, timely408farmer-focused support because the weather is not waiting and409neither should we.410    I look forward to our dialogue today and to working with411this Committee to continue improving the effectiveness of NRCS412programs, supporting our staff, and supporting Americans'413agriculture through thoughtful and innovative conservation414practices. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to415hearing from our panel, and I yield back.416    [The prepared statement of Ms. Tokuda follows:]417418Prepared Statement of Hon. Jill N. Tokuda, a Representative in Congress419                              from Hawaii420    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening today's421hearing.422    As Ranking Member, I'm proud to join you and our colleagues in423reaffirming a shared commitment to supporting America's farmers,424ranchers, and producers through smart, effective conservation policy. I425also want to thank our panel of witnesses for being here, and extend a426warm mahalo to Nicole Galase for traveling all the way from Hawai`i to427share the perspective of food producers operating in some of the most428remote and climate-vulnerable parts of the country.429    Let's begin with common ground: USDA conservation programs work.430Whether it's EQIP, CSP, ACEP, or RCPP, these programs provide practical431tools to improve soil health, manage water more efficiently, and keep432operations productive and resilient.433    But here's the hard truth: the weather isn't what it used to be. No434matter what you call it--climate change, extreme weather, shifting435seasons--our producers are living it every day. Longer droughts, harder436rains, heatwaves in April, frost in May--it's getting harder to grow437the food, fuel, and fiber that this country relies on.438    And that's not a partisan talking point. It's a reality for farmers439and ranchers across America.440    Programs like EQIP and CSP can help producers adapt. But they've441been chronically under-funded for decades, turning away thousands of442qualified farmers each year--not because the programs don't work, but443because demand far exceeds supply.444    That's why the Inflation Reduction Act was such a turning point.445The conservation investments in the IRA weren't just a budget line--446they were a statement. A bold, time-limited, once-in-a-generation447effort to meet demand head-on and finally give producers the access--448and the technical support--they need to take on the challenges they're449facing today.450    Now, yes, we've seen bills that move IRA dollars into the baseline451USDA conservation budget. On the surface, that might look like a step452toward stability. But let's not lose sight of what made the IRA453conservation funding different--and powerful.454    The IRA wasn't about business as usual. It was about breaking the455logjam. It opened the floodgates to let more farmers and ranchers get456the support they've been asking for--many for years.457    And let me be clear: this is not about left or right. It's about458forward.459    Whether you're in red states, blue states, or farm country in460between, producers are not asking for politics. They're asking for461access. For flexibility. For conservation tools that make their land462more resilient, their water use more efficient, and their operations463more secure--because their livelihoods depend on it, and so does our464national food supply.465    So as we move forward--whether in the farm bill or broader466conservation planning--let's protect not just the dollars, but the467spirit behind the IRA: urgency, scale, and the recognition that468changing conditions require bold action, not modest tweaks.469    Let's make sure that in the name of stability, we don't slip back470into scarcity. Our producers don't need diluted promises. They need471real, timely, farmer-focused support--because the weather's not472waiting, and neither should we.473    I look forward to our dialogue today, and to working with this474Committee to continue improving the effectiveness of NRCS programs and475supporting American agriculture through thoughtful and innovative476conservation practices.477    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.478479    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now480recognizes the Chairman of the full Committee for any opening481comments he would like to make. Chairman Thompson.482483 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN484                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA485486    Mr. Thompson. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to our487witnesses for being here today. I know it is not easy making488the trip to Washington. I really appreciate your willingness to489participate in today's hearing. I also want to thank Mr. Lucas490for serving as a Subcommittee Chairman at this critical time.491There is no Member more capable to help navigate the vital492issues of working lands conservation at this moment in time493than our esteemed former full Committee chair, so thank you,494Frank.495    As a former Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have been496proud to support these programs, and I have seen firsthand how497voluntary conservation directly benefits the producer, soil and498water, wildlife habitat, and so much more. Title II programs499have been so successful for many reasons, fundamentally because500our motto of conservation is voluntary, incentive based, and501locally-led. The locally-led part is important, and we must502continue to protect that aspect of the programs as we consider503reforms within a new farm bill.504    The Farm, Food, and National Security Act (H.R. 8467, 118th505Congress) was passed by this Committee last year and contains506many bipartisan priorities in its conservation title to build507on the gains that we have made in recent farm bills. This508includes reforms to improve the administration of RCPP, ACEP,509and the Small Watershed Program. The bill encourages more510innovation in the programs by requiring more frequent updates511to conservation practice standards and makes precision512agriculture eligible for cost-share in EQIP and CSP. It also513proposed a modernization of CRP and important improvements to514the technical services provider program. And while these are515just some of the reforms this Committee can take to improve the516administration of each program, we also have a tremendous517opportunity at this Congress to bolster conservation programs518over the long-term with significant new funding. The Farm,519Food, and National Security Act also proposed rescinding the520unobligated IRA conservation funding and reallocating it into521Title II. House Republicans are now trying to provide similar522reinvestment through the reconciliation process. Instead of523letting the IRA funding expire, investing it would provide524additional funding for the programs that we all know work and525increase the baseline for the conservation title into526perpetuity.527    Rural America continues to face great economic challenges,528and I look forward to working with all of you on strategic529investments and policy updates to meet the needs of our530producers and the agricultural value chain. Thank you again to531our witnesses for your time today, and we look forward to532hearing your testimonies and appreciate your expertise with the533farm bill conservation programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With534that, I yield back.535    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize the536Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Craig, for any537opening comments that she would like to make.538539  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN540                    CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA541542    Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so pleased to be543here with fellow strong advocates for conservation programs.544Thank you to each of our witnesses for making time to come up545to the Hill today, to share your expertise with us, and a546special shout-out to Ms. Galase, who has traveled 5,000 miles547to be with us here today.548    Our farmers are the natural caretakers and stewards of our549land. USDA's conservation programs help continue that legacy550while diversifying farm income streams and helping farmers'551bottom line. Conservation is essential to keeping our farm and552forest lands working for generations to come. Over the last553decade my state, Minnesota, has received over $875 million from554Natural Resources Conservation Service programs to help555producers with everything from planting cover crops and556pollinator habitat to implementing reduced tillage and manure557management.558    For example, in my district in Rice County, conservation559champions, like John and Debbie Becker, have enrolled land in560the Conservation Reserve Program to protect the country's only561self-sustaining trout stream, and more recently, they have used562the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to fund planting563cover crops. Of course, that is the county's only, not the564country's only, and through the Conservation Stewardship565Program, Mike and Kay Peterson have added critical area566plantings of native prairie on highly-erodible end rows where567erosion occurred year after year. These programs are popular568because they work. Moving forward, there are some significant569issues I believe we must address to get more conservation on570the ground.571    First, I would be remiss not to mention my significant572concern with the current Administration's hollowing out of573NRCS. In Minnesota alone, we have lost more than 70 dedicated574NRCS employees. Without dedicated and qualified staff working575from farmer service centers in rural America, these programs576cannot succeed. Yet the President's budget recommends577completely zeroing out conservation technical assistance,578further jeopardizing our ability to implement extremely popular579farm bill conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. This will580hurt farmers not help them.581    Second, NRCS programs remain oversubscribed. We have to582protect the remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation583funding by rolling it into the farm bill baseline, and we584should do it in a manner that preserves the original intent of585the investment and without busting up the farm bill coalition.586We must make sure that money stays in the voluntary, incentive-587based conservation programs that our farmers rely on. The588investments we made in conservation programs through the IRA589might be a once-in-a-lifetime, and we shouldn't give up those590gains. I am glad the Majority has recognized the importance and591success of the IRA and joined us in trying to get this across592the finish line.593    Last, it has been too long since we have reauthorized a594full 5 year farm bill. There are commonsense, bipartisan595changes that everyone agrees need to be made. I look forward to596working with my colleagues, our witnesses, and the broader597conservation community to protect and improve the farm bill's598conservation programs. We have a tremendous opportunity to599streamline program delivery, increase incentives for producer600participation, and preserve farm, ranch, and forest lands for601current farmers and our children, and especially for those of602us who have them, our grandchildren. Thank you Mr. Chairman and603I yield back.604    [The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]605606 Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress607                             from Minnesota608    I'm pleased to be here with fellow strong advocates for609conservation programs. Thank you to each of our witnesses for making610time to come up to the Hill and share your expertise with us. And a611special shout-out to Ms. Galase for traveling nearly 5,000 miles from612Volcano, Hawaii--we appreciate you making the journey to be here today.613    Our farmers are the natural caretakers and stewards of our land.614    USDA's conservation programs help continue that legacy while615diversifying farm income streams and helping farmers' bottom line.616Conservation is essential to keeping our farm and forest lands working617for generations to come.618    Over the last decade, my state, Minnesota, has received over $875619million from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs to620help producers with everything from planting cover crops and pollinator621habitat to implementing reduced tillage and manure management.622    For example, in my district in Rice County, conservation champions623like John and Debbie Becker have enrolled land in the Conservation624Reserve Program (CRP) to protect the county's only self-sustaining625trout stream, and more recently, they've used the Environmental Quality626Incentives Program (EQIP) to fund planting cover crops. And through the627Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Mike and Kay Peterson have628added critical area plantings of native prairie on highly-erodible end629rows where erosion occurred year after year.630    These programs are popular because they work. Moving forward, there631are some significant issues I believe we must address to get more632conservation on the ground.633    First, I would be remiss not to mention my significant concern with634the current Administration's hollowing out of NRCS. In Minnesota alone,635we've lost more than 70 dedicated NRCS employees. Without dedicated and636qualified staff working from Farmer Service Centers in rural America,637these programs cannot succeed. Yet, the President's budget recommends638completely zeroing out Conservation Technical Assistance, further639jeopardizing our ability to implement extremely popular farm bill640conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. This will hurt farmers, not641help them.642    Second, NRCS programs remain oversubscribed. We've got to protect643the remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding by rolling644it into the farm bill baseline. And we should do it in a manner that645preserves the original intent of the investment and without busting up646the farm bill coalition. We must make sure that money stays in the647voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs that our farmers rely648on. The investments we made in conservation programs through the IRA649might be once-in-a-lifetime, and we shouldn't give up those gains. I am650glad the majority has recognized the importance and success of the IRA651and joined us in trying to get this across the finish line.652    Last, it's been too long since we've reauthorized a full, 5 year653farm bill. There are common sense, bipartisan changes that everyone654agrees need to be made. I look forward to working with my colleagues,655our witnesses and the broader conservation community to protect and656improve the farm bill's conservation programs.657    We have a tremendous opportunity to streamline program delivery,658increase incentives for producer participation and preserve farm, ranch659and forest lands for current farmers and our children and660grandchildren.661    Thank you and I yield back.662663    The Chairman. Thank you. The chair would request that other664Members submit their opening statements for the record so that665the witnesses may begin their testimony and to ensure that666there is ample time for questions.667    Our first witness today is Mr. Russell Boening, President668of the Texas Farm Bureau. Our next witness is Christopher669McLeland, the Managing Director of the Agricultural Programs,670Ducks Unlimited. Our third witness today is Dr. Dan Sebert, who671is Senior Policy Advisor and former Executive Director of the672National Watershed Coalition. Our next witness is Mr. Tim Fink,673the policy director at the American Farmland Trust. And I will674turn to my colleague to introduce her constituent, my fellow675cattleman.676    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our fifth and677final last, but not least, witness today is Ms. Nicole Galase,678the Executive Director of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.679Mahalo, Mr. Chairman.680    The Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining681us today, and we will now proceed with our testimony. You will682each have 5 minutes. The timer is in front of you. It will683count down to zero at which your time will expire, and with684that, Mr. Boening, please begin when you are ready.685686STATEMENT OF RUSSELL W. BOENING, PRESIDENT, TEXAS FARM BUREAU,687                            POTH, TX688689    Mr. Boening. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and690Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be691here and testify today. My name is Russell Boening. I am a692fourth-generation farmer and President of the Texas Farm693Bureau. Along with my brother, we produce grain, cotton, and694wheat while operating a 450-cow dairy and a beef operation695outside of Polk, Texas, which is right southeast of San696Antonio. It is an honor to be here on behalf of our member697families of the Texas Farm Bureau.698    Voluntary conservation practices have become a cornerstone699of modern agriculture. Our family implements conservation700practices to improve water quality, soil health, and wildlife701habitat, while keeping our land productive, but we are not702unique. Farmers across Texas and across this whole country are703seizing the opportunity to utilize conservation programs. For704decades, USDA, NRCS, and FSA programs have assisted farmers in705executing on-farm conservation practices. Farmers rely on706working lands programs such as EQIP, CSP, and RCPP. These707programs are highly successful, and the greatest challenge for708producers is just gaining entry.709    All of these programs have become increasingly710oversubscribed with demand consistently surpassing available711funding. For Texans, EQIP is of the utmost importance given the71250 percent set-aside for livestock operations. In 2022, the713Inflation Reduction Act allocated additional funding for these714working lands programs. Currently, this IRA funding is715temporary and does not alter the permanent baseline funding716established by the 2018 Farm Bill. The One Big Beautiful Bill717Act (Pub. L. 119-21) that has passed the House last month718infuses roughly $11 billion in unspent IRA funding into this719baseline for these programs, while also adding $8 billion in720additional baseline funding. Incorporating the IRA funds into721the baseline would ensure that these funds continue into722perpetuity and farmers can stay committed to their conservation723work.724    CRP is a voluntary land retirement program that assists725farmers in removing environmentally-sensitive land from ag726production. For many farmers, CRP serves as an important farm727safety net by providing a reliable source of income during728times when crop prices are low or when certain acres are less729productive due to environmental challenges. By enrolling730vulnerable or less profitable land in CRP, farmers can receive731a guaranteed annual rental that helps stabilize their cash-732flow, thereby reducing financial stress and risk.733    We support the approach taken in the Committee's bill that734proposes using soil classification to determine CRP payments.735This approach could better align rental rates with the736productivity and environmental value of the land enrolled. By737factoring in soil classification, payments could be more738accurately tailored to reflect the potential ag value and739conservation benefits of specific parcels. It would create a740payment scale that incentivizes the enrollment of741environmentally-sensitive areas, which focuses on the parcels742of land that the program was originally designed to protect.743    Farmers often express concern about the shortage of744technical service providers available to assist with these745conservation practices as this lack of support can delay or746limit their ability to implement these programs. Without747sufficient TSPs, producers may struggle to develop conservation748plans, complete necessary documentation, or receive expert749guidance on selecting the effective practices tailored for750their land. This shortage can be especially challenging in751rural or under-served areas where access to trained752professionals is already limited.753    Expanding and better supporting the network of TSPs is754essential to ensure farmers can successfully navigate755conservation programs and achieve meaningful environmental756outcomes. Congress must invest in the TSPs that assist farmers757in executing these practices. We strongly advocate that the758Committee work to make all conservation programs more759practicable, accessible, and supportive of modern agricultural760challenges. Our members continue to advocate for increased761funding and higher payment rates to better reflect the true762cost of implementing and maintaining conservation practices.763Also, simplifying application processes and reducing paperwork764are top priorities, especially for small and beginning farmers765who may lack the time or resources to navigate these complex766requirements. Farmers seek more flexibility in program767contracts and practice options to tailor their conservation768efforts to their unique operations.769    We ask Members of this Subcommittee to work towards770reauthorizing the farm bill to ensure that farmers have access771to conservation programs that promote environmental772stewardship. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.773    [The prepared statement of Mr. Boening follows:]774775Prepared Statement of Russell W. Boening, President, Texas Farm Bureau,776                                Poth, TX777    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the778Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the779importance of voluntary conservation practices and the benefits they780provide to our producers and the environment. My name is Russell781Boening, I am a fourth-generation farmer and President of the Texas782Farm Bureau. Along with my brother, we raise grain, cotton, and wheat783while operating a 450-head dairy and beef operation outside of Poth,784Texas. It is an honor to be here on behalf of the 540,000 members of785the Texas Farm Bureau.786    Voluntary conservation practices have become a cornerstone of787modern agricultural operations, playing a crucial role in balancing788productive farming with environmental stewardship. These practices789allow farmers and ranchers to proactively manage their land in ways790that protect soil health, conserve water, enhance wildlife habitat, and791reduce pollution--all while maintaining or even improving crop and792livestock yields. For several decades, our family has implemented793voluntary conservation practices in a variety of ways to improve water794quality, soil health, and wildlife habitat while keeping our land795productive. Our family is certainly not unique--farmers across Texas796and the country are seizing the opportunities to improve their797environmental impacts and incorporating conservation practices into798their business models. As an industry, we have seen improvements in799soil health and water quality throughout the communities where we work800and live.801Overview of Conservation Programs802    Authorized under title II of the farm bill, the United States803Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service804(NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs have assisted farmers in805executing on-farm conservation practices for decades. The agency806provides a variety of programs and an extensive menu of conservation807practices for farmers to choose from to address their environmental808goals. NRCS provides cost-share and technical assistance, while keeping809the programs voluntary and farmer led. I am proud to be here advocating810for these programs and the farmers who use them.811Acres (in Thousands) Enrolled in NRCS Programs, FY 2023812[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]813814          Including EQIP, CSP, RCPP, CRP, ACEP and technical815        assistance.816          Source: USDA NRCS; AFBF calculations.817818    Last year, the House Agriculture Committee passed the Farm, Food,819and National Security Act of 2024, led by Chairman GT Thompson. The820Texas Farm Bureau appreciates the continued commitment that Members of821this Subcommittee have in improving the function of conservation822programs. Farmers rely on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program823(EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Regional824Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the Conservation Reserve825Program (CRP) to address natural resource concerns. Simply put--each of826these programs are essential to achieving our sustainability mission.827Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)828    Since its inception, EQIP has consistently been one of the most829popular conservation programs for farmers and ranchers. The program830provides financial and technical assistance to producers for831implementing conservation practices on their land that helps to improve832water and air quality, conserving ground, and surface water, increasing833soil healthy by limiting erosion and sedimentation and numerous other834benefits. We have seen, especially in Texas, the benefits of EQIP are835wide ranging for livestock and crop producers alike.836    As a working lands program, EQIP provides flexibility by adapting837to a farmer's specific situation, offering a wide range of conservation838options, supporting diverse producers, and allowing for customized839planning and implementation timelines. This makes it a valuable tool840for sustainable agriculture without forcing a one-size-fits-all841approach. EQIP supports a wide variety of practices--from improving842irrigation systems to managing livestock waste--so farmers can address843the environmental challenges most relevant to their farms. With844customizable conservation plans, variable contract lengths, and845multiple application periods throughout the year, farmers can adopt846improvements at a pace and scale that works for them. Additionally,847EQIP provides higher payment rates and priority support for beginning,848socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers, making conservation more849accessible and adaptable for a diverse range of producers. In Texas,850the EQIP program has helped install terrace and waterway systems that851reduce sediment loss and nutrient runoff, improve irrigation systems852and water use efficiency, and maximize grazing systems--just to name a853few.854    Including livestock operations in the EQIP is essential for855supporting comprehensive, sustainable agriculture. Under current law,85650% of EQIP funding is set aside for livestock-focused practices.857Livestock producers face unique conservation challenges, such as858managing manure, protecting water sources, and maintaining healthy859grazing lands--all of which have significant environmental860implications. EQIP provides critical financial and technical assistance861that enables livestock farmers to implement practices like nutrient862management, rotational grazing, fencing to protect streams, and863improved waste handling systems. These practices not only help reduce864pollution and improve soil and water quality but also enhance animal865health and operational efficiency. By including livestock in EQIP, the866program ensures that conservation efforts address the full spectrum of867agricultural systems, promoting environmental stewardship across both868crop and animal production.869    Due to its popularity, EQIP has become increasingly oversubscribed,870with demand consistently surpassing available funding. In Fiscal Year871(FY) 2023, the program received 134,450 applications nationwide but was872only able to award