[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    SUPPORTING FARMERS, STRENGTHENING 
                     CONSERVATION, SUSTAINING WORKING
                                 LANDS
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, 
                              AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 5, 2025

                               __________

                            Serial No. 119-6
                            
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov
                         
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
61-618 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                              


                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking 
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
Chairman                             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California             ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice 
DON BACON, Nebraska                  Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania                         SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

       Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology

                   FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman

JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana, Vice Chair  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii, Ranking 
DON BACON, Nebraska                  Minority Member
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico, Vice 
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            Ranking Minority Member
Pennsylvania                         EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana             JOHN W. MANNION, New York
                                     APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland

                                  (ii)
                                  
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, 
  opening statement..............................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     6
    Submitted letter on behalf of Andrew W. LaVigne, President 
      and Chief Executive Officer, American Seed Trade 
      Association................................................    61
Tokuda, Hon. Jill N., a Representative in Congress from Hawaii, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5

                               Witnesses

Boening, Russell W., President, Texas Farm Bureau, Poth, TX......     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
McLeland, Christopher, Managing Director of Agriculture Programs, 
  Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Hallsville, MO..........................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Sebert, Ph.D., Dan A., original Charter Member, Senior Policy 
  Advisor, National Watershed Coalition, Pawnee, OK..............    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Fink, Tim, Vice President of Policy, American Farmland Trust, 
  Washington, D.C................................................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    28
Galase, Nicole K., Managing Director, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, 
  Hilo, HI; on behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association...    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Submitted questions..........................................    61

 
   SUPPORTING FARMERS, STRENGTHENING CONSERVATION, SUSTAINING WORKING
                                 LANDS

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
 Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., Room 
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Lucas, Baird, Rose, 
Jackson, Newhouse, Bresnahan, Messmer, Thompson (ex officio), 
LaMalfa, Tokuda, Adams, Davids, Budzinski, Sorensen, Vasquez, 
Vindman, Mannion, McClain Delaney, Craig (ex officio), Costa, 
and Riley.
    Staff present: John Busovsky, Laurel Lee Chatham, Sofia 
Jones, Joshua Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, John Konya, Suzie 
Cavalier, Kate Fink, Ari Perlmutter, Ashley Smith, Michael 
Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome and 
thank you for joining today's hearing entitled, Supporting 
Farmers, Strengthening Conservation, and Sustaining Working 
Lands. After brief opening remarks, Members will receive 
testimony from our witnesses today and then the hearing will be 
open to questions.
    In consultation with the Ranking Member and pursuant to 
Rule XI(e), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware 
that other Members of the full Committee may be joining us 
today.
    Good morning. Welcome to today's Conservation, Research, 
and Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing. Today we will be 
examining farm bill conservation programs and hearing from a 
distinguished panel of witnesses from their perspectives. Title 
II of the farm bill authorizes a suite of conservation programs 
that are critical for supporting the long-term viability of 
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. These programs have 
the dual benefit of supporting the producer and addressing 
pressing natural resource concerns at the local level. As we 
have today's discussion, hear about the programs, and discuss 
potential improvements, it is important that we have some 
context for why and how our system of farm conservation 
developed over many years.
    The roots of our conservation system date back to the 1930s 
and the actions that the Federal Government took in response to 
the Dust Bowl. In the 19th century, the Homestead Act (Pub. L. 
37-64) was enacted with the best of intentions, but it had 
unintended consequences. When settlers came West in search of 
fertile land to farm, it didn't take long for them to realize 
that the sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains were 
susceptible to erosion when unprotected, or not protected, I 
should say, by native vegetation. Coupled with severe drought 
conditions, this led to massive dust storms in Oklahoma, Texas, 
and Kansas in the 1930s. Perhaps the worst fell on April 14, 
1935, a day that has become known as Black Sunday. The dust 
storms were so severe, their effects were felt far beyond the 
Southern Great Plains, gathering attention of lawmakers in 
Washington.
    Only 13 days after Black Sunday, President Roosevelt signed 
legislation into law establishing the then-named Soil 
Conservation Service. Renamed the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service in 1996, the agency administers most of 
the farm bill conservation programs and provides technical 
assistance for others administered by the Farm Service Agency. 
Voluntary conservation practices are critically important for 
supporting agriculture and ensuring we don't have another Dust 
Bowl again. With this year marking the 90th anniversary of both 
Black Sunday and the establishment of the now-named NRCS, 
today's hearing is timely to hear more about these programs and 
how Congress may be able to further improve them.
    We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm 
Bill, and rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the 
current status of agriculture and the rural economy. This 
extends to conservation programs and reforms we can include to 
build on the progress we have made in recent farm bills. Last 
year's Committee-passed farm bill proposed historic new funding 
for conservation programs by rescinding the unobligated 
Inflation Reduction Act funding and reinvesting it in Title II. 
The House-passed reconciliation bill similarly reinvested the 
unobligated IRA funding into the conservation title. 
Reallocating those dollars would increase the title's baseline 
over the long-term, making it a permanent investment in 
conservation programs. It also allows for continued support for 
orphan programs, increased funding for successful programs like 
Small Watershed Program, and the creation of new forestry 
easement program.
    In addition to funding, last year's bill placed an emphasis 
on science, technology, and innovation. The bill makes 
precision agriculture specifically eligible for cost-share 
under EQIP and CSP, requires more frequent updates to 
conservation practice standards, and creates an office of 
innovation at the Office of the Secretary. The bill streamlines 
RCPP, provides commonsense flexibility for ACEP, and reforms 
the Technical Service Provider Program. The bill also proposes 
a modernization of CRP and focusing the program on marginal 
lands by incorporating soil capacity class into rental rates 
for general enrollment. These are all welcome changes intended 
to improve program administration and make them more producer 
friendly.
    Farm bill conservation programs have been so successful 
because they are voluntary, incentive based, and producer-
first. The programs have also been so effective because they 
are locally-led, which allows for states and regions to 
determine the priority natural resource concerns. As we think 
about the next farm bill, it is important for us to keep all of 
this in mind. Conservation programs have been so effective 
because of the flexibility built into them and because we have 
continually encouraged the local-led process to work. I am 
proud of the work that this Committee has done over the past 
several farm bill cycles to improve the programs because we 
know voluntary conservation works.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Oklahoma
    Good morning. Welcome to today's Conservation, Research, and 
Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing. Today we will be examining farm 
bill conservation programs and hearing from a distinguished panel of 
witnesses for their perspectives.
    Title II of the farm bill authorizes a suite of conservation 
programs that are critical for supporting the long-term viability of 
farmers, ranchers and rural communities. These programs have the dual 
benefit of supporting the producer and addressing pressing natural 
resource concerns at the local level.
    As we have today's discussion, hear about the programs, and discuss 
potential improvements, it is important that we have some context for 
why and how our system of farm conservation developed over many years. 
The roots of our conservation system date back to the 1930s and the 
actions that the Federal Government took in response to the Dust Bowl.
    In the Nineteenth century, the Homestead Act was enacted with the 
best intentions, but it had unintended consequences. When settlers came 
west in search of fertile land to farm, it didn't take long for them to 
realize the sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains were susceptible 
to erosion when not protected by native vegetation. Coupled with severe 
drought conditions, this led to massive dust storms in Oklahoma, Texas, 
and Kansas in the 1930s. Perhaps the worst fell on April 14, 1935, a 
day that has come to be known as ``Black Sunday.''
    The dust storms were so severe that their effects were felt far 
beyond the Southern Great Plains, garnering the attention of lawmakers 
in Washington. Only 13 days after Black Sunday, President Roosevelt 
signed legislation into law establishing the then-named Soil 
Conservation Service. Renamed the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service in 1996, the agency administers most of the farm bill 
conservation programs and provides technical assistance for others 
administered by the Farm Service Agency.
    Voluntary conservation practices are critically important for 
supporting agriculture and ensuring we don't have another Dust Bowl 
again. With this year marking the 90th anniversary of both Black Sunday 
and the establishment of the now-named NRCS, today's hearing is timely 
to hear more about these programs and how Congress may be able to 
further improve them.
    We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm Bill and 
rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the current state of 
agriculture and the rural economy. This extends to conservation 
programs and reforms we can include to build on the progress we've made 
in recent farm bills.
    Last year's Committee-passed farm bill proposed historic new 
funding for conservation programs by rescinding the unobligated 
Inflation Reduction Act funding and reinvesting it into Title II. The 
House-passed reconciliation bill similarly reinvests the unobligated 
IRA funding into the conservation title. Reallocating those dollars 
would increase the title's baseline over the long term, making it a 
permanent investment into conservation programs. It also allows for 
continued support for the orphan programs, increased funding for 
successful programs like the Small Watershed Program, and the creation 
of a new forest easement program.
    In addition to funding, last year's bill placed an emphasis on 
science, technology and innovation. The bill makes precision 
agriculture specifically eligible for cost-share under EQIP and CSP; 
requires more frequent updates to conservation practice standards; and 
creates an office of innovation in the Office of the Secretary.
    The bill streamlines RCPP; provides commonsense flexibilities for 
ACEP; and reforms the technical service provider program. The bill also 
proposes a modernization of CRP and focusing the program on marginal 
lands by incorporating soil capability class into rental rates for 
general enrollment.
    These are all welcomed changes intended to improve program 
administration and make them more producer friendly. Farm bill 
conservation programs have been so successful because they are 
voluntary, incentive-based and producer-first. The programs have also 
been so effective because they are locally-led, which allows for the 
states and regions to determine the priority natural resource concerns.
    As we think about the next farm bill, it's important for us to keep 
all of this in mind. Conservation programs have been so effective 
because of the flexibility built into them and because we have 
continually encouraged the locally-led process to work. I'm proud of 
the work that this Committee has done over the past several farm bill 
cycles to improve the programs because we know that voluntary 
conservation works.
    I'd like to welcome all of our witnesses today; and thank Ranking 
Member Tokuda for her partnership on this hearing. With that, I yield 
to the Ranking Member for any opening remarks she would like to 
provide.

    The Chairman. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses 
today and thank Ranking Member Tokuda for her partnership on 
this hearing. And with that, I yield of the Ranking Member for 
any opening remarks that she would like to provide.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JILL N. TOKUDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                      CONGRESS FROM HAWAII

    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning. Aloha, everyone. Thank you for being at our hearing 
today. As Ranking Member, I am proud to join you and our 
colleagues in reaffirming a shared commitment to supporting 
America's farmers, ranchers, and producers through smart, 
effective conservation policy. I also want to thank our panel 
of witnesses for being here today and extend an especially warm 
mahalo to Nicole Galase for traveling all the way--I think she 
came the farthest--all the way from Hawaii to share the 
perspective of food producers operating in some of the most 
remote and climate vulnerable parts of the country.
    Now, let's begin with some common ground. USDA conservation 
programs work, whether it is EQIP, CSP, ACEP, RCPP, the whole 
alphabet soup of acronyms. These programs provide practical 
tools to improve soil health, manage water more efficiently, 
and keep operations productive and resilient, but here is the 
hard truth. The weather isn't what it used to be. No matter 
what you want to call it--climate change, extreme weather, 
shifting seasons--our producers are living it every day. Longer 
droughts, harder rains, heat waves in April, frost in May, it 
is getting harder to grow the food, fuel, and fiber that this 
country relies on, and that is not a partisan talking point. It 
is reality for farmers and ranchers across this country.
    Programs like EQIP and CSP can help producers adapt, but 
they have been chronically under-funded for decades, turning 
away thousands of qualified farmers each year, not because the 
programs don't work, but because demand far exceeds supply. 
That is why the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) was 
such a turning point. The conservation investments in the IRA 
weren't just a budget line, they were a statement, a bold time-
limited, once-in-a-generation effort to meet demand head on and 
finally give producers the access and the technical support 
they need to take on the challenges they are facing today.
    Now, yes, we have seen bills that move IRA dollars into the 
baseline USDA conservation budget. And that is a good thing, 
and on the surface that might look like a step towards 
stability, but let us not lose sight of what made the IRA 
conservation funding different and powerful. The IRA wasn't 
about business as usual. It was about breaking the log jam. It 
opened the flood gates to let more farmers and more ranchers 
get the support they have been asking for, for many, many 
years, and let me be clear: this is not about left or right. It 
is about forward.
    Whether you are in red states, blue states, purple states, 
or farm country, right in between, producers are not asking for 
politics. They are asking for access, for flexibility, for 
conservation tools that make their land more resilient, their 
water more efficient, and their operations more secure because 
their livelihoods, as you all know, depend on it and so does 
our nation's food supply. So as we move forward, whether a farm 
bill or broader conservation planning, let's protect not just 
the dollars, but the spirit behind what was in the IRA: 
urgency, scale and the recognition that changing conditions 
require bold action, not modest tweaks. So let's make sure that 
in the name of stability, we don't slip back into scarcity. Our 
producers don't need diluted promises. They need real, timely 
farmer-focused support because the weather is not waiting and 
neither should we.
    I look forward to our dialogue today and to working with 
this Committee to continue improving the effectiveness of NRCS 
programs, supporting our staff, and supporting Americans' 
agriculture through thoughtful and innovative conservation 
practices. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to 
hearing from our panel, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Tokuda follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jill N. Tokuda, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Hawaii
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening today's 
hearing.
    As Ranking Member, I'm proud to join you and our colleagues in 
reaffirming a shared commitment to supporting America's farmers, 
ranchers, and producers through smart, effective conservation policy. I 
also want to thank our panel of witnesses for being here, and extend a 
warm mahalo to Nicole Galase for traveling all the way from Hawai`i to 
share the perspective of food producers operating in some of the most 
remote and climate-vulnerable parts of the country.
    Let's begin with common ground: USDA conservation programs work. 
Whether it's EQIP, CSP, ACEP, or RCPP, these programs provide practical 
tools to improve soil health, manage water more efficiently, and keep 
operations productive and resilient.
    But here's the hard truth: the weather isn't what it used to be. No 
matter what you call it--climate change, extreme weather, shifting 
seasons--our producers are living it every day. Longer droughts, harder 
rains, heatwaves in April, frost in May--it's getting harder to grow 
the food, fuel, and fiber that this country relies on.
    And that's not a partisan talking point. It's a reality for farmers 
and ranchers across America.
    Programs like EQIP and CSP can help producers adapt. But they've 
been chronically under-funded for decades, turning away thousands of 
qualified farmers each year--not because the programs don't work, but 
because demand far exceeds supply.
    That's why the Inflation Reduction Act was such a turning point. 
The conservation investments in the IRA weren't just a budget line--
they were a statement. A bold, time-limited, once-in-a-generation 
effort to meet demand head-on and finally give producers the access--
and the technical support--they need to take on the challenges they're 
facing today.
    Now, yes, we've seen bills that move IRA dollars into the baseline 
USDA conservation budget. On the surface, that might look like a step 
toward stability. But let's not lose sight of what made the IRA 
conservation funding different--and powerful.
    The IRA wasn't about business as usual. It was about breaking the 
logjam. It opened the floodgates to let more farmers and ranchers get 
the support they've been asking for--many for years.
    And let me be clear: this is not about left or right. It's about 
forward.
    Whether you're in red states, blue states, or farm country in 
between, producers are not asking for politics. They're asking for 
access. For flexibility. For conservation tools that make their land 
more resilient, their water use more efficient, and their operations 
more secure--because their livelihoods depend on it, and so does our 
national food supply.
    So as we move forward--whether in the farm bill or broader 
conservation planning--let's protect not just the dollars, but the 
spirit behind the IRA: urgency, scale, and the recognition that 
changing conditions require bold action, not modest tweaks.
    Let's make sure that in the name of stability, we don't slip back 
into scarcity. Our producers don't need diluted promises. They need 
real, timely, farmer-focused support--because the weather's not 
waiting, and neither should we.
    I look forward to our dialogue today, and to working with this 
Committee to continue improving the effectiveness of NRCS programs and 
supporting American agriculture through thoughtful and innovative 
conservation practices.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the Chairman of the full Committee for any opening 
comments he would like to make. Chairman Thompson.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. I know it is not easy making 
the trip to Washington. I really appreciate your willingness to 
participate in today's hearing. I also want to thank Mr. Lucas 
for serving as a Subcommittee Chairman at this critical time. 
There is no Member more capable to help navigate the vital 
issues of working lands conservation at this moment in time 
than our esteemed former full Committee chair, so thank you, 
Frank.
    As a former Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have been 
proud to support these programs, and I have seen firsthand how 
voluntary conservation directly benefits the producer, soil and 
water, wildlife habitat, and so much more. Title II programs 
have been so successful for many reasons, fundamentally because 
our motto of conservation is voluntary, incentive based, and 
locally-led. The locally-led part is important, and we must 
continue to protect that aspect of the programs as we consider 
reforms within a new farm bill.
    The Farm, Food, and National Security Act (H.R. 8467, 118th 
Congress) was passed by this Committee last year and contains 
many bipartisan priorities in its conservation title to build 
on the gains that we have made in recent farm bills. This 
includes reforms to improve the administration of RCPP, ACEP, 
and the Small Watershed Program. The bill encourages more 
innovation in the programs by requiring more frequent updates 
to conservation practice standards and makes precision 
agriculture eligible for cost-share in EQIP and CSP. It also 
proposed a modernization of CRP and important improvements to 
the technical services provider program. And while these are 
just some of the reforms this Committee can take to improve the 
administration of each program, we also have a tremendous 
opportunity at this Congress to bolster conservation programs 
over the long-term with significant new funding. The Farm, 
Food, and National Security Act also proposed rescinding the 
unobligated IRA conservation funding and reallocating it into 
Title II. House Republicans are now trying to provide similar 
reinvestment through the reconciliation process. Instead of 
letting the IRA funding expire, investing it would provide 
additional funding for the programs that we all know work and 
increase the baseline for the conservation title into 
perpetuity.
    Rural America continues to face great economic challenges, 
and I look forward to working with all of you on strategic 
investments and policy updates to meet the needs of our 
producers and the agricultural value chain. Thank you again to 
our witnesses for your time today, and we look forward to 
hearing your testimonies and appreciate your expertise with the 
farm bill conservation programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With 
that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize the 
Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Craig, for any 
opening comments that she would like to make.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                    CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

    Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so pleased to be 
here with fellow strong advocates for conservation programs. 
Thank you to each of our witnesses for making time to come up 
to the Hill today, to share your expertise with us, and a 
special shout-out to Ms. Galase, who has traveled 5,000 miles 
to be with us here today.
    Our farmers are the natural caretakers and stewards of our 
land. USDA's conservation programs help continue that legacy 
while diversifying farm income streams and helping farmers' 
bottom line. Conservation is essential to keeping our farm and 
forest lands working for generations to come. Over the last 
decade my state, Minnesota, has received over $875 million from 
Natural Resources Conservation Service programs to help 
producers with everything from planting cover crops and 
pollinator habitat to implementing reduced tillage and manure 
management.
    For example, in my district in Rice County, conservation 
champions, like John and Debbie Becker, have enrolled land in 
the Conservation Reserve Program to protect the country's only 
self-sustaining trout stream, and more recently, they have used 
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to fund planting 
cover crops. Of course, that is the county's only, not the 
country's only, and through the Conservation Stewardship 
Program, Mike and Kay Peterson have added critical area 
plantings of native prairie on highly-erodible end rows where 
erosion occurred year after year. These programs are popular 
because they work. Moving forward, there are some significant 
issues I believe we must address to get more conservation on 
the ground.
    First, I would be remiss not to mention my significant 
concern with the current Administration's hollowing out of 
NRCS. In Minnesota alone, we have lost more than 70 dedicated 
NRCS employees. Without dedicated and qualified staff working 
from farmer service centers in rural America, these programs 
cannot succeed. Yet the President's budget recommends 
completely zeroing out conservation technical assistance, 
further jeopardizing our ability to implement extremely popular 
farm bill conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. This will 
hurt farmers not help them.
    Second, NRCS programs remain oversubscribed. We have to 
protect the remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation 
funding by rolling it into the farm bill baseline, and we 
should do it in a manner that preserves the original intent of 
the investment and without busting up the farm bill coalition. 
We must make sure that money stays in the voluntary, incentive-
based conservation programs that our farmers rely on. The 
investments we made in conservation programs through the IRA 
might be a once-in-a-lifetime, and we shouldn't give up those 
gains. I am glad the Majority has recognized the importance and 
success of the IRA and joined us in trying to get this across 
the finish line.
    Last, it has been too long since we have reauthorized a 
full 5 year farm bill. There are commonsense, bipartisan 
changes that everyone agrees need to be made. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues, our witnesses, and the broader 
conservation community to protect and improve the farm bill's 
conservation programs. We have a tremendous opportunity to 
streamline program delivery, increase incentives for producer 
participation, and preserve farm, ranch, and forest lands for 
current farmers and our children, and especially for those of 
us who have them, our grandchildren. Thank you Mr. Chairman and 
I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Minnesota
    I'm pleased to be here with fellow strong advocates for 
conservation programs. Thank you to each of our witnesses for making 
time to come up to the Hill and share your expertise with us. And a 
special shout-out to Ms. Galase for traveling nearly 5,000 miles from 
Volcano, Hawaii--we appreciate you making the journey to be here today.
    Our farmers are the natural caretakers and stewards of our land.
    USDA's conservation programs help continue that legacy while 
diversifying farm income streams and helping farmers' bottom line. 
Conservation is essential to keeping our farm and forest lands working 
for generations to come.
    Over the last decade, my state, Minnesota, has received over $875 
million from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs to 
help producers with everything from planting cover crops and pollinator 
habitat to implementing reduced tillage and manure management.
    For example, in my district in Rice County, conservation champions 
like John and Debbie Becker have enrolled land in the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) to protect the county's only self-sustaining 
trout stream, and more recently, they've used the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program (EQIP) to fund planting cover crops. And through the 
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Mike and Kay Peterson have 
added critical area plantings of native prairie on highly-erodible end 
rows where erosion occurred year after year.
    These programs are popular because they work. Moving forward, there 
are some significant issues I believe we must address to get more 
conservation on the ground.
    First, I would be remiss not to mention my significant concern with 
the current Administration's hollowing out of NRCS. In Minnesota alone, 
we've lost more than 70 dedicated NRCS employees. Without dedicated and 
qualified staff working from Farmer Service Centers in rural America, 
these programs cannot succeed. Yet, the President's budget recommends 
completely zeroing out Conservation Technical Assistance, further 
jeopardizing our ability to implement extremely popular farm bill 
conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. This will hurt farmers, not 
help them.
    Second, NRCS programs remain oversubscribed. We've got to protect 
the remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding by rolling 
it into the farm bill baseline. And we should do it in a manner that 
preserves the original intent of the investment and without busting up 
the farm bill coalition. We must make sure that money stays in the 
voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs that our farmers rely 
on. The investments we made in conservation programs through the IRA 
might be once-in-a-lifetime, and we shouldn't give up those gains. I am 
glad the majority has recognized the importance and success of the IRA 
and joined us in trying to get this across the finish line.
    Last, it's been too long since we've reauthorized a full, 5 year 
farm bill. There are common sense, bipartisan changes that everyone 
agrees need to be made. I look forward to working with my colleagues, 
our witnesses and the broader conservation community to protect and 
improve the farm bill's conservation programs.
    We have a tremendous opportunity to streamline program delivery, 
increase incentives for producer participation and preserve farm, ranch 
and forest lands for current farmers and our children and 
grandchildren.
    Thank you and I yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you. The chair would request that other 
Members submit their opening statements for the record so that 
the witnesses may begin their testimony and to ensure that 
there is ample time for questions.
    Our first witness today is Mr. Russell Boening, President 
of the Texas Farm Bureau. Our next witness is Christopher 
McLeland, the Managing Director of the Agricultural Programs, 
Ducks Unlimited. Our third witness today is Dr. Dan Sebert, who 
is Senior Policy Advisor and former Executive Director of the 
National Watershed Coalition. Our next witness is Mr. Tim Fink, 
the policy director at the American Farmland Trust. And I will 
turn to my colleague to introduce her constituent, my fellow 
cattleman.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our fifth and 
final last, but not least, witness today is Ms. Nicole Galase, 
the Executive Director of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. 
Mahalo, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining 
us today, and we will now proceed with our testimony. You will 
each have 5 minutes. The timer is in front of you. It will 
count down to zero at which your time will expire, and with 
that, Mr. Boening, please begin when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL W. BOENING, PRESIDENT, TEXAS FARM BUREAU, 
                            POTH, TX