contracts to 34,222 applicants, reflecting a873nationwide acceptance rate of approximately 25% . This high demand has874led to significant disparities in contract awards across states, with875some states awarding contracts to fewer than 20% of applicants.876Figure 2. National Overview of Environmental Quality Incentives Program877        Performance (USDA)878[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]879880          [https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/09/farm-bill-2023-881        nrcs-backlogs-and-the-conservation-bardo.html]882Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)883    Another popular working lands conservation program utilized by our884members is CSP. CSP is designed for farmers, ranchers, and forest885landowners who are already implementing conservation practices and wish886to enhance their environmental stewardship. The program offers887financial and technical assistance to help producers expand their888conservation efforts by adopting additional practices or improving889existing ones. Participants receive annual payments for maintaining and890improving their conservation activities, with contracts typically891lasting 5 years. In FY 2024, USDA increased the minimum annual payment892for CSP participants from $1,500 to $4,000 to better support small-893scale, under-served, and urban producers, making the program more894accessible and equitable. CSP's comprehensive approach encourages895producers to address multiple resource concerns simultaneously, such as896soil health, water quality, and wildlife habitat, leading to more897sustainable and resilient agricultural operations. This structure898benefits farmers who are already committed to sustainability and like899EQIP, provides flexibility allowing producers to choose from a wide900variety of enhancements that suit their operation's needs.901    Like EQIP, CSP supports conservation practices that support our902greatest natural resource concerns such as:903904   Soil Health Improvements: These practices help improve soil905        structure, reduce erosion, and increase organic matter such as,906        cover cropping, reduced or no-till, crop rotation enhancements907        and precision nutrient and pesticide application.908909   Water Conservation: These practices help conserve water and910        improve irrigation efficiency, especially important in drought-911        prone areas such as, improved irrigation systems, irrigation912        scheduling, water recycling or reuse systems.913914   Grazing and Livestock Management: These practices enhance915        pasture health, reduce overgrazing, and protect water quality,916        such as prescribed grazing systems, rotational grazing,917        improved livestock watering systems.918919   Wildlife Habitat Enhancement: These efforts provide food and920        shelter for wildlife, including pollinators and threatened921        species, such as planting native species, creating buffer922        strips or field borders, restoring wetlands or riparian areas.923924   Climate-Smart Practices: These practices contribute to925        greenhouse gas reduction and help farms become more resilient926        to climate impacts such as, carbon sequestration activities,927        agroforestry, composting, and manure management.928929    Like EQIP, CSP is consistently oversubscribed, with demand from930farmers far exceeding available funding and enrollment capacity. Each931year, thousands of producers who apply to enhance conservation efforts932on their working lands are turned away due to limited resources.933Overprescription of Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)934[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]935936          Source: USDA NRCS ProTract.937Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)938    Another conservation initiative authorized by the farm bill is939RCPP, which promotes collaboration between the USDA and local, state,940and private partners to address regional natural resource concerns.941RCPP enables partners--such as conservation groups, agricultural942organizations, Tribal governments, and municipalities--to design and943lead projects that deliver targeted environmental outcomes while944supporting agricultural productivity. Through RCPP, partners contribute945funding, expertise, and innovation, while eligible farmers and946landowners receive financial and technical assistance to implement947conservation practices. The program emphasizes flexibility and local948leadership, making it a powerful tool for addressing complex,949landscape-scale challenges like water quality, drought resilience, soil950health, and habitat restoration.951    Farmers often face several challenges when participating in the952RCPP, despite its collaborative and locally driven approach. One of the953most common concerns is the complexity and length of the application954process, which can be more time-consuming and confusing than other955conservation programs due to the involvement of multiple partners and956project-specific requirements. Additionally, inconsistent communication957and coordination between NRCS, partner organizations, and producers can958create delays or confusion about program rules, funding timelines, and959eligibility criteria. These hurdles can discourage participation,960particularly for small or beginning farmers who may lack the resources961to navigate the bureaucratic and administrative demands of RCPP962projects. Addressing these challenges is critical to ensuring that the963program reaches its full potential in delivering effective, landscape-964scale conservation.965Inflation Reduction Act in the Baseline Funding966    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocated an additional $18.05967billion to USDA conservation programs, including EQIP, CSP and RCPP968through FY 2031. Currently, this IRA funding is temporary and does not969alter the permanent baseline funding established by the 2018 Farm Bill.970Once the IRA funds expire, these programs will revert to their original971baseline funding levels, further limiting these program's capacity to972meet ongoing conservation needs.973How Did IRA Supplement the Baseline?974[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]975976          Source: AFBF compilations, Congressional Budget Office,977        Senate Ag GOP.978979    To ensure sustained support for conservation efforts, there have980been discussions within Congress around incorporating IRA funding into981the permanent baseline, allowing for continuous and expanded assistance982to farmers and ranchers. Our Texas farmers strongly support this983transition, as it would provide long-term stability and enable the984program to address evolving environmental challenges effectively.985    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed the House last month986infuses roughly $11 billion in unspent IRA funding into the baseline987for a variety of USDA conservation programs while also adding $8988billion in additional baseline funding past the budget window of the989IRA. Incorporating the IRA funds into the baseline would ensure that990these funds continue for conservation programs into perpetuity, subject991only to Congressional reauthorization. This could represent a992significant increase in the conservation title's available funding.993    Additionally, we support the removal of the climate-related994sideboards on IRA conservation funding. Congress must reverse these995restrictions that tie funding solely to climate mitigation goals. It is996unwise to narrowly focus the IRA resources on one specific natural997resource concern. Farmers need flexibility and these sideboards are998unnecessarily handcuffing our members by picking one resource concern999over another.1000Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)1001    Administered by FSA, CRP is a voluntary land retirement program1002that pays farmers to remove environmentally sensitive land from1003agricultural production and plant species that improve environmental1004health and quality. In return, participants receive annual rental1005payments and cost-share assistance for establishing conservation1006practices. CRP helps reduce soil erosion, improve water quality,1007enhance wildlife habitat, and increase carbon sequestration. By taking1008marginal, highly-erodible or at-risk farmland out of production, CRP1009supports long-term environmental sustainability while providing a1010stable income source for participating landowners. In 2024, Texas had1011roughly 2.2 million acres enrolled in CRP to protect highly-erodible1012lands and enhance wildlife habitat.1013    For many farmers, CRP serves as an important farm safety net by1014providing a reliable source of income during times when crop prices are1015low or when certain acres are less productive due to environmental1016challenges. By enrolling vulnerable or less profitable land in CRP,1017farmers receive guaranteed annual rental payments that help stabilize1018their cash flow, reducing financial stress and risk. This safety net1019allows producers to manage their land more sustainably without the1020pressure to overuse or degrade fragile soils. Given the state of the1021farm economy today, many farmers are looking to conservation programs1022to keep their businesses solvent.1023    As Congress considers reauthorizing the farm bill, they must1024consider changes to CRP that will make the program more flexible,1025accessible, and better aligned with farmer's needs. Many Texas1026producers are asking for higher rental rates and more competitive1027payments to reflect current land values and the costs of establishing1028conservation practices. We also seek increased acreage caps and the1029ability to enroll smaller or more diverse parcels of land, including1030working lands, rather than just marginal acres. Additionally, farmers1031want streamlined application processes and greater flexibility in1032contract terms to better accommodate changing farm operations and1033market conditions. Overall, these changes aim to balance environmental1034goals with economic viability for farmers.1035    Additionally, our members support the approach taken in the Farm,1036Food, and National Security Act of 2024 that proposes using soil1037classification to determine CRP payments. This approach could help1038better align rental rates with the productivity and environmental value1039of the land enrolled. By factoring in soil classification, payments1040could be more accurately tailored to reflect the potential agricultural1041value and conservation benefits of specific parcels. The bill would1042create a payment scale that incentives the enrollment of1043environmentally sensitive and highly-erodible lands, which focuses on1044the parcels of land that the program was originally designed to1045protect.1046    Conversely, the scale would disincentive the enrollment of prime1047farmland. The enrollment of prime farmland in CRP has unintentionally1048created challenges for young farmers by reducing the availability of1049highly productive land for farming and entry into the agricultural1050sector. When prime farmland is taken out of production and enrolled in1051long-term CRP contracts, it limits opportunities for young and1052beginning farmers to access affordable, high-quality land needed to1053start or expand their operations. This can increase competition for the1054remaining farmland, driving up land prices and rental rates, making it1055harder for new farmers to establish financially viable businesses.1056Additionally, with less prime land available, young farmers may be1057forced to work on lower-quality or more marginal acres, which can1058reduce their productivity and profitability. As a result, while CRP1059supports important conservation goals, it can also unintentionally1060hinder generational renewal and the long-term sustainability of the1061farming community.1062Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program1063    Feral swine pose a serious and growing threat to farmers across1064many regions, causing extensive damage to crops, pastures, and farm1065infrastructure. These invasive animals root up fields in search of1066food, destroying valuable crops like corn, soybeans, and vegetables,1067which leads to significant financial losses for producers. Their1068digging also damages soil structure and can contribute to erosion and1069the spread of invasive plant species. Beyond crop damage, feral swine1070compete with livestock for forage, contaminate water sources, and can1071carry diseases that threaten both animal and human health. The presence1072of feral swine increases costs for farmers who must invest in fencing,1073trapping, and control measures to protect their land and animals,1074making them a persistent and costly challenge to agricultural1075operations.1076    The 2018 Farm Bill established the Feral Swine Eradication and1077Control Pilot Program (FSCP) to address the significant threats posed1078by feral swine. With an estimated five million feral swine causing1079approximately $1.6 billion in annual damages across just 13 states, the1080FSCP allocated a total of $75 million over the life of the 2018 Farm1081Bill. While the FSCP has made significant strides in controlling feral1082swine populations, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to1083assess its effectiveness. It is imperative that Congress continue to1084support this Federal investment in wildlife management to protect1085agricultural resources and public health.1086Additional Challenges in Executing Conservation Practices1087    Farmers often express concern about the shortage of technical1088service providers (TSPs) available to assist with conservation1089practices, as this lack of support can delay or limit their ability to1090implement important environmental improvements. Without sufficient1091TSPs, producers may struggle to develop conservation plans, complete1092necessary documentation, or receive expert guidance on selecting and1093installing effective practices tailored to their land. This shortage1094can be especially challenging in rural or under-served areas, where1095access to trained professionals is already limited. The resulting1096bottlenecks slow down program participation, reduce the impact of1097conservation funding, and increase frustration among farmers eager to1098adopt sustainable practices but lacking the technical assistance to do1099so efficiently. Expanding and better supporting the network of TSPs is1100essential to ensure farmers can successfully navigate conservation1101programs and achieve meaningful environmental outcomes. Congress must1102invest in the TSPs that assist farmers in executing these practices.1103    More recently, farmers are growing increasingly concerned about the1104closure of NRCS offices, as these local centers are vital for accessing1105conservation assistance, technical support, and program guidance.1106Office closures and staff reductions, particularly in rural areas, have1107led to longer travel distances and wait times for farmers seeking help1108with conservation planning, cost-share programs, and disaster recovery.1109This disruption not only delays the implementation of crucial1110conservation practices but also strains the relationships between1111farmers and NRCS staff, who often serve as trusted advisors. The loss1112of local NRCS offices erodes the accessibility and effectiveness of1113Federal conservation programs, leaving farmers without the support they1114need to maintain sustainable and productive operations.1115Conclusion1116    We appreciate the reforms the House Agriculture Committee included1117in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. In addition to1118the specific recommendations made above, we strongly advocate that the1119Committee work to make all conservation programs more practical,1120accessible, and supportive of modern agricultural challenges. Our1121members continue to advocate for increased funding and higher payment1122rates to better reflect the true costs of implementing and maintaining1123conservation practices, making participation more financially viable.1124Simplifying application processes and reducing paperwork are also top1125priorities, especially for small and beginning farmers who may lack the1126time or resources to navigate complex requirements. Additionally,1127farmers seek more flexibility in program contracts and practice options1128to tailor conservation efforts to their unique operations and regional1129conditions. Finally, expanding technical assistance and addressing1130staffing shortages within agencies like NRCS would help farmers more1131effectively access and benefit from conservation programs. We challenge1132Members of this Subcommittee to work towards reauthorizing the farm1133bill to ensure that farmers have access to the conservation programs1134that allow for environmental stewardship. Thank you for the opportunity1135to testify today.11361137    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Boening. Mr. McLeland, please1138begin when you are ready.11391140          STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER McLELAND, MANAGING1141            DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS, DUCKS1142                UNLIMITED, INC., HALLSVILLE, MO11431144    Mr. McLeland. Well, good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking1145Member Tokuda, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for1146holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify on the1147importance of voluntary, locally-led, incentive-based farm bill1148conservation programs. My name is Chris McLeland. I am the1149Managing Director of Agriculture Programs for Ducks Unlimited1150in the Great Lakes Atlantic Region, and I am also a producer1151myself, supporting a small cow-calf operation in my home State1152of Missouri. It is an honor to be here this morning.1153    As a proud partner of USDA, Ducks Unlimited has a long1154history of working with farmers, ranchers, and other private1155landowners across the country to restore and enhance millions1156of acres of waterfowl habitat. Ducks Unlimited supports1157balanced agricultural policies that help American farmers and1158ranchers be more competitive and successful in meeting the1159demands for food, fiber, and energy, while conserving soil,1160water, wetlands, grasslands, and forests. DU's focus is not1161just on the financial assistance dollars delivered to1162agricultural producers and land stewards, but also the critical1163importance of conservation technical assistance where partners1164such as Ducks Unlimited work alongside USDA and participating1165landowners to help them achieve their conservation goals. We1166are proud of our ability to deliver quality science-based1167assistance with agricultural producers alongside NRCS.1168    The Federal flagship wetlands restoration program, ACEP-1169Wetland Reserve Easement, or WRE, is a voluntary, non-1170regulatory, incentive-based way for private landowners,1171farmers, and ranchers to protect and restore wetlands on their1172property. WRE also provides landowners a financially-viable1173alternative for transitioning farmland with high inputs and low1174profits to functioning wetlands, while continuing to focus1175investments and production on more suitable lands, and I have1176personally witnessed these benefits and the positive impacts1177WRE has to these program participants.1178    NRCS also works with landowners to implement conservation1179practices on older WREs, allowing these lands to continue to1180provide ecosystem services for wildlife and people. One of DU's1181biggest priorities in the next farm bill is to ensure NRCS1182provides landowners with long-term stewardship opportunities.1183It is critically important that the program provide these1184additional tools to landowners to maintain their WRE and retain1185the associated wildlife benefits.1186    Mr. Lucas, as you know, the Regional Conservation1187Partnership Program, which was originally authorized while you1188were chair of the Committee, has been a resounding success. The1189rice industry's symbiotic relationship with waterfowl led DU to1190a historic partnership with USA Rice. This partnership has had1191phenomenal success in delivering on-the-ground conservation to1192rice farmers with more than 800,000 acres of rice impacted and1193over $100 million of additional conservation funding directed1194to these program participants. And while there still are1195administrative hurdles with the program, Ducks Unlimited asks1196Congress to provide thoughtful and targeted solutions that1197allow the program to continue to succeed.1198    The Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, provides farmers and1199ranchers with additional financial options while improving soil1200health, enhancing water quality, and supporting wildlife1201habitat. And we do thank FSA and Administrator Beam for1202recently opening CRP general and continuous enrollments and1203appreciate the Committee's efforts in addressing policies last1204Congress that promote locally-led activities and reinstate1205management tools and options, such as mid-contract management,1206as well as increasing the rental rate payment practices under1207Continuous CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement.1208    I have discussed our partnership with NRCS in providing1209conservation technical assistance when delivering these1210programs. This assistance, which is directly provided to the1211agricultural producers, is essential to the long-term success1212of a producer's conservation system. Conservation technical1213assistance is just as important as the financial assistance1214provided through the suite of farm bill programs. The1215priorities mentioned in my testimony were included in the Farm,1216Food, and National Security Act that passed out of the House1217Agriculture Committee last Congress, and I thank Chairman1218Thompson and the Members of the Committee for supporting Ducks1219Unlimited's priorities last Congress, and we ask you to1220continue to support those provisions in the upcoming farm bill.1221    Ducks Unlimited proudly partners with NRCS and passionate1222farmers and ranchers and landowners who invest their own1223financial resources to bring these farm bill programs to their1224lands, and DU's mission to conserve, restore, and maintain1225wetlands and waterfowl habitat would not be possible without1226these voluntary programs. Thank you for your time.1227    [The prepared statement of Mr. McLeland follows:]12281229   Prepared Statement of Christopher McLeland, Managing Director of1230      Agriculture Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Hallsville, MO1231    Good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of1232the Subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing and for the1233opportunity to testify on my perspectives of voluntary, locally-led,1234incentive-based farm bill conservation programs.1235    My name is Chris McLeland, and I am the Managing Director of1236Conservation Programs for Ducks Unlimited in the Great Lakes and1237Atlantic Region. When I'm off the clock, I enjoy spending time on the1238farm, with my daughters and our cattle. Growing up in a rural community1239in north-central Missouri, I learned from a young age that agriculture1240and wildlife conservation were not mutually exclusive activities. In1241fact, they can very much mutually inclusive and complementary. It has1242been my passion for agriculture and wildlife conservation that has1243guided me throughout my career and is a passion that I am working hard1244to instill in my children.1245    As a proud partner of the Natural Resources Conservation Service1246(NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), Ducks Unlimited (DU) has a1247long history of working with ranchers, farmers, and other private1248landowners across the country to enhance and restore millions of acres1249of critical waterfowl and other wildlife habitats. The organization was1250established in 1937 amid the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. DU was1251founded by people who understood the value of wetland resources and1252bolstered by the passage of the first Federal duck stamp in 1934. With1253more than one million supporters across North America, DU has become1254the premier organization for wetlands and waterfowl conservation with a1255mission to conserve, restore, and manage wetlands and associated1256habitats for the continent's waterfowl, other wildlife, and people. To1257date, DU has restored and enhanced more than 19 million acres across1258the continent focusing heavily on the priority landscapes for waterfowl1259populations.1260    The voluntary, locally-led, incentive-based conservation programs1261that are authorized and funded through the farm bill are the backbone1262of DU's cooperative conservation work. Many of the remaining wetlands1263in the United States are on private lands, where most waterfowl are1264raised, migrate and winter. To further our mission, DU supports1265agricultural policies that can help American farmers and ranchers be1266more competitive and successful in meeting demands for food, fiber and1267energy while conserving soil, water, wetlands, grasslands and forests.1268The farm bill is the most effective tool for conserving wildlife1269habitats on private land.1270    DU collaborates with USDA and other partners in helping deliver1271farm bill conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve1272Program (CRP), Agricultural Conservation Easements Program (ACEP),1273Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), Environmental Quality1274Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)1275and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program. Our focus is not1276just on the financial assistance dollars delivered for agriculture1277producers and land stewards for on-the-farm conservation practices, but1278also as a technical assistance partner working hand-in-hand with USDA1279and program participants on their lands. We are proud of our ability to1280deliver quality, science-based assistance to agriculture producers1281cooperatively with NRCS.1282Wetlands in the Farm Bill1283    The Federal flagship wetlands restoration program, ACEP-Wetland1284Reserve Easement (WRE), is an NRCS program that is popular and1285oversubscribed. WRE is a voluntary, non-regulatory, incentive-based way1286for private landowners, farmers and ranchers to protect and restore1287agricultural lands and wetlands on their property. WRE has multiple1288benefits and can be tailored to many types of wetland ecosystems,1289including the prairie potholes (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,1290Minnesota and Iowa), floodplain wetlands and coastal tidal marshes.1291Ducks Unlimited provides technical assistance to implement practices on1292WRE that, for example, restore and manage wetlands to filter1293pollutants, which naturally leads to water quality improvements.1294    WRE also provides landowners and producers a financially viable1295alternative for transitioning farmland with high inputs and low or1296negative profits to functioning wetlands while continuing to focus1297investments and production on their more suitable lands as key to1298sustaining property ownership and promoting generational transition of1299agriculture and forest lands. I have personally witnessed the impacts1300on the farm viability and ecological improvements that extend beyond1301the farmgate. We see this program as a win-win for farmers and ranchers1302and our North American waterfowl.1303    In my home State of Missouri, wetland restoration programs such as1304WRE have been extremely popular among producers, recreational1305landowners, and conservation partners alike. Missouri is a state that1306can experience extreme flood