    Mr. Boening. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here and testify today. My name is Russell Boening. I am a 
fourth-generation farmer and President of the Texas Farm 
Bureau. Along with my brother, we produce grain, cotton, and 
wheat while operating a 450-cow dairy and a beef operation 
outside of Polk, Texas, which is right southeast of San 
Antonio. It is an honor to be here on behalf of our member 
families of the Texas Farm Bureau.
    Voluntary conservation practices have become a cornerstone 
of modern agriculture. Our family implements conservation 
practices to improve water quality, soil health, and wildlife 
habitat, while keeping our land productive, but we are not 
unique. Farmers across Texas and across this whole country are 
seizing the opportunity to utilize conservation programs. For 
decades, USDA, NRCS, and FSA programs have assisted farmers in 
executing on-farm conservation practices. Farmers rely on 
working lands programs such as EQIP, CSP, and RCPP. These 
programs are highly successful, and the greatest challenge for 
producers is just gaining entry.
    All of these programs have become increasingly 
oversubscribed with demand consistently surpassing available 
funding. For Texans, EQIP is of the utmost importance given the 
50 percent set-aside for livestock operations. In 2022, the 
Inflation Reduction Act allocated additional funding for these 
working lands programs. Currently, this IRA funding is 
temporary and does not alter the permanent baseline funding 
established by the 2018 Farm Bill. The One Big Beautiful Bill 
Act (Pub. L. 119-21) that has passed the House last month 
infuses roughly $11 billion in unspent IRA funding into this 
baseline for these programs, while also adding $8 billion in 
additional baseline funding. Incorporating the IRA funds into 
the baseline would ensure that these funds continue into 
perpetuity and farmers can stay committed to their conservation 
work.
    CRP is a voluntary land retirement program that assists 
farmers in removing environmentally-sensitive land from ag 
production. For many farmers, CRP serves as an important farm 
safety net by providing a reliable source of income during 
times when crop prices are low or when certain acres are less 
productive due to environmental challenges. By enrolling 
vulnerable or less profitable land in CRP, farmers can receive 
a guaranteed annual rental that helps stabilize their cash-
flow, thereby reducing financial stress and risk.
    We support the approach taken in the Committee's bill that 
proposes using soil classification to determine CRP payments. 
This approach could better align rental rates with the 
productivity and environmental value of the land enrolled. By 
factoring in soil classification, payments could be more 
accurately tailored to reflect the potential ag value and 
conservation benefits of specific parcels. It would create a 
payment scale that incentivizes the enrollment of 
environmentally-sensitive areas, which focuses on the parcels 
of land that the program was originally designed to protect.
    Farmers often express concern about the shortage of 
technical service providers available to assist with these 
conservation practices as this lack of support can delay or 
limit their ability to implement these programs. Without 
sufficient TSPs, producers may struggle to develop conservation 
plans, complete necessary documentation, or receive expert 
guidance on selecting the effective practices tailored for 
their land. This shortage can be especially challenging in 
rural or under-served areas where access to trained 
professionals is already limited.
    Expanding and better supporting the network of TSPs is 
essential to ensure farmers can successfully navigate 
conservation programs and achieve meaningful environmental 
outcomes. Congress must invest in the TSPs that assist farmers 
in executing these practices. We strongly advocate that the 
Committee work to make all conservation programs more 
practicable, accessible, and supportive of modern agricultural 
challenges. Our members continue to advocate for increased 
funding and higher payment rates to better reflect the true 
cost of implementing and maintaining conservation practices. 
Also, simplifying application processes and reducing paperwork 
are top priorities, especially for small and beginning farmers 
who may lack the time or resources to navigate these complex 
requirements. Farmers seek more flexibility in program 
contracts and practice options to tailor their conservation 
efforts to their unique operations.
    We ask Members of this Subcommittee to work towards 
reauthorizing the farm bill to ensure that farmers have access 
to conservation programs that promote environmental 
stewardship. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Boening follows:]

Prepared Statement of Russell W. Boening, President, Texas Farm Bureau, 
                                Poth, TX
    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the 
importance of voluntary conservation practices and the benefits they 
provide to our producers and the environment. My name is Russell 
Boening, I am a fourth-generation farmer and President of the Texas 
Farm Bureau. Along with my brother, we raise grain, cotton, and wheat 
while operating a 450-head dairy and beef operation outside of Poth, 
Texas. It is an honor to be here on behalf of the 540,000 members of 
the Texas Farm Bureau.
    Voluntary conservation practices have become a cornerstone of 
modern agricultural operations, playing a crucial role in balancing 
productive farming with environmental stewardship. These practices 
allow farmers and ranchers to proactively manage their land in ways 
that protect soil health, conserve water, enhance wildlife habitat, and 
reduce pollution--all while maintaining or even improving crop and 
livestock yields. For several decades, our family has implemented 
voluntary conservation practices in a variety of ways to improve water 
quality, soil health, and wildlife habitat while keeping our land 
productive. Our family is certainly not unique--farmers across Texas 
and the country are seizing the opportunities to improve their 
environmental impacts and incorporating conservation practices into 
their business models. As an industry, we have seen improvements in 
soil health and water quality throughout the communities where we work 
and live.
Overview of Conservation Programs
    Authorized under title II of the farm bill, the United States 
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs have assisted farmers in 
executing on-farm conservation practices for decades. The agency 
provides a variety of programs and an extensive menu of conservation 
practices for farmers to choose from to address their environmental 
goals. NRCS provides cost-share and technical assistance, while keeping 
the programs voluntary and farmer led. I am proud to be here advocating 
for these programs and the farmers who use them.
Acres (in Thousands) Enrolled in NRCS Programs, FY 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Including EQIP, CSP, RCPP, CRP, ACEP and technical 
        assistance.
          Source: USDA NRCS; AFBF calculations.

    Last year, the House Agriculture Committee passed the Farm, Food, 
and National Security Act of 2024, led by Chairman GT Thompson. The 
Texas Farm Bureau appreciates the continued commitment that Members of 
this Subcommittee have in improving the function of conservation 
programs. Farmers rely on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
(EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP) to address natural resource concerns. Simply put--each of 
these programs are essential to achieving our sustainability mission.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
    Since its inception, EQIP has consistently been one of the most 
popular conservation programs for farmers and ranchers. The program 
provides financial and technical assistance to producers for 
implementing conservation practices on their land that helps to improve 
water and air quality, conserving ground, and surface water, increasing 
soil healthy by limiting erosion and sedimentation and numerous other 
benefits. We have seen, especially in Texas, the benefits of EQIP are 
wide ranging for livestock and crop producers alike.
    As a working lands program, EQIP provides flexibility by adapting 
to a farmer's specific situation, offering a wide range of conservation 
options, supporting diverse producers, and allowing for customized 
planning and implementation timelines. This makes it a valuable tool 
for sustainable agriculture without forcing a one-size-fits-all 
approach. EQIP supports a wide variety of practices--from improving 
irrigation systems to managing livestock waste--so farmers can address 
the environmental challenges most relevant to their farms. With 
customizable conservation plans, variable contract lengths, and 
multiple application periods throughout the year, farmers can adopt 
improvements at a pace and scale that works for them. Additionally, 
EQIP provides higher payment rates and priority support for beginning, 
socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers, making conservation more 
accessible and adaptable for a diverse range of producers. In Texas, 
the EQIP program has helped install terrace and waterway systems that 
reduce sediment loss and nutrient runoff, improve irrigation systems 
and water use efficiency, and maximize grazing systems--just to name a 
few.
    Including livestock operations in the EQIP is essential for 
supporting comprehensive, sustainable agriculture. Under current law, 
50% of EQIP funding is set aside for livestock-focused practices. 
Livestock producers face unique conservation challenges, such as 
managing manure, protecting water sources, and maintaining healthy 
grazing lands--all of which have significant environmental 
implications. EQIP provides critical financial and technical assistance 
that enables livestock farmers to implement practices like nutrient 
management, rotational grazing, fencing to protect streams, and 
improved waste handling systems. These practices not only help reduce 
pollution and improve soil and water quality but also enhance animal 
health and operational efficiency. By including livestock in EQIP, the 
program ensures that conservation efforts address the full spectrum of 
agricultural systems, promoting environmental stewardship across both 
crop and animal production.
    Due to its popularity, EQIP has become increasingly oversubscribed, 
with demand consistently surpassing available funding. In Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2023, the program received 134,450 applications nationwide but was 
only able to award contracts to 34,222 applicants, reflecting a 
nationwide acceptance rate of approximately 25% . This high demand has 
led to significant disparities in contract awards across states, with 
some states awarding contracts to fewer than 20% of applicants.
Figure 2. National Overview of Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
        Performance (USDA)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          [https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/09/farm-bill-2023-
        nrcs-backlogs-and-the-conservation-bardo.html]
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
    Another popular working lands conservation program utilized by our 
members is CSP. CSP is designed for farmers, ranchers, and forest 
landowners who are already implementing conservation practices and wish 
to enhance their environmental stewardship. The program offers 
financial and technical assistance to help producers expand their 
conservation efforts by adopting additional practices or improving 
existing ones. Participants receive annual payments for maintaining and 
improving their conservation activities, with contracts typically 
lasting 5 years. In FY 2024, USDA increased the minimum annual payment 
for CSP participants from $1,500 to $4,000 to better support small-
scale, under-served, and urban producers, making the program more 
accessible and equitable. CSP's comprehensive approach encourages 
producers to address multiple resource concerns simultaneously, such as 
soil health, water quality, and wildlife habitat, leading to more 
sustainable and resilient agricultural operations. This structure 
benefits farmers who are already committed to sustainability and like 
EQIP, provides flexibility allowing producers to choose from a wide 
variety of enhancements that suit their operation's needs.
    Like EQIP, CSP supports conservation practices that support our 
greatest natural resource concerns such as:

   Soil Health Improvements: These practices help improve soil 
        structure, reduce erosion, and increase organic matter such as, 
        cover cropping, reduced or no-till, crop rotation enhancements 
        and precision nutrient and pesticide application.

   Water Conservation: These practices help conserve water and 
        improve irrigation efficiency, especially important in drought-
        prone areas such as, improved irrigation systems, irrigation 
        scheduling, water recycling or reuse systems.

   Grazing and Livestock Management: These practices enhance 
        pasture health, reduce overgrazing, and protect water quality, 
        such as prescribed grazing systems, rotational grazing, 
        improved livestock watering systems.

   Wildlife Habitat Enhancement: These efforts provide food and 
        shelter for wildlife, including pollinators and threatened 
        species, such as planting native species, creating buffer 
        strips or field borders, restoring wetlands or riparian areas.

   Climate-Smart Practices: These practices contribute to 
        greenhouse gas reduction and help farms become more resilient 
        to climate impacts such as, carbon sequestration activities, 
        agroforestry, composting, and manure management.

    Like EQIP, CSP is consistently oversubscribed, with demand from 
farmers far exceeding available funding and enrollment capacity. Each 
year, thousands of producers who apply to enhance conservation efforts 
on their working lands are turned away due to limited resources.
Overprescription of Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Source: USDA NRCS ProTract.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
    Another conservation initiative authorized by the farm bill is 
RCPP, which promotes collaboration between the USDA and local, state, 
and private partners to address regional natural resource concerns. 
RCPP enables partners--such as conservation groups, agricultural 
organizations, Tribal governments, and municipalities--to design and 
lead projects that deliver targeted environmental outcomes while 
supporting agricultural productivity. Through RCPP, partners contribute 
funding, expertise, and innovation, while eligible farmers and 
landowners receive financial and technical assistance to implement 
conservation practices. The program emphasizes flexibility and local 
leadership, making it a powerful tool for addressing complex, 
landscape-scale challenges like water quality, drought resilience, soil 
health, and habitat restoration.
    Farmers often face several challenges when participating in the 
RCPP, despite its collaborative and locally driven approach. One of the 
most common concerns is the complexity and length of the application 
process, which can be more time-consuming and confusing than other 
conservation programs due to the involvement of multiple partners and 
project-specific requirements. Additionally, inconsistent communication 
and coordination between NRCS, partner organizations, and producers can 
create delays or confusion about program rules, funding timelines, and 
eligibility criteria. These hurdles can discourage participation, 
particularly for small or beginning farmers who may lack the resources 
to navigate the bureaucratic and administrative demands of RCPP 
projects. Addressing these challenges is critical to ensuring that the 
program reaches its full potential in delivering effective, landscape-
scale conservation.
Inflation Reduction Act in the Baseline Funding
    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocated an additional $18.05 
billion to USDA conservation programs, including EQIP, CSP and RCPP 
through FY 2031. Currently, this IRA funding is temporary and does not 
alter the permanent baseline funding established by the 2018 Farm Bill. 
Once the IRA funds expire, these programs will revert to their original 
baseline funding levels, further limiting these program's capacity to 
meet ongoing conservation needs.
How Did IRA Supplement the Baseline?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Source: AFBF compilations, Congressional Budget Office, 
        Senate Ag GOP.