events. Programs like WRE provide an1307avenue for landowners to restore wetland acres, provide a diverse array1308of wildlife habitats, create outdoor recreational opportunities, while1309also reducing operational risk in the form of lost revenue. Through the1310hard work of partners such as USDA-NRCS, the Missouri Department of1311Conservation, and groups like Ducks Unlimited, Missouri has restored1312over 167,000 acres of wetlands through the WRE program.1313    Using the Lower Mississippi Valley as an example, since 1998, Ducks1314Unlimited has partnered with NRCS in reforestation and hydrology1315restoration activities in states from Missouri to Louisiana. In1316Louisiana alone, DU has helped reforest 52,000 acres of bottomland1317hardwoods by enrolling these acres in WRE. Prior to WRE, an estimated131880 percent of the bottomland hardwood wetland forests were converted.1319With Louisiana being one of the most intensive farmed regions in the1320nation, WRE projects and the restoration of bottomland hardwood forest1321ecosystems ultimately filter out sediment, nutrients and farm runoff1322that would otherwise end up in the Mississippi River.1323    There is also a stewardship component to WRE where NRCS works with1324landowners to implement conservation practices on older WREs (formerly1325known as WRP), allowing these lands to continue to provide multiple1326ecosystem benefits to local communities. One of DU's biggest priorities1327for the next farm bill is to ensure NRCS provides landowners these1328long-term stewardship opportunities. It is critically important that1329the program provides these additional tools to landowners to maintain1330their WRE and retain the associated habitat benefits. In addition, DU1331has advocated to modify the county cap restriction on WRE. Focused on1332the more marginal lands, this provision provides flexibility to NRCS1333allowing more acres in areas where duck habitat is critically1334important. We are excited, both of these provisions were included in1335the Farm, Food, and National Security Act (that passed out of the House1336Agriculture Committee last Congress). Thank you, Chairman Thompson and1337Members of the Committee, for including this critically important1338language.1339Emergency Watershed Protection Program1340    Building on the success of WRE, the Emergency Watershed Protection1341Program incorporates floodplain easements as an alternative tool to1342landowners, farmers and ranchers who seek long-term protection of life1343and property and avoid future agriculture crop losses after devastating1344natural disasters. It is proven that wetlands provide flood control,1345slowing the flow of water and allowing it to replenish the ground water1346supply and reduce flood damage in areas downstream. DU partners with1347NRCS to implement voluntary floodplain easements to restore1348floodplains, forests, or conservation practices to pre-disaster1349conditions. We firmly believe USDA should leverage the easement1350purchase by adding habitat value similar to those provided by the WRE.1351For minimal additional restoration investment, we can see substantial1352improvement in hydrology, habitat quality and wildlife usage of these1353easements that are positioned in our most critical flyways.1354    EWP has been a critically important program along our countries big1355river systems, with the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers being no1356exception. An example of EWP in action is the Dogtooth Bend project.1357Dogtooth Bend is a 17,000 acre peninsula in southwest Illinois created1358by a meander of the Mississippi River. It's fertile soils in the1359Mississippi floodplain have made it attractive for row crop1360agriculture. To prevent flooding a levee system was completed around13611943 and stood until the great flood of 1993. The levee was rebuilt but1362flooding continued repeatedly, through the 2010s, culminating in a1363major event in 2019 that deposited massive amounts of sediment across1364the peninsula. The EWPP-FPE Easements (2600 acres) were critical to1365helping landowners recover from this disaster as the site is no longer1366economically viable to farm.1367    Again, the Farm, Food and National Security Act, included DU's1368priority of language that promotes management and restoration of1369floodplain easements, as well as restoring the land for the long-term1370health of the watershed.1371Regional Conservation Partnership Program1372    Mr. Lucas as you well know, the Regional Conservation Partnership1373Program (RCPP) which was originally authorized when you were Chairman1374of the Committee has been a resounding success. As you well know, the1375rice industry's symbiotic relationship with waterfowl led DU to a1376historic partnership with USA Rice, called the Rice Stewardship1377Partnership (RSP), in 2013. While both organizations have separate1378missions and methods, we have managed to collaborate and develop goals1379for our Partnership, including work on RCPP where our focus is to work1380with producers to maintain lands in agriculture production while1381managing those acres to supplement wildlife food and cover, improve1382water quality and promote water conserving practices.1383    The Rice Stewardship Partnership's RCPP projects have pulled1384together nearly one hundred diverse partners to help implement their1385goals, communicate successes, and ultimately share the cost of1386investment in working lands conservation programs. The Rice Stewardship1387Partnership has had phenomenal success in delivering on-the-ground1388conservation to rice farmers. Since the creation of RCPP in the 20141389Farm Bill, the RSP has beneficially impacted over 800,000 acres of rice1390and rice rotation ground and provided over $100 million in additional1391conservation funding. From Missouri to Texas and California in the1392west, America's rice producers have literally filled the void in1393critical wildlife habitat needs by adapting their operations to include1394wildlife benefiting water and cover management practices,1395    For the upcoming farm bill, Ducks Unlimited would note the1396complexity plaguing RCPP and its impact on the long-term viability of a1397crucial partnership program to rice farmers. Congress should work to1398address barriers for partners including the overly detailed and1399complicated application process, multiple layered agreements, the1400length of time it takes to finalize an agreement, and burdensome1401accounting for technical assistance within the agreements. Simplifying1402RCPP will help deliver more timely assistance to producers. While1403administrative barriers can present unnecessary obstacles and costs for1404partners, Ducks Unlimited asks Congress to provide thoughtful and1405targeted solutions that allow the program to successfully function as1406it has for nearly a decade without the overly bureaucratic process that1407has plagued the program over the last several years. The House1408Agriculture Committee worked tirelessly last Congress to address these1409concerns in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. We thank you for1410your thoughtful attention to these concerns and encourage Congress to1411support these provisions in the farm bill.1412CRP1413    I must also mention another important voluntary conservation1414program at USDA under the Farm Service Agency, CRP. CRP is a prominent1415component of the farm safety net by providing farmers and ranchers with1416financial options while improving soil health, enhancing water quality,1417and supporting wildlife habitat, in particular nesting cover. Ducks1418Unlimited primarily provides technical assistance to landowners and1419producers who enroll in the CRP Continuous sign up. This sign up allows1420eligible land to be enrolled at any time, targeting high-priority1421conservation practices such as buffer strips, riparian buffers, and1422wetlands.1423    We thank FSA and Administrator Beam for opening CRP General and1424Continuous enrollment and appreciate the Committee's efforts in1425addressing policies in last Congress' farm bill that promote locally-1426led activities, reinstate management tool options like mid-contract1427management, and increase rental rate payments for practices under1428Continuous CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE).1429Working Lands Programs1430    Working lands programs, like the Environmental Quality Incentives1431Program (EQIP), serve as economic drivers and provide farmers and1432ranchers with the support they need when considering conservation plans1433on their land. EQIP is one of the largest conservation programs within1434the farm bill. It helps producers maintain working agricultural lands1435and improve farm infrastructure like fencing, water irrigation, post-1436harvest flooding and more. We at Ducks Unlimited support working lands1437programs as a way to retain critically important habitats and to1438sustain working farms and ranches.1439Technical Assistance1440    Across all the farm bill programs and all of USDA's conservation1441programs, I have discussed our partnership with NRCS in providing1442technical assistance in advance of, and when, delivering these1443programs. From program outreach to conservation planning, conservation1444practice design, implementation and evaluation, this staff assistance1445provided directly to agriculture producers is essential to the success1446and long-term sustainability of a producer's conservation system. We1447are concerned about the recent downsizing and loss of personnel in the1448field, on the front lines with our private land stewards. As USDA1449realigns their personnel resources and program policies, DU will work1450alongside our NRCS colleagues and producers to fill gaps as this1451process moves forward. While we have resources to contribute in1452support, the technical assistance component of each of the farm bill1453programs is as essential as the financial assistance provided. We ask1454that you continue to provide for sound, science-driven, field-based1455technical assistance directed at the field level to each participating1456agriculture producer.1457Conclusion1458    Ducks Unlimited is a proud partner with NRCS and the passionate1459farmers, ranchers and landowners who invest their own financial1460resources to bring these farm bill conservation programs to their land.1461DU's mission to conserve, restore and maintain wetlands and waterfowl1462habitat would not be possible without the voluntary farm bill1463conservation programs and our partnerships with many in the1464agricultural industry. I encourage Congress to pass a farm bill that1465supports strong funding levels for conservation programs, maintains the1466integrity of the conservation programs and sustains wildlife and the1467farm economy.1468    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share my1469perspectives on the farm bill conservation programs.14701471    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McLeland. Dr. Sebert, you are1472recognized for 5 minutes.14731474  STATEMENT OF DAN A. SEBERT, Ph.D., ORIGINAL CHARTER MEMBER,1475SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, NATIONAL WATERSHED COALITION, PAWNEE, OK14761477    Dr. Sebert. Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the1478Subcommittee, I am Dan Sebert. I am a charter member of the1479National Watershed Coalition. I also served the Coalition as1480Executive Director for over 20 years.1481    To begin, I want you to understand that the Watershed1482Program touches me on a personal level. I was raised on the1483banks of the Washita River, one of the original 11 upstream1484flood protection demonstration watersheds. I also witnessed the1485incremental improvements as one watershed dam after another was1486completed on those tributaries and creeks, not huge, massive1487dams on the river. It was the smaller structures dotting the1488landscape, integrated into private farms and ranches that1489shaped my views and my passion for a lifetime of service in1490conservation.1491    While USDA may be better known for providing a financial1492safety net for farmers and ranchers, the Department also1493provides an actual safety net for rural communities. The1494Watershed and Flood Prevention Program is a vital, but often1495overlooked infrastructure program in the NRCS portfolio. I1496consider Chairman Lucas as the godfather of the program, an1497heir to the legacy of watershed leadership shaped by his family1498and community stalwarts in rural western Oklahoma. The reason1499behind this is simple: of the nearly 12,000 watershed1500structures nationwide, over 2,000 of them are in the State of1501Oklahoma. As a matter of fact, 71 percent of those nearly150212,000 dams are in the states represented here by this1503Subcommittee's Members.1504    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Pub. L.150583-566) authorizes NRCS to work with local sponsors to install1506watershed improvement projects. Projects provide flood1507prevention, water quality, and quantity protection,1508agricultural water management, municipal water supply1509management, and wildlife habitat protection. The program has1510gained even more importance as a tool for helping farms,1511ranches, and rural communities adapt to increasing weather1512volatility and reducing risk against catastrophic weather1513events. The annual benefits these projects produce is over $21514billion. There are watershed project structures in 2181515Congressional districts across the nation. As a result, more1516than 48 million people across the United States benefit from1517the watershed program every year.1518    A crucial part of the watershed program is the Dam1519Rehabilitation Program. Many dams today are in a far different1520setting than when constructed. In addition, many of these1521structures built by NRCS had a design life of only 50 years.1522Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940s to the1523early 1970s, many of these dams are now past their design life1524and they show the effects of aging. Mr. Lucas led the1525development of rehabilitation legislation in 2000 that ensured1526the nation's investment in the watershed program had the1527opportunity to continue into the future. Under this program,1528dams are selected for rehabilitation through analysis and a1529rigorous assessment process. I cannot overemphasize the1530importance of Congress and the USDA as full partners in the1531watershed program.1532    We do think there are improvements to be made to the1533program. Our farm bill priorities are quite simple: increase1534funding to the program; increase the flexibility of the1535program's authority to make repairs that go beyond routine1536operation and maintenance, which is required of the local1537sponsors, but fall short of the threshold for full1538rehabilitation; provide flexibility in cost-share to states;1539reduce the regulatory and administrative barriers that add1540years to project implementation; and add statutory language to1541provide oversight and accountability for program funds.1542    The National Watershed Coalition is pleased to see its1543recommendations integrated into the Farm, Food, and National1544Security Act of 2024. We cannot thank Chairman Thompson and1545Subcommittee Chairman Lucas enough for their support of these1546policies, and we look forward to working with them and the1547other Members to continue this work into the next farm bill.1548    I will conclude where I began. The implementation and1549success of the watershed program shaped my life and the western1550Oklahoma communities that thrived under the umbrella of1551protection these structures provide. Similar stories, can be1552found across the nation, where in a blend of Federal, state,1553and local partnership, these projects have been successfully1554implemented. As we look to the challenges and the need for1555increased resiliency in our agricultural production and the1556communities which support it, the watershed program is more1557important today than ever in history.1558    [The prepared statement of Dr. Sebert follows:]15591560 Prepared Statement of Dan A. Sebert, Ph.D., Original Charter Member,1561    Senior Policy Advisor, National Watershed Coalition, Pawnee, OK1562    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Subcommittee:15631564    I am Dan Sebert, an original charter member of the National1565Watershed Coalition. I served the coalition as Executive Director for1566over 20 years. To begin, I want you to understand that the watershed1567program, to which I will speak, touches me on personal level. I was1568raised on the banks of the Washita River, one of the original 111569upstream flood protection demonstration watersheds authorized by the1570Flood Control Act of 1944. I was raised by parents and grandparents1571that had personally experienced the ravages of the Dust Bowl and the1572subsequent flooding which decimated both farms and communities across1573western Oklahoma and the nation. My youth and perspective were formed1574with knowledge of the catastrophic damage to communities and farms by1575the Washita River's frequent floods and I witnessed the incremental1576improvements as one watershed dam after another was completed on those1577tributaries and creeks. Not huge, massive dams on the river, it was1578these smaller structures dotting the landscape, integrated into the1579private farms and ranches that shaped my views and passion for a1580lifetime of service in conservation.1581    While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be1582better known for providing a financial safety net for farmers and1583ranchers, USDA also provides an actual safety net for our rural1584communities. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Program (Watershed1585Program) is a vital, but often overlooked, infrastructure program1586within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) portfolio. I1587consider Chairman Lucas as the godfather of the program, an heir to a1588legacy of watershed leadership shaped by his family and community1589stalwarts in rural western Oklahoma. The reason behind this is clear1590and simple. Of the nearly 12,000 watershed structures, over 2000 of1591them are in the state of Oklahoma.1592    Building on the success of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the1593Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations established through the1594Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-1595566) authorizes NRCS to work with local sponsors to install watershed1596protection and improvement projects. Projects can and do provide flood1597prevention, water quality and quantity protection, agricultural water1598management, municipal water supply management, fish and wildlife1599habitat protection, and public recreation development. The program has1600gained even more importance as a critical tool for helping rural1601communities adapt to increasing weather volatility and reducing risk1602against catastrophic weather events.1603    There are about 2,100 NRCS assisted watershed projects in the1604Unites States, covering 145 million acres, with projects in every1605state. In 1,271 of these projects, 11,845 flood control dams have been1606constructed by local watershed sponsors with NRCS assistance. In most1607cases, a local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) serve as the1608local sponsors. In some cases, they are assisted by other cosponsors1609such as watershed districts or county government.1610    The benefits of this program are significant and far reaching. The1611total average annual monetary benefits these projects produce is over1612$2 billion. In addition, over 282,000 acres of wetlands and over 91613million acres of upland wildlife habitat have been created or enhanced1614by watershed projects. There are watershed project dams in 2181615Congressional Districts across the nation. As of today, these projects1616are protecting more than 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,0001617farms and ranches, 61,000 bridges, and 28,000 domestic water supplies.1618As a result, more than 48 million people across the United States1619benefit from the Watershed Program every year.1620    These projects create and protect vital infrastructure while1621conserving natural resources and contributing to local economies. The1622Watershed Program focuses on both the design and construction of1623structural water control measures, managing agricultural water, and on1624land treatment measures. Watershed planning provides a basis for1625partnering at state and local levels to identify and co-invest in1626projects reflecting the highest priority needs.1627    Conservation practices within these approved project areas improve1628water quality and are also a vital part of all watershed projects.1629Practices such as terraces, waterways, grass buffers, strip cropping,1630and grade stabilization structures, are used to prevent soil erosion1631and reduce sediment. They also increase the service life of dams and1632their ability to provide flood damage reduction.1633    Flood prevention and reliable water quality created by the1634Watershed Program are essential to developing and maintaining strong1635rural communities. Watershed projects not only protect lives, property1636and reduce flood damages, but also create economic growth and1637strengthen local economies. Flood protection is essential to prevent1638the unnecessary loss of infrastructure and capital to developing1639economies in rural America. Coalition staff recently toured areas of1640Kentucky impacted by April/May 2025 floods where Watershed Program1641infrastructure reduced damage and provided significant protection of1642life and property.1643Watershed Rehabilitation Program1644    I cannot understate the looming crisis facing rural America.1645Recognizing the aging watershed infrastructure, watershed dam1646rehabilitation is a critical component of the Watershed Protection and1647Flood Prevention Program, authorized in 2000. Many dams today are in a1648far different setting than when they were constructed. Population has1649increased; residential and commercial development has occurred upstream1650and downstream from the dams; and land uses within many watersheds have1651changed. Many of these dams do not meet current state dam safety1652regulations that have been enacted and revised with more stringent1653requirements than when the dams were built resulting in higher dam1654hazard classifications, primarily due to population at risk. In1655addition, many of these structures built by NRCS had a design life of1656only 50 years. Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940s1657to the early 1970s, many of these dams are now past their design life1658and show the effects of aging with deteriorating metal and fractured1659concrete components.1660    The protection these structures afford our communities touch every1661aspect of our daily lives and have been so effective for over 60 years1662that many folks are unaware of their presence on the landscape. Chances1663are as you travel across western and southern Oklahoma highways or1664perhaps south on Interstate 35 through the heart of Texas some portion1665of the road receives flood protection from an upstream Watershed1666Program dam. The local economy that is driven in part by grain, cattle,1667oil and natural gas relies daily on this protection. The roads and1668bridges that carry our children to and from school are protected. In1669several cases the school itself along with other key elements of1670community are protected.1671    Many of our most productive farms and our healthiest soils are in1672these protected watersheds. There are many less obvious benefits that1673come in the form of the prosperity and opportunity made possible by1674these projects. The partnership between USDA and local sponsors that1675brought us this protection is extremely important in keeping it in1676place. Rehabilitation is necessary to ensure dams continue to protect1677lives, businesses and homes. Failure to provide for the rehabilitation1678of these dams could result in dam breaches which would have1679catastrophic consequences.1680    As previously alluded Mr. Lucas led the development of1681rehabilitation legislation in 2000 that ensured the nation's investment1682in the watershed program had the opportunity to continue into the1683future. Under the Dam Rehabilitation Program, dams are selected for1684rehabilitation through analysis and a rigorous assessment process. This1685commitment from state and local partners is necessary to ensure that1686sponsors are fully committed to a project. This legislation gave us the1687pathway and the procedure for reinvestment.1688    As the significantly invested local sponsors of watershed projects,1689state and local sponsors have felt that we have suffered from an1690inadequately funded Federal partner for much of the past decade.1691Sponsors and state watershed program partners have responded with O&M1692dollars, rehabilitation matching funds, technical and financial1693assistance. I cannot over emphasize the importance of Congress and the1694USDA-NRCS as full partners in the watershed program. We hope these1695recent investments are a signal to USDA about the importance of these1696programs and the willingness of the state partners and local sponsors1697to share in protecting the local communities and agriculture producers1698in this ever-changing environment.1699National Watershed Farm Bill Priorities1700    The National Watershed Coalition (NWC) has several suggestions for1701reforms for the watershed Program. The first is an increase of1702mandatory funding for the program. Increased funding will create1703certainty and stability to ensure valuable projects can flow from1704planning to implementation and meet the changing pressures placed on1705our watersheds and rural agriculture producers. The program largely1706survives on discretionary program funding but did receive $50 million1707in annual funding through the 2018 Farm Bill. I would note that the1708program did receive this funding in the recent reconciliation bill1709passed by the House. This historic investment and commitment to our1710rural communities is appreciated and its importance cannot be1711overstated.1712    Second, NWC recommends increased flexibility in the program's1713authority use of program funds to repair and replace essential1714structural components. Many of the program constructed dams now require1715significant repairs that go well beyond the routine Operation and1716Maintenance required of the local project sponsors but fall short of1717the threshold for full rehabilitation. This adjustment in authority1718preserves the previous investment in infrastructure and flood1719protection by providing Federal funding for design and construction for1720repairs of the structural components thereby extending their1721performance life. Failure to repair and remediate common component and1722material deterioration on these dams could result in loss of life, loss1723of the investment in infrastructure and most certainly a loss of1724benefits to the nation.1725    Third, NWC recommends raising the Federal cost-share for1726rehabilitation as these structures are often high hazard. With few1727exceptions, these flood prevention structures were fully funded by1728Federal funds. For decades, the local sponsors have assumed the1729responsibility for inspection, operation, and maintenance of these1730structures. With limited access to funding to provide the required1731local cost share to complete the cradle-to-grave planning, design and1732construction necessary for rehabilitation, Federal support is1733essential. The potentially catastrophic outcome of this cost-share1734requirement barrier is that many project sponsors will not initiate1735rehabilitation of aged, high hazard, high priority projects. Increasing1736the Federal cost-share will alleviate this significant financial burden1737placed on local project sponsors.1738    Fourth, NWC believes it is crucial to reduce the regulatory and1739administrative barriers that adds years to project implementation1740timeline. The authorities in the watershed program provide for the1741planning and implementation at a smaller scale benefiting agriculture1742production and rural communities. The project scale is significantly1743smaller than the much larger public works of the Department of [the]1744Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This program is1745accomplished in partnership with local units of government, termed1746project sponsors. Yet, compliance with the OMB's Project Planning1747Principles and Guidelines, benefits thresholds, other Federal Agency1748permitting requirements, and complicated procedures impair or negate1749project implementation and consume limited sponsor staff and financial1750resources. Providing a streamlined process with a system of checks and1751balances commensurate with the scale of the projects will accelerate1752project delivery and serve out rural communities well. In addition,1753several states have or can develop the capacity to deliver this program1754effectively with oversight from NRCS. Statutory clarity to provide1755authority and requisite funding to capable state agencies could1756streamline and promote more efficient delivery of the program.1757    Finally, NWC would like to see statutory language added to provide1758oversight and accountability mechanisms for program funds. Real-time1759transparency in all aspects of program delivery will ensure and support1760program integrity through the accountability for allocations,1761expenditures, and timeliness of delivered projects.1762    The National Watershed Coalition was pleased to see its full set of1763recommendations integrated into The Farm, Food, and National Security1764Act of 2024. We cannot thank Chairman Thompson and Subcommittee Chair1765Lucas enough for their support of these policies and look forward to1766working with them and other Members to continue this work into the next1767farm bill. Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to address the1768Committee with respect to the watershed program. I would point the1769Members and Committee staff to the Coalition's website1770www.watershedcoalition.org for additional history, facts, figures and1771multiple Watershed Program success stories. I will conclude where I1772began. The implementation and successes of the watershed program shaped1773my life and the western Oklahoma communities that thrived under the1774umbrella of protection these structures provide. Similar stories can be1775found across the nation where in a blend of Federal, state and local1776partnership these projects have been successfully implemented. As we1777look to the challenges and the need for increased resiliency in our1778agriculture production and the communities, the watershed program is1779more important today than ever in history. Not only for new planning1780and implementation around flood protection, water supply and water1781conservation, but also taking action on the older structures needing1782attention to continue to protect populations and infrastructure1783expansion that has occurred in the decades following their initial1784construction . . . the result of the many benefits this program1785continues to provide.17861787    The Chairman. Thank you for your career involvement in1788this, Dr. Sebert, and clearly, it is a classic example if you1789work long enough and hard enough, you can still do good things1790in this country.1791    With that, I turn to Mr. Fink. Please begin when you are1792ready, sir.17931794   STATEMENT OF TIM FINK, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, AMERICAN1795                FARMLAND TRUST, WASHINGTON, D.C.17961797    Mr. Fink. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and1798honorable Members of the Committee, I am Tim Fink, Vice1799President of Policy for American Farmland Trust, an1800organization founded 45 years ago to protect farmland, advance1801sound farming practices, and keep farmers on the land. I thank1802you for the opportunity to testify and applaud the Committee1803for its continued work in strengthening our nation's voluntary1804farm bill conservation programs. While AFT has a broader farm1805bill platform, our testimony today will concentrate1806specifically on the Agricultural Land Easement subprogram, the1807Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.1808    Farmland is too often viewed as an unlimited resource, but1809according to AFT research, in the first 15 years of this1810century, we have lost 2,000 acres a day. That means 11 million1811acres of farmland were paved over, built up, or converted to1812uses that otherwise threaten agriculture. This is the1813equivalent of all of the acreage in the U.S. devoted to fruit,1814nut, and vegetable production. AFT research projects that1815without further policy intervention, we are likely to lose 181816million more acres of agriculture to development by 2040, and1817many communities are already seeing this prediction being1818outpaced. Continued conversion of this finite resource1819threatens our food security, our national security, and the1820viability of our agricultural sector. To put simply no farms,1821no food. It is also pushing production in the marginal lands1822and slamming the doors shut to the next generation of1823producers.1824    Agricultural conservation easements are essential to1825stemming this tide. They offer landowners a vital option, a way1826to extract equity from their land without selling it for1827development, which is often the only option for a land-rich,1828cash-poor farmer when they reach retirement or face family or1829business expenses. Land under easement remains in private1830ownership and on the tax rolls, and it could be transferred to1831a new owner at any time with the easement conditions running1832with the land.1833    Such easements benefit farmers, the farm, the community and1834society as a whole. Here are four ways. First, easements1835support reinvestment in agriculture. Research shows that1836farmers and ranchers use easement proceeds to improve or1837diversify their operations, purchase new equipment, land1838infrastructure. Second, easement support the transfer of1839agricultural land. The sale of an easement can help finance1840retirement without the farmer needing to give up their most1841cherished asset. For aspiring farmers, protected land is more1842affordable. In fact, it may be the only land they can afford.1843    Third, easements spur additional conservation. A recent1844survey found that the majority of landowners with easements1845have NRCS conservation plans, and over 75 percent have adopted1846at least three conservation practices. This is because of1847something we refer to as permanent syndrome. Farmers are more1848likely to make these long-term investments if they know that1849the land is going to remain in agriculture long enough for1850those investments to bear fruit. Fourth, easements benefit1851rural communities and economies. A 2022 Montana study found1852that between 2014 and 2021, every ACEP dollar spent yielded1853nearly twice that amount in economic activity. These1854investments also supported over 1,000 local jobs. It is for1855these reasons that 30 states and over 100 local governments1856invest in easement programs. That list now includes the State1857of Tennessee. AFT was also pleased to see Secretary Rollins1858point to the benefits of ACEP-ALE as part of the1859Administration's Farmer First Agenda.1860    We are grateful to this Committee and especially to1861Chairman Thompson for championing important easement reforms in1862the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. I will1863highlight just a few.1864    First, the bill would increase long-term funding for1865conservation programs by transferring unspent IRA conservation1866dollars into the farm bill, a measure also included in the1867recent reconciliation package. This is AFT's top farm bill1868priority since it will enable more farmers to protect their1869land and implement the very practices they need to build more1870profitable operations for decades to come. Second, the bill1871would increase ACEP's general Federal match and offer a lower1872match option for program partners. The increase in the match1873would enable more participation in the program in parts of the1874country where there are no matching funding to be found. The1875lower match option would provide an alternative for public1876programs that have had trouble reconciling their program rules1877with that of USDA.1878    Third, the bill will streamline ACEP by empowering1879experienced certified entities to play a larger role. Certified1880entities help to reduce easement closing times and can do more1881to improve the experience for landowners. A greater focus on1882certification can reduce both costs and administrative burdens1883for USDA. And fourth, the bill eliminates ACEP-ALE's adjusted1884gross income eligibility requirement. This change recognizes1885that an easement payment is different than a conservation cost-1886share payment. This will also help reduce closing times and1887ensure that the program is focused on the lands most vital to1888conservation.1889    I thank you again for being here and for your time.1890    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fink follows:]18911892  Prepared Statement of Tim Fink, Vice President of Policy, American1893                    Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.1894    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the1895Subcommittee:18961897    Thank you for giving American Farmland Trust (AFT) the opportunity1898to testify today on the role of USDA in safeguarding one of America's1899most important natural assets--our rich and productive agricultural1900land. I am Tim Fink, Vice President of Policy for AFT.1901    AFT was formed in 1980 as the first and still only national1902conservation agriculture organization devoted specifically to stemming1903the loss of agricultural land. AFT is known for our policy advocacy,1904groundbreaking research, and innovative programing. We take a holistic1905approach to agriculture, focusing on the land itself, the agricultural1906practices used on that land, and the farmers and ranchers who do the1907work. We have a strong and longstanding partnership with USDA. Since19081994, AFT has operated the Farmland Information Center (FIC)1909i in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation1910Service. The FIC serves as the nation's primary clearinghouse for1911information and data related to farmland retention and protection for1912landowners, producers, policymakers, and the public. Our ``Farms Under1913Threat'' and predecessor ``Farming on the Edge'' research series, also1914conducted in partnership with NRCS, are the nation's foremost studies1915on agricultural land loss.1916---------------------------------------------------------------------------1917    \i\ https://farmlandinfo.org/.1918---------------------------------------------------------------------------1919    To build awareness of tools and voluntary approaches to saving farm1920and ranch land, AFT hosts the National Agricultural Land1921Network,ii a network of over 1,500 public agencies, farm and1922conservation organizations, farmers, ranchers, and concerned citizens1923seeking to do more to reduce the loss of working lands in their states1924and communities. AFT also works directly with farmers, ranchers, and1925agricultural landowners, providing critical on-the-ground conservation1926and business technical assistance, assisting with farmland transition1927and access, and supporting landowners who choose to donate or sell1928agricultural conservation easements, including through the Agricultural1929Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation1930Partnership Program (RCPP).1931---------------------------------------------------------------------------1932    \ii\ https://farmland.org/national-agricultural-land-network.1933---------------------------------------------------------------------------1934America's Agricultural Land Is a Vital and Irreplaceable Asset1935    For most of our nation's existence, the Federal Government has1936viewed private working lands as a limitless asset. Federal programs and1937policies have supported--and even subsidized--the conversion of some of1938America's most productive agricultural land to cities, suburbs,1939industrial, and infrastructure development simply because this land has1940been the easiest and least expensive on which to build.1941    Unfortunately, this ``limitless'' asset is, in fact, limited.1942According to AFT's Farms Under Threat: The State of the States1943report,iii in just the first 15 years of this century--a1944period with a slowdown in housing starts due to a recession--11 million1945acres of productive farm ground were converted. This includes nearly 71946million acres to low-density residential land use and 4.1 million acres1947to urban and highly developed land use. These 11 million acres are1948equal to all the U.S. farmland devoted to fruit, nut, and vegetable1949production in 2017--or 2,000 acres a day paved over, built up, and1950converted to uses that threaten the future of agriculture.1951---------------------------------------------------------------------------1952    \iii\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-the-1953state-of-the-states/.1954---------------------------------------------------------------------------1955    Without policy changes, this alarming trajectory will continue, if1956not worsen. AFT's Farms Under Threat iv modeling shows that1957the U.S. is likely to lose another 18.4 million acres of productive1958farm ground to development by 2040. And in some parts of the U.S.,1959actual development over the past 9 years is already outpacing these1960predictions. In the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area, farmland and1961ranchland is being developed 49% faster than we anticipated, fueled by1962many of the same trends we are seeing across the U.S.--demand for1963housing, warehouses, data centers, and energy development. While solar1964is critical to meeting national energy needs, AFT's Farms Under Threat19652040 v solar modeling projects that 83% of new solar1966development is expected to occur on farmland and ranchland, with almost1967half on America's most productive land.1968---------------------------------------------------------------------------1969    \iv\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-2040/1970   \v\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-2040-1971solar-modeling-reports/.1972---------------------------------------------------------------------------1973    Continued conversion of this finite asset threatens our future food1974security and the viability of our agricultural sector. Farmland1975conversion limits opportunities for commodity and specialty crop1976growers alike and increases costs of production. Loss of productive1977cropland is driving conversion of marginal pasture and grassland to1978cropland, and foreclosing options for the next generation of producers.1979Agricultural Conservation Easements Are an Essential Tool in Preventing1980        Farmland Loss and Supporting Farm and Ranch Viability1981    Federal programs supporting agricultural conservation easements1982like ACEP and RCPP are essential tools in stemming the loss of our1983productive agricultural land. ACEP's Agricultural Land Easement (ALE)1984subprogram and RCPP are voluntary programs within USDA's Natural1985Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that provide funding for the1986purchase of perpetual agricultural conservation easements on working1987farms and ranches. ACEP-ALE is the only Federal program dedicated1988specifically to the protection of agricultural land. RCPP has a broader1989resource protection mandate, which can include funding for the1990protection of both working and natural lands. The first Federal1991investments in agricultural land protection were authorized in the 19961992Farm Bill through the Farmland Protection Program that provided grants1993to state and local agricultural land protection programs. Since 1996,1994USDA has invested approximately $2.2 billion in ACEP-ALE and1995predecessor programs,\1\ ensuring that more than 2.3 million acres1996vi of productive farmland and ranchland will remain forever1997available for agricultural production.1998---------------------------------------------------------------------------1999    \1\ Compiled by American Farmland Trust's Farmland Information2000Center using data supplied by the NRCS Resource Economics and Analysis2001Division and Easement Programs Division using information from NEST and2002FMMI, April 2024.2003    \vi\ https://www.farmers.gov/data/easements-overview.2004---------------------------------------------------------------------------2005    It's important to understand exactly what an agricultural2006conservation easement is, and what it does and does not do. An2007agricultural conservation easement:20082009   Is a powerful tool for ensuring that agricultural land2010        remains forever available for agricultural use. With an2011        easement, a landowner voluntarily restricts some of the rights2012        to the use of their land. In doing so, they are exercising2013        their private property rights. While these restrictions can be2014        tailored to meet the unique goals of the landowner, all2015        agricultural conservation easements limit non-agricultural2016        development in perpetuity and spell out allowable uses of the2017        land.20182019   Can be donated or sold to a qualified entity such as a2020        public agency or a private land trust. The entity that holds2021        the easement is then responsible for making sure that the2022        restrictions are followed. The value of the easement is2023        determined by appraisal, comparing the land's value for its2024        highest and best use (typically development) and its value as2025        restricted by the easement's terms and conditions.20262027   Land under easement remains in private ownership, and the2028        landowner is free to transfer the land to a new owner at any2029        time with the conditions of the easement transferring along2030        with the land.20312032    Here are some of the benefits of agricultural conservation2033easements which have been demonstrated through surveys of participating2034farmers and ranchers and other research:20352036   Improved farm viability. Proceeds from the sale of an2037        agricultural conservation easement are often reinvested into2038        the farm or ranch operation. Farmers and ranchers have used2039        proceeds to construct, expand, or repair agricultural2040        buildings; buy equipment for farming, processing, or marketing2041        products; pay down debt; or buy additional land.\2\ Protected2042        farms and ranches also have a positive impact on neighboring2043        farmers and ranchers, providing them a sense of confidence in2044        the ``permanence'' of agriculture in the community and helping2045        to encourage additional investment in their own operations.\3\2046---------------------------------------------------------------------------2047    \2\ Dempsey, Jennifer (2023). Analyzing the Lasting Impacts of the2048Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (https://2049farmlandinfo.org/publications/analyzing-the-lasting-impacts-of-the-2050farm-and-ranch-lands-protection-program/). Northampton, MA; American2051Farmland Trust.2052    \3\ Sherman, R., Millshaw, S., Freedgood J. and Wagner B. (1998).2053Investing in The Future of Agriculture: The Massachusetts Farmland2054Protection Program and the Permanence Syndrome. Northampton, MA:2055American Farmland Trust.20562057   Additional conservation practice adoption--Many landowners2058        who protected their land through the Federal Farm and Ranch2059        Lands Protection Program (FRPP) used proceeds from the easement2060        sale to implement additional conservation practices. The survey2061        shows that this increase in conservation was due to the2062        recognition that their land will remain forever available for2063        agriculture. FRPP landowners have a significantly higher rate2064        of conservation practice adoption than the general farm2065        population.\4\2066---------------------------------------------------------------------------2067    \4\ Dempsey. Analyzing the Lasting Impacts of the Federal Farm and2068Ranch Lands Protection Program (https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/2069analyzing-the-lasting-impacts-of-the-farm-and-ranch-lands-protection-2070program/).20712072   Enables older producers to transfer land without liquidating2073        their most valuable asset--The sale of an easement allows older2074        farmers and ranchers--who are often ``land rich but cash2075        poor''--to finance their retirement and facilitate an intra-2076        family land transfer without having to liquidate a cherished2077        asset and legacy. An AFT study found that virtually all2078        surveyed farmers wanted to see their land remain in farming and2079        saw the sale of an easement as the only means to make their2080        land affordable for a next generation producer.\5\2081---------------------------------------------------------------------------2082    \5\ American Farmland Trust. Keeping Farmers on The Land (https://2083s30428.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/AFT_E-2084FS_D_GainingInsights_GainingAccess.pdf). 2016. Accessed June 2, 2025.20852086   Improved land access for next generation farmers and2087        ranchers--Escalating land values and competition for land from2088        developers and non-farming investors is putting land ownership2089        out of reach for many producers. This includes both those with2090        established operations seeking to expand and, even more so, for2091        undercapitalized producers and those just getting underway.2092        Land access has long been the number one challenge facing new2093        farmers and ranchers and has only been exacerbated by a 1062094        percent vii increase in cropland values and a 73%2095        increase in pastureland value viii over the last2096        decade and a half. By limiting its future use to agriculture,2097        ACEP typically makes land more affordable, helping to create2098        pathways for land ownership and wealth generation for a new2099        generation of producers.2100---------------------------------------------------------------------------2101    \vii\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/21022024LandValuesCashRents.pdf.2103    \viii\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/21042024LandValuesCashRents.pdf.21052106   Economic benefits for rural communities--Studies have shown2107        that ACEP and other Purchase of Agriculture Conservation2108        Easement (PACE) programs also strengthen rural economies. A2109        2022 study ix led by USDA's Natural Resources2110        Conservation Service in Montana, the Montana Association of2111        Land Trusts, and the Heart of the Rockies Initiative found that2112        between 2014 and 2021, every Federal dollar of easement2113        financing invested in Montana's farms and ranches through ACEP2114        yielded $1.89 of economic activity. In addition, the $1092115        million ACEP investment produced a total economic impact of2116        $182 million, supported 1,057 local jobs and $41.5 million in2117        labor income, and contributed $99 million to the state's GDP. A2118        similar study x completed by Colorado State2119        University's Agricultural and Resources Economics Department in2120        2018 found similar results for Federal investments made from2121        easement programs in Colorado between 2008 and 2017.2122---------------------------------------------------------------------------2123    \ix\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/2124Montana_Working%20for%202125Montana%20Agriculture%20-2126%20Economic%20Impact%20Analysis%20Full%20Report.pdf.2127    \x\ https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/21284d17eb79-b9db-41eb-b6fa-41bee188a8ea/content.21292130    Given these many benefits, it is unsurprising that thirty states,2131and over 100 counties and municipalities, have PACE programs. The most2132recent addition to this list is the State of Tennessee, which this year2133passed a new $25 million state Farmland Preservation Fund with strong2134support from the governor, legislators, and the state's agriculture2135industry. AFT was similarly pleased to see Secretary Rollin's Farmers2136First agenda xi point to the benefits of ACEP-ALE as a2137program for farmers interested in keeping their land in agriculture.2138---------------------------------------------------------------------------2139    \xi\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/214019/secretary-rollins-announces-farmers-first-small-family-farms-policy-2141agenda.2142---------------------------------------------------------------------------2143    Such programs have long been popular with both landowners and2144lawmakers and are typically oversubscribed. They have assisted2145thousands of farm and ranch families in realizing their dream of2146protecting their land and legacy for future generations.2147Building on the Success of ACEP-ALE and RCPP in the Next Farm Bill2148    AFT is grateful to this Committee--and especially to Chairman2149Thompson--for its strong support of ACEP-ALE and RCPP, as well as for2150championing program changes in the Farm, Food and National Security Act2151of 2024 that would greatly improve their ability to serve farmers,2152ranchers, and agricultural landowners. Let me speak to each of these2153proposed changes in turn.21541. Increases Funding for Agricultural Conservation Programs2155    We applaud and strongly support the Committee's inclusion of2156language to transfer the remaining unobligated balance of Inflation2157Reduction Act (IRA) funding into the farm bill conservation title both2158within the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 and in the2159recent House reconciliation bill. The House reconciliation package2160would increase the farm bill baseline for ACEP by $250 million per year2161(to $700 million annually), and for RCPP by $150 million per year (to2162$450 million annually). This funding would begin to help fulfill more2163landowner demand for ACEP and RCPP and enable even more farmers and2164ranchers to protect their land and implement the conservation practices2165needed to build more profitable, resilient, and sustainable operations2166for decades to come.2167    It's important to note that ACEP consists of two subprograms--2168Wetlands Reserve Easements (WRE) and Agricultural Land Easements (ALE).2169Annual funding for ACEP-ALE easement acquisitions represents less than2170half of the current $450 million annual funding for ACEP. For instance,2171from 2019-2021, funding obligated for easements acquired through ALE2172amounted to just $114 million on average annually, falling far short of2173meeting landowner demand. For reference, the Commonwealth of2174Pennsylvania spends an average of $34 million annually on its PACE2175program.2176Key ACEP-ALE Reforms in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of2177        202421781. Expands Opportunities for Landowner Participation Through Changes to2179        the Federal Share of Easement Value2180    The Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 would make2181valuable changes to ACEP's cost-share rates. These include:21822183   Increasing the Federal share to up to 65% for general ALE2184        easements.21852186   Providing a lower Federal share option of 25% for easements2187        held only by the partnerentity.21882189    Working lands with high agricultural productivity and conservation2190values are being lost because of the financial barriers that many2191landowners face in accessing ACEP-ALE. Currently, NRCS can only2192contribute 50% of the easement value unless a property is designated as2193``Grasslands of Special Significance,'' (GSS) in which case the Federal2194share increases to 75%. In parts of the country without a land trust or2195state or local conservation funding source to leverage additional2196funding, landowners not in a financial position to donate a significant2197portion of the easement value are often unable to participate in the2198program.2199    The lower Federal share option of 25% provides a new and important2200alternative. Some landowners mistrust government agencies and are2201reluctant to commit to an easement in which USDA holds an executory2202interest. Additionally, some states have been unable to reconcile their2203program's easement deed terms with USDA's terms. This could be2204addressed if state programs are allowed to use their own deed terms and2205there is no Federal interest in the easement. Land trusts and public2206PACE programs with alternative funding sources would be able to2207leverage this smaller amount of Federal funding to compensate2208landowners for the sale of an easement. There is precedent for this2209lower Federal share option; a 25% Federal share for an entity-only held2210easement is currently available through the RCPP.2211    Such changes would enable more farmers, ranchers, and landowners2212across the nation to make use of the program.22132. Improves Program Efficiency Through an Enhanced Certification2214        Process2215    Established in the 2008 Farm Bill, certification was intended to2216streamline program delivery and reduce administrative burdens on NRCS2217by recognizing the expertise of certain program partners to acquire and2218steward agricultural conservation easements. By enabling experienced2219partners to acquire an easement with minimal advance NRCS review,2220certification helps to reduce the time a landowner must wait to be2221compensated for an easement, which, since FY20, has averaged over 22222years.xii Until recently, NRCS had certified only a handful2223of entities. While we commend NRCS for recent efforts to expand2224certification, experienced program partners could take on more2225responsibilities to further reduce easement acquisition times and2226decisions on post-closing stewardship requests. The language included2227in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024:2228---------------------------------------------------------------------------2229    \xii\ https://www.farmers.gov/data/easements-acquisition.22302231   Affirms Congressional intent around the purpose for2232---------------------------------------------------------------------------2233        certification.22342235   Lowers the threshold of projects required for certification2236        and provides an additional pathway for certification.22372238   Allows certified entities to use and modify their easement2239        deed terms so long as these terms are consistent with program2240        purposes.22412242    Such changes would both expand the number of certified entities and2243make certification more meaningful, thereby improving the process for2244entities and participating landowners.22453. Eliminates the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Eligibility Requirement2246    We were pleased to see the Farm, Food and National Security Act of22472024 eliminate the AGI eligibility requirement on landowners2248participating in ACEP. Unlike conservation cost-share programs, a2249payment through ACEP is not a subsidy but rather a real estate2250transaction and purchase of a specific property interest based on2251appraised fair market value. Moreover, imposing AGI eligibility2252requirements on landowners for ACEP defeats the program purpose of2253conserving land with the highest agricultural productivity and2254conservation values. In addition, AGI checks administered through the2255Farm Services Agency and the Internal Revenue Service are slow and2256cumbersome and are a barrier to getting projects completed in a timely2257fashion.2258    We hope the Committee will consider one further change to AGI,2259relating to how AGI is calculated. Currently, proceeds from the sale of2260an agricultural conservation easement are considered income for the2261purpose of calculating a landowner's AGI. This can have the perverse2262impact of preventing a farm or ranch family that has just sold an2263easement from participating in other NRCS conservation cost-share2264programs for several years. We encourage the Committee to eliminate2265this disincentive for conservation by excluding easement sales from AGI2266calculations.22674. Provides Additional Program Clarity Around ACEP Easement2268        Administration Actions2269    We are grateful to the Committee for including reforms related to2270easement modifications. The language in the Farm, Food and National2271Security Act of 2024 allows for modifications that align with program2272purposes and address changing circumstances that adversely impact2273agricultural viability, including changes in water availability. The2274language also created a new category of ``de minimis'' adjustments,2275offering a streamlined pathway for minor actions such as correcting2276typographical errors and changes to building envelope boundaries.2277Importantly, the language also clarifies that easement modifications2278are not considered a major Federal action under the National2279Environmental Policy Act.2280    These changes are intended to address landowner concerns over often2281extensive delays or denials of minor modification requests, and to2282recognize that program partners have significant expertise in2283addressing easement administration actions in other easements they2284hold. Consistency in easement amendment and modification practices2285across the realm of conservation programs is critical to avoid costly2286and unnecessary litigation as well as for the proper long-term care of2287perpetual conservation easements. AFT and partners look forward to2288continuing to work with Committee staff on ALE modifications language.2289Key RCPP Reforms in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 20242290    RCPP is designed to foster innovative landscape-scale conservation2291projects through expanded public-private partnerships. Land2292conservation organizations and public agencies have used RCPP to focus2293working lands protection efforts on important agricultural regions and2294to incentivize conservation planning and practice adoption on2295permanently protected farmland and ranchland. RCPP is a valuable,2296complementary tool to ACEP for permanent working lands protection. The2297Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 includes several key2298reforms to RCPP supported by AFT and many others in the farmland2299protection community. These reforms would:23001. Expand ACEP Certification to RCPP and Allow ACEP-Certified Entities2301        To Use the Same Streamlined Easement Acquisition Process as2302        ACEP2303    RCPP has often been stymied by program rules that require different2304acquisition procedures for agricultural land protection than those used2305by ACEP-ALE, even for experienced state and local land protection2306partners. We welcome the bill's proposed return to the ``covered2307program'' approach, which offers entities the choice of using2308established ACEP rules for working lands protection or pursuing2309innovative approaches through Alternative Funding Arrangements. The2310proposed language also provides assurance that entity certification2311under ACEP extends to RCPP easement projects.23122. Allow Up to Ten Percent of Project Agreement Funds To Reimburse a2313        Partner for Administrative Expenses Related to the Project and2314        Permit Partner Administrative Expenses Not Reimbursed To Be2315        Part of the Eligible Partner's Contribution2316    We applaud the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024's2317recognition that eligible partners should be permitted to recover2318personnel and associated costs with RCPP projects, similar to the use2319of funds for USDA personnel supporting the covered programs.2320Conclusion2321    Private working lands are a finite resource foundational to the2322essential industry of agriculture. These lands, especially those that2323are the most critical for future food production, are being carved up2324and paved over in communities large and small. This relentless2325conversion threatens the profitability of established farmers and2326ranchers, the viability of our next generation of producers, and our2327future food and national security.2328    The Federal Government has an important role to play in addressing2329farmland loss. Agricultural conservation easements are an essential2330tool in this effort. ACEP-ALE and RCPP do much more than simply protect2331farmland. They help to create more viable farms and ranches, strengthen2332rural communities, and open the door for the next generation of farmers2333and ranchers.2334    In addition to conservation easements, it is important to note that2335there are other Federal strategies which could support farmland2336retention. These include strengthening the Farmland Protection Policy2337Act and making changes in the Tax Code to both better enable the2338lifetime transfer of agricultural lands and exempt easement proceeds2339from taxation. AFT welcomes additional discussion on these and other2340policy topics.2341    I thank you once again for this opportunity and for this2342Committee's continued support for farmland and ranchland protection.2343AFT appreciates your leadership and looks forward to continuing this2344conversation. We stand ready to serve as a resource as you move forward2345on these important issues.23462347    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Fink, and we now2348turn to Ms. Galase. You may please begin when you are ready for23495 minutes.23502351   STATEMENT OF NICOLE K. GALASE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAWAII2352     CATTLEMEN'S COUNCIL, HILO, HI; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL2353                  CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION23542355    Ms. Galase. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and2356Members of the Committee, I am grateful to join you today to2357testify on the value of conservation programs that support our2358nation's livestock industry. My name is Nicole Galase, and I2359currently serve as a Managing Director for the Hawaii2360Cattlemen's Council, a statewide organization supporting2361ranchers who steward 750,000 acres or nearly 20 percent of2362Hawaii's total landmass. HCC is an affiliate of the National2363Cattlemen's Beef Association, which is the nation's largest and2364oldest national trade association representing the U.S. cattle2365industry and represents over \1/4\ million cattle producers.2366    Cattle producers own and manage considerably more land than2367any other segment of U.S. agriculture or any other U.S.2368industry for that matter. America's cattle producers2369collectively manage over 650 million acres, nearly \1/3\ of our2370nation's continental landmass. Some of the biggest challenges2371and threats to our industry come from the loss or conversion of2372our natural resources. In Hawaii, like many other states, we2373face a decline in pasture lands. A decline in pasture2374inevitably leads to a decline in agricultural production, which2375weakens food security. Our goal is to keep grasslands green.2376    Since our livelihood is made on the land, resource2377stewardship not only makes good environmental sense, it is2378economically fundamental. Maintaining robust voluntary2379conservation programs must remain a top priority for both USDA2380and this Committee. Accomplishing this goal is impossible2381without the flexibility and attention to locally-led decision-2382making. Cattle producers take pride in our efforts to improve2383the land and are always looking for partnership opportunities.2384I urge the Committee to promote initiatives in the farm bill2385that allow NRCS programs to foster innovative and common-sense2386land management. Additionally, mandates that stifle2387implementation or a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not2388work in the cattle industry. These efforts to standardize2389programs limit producers' ability to utilize the unique2390practices that help their individual operations thrive.2391    The EQIP program is a popular funding source for Hawaii2392cattle producers. In one example, a Hawaii rancher utilized2393EQIP for cross fencing to improve his rotational grazing,2394allowing him to double his herd size while improving soil2395health. For this producer and others, accessing technical2396assistance is crucial to success. NRCS staff provide guidance2397to maximize both productivity and sustainability, and access to2398EQIP and conservation technical assistance improves soil2399health, controls erosion, and ensures improved water quality.2400    It is clear through my experience with NRCS and FSA that2401lack of funding is not our primary road block. Especially when2402it comes to EQIP, the 50 percent livestock carve-out is2403effective in ensuring that necessary monies are available.2404Access to technical assistance and inefficient funding2405distribution are the most significant hurdles to producers'2406success. While these hurdles were acknowledged in the 2018 Farm2407Bill, few policies actually increase functionality.2408    NRCS was designed to function as a locally-led Federal2409agency. While this seems counterintuitive, its structure has2410proven invaluable for farmers and ranchers who seek specialized2411solutions for local conservation challenges. Local populations2412hold a deep understanding of their land, their ecosystems, and2413their unique challenges. These stakeholders know better than2414anyone else where to dedicate resources to address urgent and2415high impact concerns. This insight allows conservation projects2416to be tailored to the specific needs of the area, reducing2417costly missteps often seen when national programs are forced on2418states or counties. In short, locally-led conservation combines2419the right knowledge, community buy-in, and targeted solutions2420to efficiently stretch every dollar spent.2421    As policymakers consider the sustainability of the U.S.2422agricultural industry, environmental sustainability is only one2423leg of a three-legged stool. Economic prosperity, social2424awareness, and voluntary conservation go hand in hand, and we2425are always looking for conservation opportunities that will2426have tangible benefits for the environment and to help improve2427our ranching lands.2428    USDA's conservation programs are an asset to cattle2429producers, but only when implemented in a practical producer-2430friendly and voluntary manner. With USDA as a partner, American2431ranchers maintain open spaces, healthy range lands, and2432wildlife habitat while leading the world in quality protein2433production. Together we can conserve our country's natural2434resources, maintain economic prosperity, ensure a viable way of2435life for future generations. I thank the Committee for the2436opportunity to testify, and I look forward to questions.2437Mahalo.2438    [The prepared statement of Ms. Galase follows:]24392440   Prepared Statement of Nicole K. Galase, Managing Director, Hawaii2441 Cattlemen's Council, Hilo, HI; on Behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef2442                              Association2443    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, Chairman Thompson, Ranking2444Member Craig, and Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:24452446    I am honored and grateful to join you today to testify on the2447importance of conservation to support our nation's agricultural2448industry.2449    My name is Nicole Galase and I currently serve as Managing Director2450of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council (HCC). I also lead the Hawaii Beef2451Industry Council, a Qualified State Beef Council, and the Hawaii2452Rangeland Stewardship Foundation, which is a [501(c)(3)] with a mission2453to ensure healthy rangelands for generations to come. I have been2454working with Hawaii's ranchers since 2019 to ensure a viable business2455environment for the cattle industry. This includes representing2456ranchers in state and county policymaking, and providing opportunities2457for them to gain access to conservation agriculture funds that help2458them in their goals to steward the land while producing food.2459    The Hawaii Cattlemen's Council's represents 135 ranch members2460across the state. Ranchers are the stewards of 750,000 acres of land in2461Hawaii, or nearly 20% of the state's total land mass. HCC is an2462affiliate of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA). NCBA is2463the nation's largest and oldest national trade association representing2464the U.S. beef cattle industry, with other 250,000 producers represented2465through both direct membership and 44 state affiliate associations.2466    Cattle producers own and manage considerably more land than any2467other segment of U.S. agriculture--or any other U.S. industry for that2468matter. Cattle producers graze cattle on approximately 666.4 million2469acres across the United States--nearly \1/3\ of our nation's2470continental landmass. Additionally, acreage used to grow hay,2471feedgrains, and food grains add millions more acres of land under2472cattlemen's stewardship and private ownership. Some of the biggest2473challenges and threats to our industry come from the loss or conversion2474of our natural resources. The cattle industry is threatened daily by2475urban encroachment, natural disasters, and government overreach that2476makes our stewardship harder--if not impossible. In Hawaii, like many2477other states, we face a decline in pasture lands. A decline in pasture2478inevitably leads to a decline in agricultural production, which weakens2479our food security. Our goal is to keep agricultural lands in2480agricultural production. Since our livelihood is made on the land,2481through the utilization of our natural resources, being good stewards2482of the land not only makes good environmental sense; it is fundamental2483for our industry to remain strong. We strive to maximize the2484environmental, economic, and social sustainability of our operations,2485and it is through voluntary conservation programs that ranchers will2486continue to be a proud partner with the government to reach our2487environmental conservation goals.2488    Conservation programs are one of the most visible and consistently2489important portions of the farm bill for cattle producers across the2490country. Many cattle producers' only nexus to farm bill-related2491services occurs at their local NRCS or FSA office. Building and2492maintaining robust voluntary conservation resources must remain a top2493priority for both USDA and this Committee. The 2018 Farm Bill sent a2494strong signal to agricultural producers across the country that2495voluntary conservation is a top priority, and we appreciate this2496Committee's commitment to continually improving these vital programs.2497As we look forward to the next farm bill, I'm excited to discuss the2498exciting opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Cattle producers2499pride themselves on being good stewards of our country's natural2500resources.2501    Cattle producers employ various conservation practices, many of2502which we put in place by utilizing NRCS programs, such as the2503Environmental Quality Incentives Program (or EQIP). EQIP is designed to2504assist producers in implementing conservation practices that will2505enhance the health of grazing lands, improving water quality, improving2506soil quality, and reducing soil erosion. One important feature of EQIP2507has been its focus on livestock operations, and we appreciated the 502508percent funding designation for livestock-related practices in the 20182509Farm Bill. Because crop production receives significant value from2510other working lands programs, like CSP, a livestock carve-out for EQIP2511funding ensures that resources are equitably distributed among2512producers. Federal funds spent on conservation are a good investment in2513our country's natural resources and the sustainability of agriculture2514and wildlife, and it is vital to ensure that livestock producers have2515access to these valuable resources for grazing and feeding management.2516While the intent of EQIP is to make conservation funding and technical2517assistance accessible to all producers, barriers to entry often2518disincentivize producers from utilizing NRCS programs. For example,2519when NRCS staff are not given enough resources to make site visits and2520understand the specific needs of a producer, the producer is often2521offered very rigid guidelines that are not tailored to their situation.2522While producers may see opportunities to improve the land and2523environment with EQIP funding, many simply do not have sufficient2524confidence in the process to apply[.]2525    Collectively, we could improve upon soil-health-building grazing2526practices, provide more erosion control, and promote cleaner water2527sources. More and more frequently, ranchers choose to adjust their2528budgets to cover the costs of improvement, rather than waiting for2529assistance and losing valuable time. We care about the environment and2530our livestock, and any improvement on the land is something we are2531unanimously proud of. By creating additional hurdles for producers that2532want to utilize these programs, the Committee and USDA limit access2533while simultaneously limiting the government's ability to record our2534environmental improvements. I urge the Committee to support initiatives2535in the farm bill that allow NRCS programs to support innovation and2536commonsense land management.2537    It is clear through my experience with NRCS and FSA that lack of2538funding for practice implementation is not an issue. Especially when it2539comes to EQIP, the 50 percent livestock carve-out is effective in2540ensuring that necessary monies are available. The most significant2541challenge for producers who want to take advantage of working lands2542programs is the inefficiency in technical assistance availability and2543funding distribution that allow us to accomplish a project. While this2544hurdle was acknowledged by Congress in the 2018 Farm Bill, few of the2545policies focused on increasing functionality. The EQIP program is a2546popular source of funding for Hawaii's cattle producers, as access to2547technical assistance is a much-needed resource. The technical2548assistance provided, such as engineering specs of a reservoir, or2549ensuring designs do not cause erosion, are essential to a producer2550successfully completing practices that benefit their operation as well2551as the community around them. Providing enough experienced staffing and2552resources to our NRCS offices is a key component of ensuring producers2553utilize the offered programs.2554    Flexibility is key to ranchers' utilization of conservation2555programs. Ensuring that producers have the freedom to effectively2556manage their land goes beyond EQIP, stretching to other conservation2557programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP has the2558potential to provide significant environmental benefit but currently2559fails to maximize its value. Changes made in the 2018 Farm Bill limit2560our ability to effectively manage CRP acreage with grazing. Livestock2561graze mature, stagnate grasses and allow regrowth of green, carbon-2562capturing plants. If we allow more CRP grazing, we will promote more2563opportunities for beginning ranchers to graze animals responsibly and2564provide existing pastures with more rest and recovery during drought2565years. This will be especially beneficial in areas where pasture is2566scarce and livestock production is rapidly dwindling like my home state2567of Hawaii. Cattle and other forms of livestock can be the sustainable2568solution to managing CRP without the negative impact on the ecosystem2569while also helping ranchers economically. HCC and NCBA support the CRP2570Grasslands pilot program, and hope to see a permanent authorization for2571this program included in a final farm bill. Grazing is a valuable tool2572in maximizing carbon sequestration but is not a tool that we are able2573to use on CRP acreage. This policy limits our ability to effectively2574manage our land. By allowing cattle to graze CRP acreage without a2575reduction in payment, we could greatly increase interest in CRP2576contracts, while simultaneously maximizing environmental value and2577economic benefit.2578    Congress has made clear its interest in building a climate-smart2579economy, including the integration of climate-smart practices into the2580agricultural industry. The Hawaii Partnership for Climate-Smart2581Commodities was a tremendous opportunity to provide incentives for2582voluntary conservation practices that also measured the direct benefits2583of the practices like managed grazing, silvopasture, and invasive brush2584management. The incentive provided the funding support to implement the2585practice, and the measurement of impacts on the soil provided a2586concrete example of benefit that the producer could be proud of and2587utilize to enhance their marketing capacity--boasting both the benefit2588of food production and regeneration of the land. While the Climate-2589Smart Commodity grant has unfortunately been canceled, we are eager to2590apply for the Advancing Markets for Producers Initiative. Our hope is2591that this funding will continue to serve the producers by incentivizing2592voluntary conservation practices that ultimately provide benefit to the2593consumer, our community. As with EQIP, technical assistance will be2594necessary for this program. We understand the goal to get as much funds2595directly to the producer as possible (in this case, the threshold is259665%). However, we suggest that funds for technical assistance be2597considered part of the direct-to-producer percentage, as this technical2598assistance is imperative to successful implementation of practices, and2599for navigating improvement of markets.2600    HCC is interested in participating in the Regional Conservation2601Partnership Program to direct funds to practices that will best address2602Hawaii's land issues. However, our colleagues currently utilizing the2603program shared that the application and reporting are cumbersome and2604laden with red-tape. For example, NRCS manages the RCPP through2605Conservation Desktop, which is a different platform than is used to2606manage EQIP and CSP contracts. This adds unnecessary complexity and2607confusion. Staff are not well acquainted with how to conduct contract2608management through the new platform, leading to errors and delays.2609Modifications that should improve the project are also slow to get2610approval. This puts stress on organizations and increases2611administrative costs. If this program can be streamlined, organizations2612like HCC, who are the closest to our producers and can get funds2613directly to the boots-on-the-ground doing the important work, will be2614better equipped to successfully implement an RCPP contract.2615    Voluntary conservation programs work because they are voluntary.2616While it seems obvious, continuing to fund voluntary conservation2617programs, while keeping them voluntary, is critical to their continued2618success. Mandated implementation, or a one-size-fits-all approach that2619accompanies top-down regulation does not work in the cattle industry.2620If these programs or practices were to become mandatory, the rules and2621regulations that farmers and ranchers would be subjected to would make2622it harder for them to utilize the unique conservation practices that2623help their individual operations thrive.2624    NRCS was created as a locally-led Federal program. While this seems2625counterintuitive, its structure has proven invaluable for farmers and2626ranchers who seek specialized solutions for local conservation2627challenges. Communities have deep knowledge of their land, ecosystems,2628and challenges and know how we can dedicate resources to the most2629urgent and high-impact issues. This insight allows conservation2630projects to be tailored to the specific needs of the area, reducing2631costly missteps often seen when national programs are forced on states2632or counties. Agriculture is never one-size-fits-all, and the most2633successful projects are those that can be flexible and adapt to the2634needs of the producer. This leads to better buy-in from the producer2635and strengthens participation in the practices that will reach USDA's2636goals. Local stakeholders are directly affected by the outcomes, which2637encourages more careful and honest use of the funds. Projects are more2638likely to be monitored and adjusted if they are falling short of2639expectations. In short, locally-led conservation combines the right2640knowledge, community buy-in, and targeted solutions to efficiently2641stretch every dollar spent.2642    As policymakers consider the sustainability of the U.S.2643agricultural industry, environmental sustainability is only one leg of2644a three-legged stool. Cattle producers strive to balance environmental2645sustainability with economic viability and social consciousness--2646maintaining this balance is key to ensuring our long-term success.2647Economic prosperity, social awareness, and voluntary conservation go2648hand-in-hand and we are always looking for new, innovative conservation2649programs that will have tangible benefits for the environment and help2650to improve our ranching lands. USDA's voluntary conservation programs2651have been a great asset to cattle producers, and it is important that2652these programs are implemented in a practical, producer friendly, and2653voluntary manner for years to come to ensure that cattle producers will2654continue to have the ability to do what we do best--produce the world's2655safest, most nutritious, abundant, and affordable protein while2656operating in the most environmentally friendly way possible. Ranchers2657across the country maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands, provide2658wildlife habitat and feed the world. Together we can sustain our2659country's natural resources and economic prosperity, ensuring the2660viability of our way of life for future generations.2661    I thank the Committee for convening this hearing and for the2662opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.26632664    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of2665the witnesses for your testimony today. At this time, Members2666will be recognized in order of seniority, alternating between2667Majority and Minority Members and in order of arrival for those2668who joined us after the hearing convened, and you will be2669recognized for 5 minutes each to allow everyone to get as many2670questions in as possible. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.2671    Dr. Sebert, I thank you for your testimony and perspectives2672on Public Law 83-566. In your view, what do you think are the2673most helpful improvements that Congress could provide to the2674Small Watershed Program and rehab program?2675    Dr. Sebert. Mr. Chairman, I would direct you----2676    The Chairman. Your microphone, Doctor.2677    Dr. Sebert. I pulled a Jimmy there. Sorry. I would direct2678you to our farm bill priorities that you are familiar with, not2679the least of which is the opportunity for NRCS to address2680remedial and repair work on aging structures that exceed the2681level for operation and maintenance for which the sponsors are2682responsible but fall short of full rehabilitation. There is a2683body of work there that needs to be addressed, and it will2684require Congress pointing NRCS to that work for that to happen.2685    The Chairman. Last year's Committee-passed farm bill2686contained provisions to specifically authorize cost-share for2687remedial actions on Pub. L. 83-566. These actions would include2688the deterioration of a component of a structure faster than2689expected or structural damage caused by a weather or storm or2690weather event. So drilling in on this further, Dr. Sebert, in2691your view, how might such a change improve the administration2692of the program? We are getting down to the nuts and bolts here.2693    Dr. Sebert. This body of work carries an element of risk,2694and the action that the policies that were put forth in that2695version of the farm bill would buy down that risk, which2696protects both the sponsors of the project as well as USDA, and,2697perhaps most importantly, those living downstream from this2698flood protection.2699    The Chairman. And just one more moment, Dr. Sebert. In the2700nature of the upstream flood control, remind our friends that2701these are smaller, interlocking dams, most of which hold no2702water, simply catch and then meter out at a safe rate these2703rainfalls. Just the general concept.2704    Dr. Sebert. Yes. These small watershed structures are built2705in a series. Many times, the head of the watershed area will2706have two to three of these structures on it that catch the2707rainfall, catch the water, and then release it over a period of27087 to 14 days rather than uncontrolled release from rain events2709in the upstream reaches of the watershed that send a flash2710flood or extensive flooding in the main tributaries.2711    The Chairman. President Boening, I appreciate your comments2712and your testimony about the need to simplify programs and2713reduce paperwork. In recent farm bills, particularly the 20142714Farm Bill, Congress was successful in program consolidation and2715simplification. Since Congress has, at times, tended to create2716similar overlapping programs, subprograms within larger2717programs and regional carve-outs, it seems to me that such2718simplification must be necessary to restore clarity and update2719the statute. What are your thoughts about recent efforts in2720Congress to streamline and simplify programs?2721    Mr. Boening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the short2722answer there is, we are very appreciative of that. I mean, that2723is one of the things I kind of said in my testimony. What2724farmers and ranchers face, remember, we want a farm and ranch,2725and that is what we do, and when things can be simplified when2726we walk into the USDA offices, it is much appreciated. So as we2727work through this, keep that thought in mind.2728    The Chairman. Absolutely. It is hard to believe having2729chaired this Subcommittee some time ago how far we have really2730come, the dramatic increases in the conservation spending in2731the 2002 program, and now this effort to take one-time money,2732what remains of it, and turn it into a permanent increase in2733baseline to work from. I think all of us in the conservation2734movement together, all of you and all of your supporters back2735home, we have had amazing success considering the ever-2736increasing challenges of legislating in the modern world.2737    With that, I thank all of you for answering my questions2738and your participation in these programs, and I turn to my2739colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member from Hawaii, for 52740minutes for questions.2741    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2022, USDA launched2742the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program, or CSC,2743which provided funding and technical assistance directly to2744farmers to help them scale climate-friendly practices like2745cover cropping, tillage management, and prescribed grazing, to2746name a few. This program was overwhelmingly popular and food2747producers across the country leveraged $3.1 billion in CSC2748funding to get shovels in the ground on cost-effective,2749partnership-based conservation projects. That was until April2750when USDA abruptly canceled the program, claiming that CSC2751projects didn't prioritize direct payments to farmers, but in2752reality, farmers were receiving direct financial and technical2753support, often exceeding the arbitrary 65-percent threshold for2754direct payments, including in the Administration's new Farmers2755First priorities. Now more than 14,000 farmers covering 3.22756million acres across the country are left wondering what will2757happen to their planned conservation work, in some cases2758already with investments made.2759    There is nothing Farmer First about yanking the rug out2760from under these farmers, if you ask me. And the USDA, we know,2761has promised to replace CSC with the Advancing Markets for2762Producers Initiative or AMP, but it is unclear when project2763reapplications will, in fact, be reviewed, how much funding2764will be available, and what farmers who are planning on this2765funding are supposed to do with the work that is already2766ongoing.2767    Ms. Galase, in your written testimony, you mentioned that2768you are eager to apply for AMP to continue projects started2769already and invested in under CSC, and you are currently in2770conversations with the USDA about this reapplication. What2771impact has frozen CSC funds had on planned conservation work2772and on your producers? What has been the impact on them given2773many have already made investments in the ground?2774    Ms. Galase. Thank you for highlighting this issue. We did2775see the Climate-Smart Commodities Program as something that was2776going to help our producers. We had funds going directly to2777farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Because it was canceled,2778those projects are canceled as well. All those contracts were2779canceled, and if a producer is extremely fortunate, they are2780going to be continuing those projects on their own dime, but2781that was not planned for, and as you know, in agriculture, you2782need to plan for years ahead.2783    We went through the hard work of getting them through the2784arduous onboarding process, and we had those funds on the2785ground. Producers were starting the work. Now they are2786essentially finished, and they don't know when they are going2787to get the funding back. And the producer engagement team, such2788as the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council who are helping with that2789difficult onboarding, a lot of the other organizations have2790lost dozens of employees who are now unemployed. And in looking2791at applying for the next Advancing Markets for Producers2792Initiative, we are now applying with a very bare-bones team.2793    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. So this has definitely had an impact2794on our producers. I know for many, they don't have the cash-2795flow to just continue on their own, and any investments made2796that have not been refunded at this particular point is a2797definite loss to their bottom line. And as you mentioned,2798employees fired are very hard to rehire in a tight labor market2799like the one that we are in.2800    A question to the panel as a whole, there has been a lot of2801discussion about technical assistance and technical support as2802being critical. Mr. McLeland, your testimony also cites the2803importance of NRCS staff being able to help farmers access the2804technical assistance they need to be able to enroll in these2805conservation programs. What we do know is with the President's2806initial budget, he actually proposed eliminating completely CTA2807funding. We do know that yesterday there was some restoration2808of that particular funding in the appropriations bill, but we2809also know that CTA funding has decreased year after year after2810year. It is never enough.2811    So to the panel, what impact is going to be the result of2812NRCS being slashed by the $800 million staffing in the2813thousands lost to NRCS and CTA funding actually decreasing, not2814increasing in terms of rural farmers, under-served farmers2815being able to access this critical conservation funding that we2816are trying to provide? I don't know who wants to take it up.2817    Mr. McLeland. It all starts with technical assistance. The2818need for support that we understand from the producers and the2819growers out there, that is where it starts, from facilitation2820to getting into the right program, to ensure that we are2821helping them address their goals and objectives. It is going to2822be very difficult to deliver incentive-based, voluntary2823programs without conservation technical assistance that it all2824builds off a solid foundation of conservation planning.2825    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. Anyone else want to answer to that?2826    Dr. Sebert. Watershed work is a long-term proposition,2827requires years of planning and work, and so any disruption of2828that flow does impact the outcome in terms of the ability to2829implement watershed program work.2830    Mr. Fink. We are similarly concerned about the damage this2831could do to the conservation delivery system, and I would just2832note that not all farmers necessarily want to enter into a2833specific farm bill program. The conservation technical2834assistance allows them to get planning and the expertise they2835need, so it is yet another important avenue for really serving2836farmers and ranchers.2837    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.2838    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now2839recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 52840minutes.2841    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the2842opportunity to join you in Committee today. A key topic, very2843important to my home district in California as well, with over2844\1/2\ million acres of rice, as well as other adaptable habitat2845for the betterment of waterfowl and conservation.2846    So as you know it, in my real life, I am a rice grower in2847the Sacramento Valley, and my farm and many of my neighbors2848utilized the EQIP program in the past and have done at least a2849certain amount of effort to provide the habitats to all the2850many species we have in the Flyway so plentiful in the2851Sacramento Valley. In the 2018 Farm Bill, there was a provision2852included that will allow the Secretary to enter into EQIP2853contracts for up to 10 years for practices solely for the2854benefit of wildlife, including post-harvest flooding. It would2855help maintain seasonal wetlands for the waterfowl and migratory2856bird habitat. So to my knowledge, USDA has still not carried2857out any contracts for longer than a few years, a couple years2858at a time. So I am curious, with the provision that we worked2859on in 2018, why have not there been more longer, up to these 102860year contracts that the bill provided for?2861    As you know, depending to what level you are participating,2862the infrastructure, the effort you might do in shaping your2863lands, shaping the irrigation systems and other aspects of what2864you would do to enhance waterfowl and conservation does require2865a certain amount of effort, a certain amount of investment in2866doing that. So for Mr. McLeland, what is your familiarity with2867EQIP putting out actual 10 year contracts, again, because if I2868was going to invest, then I would want to be able to know that2869I am going to get a return, that the money I spend, the effort2870I make, is going to be more for than just a couple years. And2871maybe I don't get to be in that contract after that and you are2872out that effort, which I think most people that participate at2873all probably wouldn't mind being in it for a longer period of2874time. It is not a hard thing. It is not like, say, in some2875cases permanent easements, which shy a lot of people away. So2876what do you think about that?2877    Mr. McLeland. Yes, thank you for the question. It is2878certainly good to have that option for sure, and each contract,2879each interaction with that producer, it is very tailored to2880their operation. So we work with them and are very sensitive to2881that, and we haven't seen as many 10 year contracts as we2882probably would have expected, generally average around 5.2883    Mr. LaMalfa. You have seen some 10 year, though?2884    Mr. McLeland. I have seen some, yes, but there----2885    Mr. LaMalfa. What state or what region they would be in2886that where you are seeing that happen?2887    Mr. McLeland. Arkansas.2888    Mr. LaMalfa. Arkansas?2889    Mr. McLeland. Yes, and we have definitely seen 5 years be2890the norm, though, one to five. One to five, and that generally2891ends up being a function of the operation and the preference of2892the landowner.2893    Mr. LaMalfa. So do you hear clamoring by growers for the 102894year contracts, or is it really a low-demand situation? What do2895you think?2896    Mr. McLeland. It seemed like to be a more low-demand2897situation.2898    Mr. LaMalfa. Because we have run into anecdotes, at least2899on that. We are wondering why NRCS is not allowing them or2900processing them or what have you as defined in the 2018 Farm2901Bill to give that additional flexibility and long-term.2902Depending to what level, to what stage you are practicing, I2903would want to know if I am making significant changes in my2904operation that if it worked for me or a neighbor, whatever,2905that you would have that option, but I guess we need to get a2906little more direct input from folks that have sought these 102907years. Anything else you would have?2908    Mr. McLeland. Again, we would like to see as long a2909contracts as we can get, so 10 years is good but definitely2910need to take some look at the implementation side of it.2911    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it is very important we tailor these two2912individual needs, as you mentioned at the top there.2913    Mr. McLeland. Yes.2914    Mr. LaMalfa. Heck, I know it is a positive thing in that,2915but we will have to get some more information together on the2916anecdotes, but is NRCS generally cooperative on doing them? Do2917they have any reason maybe in the California region that you2918are aware of that they are not putting them out internally?2919    Mr. McLeland. Not that I am aware of.2920    Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Okay. Well, we will follow up on2921that. So any thoughts you have, anybody else on the panel--I2922ran out of time already on that--please send that along to my2923office if you wish. So thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.2924Thank you.2925    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair2926now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams,2927for 5 minutes of questions.2928    Ms. Adams. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,2929Madam Ranking Member, and thank you all to the witnesses who2930have come today.2931    President Trump's 2026 budget proposal would cut funding2932that goes toward conservation technical assistance at the USDA,2933and there is language that would cut the USDA's Natural2934Resources Conservation Service staff. And yesterday, the House2935Agriculture Appropriations Majority released a bill that aligns2936with that by slashing funding by five percent below Fiscal Year29372025 to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's2938conservation operations, and so this is going to make it harder2939for farmers to get technical assistance as it relates to2940conservation.2941    So for Mr. Fink and Mr. McLeland, can you explain how2942slashing funding for operations and technical assistance2943programs affect the effectiveness of conservation programs, the2944future of farming, and the day-to-day experiences of farmers?2945    Mr. Fink. We are definitely concerned about potential cuts2946to conservation technical assistance. A lot of farmers, as I2947mentioned earlier, are not necessarily interested in entering2948contracts on farm bill programs, and so that is the funding2949that they access just to get that general technical assistance.2950And I think it is absolutely critical to recognize that for a2951lot of NRCS staff, these are boots-on-the-ground. These are2952people working directly with farmers who have trusted2953relationships. You cannot severely slash that funding without2954actually impacting the staffing component.2955    Ms. Adams. Okay. Mr. Fink.2956    Mr. McLeLand. Yes, and I would agree. As I mentioned2957earlier, conservation planning starts with technical2958assistance, and these are long-term relationships that these2959conservation planners have with these producers, and it is a2960long-term investment. As Mr. Fink mentioned, some may not be2961looking for participation in a program. They just be looking2962for recommendations and advice to address a need or concern2963that they have.2964    Ms. Adams. Okay.2965    Mr. McLeland. And so that is a very important piece of the2966foundation.2967    Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. So could you explain how2968this proposed cut might affect the intended outcomes of2969conservation efforts such as lowering production costs for2970farmers and achieving better environmental results? Yes, sir,2971you can go right ahead.2972    Mr. McLeland. Just given the importance of conservation2973technical assistance, it would be very difficult to ensure that2974the programs are implemented to the degree that that they would2975be otherwise.2976    Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, I agree with you. Well, let me move2977on. One of my main priorities on the broader Committee is2978advocating for racial equity and justice in agricultural2979spaces, and it is the same for this Subcommittee because when2980we help minority or black farmers, we help all farmers. And one2981of my signature bills, Justice for Black Farmers Act of 20232982(H.R. 1167, 118th Congress), has a few provisions related to2983conservation, such as using mandatory funding to support2984conservation technical assistance at the USDA and the2985Conservation Stewardship Program. And at a time when farmers2986are facing more climate-related pressures than ever, it is2987vital for Congress to give them the resources that they need to2988remain resilient and profitable. Hurricane Helene devastated2989Charlotte, which is where I represent, and the surrounding2990areas. Unfortunately, we have seen devastating impacts of2991natural disasters on farm country in the past few years.2992    So for Ms. Nicole, is that Galase?2993    Ms. Galase. Galase.2994    Ms. Adams. Is that right?2995    Ms. Galase. Galase.2996    Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you. So can you tell us about the2997role that USDA conservation programs like EQIP play in helping2998landowners recover from natural disasters?2999    Ms. Galase. Sure. EQIP has been really essential for3000recovering from natural disasters. EQIP funds things that3001reduce erosion. You can put in windbreaks so that there is less3002erosion, and these are things that prepare you for and when3003natural disasters come. We are seeing things like flooding. We3004are seeing things like drought. So reservoirs that EQIP funds,3005that allows us to capture the water when we need it in order to3006be prepared for when disasters like this happen. Reaching our3007historically-under-served producers, these are the producers3008who normally don't have access to these programs, and so we3009need to build the trust for them to step into those NRCS3010offices and know that they are going to get the help they need3011with the technical assistance that needs to come with it so3012they can be successful.3013    Ms. Adams. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of our3014witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.3015    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now3016recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for 53017minutes.3018    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is very3019appropriate that you mentioned the Dust Bowl and the Soil3020Conservation Service in your remarks, because it is relevant to3021what we are talking about in this Committee. And I wanted to3022share with you, when I was a young kid on the farm in Indiana,3023we had one of the worst floods that I had ever seen, and it3024took out railroad trestles and filled, as a example, a 5 gallon3025bucket of water in a very short period. Back then we fed hogs3026on wooden platforms and put feeders on them. We saw pigs going3027down that flooded stream, still on the platform, and there3028wasn't anything you could do about it.3029    But my point is the local farmers got together with the3030Soil Conservation Service and implemented the small watershed3031projects. And so when I get around to it, Dr. Sebert, I am3032going to start with you, but the question goes to all of you.3033But those small watershed projects, that went up the3034tributaries rather than a big main dam on mainstream and went3035up to tributaries, and those small dams functioned like the3036water tank on a toilet, in my opinion, and let it out slow, and3037we haven't had a flood in that area since that. I am sorry,3038sir, but anyway. But we haven't had a flood in that stream3039since then. The only thing I see happening is that they have3040come to the end of their useful life, and there is some thought3041about maybe taking those out. My suggestion would be that we3042restore them and replenish them.3043    But going on to my question, science, technology and3044innovation, they are really central to progression of American3045agriculture and have led the U.S. agricultural industry being3046the most reliable and efficient in the world. So how can we be3047sure to maintain clear eligibility requirements for these3048conservation programs that we are talking about, paving the way3049from implementation of new technologies when they come about,3050like precision agriculture, and technologies, or new land3051management practices? Dr. Sebert if you would like to comment3052on my original thoughts, and then the rest of you on this3053precision agriculture that would be appreciated.3054    Dr. Sebert.--to speak across----3055    Mr. Baird. I would rather do that than be here to tell you3056truth, but anyway.3057    Dr. Sebert.