    To ensure sustained support for conservation efforts, there have 
been discussions within Congress around incorporating IRA funding into 
the permanent baseline, allowing for continuous and expanded assistance 
to farmers and ranchers. Our Texas farmers strongly support this 
transition, as it would provide long-term stability and enable the 
program to address evolving environmental challenges effectively.
    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed the House last month 
infuses roughly $11 billion in unspent IRA funding into the baseline 
for a variety of USDA conservation programs while also adding $8 
billion in additional baseline funding past the budget window of the 
IRA. Incorporating the IRA funds into the baseline would ensure that 
these funds continue for conservation programs into perpetuity, subject 
only to Congressional reauthorization. This could represent a 
significant increase in the conservation title's available funding.
    Additionally, we support the removal of the climate-related 
sideboards on IRA conservation funding. Congress must reverse these 
restrictions that tie funding solely to climate mitigation goals. It is 
unwise to narrowly focus the IRA resources on one specific natural 
resource concern. Farmers need flexibility and these sideboards are 
unnecessarily handcuffing our members by picking one resource concern 
over another.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
    Administered by FSA, CRP is a voluntary land retirement program 
that pays farmers to remove environmentally sensitive land from 
agricultural production and plant species that improve environmental 
health and quality. In return, participants receive annual rental 
payments and cost-share assistance for establishing conservation 
practices. CRP helps reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, 
enhance wildlife habitat, and increase carbon sequestration. By taking 
marginal, highly-erodible or at-risk farmland out of production, CRP 
supports long-term environmental sustainability while providing a 
stable income source for participating landowners. In 2024, Texas had 
roughly 2.2 million acres enrolled in CRP to protect highly-erodible 
lands and enhance wildlife habitat.
    For many farmers, CRP serves as an important farm safety net by 
providing a reliable source of income during times when crop prices are 
low or when certain acres are less productive due to environmental 
challenges. By enrolling vulnerable or less profitable land in CRP, 
farmers receive guaranteed annual rental payments that help stabilize 
their cash flow, reducing financial stress and risk. This safety net 
allows producers to manage their land more sustainably without the 
pressure to overuse or degrade fragile soils. Given the state of the 
farm economy today, many farmers are looking to conservation programs 
to keep their businesses solvent.
    As Congress considers reauthorizing the farm bill, they must 
consider changes to CRP that will make the program more flexible, 
accessible, and better aligned with farmer's needs. Many Texas 
producers are asking for higher rental rates and more competitive 
payments to reflect current land values and the costs of establishing 
conservation practices. We also seek increased acreage caps and the 
ability to enroll smaller or more diverse parcels of land, including 
working lands, rather than just marginal acres. Additionally, farmers 
want streamlined application processes and greater flexibility in 
contract terms to better accommodate changing farm operations and 
market conditions. Overall, these changes aim to balance environmental 
goals with economic viability for farmers.
    Additionally, our members support the approach taken in the Farm, 
Food, and National Security Act of 2024 that proposes using soil 
classification to determine CRP payments. This approach could help 
better align rental rates with the productivity and environmental value 
of the land enrolled. By factoring in soil classification, payments 
could be more accurately tailored to reflect the potential agricultural 
value and conservation benefits of specific parcels. The bill would 
create a payment scale that incentives the enrollment of 
environmentally sensitive and highly-erodible lands, which focuses on 
the parcels of land that the program was originally designed to 
protect.
    Conversely, the scale would disincentive the enrollment of prime 
farmland. The enrollment of prime farmland in CRP has unintentionally 
created challenges for young farmers by reducing the availability of 
highly productive land for farming and entry into the agricultural 
sector. When prime farmland is taken out of production and enrolled in 
long-term CRP contracts, it limits opportunities for young and 
beginning farmers to access affordable, high-quality land needed to 
start or expand their operations. This can increase competition for the 
remaining farmland, driving up land prices and rental rates, making it 
harder for new farmers to establish financially viable businesses. 
Additionally, with less prime land available, young farmers may be 
forced to work on lower-quality or more marginal acres, which can 
reduce their productivity and profitability. As a result, while CRP 
supports important conservation goals, it can also unintentionally 
hinder generational renewal and the long-term sustainability of the 
farming community.
Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program
    Feral swine pose a serious and growing threat to farmers across 
many regions, causing extensive damage to crops, pastures, and farm 
infrastructure. These invasive animals root up fields in search of 
food, destroying valuable crops like corn, soybeans, and vegetables, 
which leads to significant financial losses for producers. Their 
digging also damages soil structure and can contribute to erosion and 
the spread of invasive plant species. Beyond crop damage, feral swine 
compete with livestock for forage, contaminate water sources, and can 
carry diseases that threaten both animal and human health. The presence 
of feral swine increases costs for farmers who must invest in fencing, 
trapping, and control measures to protect their land and animals, 
making them a persistent and costly challenge to agricultural 
operations.
    The 2018 Farm Bill established the Feral Swine Eradication and 
Control Pilot Program (FSCP) to address the significant threats posed 
by feral swine. With an estimated five million feral swine causing 
approximately $1.6 billion in annual damages across just 13 states, the 
FSCP allocated a total of $75 million over the life of the 2018 Farm 
Bill. While the FSCP has made significant strides in controlling feral 
swine populations, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to 
assess its effectiveness. It is imperative that Congress continue to 
support this Federal investment in wildlife management to protect 
agricultural resources and public health.
Additional Challenges in Executing Conservation Practices
    Farmers often express concern about the shortage of technical 
service providers (TSPs) available to assist with conservation 
practices, as this lack of support can delay or limit their ability to 
implement important environmental improvements. Without sufficient 
TSPs, producers may struggle to develop conservation plans, complete 
necessary documentation, or receive expert guidance on selecting and 
installing effective practices tailored to their land. This shortage 
can be especially challenging in rural or under-served areas, where 
access to trained professionals is already limited. The resulting 
bottlenecks slow down program participation, reduce the impact of 
conservation funding, and increase frustration among farmers eager to 
adopt sustainable practices but lacking the technical assistance to do 
so efficiently. Expanding and better supporting the network of TSPs is 
essential to ensure farmers can successfully navigate conservation 
programs and achieve meaningful environmental outcomes. Congress must 
invest in the TSPs that assist farmers in executing these practices.
    More recently, farmers are growing increasingly concerned about the 
closure of NRCS offices, as these local centers are vital for accessing 
conservation assistance, technical support, and program guidance. 
Office closures and staff reductions, particularly in rural areas, have 
led to longer travel distances and wait times for farmers seeking help 
with conservation planning, cost-share programs, and disaster recovery. 
This disruption not only delays the implementation of crucial 
conservation practices but also strains the relationships between 
farmers and NRCS staff, who often serve as trusted advisors. The loss 
of local NRCS offices erodes the accessibility and effectiveness of 
Federal conservation programs, leaving farmers without the support they 
need to maintain sustainable and productive operations.
Conclusion
    We appreciate the reforms the House Agriculture Committee included 
in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. In addition to 
the specific recommendations made above, we strongly advocate that the 
Committee work to make all conservation programs more practical, 
accessible, and supportive of modern agricultural challenges. Our 
members continue to advocate for increased funding and higher payment 
rates to better reflect the true costs of implementing and maintaining 
conservation practices, making participation more financially viable. 
Simplifying application processes and reducing paperwork are also top 
priorities, especially for small and beginning farmers who may lack the 
time or resources to navigate complex requirements. Additionally, 
farmers seek more flexibility in program contracts and practice options 
to tailor conservation efforts to their unique operations and regional 
conditions. Finally, expanding technical assistance and addressing 
staffing shortages within agencies like NRCS would help farmers more 
effectively access and benefit from conservation programs. We challenge 
Members of this Subcommittee to work towards reauthorizing the farm 
bill to ensure that farmers have access to the conservation programs 
that allow for environmental stewardship. Thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Boening. Mr. McLeland, please 
begin when you are ready.

          STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER McLELAND, MANAGING 
            DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS, DUCKS 
                UNLIMITED, INC., HALLSVILLE, MO

    Mr. McLeland. Well, good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking 
Member Tokuda, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify on the 
importance of voluntary, locally-led, incentive-based farm bill 
conservation programs. My name is Chris McLeland. I am the 
Managing Director of Agriculture Programs for Ducks Unlimited 
in the Great Lakes Atlantic Region, and I am also a producer 
myself, supporting a small cow-calf operation in my home State 
of Missouri. It is an honor to be here this morning.
    As a proud partner of USDA, Ducks Unlimited has a long 
history of working with farmers, ranchers, and other private 
landowners across the country to restore and enhance millions 
of acres of waterfowl habitat. Ducks Unlimited supports 
balanced agricultural policies that help American farmers and 
ranchers be more competitive and successful in meeting the 
demands for food, fiber, and energy, while conserving soil, 
water, wetlands, grasslands, and forests. DU's focus is not 
just on the financial assistance dollars delivered to 
agricultural producers and land stewards, but also the critical 
importance of conservation technical assistance where partners 
such as Ducks Unlimited work alongside USDA and participating 
landowners to help them achieve their conservation goals. We 
are proud of our ability to deliver quality science-based 
assistance with agricultural producers alongside NRCS.
    The Federal flagship wetlands restoration program, ACEP-
Wetland Reserve Easement, or WRE, is a voluntary, non-
regulatory, incentive-based way for private landowners, 
farmers, and ranchers to protect and restore wetlands on their 
property. WRE also provides landowners a financially-viable 
alternative for transitioning farmland with high inputs and low 
profits to functioning wetlands, while continuing to focus 
investments and production on more suitable lands, and I have 
personally witnessed these benefits and the positive impacts 
WRE has to these program participants.
    NRCS also works with landowners to implement conservation 
practices on older WREs, allowing these lands to continue to 
provide ecosystem services for wildlife and people. One of DU's 
biggest priorities in the next farm bill is to ensure NRCS 
provides landowners with long-term stewardship opportunities. 
It is critically important that the program provide these 
additional tools to landowners to maintain their WRE and retain 
the associated wildlife benefits.
    Mr. Lucas, as you know, the Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program, which was originally authorized while you 
were chair of the Committee, has been a resounding success. The 
rice industry's symbiotic relationship with waterfowl led DU to 
a historic partnership with USA Rice. This partnership has had 
phenomenal success in delivering on-the-ground conservation to 
rice farmers with more than 800,000 acres of rice impacted and 
over $100 million of additional conservation funding directed 
to these program participants. And while there still are 
administrative hurdles with the program, Ducks Unlimited asks 
Congress to provide thoughtful and targeted solutions that 
allow the program to continue to succeed.
    The Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, provides farmers and 
ranchers with additional financial options while improving soil 
health, enhancing water quality, and supporting wildlife 
habitat. And we do thank FSA and Administrator Beam for 
recently opening CRP general and continuous enrollments and 
appreciate the Committee's efforts in addressing policies last 
Congress that promote locally-led activities and reinstate 
management tools and options, such as mid-contract management, 
as well as increasing the rental rate payment practices under 
Continuous CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement.
    I have discussed our partnership with NRCS in providing 
conservation technical assistance when delivering these 
programs. This assistance, which is directly provided to the 
agricultural producers, is essential to the long-term success 
of a producer's conservation system. Conservation technical 
assistance is just as important as the financial assistance 
provided through the suite of farm bill programs. The 
priorities mentioned in my testimony were included in the Farm, 
Food, and National Security Act that passed out of the House 
Agriculture Committee last Congress, and I thank Chairman 
Thompson and the Members of the Committee for supporting Ducks 
Unlimited's priorities last Congress, and we ask you to 
continue to support those provisions in the upcoming farm bill.
    Ducks Unlimited proudly partners with NRCS and passionate 
farmers and ranchers and landowners who invest their own 
financial resources to bring these farm bill programs to their 
lands, and DU's mission to conserve, restore, and maintain 
wetlands and waterfowl habitat would not be possible without 
these voluntary programs. Thank you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McLeland follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Christopher McLeland, Managing Director of 
      Agriculture Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Hallsville, MO
    Good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of 
the Subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing and for the 
opportunity to testify on my perspectives of voluntary, locally-led, 
incentive-based farm bill conservation programs.
    My name is Chris McLeland, and I am the Managing Director of 
Conservation Programs for Ducks Unlimited in the Great Lakes and 
Atlantic Region. When I'm off the clock, I enjoy spending time on the 
farm, with my daughters and our cattle. Growing up in a rural community 
in north-central Missouri, I learned from a young age that agriculture 
and wildlife conservation were not mutually exclusive activities. In 
fact, they can very much mutually inclusive and complementary. It has 
been my passion for agriculture and wildlife conservation that has 
guided me throughout my career and is a passion that I am working hard 
to instill in my children.
    As a proud partner of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), Ducks Unlimited (DU) has a 
long history of working with ranchers, farmers, and other private 
landowners across the country to enhance and restore millions of acres 
of critical waterfowl and other wildlife habitats. The organization was 
established in 1937 amid the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. DU was 
founded by people who understood the value of wetland resources and 
bolstered by the passage of the first Federal duck stamp in 1934. With 
more than one million supporters across North America, DU has become 
the premier organization for wetlands and waterfowl conservation with a 
mission to conserve, restore, and manage wetlands and associated 
habitats for the continent's waterfowl, other wildlife, and people. To 
date, DU has restored and enhanced more than 19 million acres across 
the continent focusing heavily on the priority landscapes for waterfowl 
populations.
    The voluntary, locally-led, incentive-based conservation programs 
that are authorized and funded through the farm bill are the backbone 
of DU's cooperative conservation work. Many of the remaining wetlands 
in the United States are on private lands, where most waterfowl are 
raised, migrate and winter. To further our mission, DU supports 
agricultural policies that can help American farmers and ranchers be 
more competitive and successful in meeting demands for food, fiber and 
energy while conserving soil, water, wetlands, grasslands and forests. 
The farm bill is the most effective tool for conserving wildlife 
habitats on private land.
    DU collaborates with USDA and other partners in helping deliver 
farm bill conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP), Agricultural Conservation Easements Program (ACEP), 
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) 
and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program. Our focus is not 
just on the financial assistance dollars delivered for agriculture 
producers and land stewards for on-the-farm conservation practices, but 
also as a technical assistance partner working hand-in-hand with USDA 
and program participants on their lands. We are proud of our ability to 
deliver quality, science-based assistance to agriculture producers 
cooperatively with NRCS.
Wetlands in the Farm Bill
    The Federal flagship wetlands restoration program, ACEP-Wetland 
Reserve Easement (WRE), is an NRCS program that is popular and 
oversubscribed. WRE is a voluntary, non-regulatory, incentive-based way 
for private landowners, farmers and ranchers to protect and restore 
agricultural lands and wetlands on their property. WRE has multiple 
benefits and can be tailored to many types of wetland ecosystems, 