--to take you across the country and let you3058tell that story. There here are, in fact, 132 NRCS structures3059in your state at this point in time. I agree with you that in3060the majority of the cases, it is not take them out, it is3061rehabilitate them and continue to provide those benefits.3062Highway culverts, county road culverts, bridges, school bus3063routes have all grown accustomed to the protection those3064structures provide, and to take them out, in my opinion, would3065be an error, and folks would learn fairly quickly with the3066volatile weather we see around the country that something was3067doing a good job. Even though it was a silent sentinel,3068somebody didn't know it was there. They didn't know what the3069function of it was. It was providing the protection necessary3070to keep commerce going in that county and keep kids safe going3071to school.3072    Mr. Baird. Thank you. Starting with Mr. Boening, anyone3073else have a comment in this regard, especially about precision3074agriculture?3075    Mr. Boening. Yes, sir, I would like to comment. I3076appreciate the question. I got to thinking here when you went3077down that road how much has changed in my 43 year farming3078career, and things just simply like GPS has enabled us to move3079to things like minimum tillage and nutrient management, and3080those are all conservation efforts as well. When you think3081about fertilization application rates that you can tailor as3082you go across your field and apply them at variable rates to,3083then there is no excess. You don't overuse it. You don't under3084use it.3085    So precision ag, and I will share this, it has been a3086little difficult to keep up. I think my 8 year old grandson3087will be able to help me here pretty quick on some of that3088stuff, and it really ties into conservation because, like I3089said before, you can manage your nutrients. You cannot over3090overuse fuel. It has been a good thing.3091    Mr. McLeland. Yes. I would just comment quickly that I3092concur with Mr. Boening's comments here as well. And would also3093add that technology is providing opportunities for us in our3094space, too, to better utilize conservation as part on-farm3095operations where, in this case, wetlands may provide a suitable3096alternative and fit well within a farm operation, strengthening3097the bottom line and increasing profitability too. So precision3098is helping us identify those opportunities.3099    Mr. Baird. Thank you, and my time is up. I am sorry for the3100last two, but we can talk later. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.3101    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now3102recognizes an old colleague from the Science Committee, Mr.3103Sorensen of Illinois for 5 minutes.3104    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Always fun to be3105able to talk about the intersection of agriculture and science.3106    Today we are at a critical point where we must do more to3107conserve the fertility of our land by investing in soil3108resilience. Not doing so would risk the very foundation of our3109food and energy systems. Recent reports from the National3110Weather Service underscored a stark reality: our land3111management choices have real and often dangerous consequences.3112On May 1, 2023, multiple crashes occurred on Interstate 55 near3113Springfield, Illinois, in Congresswoman Budzinski's district.3114Thirty-seven people were seriously injured, and seven people3115died. The dust storm originated from freshly-tilled and planted3116farm fields picked up and lofted by 40 mile per hour winds, but3117this wasn't a onetime deal. Less than a month ago, a dust storm3118in my district southwest of Bloomington, Illinois, quickly3119tracked northeast on the heels of strong winds, causing zero3120visibility on roads and highways. And I, coming back from3121Washington, D.C. to my district, watched as the dust storm3122moved over O'Hare Airport, causing massive delays. Thankfully,3123no one died because of the quick action and the funding of the3124National Weather Service.3125    Meteorologists like me, we call these dust storms, but more3126importantly, they are erosion events, the result of overly-3127tilled, unhealthy soil, which creates dry, dusty earth that can3128easily be carried off by high wind. It is a similar tale to3129what happened in the Dust Bowl years of the Central Plains in3130the 1930s. It is not just a visibility issue. What we are3131seeing here is our nutrients go into the air and are gone, and3132we can prevent these disasters by ensuring that our farmers3133have the funding and the assistance that they need to implement3134smart ag, like no-till or cover crops that mitigate erosion and3135improve soil health over time. These practices not only ensure3136that our farmers can withstand stronger weather events, but3137also protect travelers in our communities. What happened in my3138district in Bloomington and downstate in Springfield should3139serve as a wake-up call because this could easily happen next3140May or even in this fall if we are still in drought condition.3141    The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS,3142plays a vital role in how we move forward, but it requires the3143funding and the staffing needed to meet the moment.3144Unfortunately, what we are seeing is an Administration that is3145hellbent on making cuts to USDA's workforce, specifically3146within NRCS. With a massive $300 billion cut in food assistance3147on the horizon, it is hard to envision how this Committee will3148pass a farm bill that sufficiently provides support through3149conservation programs like EQIP and CSP.3150    Mr. Boening, in March, west Texas experienced its own3151erosion event, turning the sky an eerie orange across the3152Permian Basin from El Paso to Dallas-Fort Worth. How can we3153best integrate smart agricultural practices into risk3154management planning to prevent future events?3155    Mr. Boening. Thank you for the question, Congressman. We3156have climate change. We know that. We experience it. Some of3157that is brought on by some extreme drought that we have had in3158those areas, and these conservation practices that we have been3159talking about, since 10:00 a.m. this morning, are really the3160tools that we need to use as we go forward. I mean, you3161mentioned cover crops, you mentioned minimum tillage. In some3162places, not everything works exactly the same in every area. I3163will just use my area somewhat. We cover crops on our dryland3164acres. Non-irrigated acres are difficult because of limited3165rainfall, so we go back to doing as minimum tillage as we can,3166leaving as much residue on the surface as we can, and planning3167buffer zones, whether they be wind breaks, whether they be3168grass waterways, grass strips. Those are all things that we3169need to look at as we go forward, and we need to work on the3170funding for those quite frankly, and we understand that.3171    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Boening. Dr. Sebert, my time3172is limited. I appreciate your soil and water conservation work.3173My focus in meteorology school was hydrology and stream flow3174management. Could you explain in the last 30 seconds that I3175have how important it is to lock the nutrients into the fields,3176keeping them out of the rivers, and, more importantly, how3177Congress and the Federal Government should support the effort?3178    Dr. Sebert. [Inaudible]. We can apply every conservation3179practice we know, and all it takes is one flood to take that3180away. So by controlling the flow of water across the land, we3181can lock things in place and have those remain where we have3182adequate production.3183    Mr. Sorensen. I love your idea of an all-of-the-above3184approach. I appreciate you all, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield3185back.3186    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair3187now recognizes the full Chairman of the Committee, Mr.3188Thompson, for 5 minutes.3189    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you both.3190The One Big Beautiful Bill, as passed by the House, provided3191key investments for farmers and ranchers. This includes3192necessary updates to the farm safety net, investments in3193livestock security measures, research, and trade promotion. It3194also rescinded unobligated IRA conservation funds and3195reinvested those dollars into the standing conservation3196programs. By doing so, we will have eliminated the climate3197sideboards and returned the funding to meet an important core3198principle: locally-led conservation that benefits all farmers.3199Mr. Boening, how important are these investments for our3200agriculture producers?3201    Mr. Boening. The simple answer there, Mr. Chairman, is of3202the utmost importance. We talked about all morning here, these3203programs were successful, and Chairman Lucas mentioned it in3204his opening statement, because they are flexible, they are3205voluntary, and they are locally-led. So those programs are what3206farmers have worked with and benefited from over the years. So,3207quite frankly, and it is not just the farming and ag community3208that benefit from it. It is our rural communities, it is all of3209those things, so those investments are of the utmost importance3210to farmers and ranchers.3211    Mr. Thompson. So isn't it true that in addition to just the3212fact that American agriculture can be defined as science,3213technology and innovation, coupled with this type of3214investment, and these programs really help to contribute to the3215fact that our farmers, ranchers and foresters are the climate3216champions of the world with the amount of carbon they3217sequester? And the beauty of it in agriculture, when we3218sequester carbon, we manufacture topsoil, which means we grow3219things for the benefit of everyone.3220    Mr. Boening. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.3221    Mr. Thompson. The Inflation Reduction Act required that3222funding provided by the law for conservation programs could3223only be used for climate-related practices, thereby restricting3224funding for many other practices otherwise eligible under the3225program. And some very credible individuals, including the NRCS3226chief during President Obama's Administration, for one, have3227said, it would be best if the sideboards were taken out so that3228the state technical committees and local groups can decide3229which practices work best for the natural resource concerns3230that they wish to address. Through the current reconciliation3231process, we are trying to reinvest those IRA-unobligated3232conservation funding, as we have talked about in this hearing3233already, into the existing conservation programs to provide a3234permanent increase to the title's baseline. In doing so, we3235would also remove those climate sideboards required by the IRA3236to allow for more local prioritization.3237    I will just open this up to all of our panelists. Do you3238agree that reducing, removing the climate sideboards would3239better allow it to be a locally-led process to be able to work3240and be able to use conservation practices that may vary3241depending on where in the country the farmer is actually3242farming? I can think of many places where, if you put a cover3243crop in it, would suck every last bit of moisture out of the3244ground, and you won't be able to grow a cash crop. In some3245places it gets too cold too soon to be able to do planting like3246that. So I will just open it up for anybody who would like to3247comment on that question.3248    Mr. Boening. I will just go really quickly. So by opening3249it up, removing those sideboards, it goes back to the same3250things we have been talking about: being flexible, being3251locally-led, and it is still voluntary. The climate-smart3252practices will still be eligible, so it goes back to the core3253of how these programs work the best.3254    Mr. McLeland. Yes, I will second that to say at Ducks3255Unlimited, we are fully supportive of locally-led, voluntary,3256incentive-based conservation programs that are flexible Farmer3257First, and that certainly would be the case in this instance.3258    Mr. Thompson. Very good.3259    Mr. Fink. As an organization, AFT is very supportive of3260climate-smart practices. They are essential to the3261profitability of farmers, but the number one thing that is3262limiting the ability to get these practices on the ground is3263total available funding. We support the transfer of this3264funding with or without those sideboards.3265    Mr. Thompson. And any comments--I will just finish with3266that--won't be a part of the farm bill, but it is a law today.3267The Biden Administration just never really got it together, the3268[inaudible] programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3269    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair3270now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for 5 minutes, Mr.3271Vasquez.3272    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking3273Member. It can't be lost on us today that we are sitting here3274for a hearing titled, Supporting Farmers, Strengthening3275Conservation, Sustaining Working Land, when just 3 weeks ago,3276some of my colleagues on this Committee voted essentially to3277gut the farm bill and limit the chances of passing the historic3278bipartisan farm bill. So I think if we are going to talk about3279conservation, let's talk about conservation initiatives that3280are effective, that are based in science, and that are3281supported by farmers and ranchers on the ground, not the3282talking points from the White House.3283    Because I am limited on time this morning, I am going to3284make this easy and ask our panel some simple yes or no3285questions and shift the focus to some legislation that we can3286pass as part of a farm bill, hopefully. Mr. McLeland, you3287stated that you learned early on that agriculture and wildlife3288conservation were not mutually exclusive activities, which is3289something that I completely agree with. Do you still agree with3290this?3291    Mr. McLeland. Yes.3292    Mr. Vasquez. Well, then I think you would support my3293bipartisan bill, which is the Habitat Connectivity on Working3294Lands Act of 2025 (H.R. 2235), which was written for this exact3295purpose and expands voluntary USDA programs to improve wildlife3296corridors on private working lands, including habitat for3297waterfowl and upland bird habitat. Thank you. Mr. McLeland.3298    Mr. McLeland. Thank you.3299    Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Fink, do you agree that farmer-to-farmer3300education, which creates mentorship opportunities between3301experienced and new producers, is a valuable tool for farmers3302using Federal dollars?3303    Mr. Fink. Yes. It is, in fact, one of our top farm bill3304priorities in conservation.3305    Mr. Vasquez. Well, thank you so much. That is the idea3306behind my bipartisan Farmer to Farmer Education Act of 20243307(H.R. 8488, 118th Congress), which creates mentorship3308opportunities between experienced and new producers, and I3309appreciate your support for this approach.3310    Mr. Fink. Thank you for your leadership on it.3311    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you. Ms. Galase, you said that the3312cattle industry is threatened daily by government overreach in3313part of your opening statement documents, and it is one of the3314impediments to conservation for ranchers. Is this correct?3315    Ms. Galase. Yes.3316    Mr. Vasquez. Well, I think you will be happy to support or3317endorse my bipartisan bill that is exactly what this does. The3318Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2025 (H.R. 2238) aims to fix3319this issue by removing bureaucratic delays so that ranchers can3320make much-needed improvements on time without having to3321renegotiate their leases on Federal land. Thank you, Ms.3322Galase. Mr. Boening, in your testimony, you raised concerns3323about the closure of NRCS offices, which is something New3324Mexican farmers are also facing. Is this still an issue for3325farmers in Texas?3326    Mr. Boening. Yes, sir, it is somewhat. Yes.3327    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much. Well, I am sure that you3328will also then, hopefully, support my legislation, which is the3329Honor Farmer Contracts Act (H.R. 2396), which stops the USDA3330from indiscriminately closing NRCS offices and requires the3331Federal Government to honor its already-signed contracts with3332American farmers and ranchers. Thank you, Mr. Boening.3333    I want to thank you all for your support of these3334bipartisan legislative priorities that I hope get to see the3335light of day both in this Committee and the House Natural3336Resources Committee, because these are important priorities in3337which, if we have the absence of an actual farm bill, we can3338pass to help support farmers and ranchers across the country.3339And that is why I have introduced this full package of3340legislation designed to meet those goals.3341    These are practical bills that are crafted with input from3342farmers and ranchers that strengthen conservation partnerships,3343expand wildlife corridors, and help producers sustain and grow3344their operations. I believe this is the kind of work that we3345should be focused on, both in our subcommittees and in the full3346Committee, delivering real solutions that producers in New3347Mexico and across the country are asking for. Instead, and3348unfortunately, the priorities of this Committee have advanced a3349bill that just cut SNAP and delayed or eliminated billions of3350dollars from farmers, families and food retailers. So if we are3351serious about supporting farm country, we should act like it.3352    I urge my colleagues to continue to support farmers and3353hold legislative hearings just like this one and markups on3354commonsense bills like mine that I laid out today, bills that3355actually solve our problems for our constituents and for3356farmland, and for farmers and ranchers across the country.3357Thank you so much. I yield back Mr. Chairman.3358    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now3359recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer, for 53360minutes.3361    Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for3362sharing your testimonies in Committee today.3363    My son-in-law owns a farm together we bought a few years3364ago, which, by the way, the neighboring farmer that plants it3365uses no-till, so we try to address good soil practices. To3366address some drainage and erosion problems, we have put in3367drain tile and had some earthen dams built. While it solved the3368erosion and runoff issues, it bore a hefty price tag, and it3369will take us about 3 years from the cash rent to pay off the3370upgrades that we put on that property. On the Committee, we say3371all the time, farmers are the best stewards of our land, but3372investing in soil conservation practices is neither cheap or3373risk free. The programs we are discussing here today help3374producers bridge the gap.3375    Mr. Boening, in your testimony, you mentioned that3376technical service providers play a vital role in helping3377producers reach their conservation goals, especially as they3378work through the application process. One of the complaints I3379hear from farmers back home is the complexity of the program3380application. To give some context, could you share what a3381typical application looks like and why it could present a3382barrier to entry?3383    Mr. Boening. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and3384just as a quick aside, you mentioned drainage tile. And as a3385young farmer many years ago from south Texas, I had to figure3386out what drainage tile was, why it was important, because we3387don't have that issue in most of Texas, as you well know. There3388is really not a typical application process. That is really the3389deal. They vary immensely often from county-to-county and3390state-to-state, for sure. There are a multitude of programs, as3391you well know. There are different environmental and3392conservation practices that work in those different areas.3393There is a ranking and scoring component of these applications.3394    So I guess, not to disagree with your question, but I would3395just say that there is not a really typical application3396process. And for us, that is why it ties back to the technical3397service providers that local folks that know the areas, that3398know their county, that know their region, that can provide3399that expertise, as our farmers and ranchers navigate these3400application processes.3401    Mr. Messmer. Well, thank you. Mr. McLeland, would you like3402to comment on the application issue from the lens of the RCPP?3403    Mr. McLeland. Yes, absolutely. I think just to start to say3404that the RCPP program has been effective. The 2014 version was3405very streamlined. It allowed us as technical service partners3406to provide support and get dollars in the hands of the3407producers very, very quickly, very expeditiously. In the3408process of the 2018 Farm Bill, again, the process is a little3409bit more lengthy, which kind of doesn't make it as expeditious3410in terms of going through the application process, the planning3411process, and getting the resources to the producer, so a little3412bit of a longer time lag there with RCPP as it stands right3413now, and, generally, that has to do with some administrative3414bottlenecks.3415    Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your insight,3416Mr. McLeland. The last thing I want to have is a stack of3417papers that separates private landowners from incredible3418opportunities for conservation. While we are on the topic of3419RCPP, I want to praise the success of the public-private3420investment model. By encouraging skin in the game from private3421entities, these partnerships allow conservation efforts to be3422tailored, innovative, and follow a business-minded approach.3423Mr. McLeland, given your experience with Ducks Unlimited, can3424you share how programs that encourage private investment3425increase the reach and efficiency of these conservation3426programs?3427    Mr. McLeland. Absolutely. Producers bring resources to bear3428in these projects all the time, and these projects can be3429expensive, and so continued investment is very important. And3430so, from our standpoint, looking to maximize the outcomes as3431best we can and primarily assuring that we achieve the3432producer's goals and objectives, resources are provided. So the3433more partners involved, the additional investments that are3434made generally helps ensure quality of the projects and3435maximizing the scale and scope of the projects.3436    Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back the3437remainder of my time.3438    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now3439turns to the gentlelady from Illinois for 5 minutes.3440    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, and thank you,3441Ranking Member Tokuda. I am really excited to get to serve on3442this Subcommittee again. I represent a district in central and3443southern Illinois with issues around conservation and3444biotechnology, are incredibly relevant, so it is great to be3445back. My district is the home to some of the most productive3446soil in the world. In the last Census of Agriculture, multiple3447counties in my district were in the top 15 corn- and soybean-3448producing counties in the entire country, and the farmers in my3449district are extremely driven to protect that valuable3450resource, especially as we see increased frequency of severe3451weather.3452    Over the last few years, my district has seen dry enough3453drought conditions, that we had a fatal dust storm along3454Interstate 55, as well as several tornadoes, severe flooding,3455and a derecho that hit the Springfield community as well.3456Severe weather events like these increase the risk of3457agricultural operations across the country and threaten long-3458term soil health. That is why USDA conservation programs are so3459important to my district. They can help reduce risk on the3460farm, protect soil and crops for our farmers, and improve water3461and air quality for all of us.3462    With that in mind, I want to talk about how we can help3463farmers access the critical programs to reduce the risk of3464their operations. Just as an example, in Illinois, at the state3465level, we have the Cover Crops Premium Discount Program that3466allows a $5 per acre premium discount on crop insurance for3467acres where cover crops are planted. This is a great program3468that many farmers have taken advantage of, but $5 an acre is3469certainly below the cost of adoption for cover crops. Mr. Fink,3470if I could ask you this question. I know that American Farmland3471Trust has been active in uplifting conservation practices as a3472part of risk management. In your opinion, how could the Federal3473Crop Insurance Program be updated to better reflect proven3474risk-reducing properties of conservation?3475    Mr. Fink. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. I3476will say, first and foremost, we need to make sure the crop3477insurance system is not conflicting with these good farming3478practices. There has been a lot of progress on that front.3479There is still probably more progress to be made. I think the3480other aspect is that, when we look at the crop insurance3481system, if we are talking about creating additional incentives,3482it is something that has to be actuarially sound. And the good3483news is when we look at cover crop adoption, we have seen a lot3484of the research, it is reducing overall indemnity payments in3485the face of a lot of these extreme weather events. It is also3486reducing prevent planting payments. And so whatever we can do3487that looks at the actuarial soundness, builds the research to3488make that case, and ultimately, our goal is to reward farmers3489for practices that are saving the public money and saving3490themselves money.3491    Ms. Budzinski. Great. Thank you, and maybe just a follow-up3492question for any of the panelists. If you could share how3493conservation practices have reduced risk for you or members of3494your organization, I would love to hear about that as well.3495    Ms. Galase. Some of the most important conservation3496practices that have been funded have been things like invasive3497species removal to reduce fire fuel loads and cutting fire3498breaks. This is protecting not only the ranch and the producer,3499but the community around the ranch, which makes them a good3500neighbor. It helps their business, and it is better for the3501planet.3502    Ms. Budzinski. Great. Anyone else?3503    Mr. McLeland. Yes, I would just add that, from our3504standpoint, conservation programs like WRE, Wetland Reserve3505Easement, they add to the safety net. You don't know, in my3506home State of Missouri, we see flooding somewhat frequently,3507and so the opportunity to have a program like WRE that can do a3508wetland restoration projects and be available as an option to a3509producer, is part of risk management. It can be a solution3510there in terms of taking a loss on those acres 3 out of 53511years, so it is really important, and it is decisions that we3512see get made, and we are thankful to have options for producers3513like that.3514    Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you.3515    Dr. Sebert. One of the things that hasn't been mentioned3516this morning is the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. It3517is a component of the Small Watershed Program, which, when3518administered, helps areas recover from the type of disasters3519that you are talking about, and it is an opportunity for NRCS3520to have a role in that recovery and provide that safety net to3521producers.3522    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you.3523    Mr. Boening. Just one thing quickly that hasn't been3524mentioned and as far as conservation, the feral swine program3525that was initiated in the 2018 Farm Bill is very important to3526Texas, very important to much of the southern states. And as we3527go forward, and I know this Subcommittee and the full Committee3528has probably already heard about the New World screwworm issue3529moving North. I think those types of programs are still going3530to be very, very important. Just wanted to get that mentioned.3531    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank3532you.3533    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back, and that is an3534understatement by the President of Texas Farm Bureau about the3535nature of screwworms and the curse called feral hogs, and add3536in Eastern Red Cedar, too. With that, the chair now recognizes3537the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bresnahan, for 5 minutes.3538    Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking3539Member for holding this hearing. I am honored to represent3540Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District, home to the scenic3541Pocono Mountains, and the Delaware and Susquehanna River3542watersheds. Interwoven throughout these national treasures,3543northeastern Pennsylvania is also home to over 1,000 family3544farms that help and feed to sustain our local communities. The3545continued success of this relationship between our working3546lands and our natural landscapes that surround them depends on3547a strong commonsense conservation programs like the ones we are3548discussing today.3549    Mr. McLeland, I appreciated hearing your testimony and dual3550perspective, not only as a representative of Ducks Unlimited,3551but also as someone who runs a cow-calf operation. I3552specifically want to hear more insights from your boots-on-the-3553ground perspective. Could you speak to how Ducks Unlimited3554works with the dairy and cattle industry when it comes to3555conserving land and supporting our farmers and ranchers?3556    Mr. McLeland. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that question,3557too. For us it really is multifaceted. We try our best to be3558technical assistance providers, boots-on-the-ground, so3559starting working one-on-one with those producers to help them3560achieve their conservation goals and assess opportunities for3561conservation and operational efficiency. So it starts there3562from a conservation planning standpoint, and we are grateful to3563get to work with those producers and very grateful for all that3564they do. To take it a step further there, if there are3565opportunities for or a need for financial incentives to do3566conservation programs that will also increase their3567profitability, provide wildlife habitat and ecosystem services,3568we are going to help facilitate that process and bring that3569needed financial to bear to get them again where they want to3570go. So that is our role is to facilitate that process, to be a3571source of information and help and guide them along the way as3572much as we can, and we are grateful for the opportunity to work3573in that space.3574    Mr. Bresnahan. What are the NRCS programs that are most3575utilized by farmers and ranchers like yourself?3576    Mr. McLeland. Yes. Otherwise we have been discussing here3577today, it all starts with conservation technical assistance. It3578starts there with conservation planning, getting those initial3579site visits, and then the Environmental Quality Incentives3580Program is a program that has been very important to farmers3581and ranchers. And so taking that a step further, prescribed3582grazing practices that provide infrastructure for increased3583profitability and utilization of pasture planting, native3584plantings things like that have been very popular in our3585practices that we work with quite a bit, in addition to wetland3586restoration, the suite of wetland restoration practices where3587applicable.3588    Mr. Bresnahan. I think it is important to point out the3589direct help that conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited3590provide to our farmers. Just one last question. Can you expand3591on the technical assistance that Ducks Unlimited provides and3592how that partnership with NRCS actually works?3593    Mr. McLeland. Absolutely. So we try our best to be a force3594multiplier for NRCS. We are grateful for the partnership with3595them, and in many cases, we are not in every state, but in3596states of need or high workload where our missions overlap, we3597are generally working right alongside NRCS. So we have the3598ability to do conservation planning and provide technical3599assistance, again, to help facilitate participation in3600conservation programs that address the needs of the producer.3601So again, I use that phrase, force multiplier. We try to be3602added lift out there to help address the demand. Again, it is3603to be a service to the producer, and so we are there to provide3604our expertise and support as best we can, hand-in-hand with3605NRCS.3606    Mr. Bresnahan. I appreciate that, and thank you to all the3607witnesses for giving up a day here to come in and testify. With3608that, I yield back. Thanks.3609    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now3610recognizes the gentlelady from Maryland, Mrs. McClain Delaney.3611    Mrs. McClain Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking3612Member, and thank you to all the panelists. I was listening in3613from my office, and I was very impressed by all the testimony.3614But I think I heard from all the stakeholders here that, from3615the Texas Farm Bureau, to our cattle dairy industry, to3616American Farmland Trust and Ducks Unlimited, that we all need3617to make conservation programs more practical, accessible,3618modernized, and, really, that there is adequate funding for3619conservation programs, and I wholeheartedly agree.3620    I represent many farmers in farm country in Maryland, and I3621am the daughter of an Idaho potato farmer, and I understand the3622importance of responsible land stewardship. Our farmers and3623ranchers are not just producers, they are the best stewards of3624our land and resources, and programs promoting sustainable3625agriculture and conservation are vital for protecting our soil,3626water, and forests, while keeping farms productive for many3627generations to come.3628    Our Committee, as you know, has a unique opportunity and3629responsibility to strengthen these programs and invest in the3630future of our land, but, most importantly, of our people. And3631for over 200 years, and the reason I actually joined this3632Committee, is that the House Agriculture Committee has worked3633to feed the nation and support rural America, and it is always3634done through bipartisan cooperation, and I really believe in3635bipartisanship. This year has been a little bit different. I am3636a new freshman, and instead of uniting around farmers and3637conservation, unfortunately, ideology took a little bit of the3638front seat. I look forward to working across the aisle to3639strengthen USDA conservation programs and to support our3640farmers, but I believe we must acknowledge that this3641reconciliation bill needs to have some amendments so it does3642not leave these conservation practices behind.3643    So Marylanders have long been stewards of conservation, and3644they have worked hard to sustain their lands. I have spoken to3645all my five farm bureaus and advocacy groups, and one example3646of farm stewardship that they mentioned is the Mid-Atlantic3647Dairy Farmers Producing Tangible Results Through Climate-Smart3648Change. That is a mouthful. It is a project that is supported3649by USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP, which3650we have been talking about, and this program really touches3651every quarter of my district and tracks air quality, energy,3652and feedstock impacts. I am just going to ask Mr. Boening3653really quickly, in your testimony, you mentioned the need to3654simplify the RCPP application process. What barriers are3655producers facing in RCPP, and what should our Committee3656consider when strengthening RCPP to help more farmers access3657these programs?3658    Mr. Boening. Thank you, Congresswoman. Could you repeat the3659last part of your question, yes, about what the----3660    Mrs. McClain Delaney. What barriers are you facing in RCPP,3661and what should we, as a Committee, really think about when3662strengthening this program to help more farmers access the3663program?3664    Mr. Boening. I am not intricately familiar with RCPP. I3665mean, I know what it is. We don't use it that much in our area,3666but from what I understand, it goes back to the same thing3667about having technical assistance, having folks, boots-on-the-3668ground so to speak, locally that can help producers navigate3669it. That is from what I understand.3670    Mrs. McClain Delaney. And if any other panelists want to3671add in.3672    Mr. McLeland. Yes. I might just add, to appreciate that3673question, just to go back to RCPP on the whole, it is an3674effective program. But one limitation from a partner standpoint3675is just as written right now, it is a commitment to move that3676program forward, and there are some administrative barriers and3677costs that come with that, that ultimately kind of slows the3678process down. And so, we want to be expeditious and get these3679resources into the hands of the growers that need them, and so3680there are some provisions that have been proposed that I think3681would really make that process much faster and smoother.3682    Mrs. McClain Delaney. And I am happy. I am going to claim a3683little bit of time back, but I am going to give a little3684question and submit it, and so hopefully we can address that a3685little bit more.3686    Another thing that was mentioned is, one of my top concern3687with the reconciliation bill is its impact on key farm bill3688programs. And one of them is that most critical programs, from3689rural development interests to conservation, are at risk,3690including programs like the Forest Landowner Support program3691and, as we just spoke about, the Emergency Watershed Recovery3692Program under RSCC. If funding is cut through the3693reconciliation package for programs like this, how do you see3694these impacting long-term efforts of conservation, and does it3695make sense, and what do you think is the delay of splintering3696the farm bill through this reconciliation process? I am just3697really concerned. Any of you who can weigh in, maybe something?3698    [No response.]3699    Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes, I am just concerned about, as we3700look at all of these programs and we are looking at3701reconciliation, that we leave some of these priorities behind3702that are so very important. I am running out of time, but I3703will again submit this. I know it takes a little bit more to3704think about, but I know that 360 million acres of private3705working lands or forests are in the U.S. and I am just very3706concerned about how our reconciliation process might not----3707    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.3708    Mrs. McClain Delaney. I yield back.3709    The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from3710Tennessee for 5 minutes.3711    Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, and also, thank you to3712Ranking Member Tokuda for holding this hearing, and thank you3713to our witnesses for taking time to be with us here today.3714    I believe it is fitting to begin my remarks by praising my3715fellow Committee Members and Chairman Thompson for their work3716in passing our portion of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This3717historic legislation redirects nearly $14 billion from the3718Inflation Reduction Act to critical farm bill conservation3719programs, securing permanent baseline funding. We still have3720plenty of work to do to pass a complete farm bill, but the One3721Big Beautiful Bill Act provided significant and long-overdue3722investments for our hardworking farmers in rural America.3723    As of 2022, 98 percent of the over 10,500 farms in3724Tennessee's 6th Congressional District are family farms. Today3725we have heard exceptional testimony advocating for working3726lands programs and urging Congress to refrain from allowing3727programs to retire productive and arable land. Mr. Boening, can3728you elaborate on the impact on family farms if working lands3729programs are not prioritized and if efforts to retire arable3730lands are not curbed?3731    Mr. Boening. Well, I think it will force farmers out of3732business. That is what it will come down to, and it is very3733important that that we keep moving forward with our working3734lands, and the lands that are most productive need to be3735treated that way. And then when we look at things like CRP and3736we talked about doing the soil classification and those type of3737things, I think that is what it was intended for, and that is3738the route we need to go down.3739    Mr. Rose. Thank you. I agree on that. And by the way, a3740special thank you to you. My sister, Redonna, who worked in3741Farm Bureau in Tennessee for many years, says hello and wanted3742me to say that. So I know you have a proud tradition as a3743fourth-generation farmer and it is good to have you, here and3744thank you for taking time from what no doubt is a busy3745schedule.3746    Mr. Boening. Thank you, sir.3747    Mr. Rose. Mr. Boening, staying with you, technical3748assistance accessibility from the NRCS for conservation3749programs has been an ongoing issue for years. The provisional3750changes in the Farm, Food and National Security Act address3751these changes on many levels. Can you explain in detail the3752urgency in passing these changes and what we will experience if3753adjustments to technical assistance are not prioritized?3754    Mr. Boening. Well, thanks for the question, and it goes3755back to what we have been talking about. From what I have3756mentioned and several other people have mentioned, we need3757those folks that are locally based and that technical3758assistance because there are so many different environmental3759and conservation concerns. Issues vary from state to state, and3760having that technical assistance there at a local level to help3761those producers navigate what is best for their operation. What3762is best in south Texas may not be best in Tennessee, and I3763think we all know that. So that having those technical service3764providers as boots-on-the-ground locally just enhances the3765programs, and it makes them much more effective all across the3766board.3767    Mr. Rose. Thank you. I couldn't agree more. Mr. Fink,3768between 2017 and 2022, Tennessee lost over 141,000 farming3769acres and nearly 6,900 farms. How can Congress utilize NRCS3770conservation programs to enhance environmental stewardship3771while also reversing the downward trend in production3772agriculture acres and operations?3773    Mr. Fink. One of the foremost priorities, of course, is the3774transfer of the IRA funding and providing more funding to the3775Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. That will enable3776more of those acres to remain in agriculture. And I would3777emphasize that it is not just the easement lands, it is that3778areas every farm that has lost makes another farm more3779vulnerable, so having one easement has a direct impact on other3780farms in the community. And then continuing the investment in3781these conservation practices, they are a part of what it means3782to keep farms viable. They are what makes the farms more3783resilient in the face of some of the weather that you have3784experienced. And I also want to congratulate your state for3785joining the ranks of so many other states and having one of3786those Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.3787    Mr. Rose. Absolutely, and I will just second that, very3788proud to see the General Assembly advance a plan there to3789provide those conservation easements. And I think it is an3790important first step, but, indeed, a first step in my view. We3791have to do more to protect our farmland, and it is a delicate3792issue because we don't want to intrude upon people's rights to3793do with their property as they see fit, but we do need to3794safeguard farmland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.3795    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair sees no3796one else seeking recognition to ask questions.3797    [No response.]3798    The Chairman. Before we adjourn today, I would like to3799invite the Ranking Member to share any closing comments she3800might have.3801    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much to3802our panel of witnesses for a robust and very, I believe,3803productive conversation. Some of the things that we definitely3804heard was increasing investments in conservation programs are3805something we can all 100 percent agree on. We cannot fund3806enough, especially given that the demand often and quite3807frankly, outpaces the resources that we are able to put toward3808it. But just as important as the money is the technical3809assistance and support, especially for farmers in rural, under-3810served communities, just like my home State of Hawaii. We need3811to make sure those farmers, ranchers, and producers have access3812to that kind of support and technical assistance so that they3813can actually have access to these resources and increasing, not3814slashing or even steadily decreasing. Support for programs like3815the conservation technical assistance, CTA program, is3816absolutely critical. This not only increases access, but it3817makes sure that the support and solutions are local, and that3818is something that we have also heard that as being very3819important today.3820    We have heard a lot of talk today about flexibility, but I3821believe another important word is stability. It is very3822important that we understand that farmers, ranchers, and3823producers need to be able to rely on something, and oftentimes,3824that is the NRCS staff. And so when we take a look at the3825closures in offices, the reduction in staffing and funding, the3826impact will be felt across the board from our small farmers to3827our large producers as well.3828    And in the case of Partnerships for Climate-Smart3829Commodities, now called the AMP initiative, you have 14,0003830farmers and ranchers and $3 billion in awarded funding left in3831limbo, and for many farmers, they have been left with receipts3832in hand. Too many have had to fire employees, abandon projects3833that would have been lifelines for their operations, and as3834Rep. Vasquez talked about with his Honor Farmers Contract Act,3835farmers and ranchers don't want us to be flexible with their3836funds and deliverables once it has been awarded and a contract3837signed. Stability is being true to our word, and that is3838something we also need to live up to in this building.3839    And so I truly thank you for this robust conversation, and3840I look forward to future ones as well. I yield back, Mr.3841Chairman.3842    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I recognize3843myself for much time as I might consume for a closing set of3844comments.3845    It is a pleasure, my friends, to be back here and have the3846honor of chairing the Committee with jurisdiction over not just3847biotechnology and research, but conservation. I have lived my3848entire tenure in Congress, and now being the longest-serving3849Member of the Agriculture Committee, focused on conservation3850issues: how to preserve the soil, the water, the air, how to3851make sure that these wonderful assets that were given to us by3852our predecessors, how we make sure that those assets pass on to3853our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, so3854that this nation can enjoy the things that we have. We started3855out in this great nation, as all legislative bodies do, with3856glorious intentions: the Homestead Act, a classic example of an3857effort to give every individual who wanted to work hard enough3858the ability to settle on 160 acres of land, to create their own3859legacy, their own future, and to feed the nation and the world,3860a legacy that was designed for the Midwest, which didn't work3861quite so well in different soil and different climate types.3862    My home county had 14,000 people in the 1930 Census, as I3863have told many of you, and after the bad economic decisions of3864Congress and the Federal Government, and the Federal Reserve3865System and the Great Depression, and, it so happens, the Dust3866Bowl, and the drought of the 1930s, my home county has now made3867it back to 3,400 people. But the things that we have done since3868then, policy-wise, have made a huge difference, whether it is3869the upstream flood control dams or the educational practices on3870conservation and efficiently using our resources, or the money3871we have invested on ag research to make precision agriculture3872possible.3873    This Committee, this Subcommittee, while we have a variety3874of opinions and perspectives about how to implement those3875policies, have historically worked together. Our battles in3876passing farm bills, while we disagree sometimes by region, or3877crop, or perspective, we come together in this Subcommittee and3878this Committee, and we fight our battles on the floor with3879those who may not understand the issues that we have discussed3880in our hearings, and in our field trips, and in our work3881together, and from our constituents.3882    I simply challenge all my friends, Congress is changing,3883this Committee is changing, but the principles of how the3884Agriculture Committee works, whether it is conservation or the3885other practices, still have to stand. We have to come together3886to move as a common group when we get to the farm bill. And3887whether it is fleshing out what is not done in budget3888reconciliation, the Big Beautiful Bill, or whatever the process3889may be, we have to come together and work as a team and build3890on the efforts of all of our predecessors, of all parties'3891persuasions and regions.3892    With that, thank you, witnesses, for an outstanding set of3893testimony, a willingness to answer in the most precise and3894straightforward way you possibly can, a variety of questions3895from us. This discussion will continue as the work of this3896Subcommittee and this body continues, but never forget our3897common goal for the good of the American people, and with that,3898this Subcommittee is adjourned.3899    Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's3900hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive3901additional material and supplementary written questions for3902witnesses to any question posed by a Member.3903    This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation Research3904and Biotechnology is adjourned.3905    [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]3906    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]3907 Submitted Letter by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress3908from Pennsylvania; on Behalf of Andrew W. LaVigne, President and Chief3909           Executive Officer, American Seed Trade Association3910June 5, 202539113912Hon. Frank D. Lucas,                 Hon. Jill N. Tokuda,3913Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,3914Subcommittee on Conservation,        Subcommittee on Conservation,3915 Research and Biotechnology,          Research and Biotechnology,3916House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,3917Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.;39183919Hon. James R. Baird,3920Vice Chair,3921Subcommittee on Conservation,3922 Research and Biotechnology,3923House Committee on Agriculture,3924Washington, D.C.39253926    Dear Chairman Lucas, Vice Chair Baird and Ranking Member Tokuda:39273928    Thank you for holding the hearing today focused on supporting3929farmers, strengthening conservation and sustaining working lands.3930Voluntary farm bill conservation programs provide farmers, ranchers and3931foresters with a variety of approaches to incorporating or expanding3932conservation practices on their agricultural operations. A variety of3933program types, as included in past farm bills, is important to allow3934individuals to undertake conservation practices appropriate to their3935operation, local geography and conservation goals. One of those3936programs is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).3937    CRP offers agricultural producers another form of risk management3938for their operation, in addition to the conservation and environmental3939benefits. By enrolling environmentally sensitive or marginal production3940land into CRP, producers can balance their overall operation, producing3941crops and livestock on the most productive acreage and voluntarily3942enrolling the sensitive land into CRP. CRP not only supports local3943communities through the environmental benefits, improving water3944quality, air quality and wildlife habitat and potentially generating3945revenue through increased hunting and fishing opportunities and through3946those industries and conservation experts that support practice3947adoption.3948    Members of the American Seed Trade Association support the3949continued reauthorization of CRP and providing agricultural producers3950with the opportunity to enroll acreage each year.3951    Over the last 2 years, enrollment in CRP has been included in3952annual farm bill extensions, but long term planning and management of3953the program provides certainty to farmers, program managers, and the3954industries supporting conservation practice adoption. We urge Congress3955to continue work on farm bill reauthorization, including continuation3956of annual enrollments in CRP.3957            Sincerely,3958[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]39593960Andrew W. LaVigne,3961President & CEO.3962                                 ______39633964                          Submitted Questions3965Questions Submitted by Hon. Sharice Davids, a Representative in3966        Congress from Kansas3967Response from Nicole K. Galase, Managing Director, Hawaii Cattlemen's3968        Council; on behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association3969    Question 1. According to the Kansas Association of Conservation3970Districts, in my state the Natural Resource Conversation Service (NRCS)3971field offices have lost almost \1/3\ of their workforce to deferred3972resignations. There are now 18 offices in Kansas without a full-time3973NRCS employee. Your testimony refers to the importance of local NRCS3974offices. How will reducing NRCS field office staffing impact the3975ability of producers to access technical assistance and farm bill3976conservation programs?3977    Answer. The NRCS field offices were already understaffed, and3978reducing this force will mean less resources for producers to pull on.3979It means longer wait times, less knowledge in the office, and less3980access to the conservation programs that producers often need3981assistance with. People and relationships are a key part of3982agriculture, and will less people to connect with, ranchers will have3983less access to key funding that keeps our food system going.39843985    Question 2. Your testimony refers to the importance of specific3986conservation solutions that meet the needs of local communities. I3987frequently hear from producers in my state about the unique conditions3988they face and how solutions that work in other regions do not fit their3989needs. How do you believe NRCS can do a better job of supporting3990region-specific conservation practices?3991    Answer. This is especially relevant in Hawaii, where we have higher3992costs of goods and more transportation issues to worry about. When3993standards are based on the continental needs, it leaves Hawaii3994producers with less options that work for them on an island state with3995tropical climates. NRCS can do a better job of supporting region-3996specific practices by having enough people on the ground to learn about3997those specific needs. Often, these practices [are] more cost effective3998because they match the region. Ranchers are keen to do things in the3999most efficient and effective way, and NRCS could learn a lot by4000listening to the needs of ranchers through field visits and4001consideration of amendments to practice standards.40024003                                  [all]