including the prairie potholes (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Minnesota and Iowa), floodplain wetlands and coastal tidal marshes. 
Ducks Unlimited provides technical assistance to implement practices on 
WRE that, for example, restore and manage wetlands to filter 
pollutants, which naturally leads to water quality improvements.
    WRE also provides landowners and producers a financially viable 
alternative for transitioning farmland with high inputs and low or 
negative profits to functioning wetlands while continuing to focus 
investments and production on their more suitable lands as key to 
sustaining property ownership and promoting generational transition of 
agriculture and forest lands. I have personally witnessed the impacts 
on the farm viability and ecological improvements that extend beyond 
the farmgate. We see this program as a win-win for farmers and ranchers 
and our North American waterfowl.
    In my home State of Missouri, wetland restoration programs such as 
WRE have been extremely popular among producers, recreational 
landowners, and conservation partners alike. Missouri is a state that 
can experience extreme flood events. Programs like WRE provide an 
avenue for landowners to restore wetland acres, provide a diverse array 
of wildlife habitats, create outdoor recreational opportunities, while 
also reducing operational risk in the form of lost revenue. Through the 
hard work of partners such as USDA-NRCS, the Missouri Department of 
Conservation, and groups like Ducks Unlimited, Missouri has restored 
over 167,000 acres of wetlands through the WRE program.
    Using the Lower Mississippi Valley as an example, since 1998, Ducks 
Unlimited has partnered with NRCS in reforestation and hydrology 
restoration activities in states from Missouri to Louisiana. In 
Louisiana alone, DU has helped reforest 52,000 acres of bottomland 
hardwoods by enrolling these acres in WRE. Prior to WRE, an estimated 
80 percent of the bottomland hardwood wetland forests were converted. 
With Louisiana being one of the most intensive farmed regions in the 
nation, WRE projects and the restoration of bottomland hardwood forest 
ecosystems ultimately filter out sediment, nutrients and farm runoff 
that would otherwise end up in the Mississippi River.
    There is also a stewardship component to WRE where NRCS works with 
landowners to implement conservation practices on older WREs (formerly 
known as WRP), allowing these lands to continue to provide multiple 
ecosystem benefits to local communities. One of DU's biggest priorities 
for the next farm bill is to ensure NRCS provides landowners these 
long-term stewardship opportunities. It is critically important that 
the program provides these additional tools to landowners to maintain 
their WRE and retain the associated habitat benefits. In addition, DU 
has advocated to modify the county cap restriction on WRE. Focused on 
the more marginal lands, this provision provides flexibility to NRCS 
allowing more acres in areas where duck habitat is critically 
important. We are excited, both of these provisions were included in 
the Farm, Food, and National Security Act (that passed out of the House 
Agriculture Committee last Congress). Thank you, Chairman Thompson and 
Members of the Committee, for including this critically important 
language.
Emergency Watershed Protection Program
    Building on the success of WRE, the Emergency Watershed Protection 
Program incorporates floodplain easements as an alternative tool to 
landowners, farmers and ranchers who seek long-term protection of life 
and property and avoid future agriculture crop losses after devastating 
natural disasters. It is proven that wetlands provide flood control, 
slowing the flow of water and allowing it to replenish the ground water 
supply and reduce flood damage in areas downstream. DU partners with 
NRCS to implement voluntary floodplain easements to restore 
floodplains, forests, or conservation practices to pre-disaster 
conditions. We firmly believe USDA should leverage the easement 
purchase by adding habitat value similar to those provided by the WRE. 
For minimal additional restoration investment, we can see substantial 
improvement in hydrology, habitat quality and wildlife usage of these 
easements that are positioned in our most critical flyways.
    EWP has been a critically important program along our countries big 
river systems, with the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers being no 
exception. An example of EWP in action is the Dogtooth Bend project. 
Dogtooth Bend is a 17,000 acre peninsula in southwest Illinois created 
by a meander of the Mississippi River. It's fertile soils in the 
Mississippi floodplain have made it attractive for row crop 
agriculture. To prevent flooding a levee system was completed around 
1943 and stood until the great flood of 1993. The levee was rebuilt but 
flooding continued repeatedly, through the 2010s, culminating in a 
major event in 2019 that deposited massive amounts of sediment across 
the peninsula. The EWPP-FPE Easements (2600 acres) were critical to 
helping landowners recover from this disaster as the site is no longer 
economically viable to farm.
    Again, the Farm, Food and National Security Act, included DU's 
priority of language that promotes management and restoration of 
floodplain easements, as well as restoring the land for the long-term 
health of the watershed.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
    Mr. Lucas as you well know, the Regional Conservation Partnership 
Program (RCPP) which was originally authorized when you were Chairman 
of the Committee has been a resounding success. As you well know, the 
rice industry's symbiotic relationship with waterfowl led DU to a 
historic partnership with USA Rice, called the Rice Stewardship 
Partnership (RSP), in 2013. While both organizations have separate 
missions and methods, we have managed to collaborate and develop goals 
for our Partnership, including work on RCPP where our focus is to work 
with producers to maintain lands in agriculture production while 
managing those acres to supplement wildlife food and cover, improve 
water quality and promote water conserving practices.
    The Rice Stewardship Partnership's RCPP projects have pulled 
together nearly one hundred diverse partners to help implement their 
goals, communicate successes, and ultimately share the cost of 
investment in working lands conservation programs. The Rice Stewardship 
Partnership has had phenomenal success in delivering on-the-ground 
conservation to rice farmers. Since the creation of RCPP in the 2014 
Farm Bill, the RSP has beneficially impacted over 800,000 acres of rice 
and rice rotation ground and provided over $100 million in additional 
conservation funding. From Missouri to Texas and California in the 
west, America's rice producers have literally filled the void in 
critical wildlife habitat needs by adapting their operations to include 
wildlife benefiting water and cover management practices,
    For the upcoming farm bill, Ducks Unlimited would note the 
complexity plaguing RCPP and its impact on the long-term viability of a 
crucial partnership program to rice farmers. Congress should work to 
address barriers for partners including the overly detailed and 
complicated application process, multiple layered agreements, the 
length of time it takes to finalize an agreement, and burdensome 
accounting for technical assistance within the agreements. Simplifying 
RCPP will help deliver more timely assistance to producers. While 
administrative barriers can present unnecessary obstacles and costs for 
partners, Ducks Unlimited asks Congress to provide thoughtful and 
targeted solutions that allow the program to successfully function as 
it has for nearly a decade without the overly bureaucratic process that 
has plagued the program over the last several years. The House 
Agriculture Committee worked tirelessly last Congress to address these 
concerns in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. We thank you for 
your thoughtful attention to these concerns and encourage Congress to 
support these provisions in the farm bill.
CRP
    I must also mention another important voluntary conservation 
program at USDA under the Farm Service Agency, CRP. CRP is a prominent 
component of the farm safety net by providing farmers and ranchers with 
financial options while improving soil health, enhancing water quality, 
and supporting wildlife habitat, in particular nesting cover. Ducks 
Unlimited primarily provides technical assistance to landowners and 
producers who enroll in the CRP Continuous sign up. This sign up allows 
eligible land to be enrolled at any time, targeting high-priority 
conservation practices such as buffer strips, riparian buffers, and 
wetlands.
    We thank FSA and Administrator Beam for opening CRP General and 
Continuous enrollment and appreciate the Committee's efforts in 
addressing policies in last Congress' farm bill that promote locally-
led activities, reinstate management tool options like mid-contract 
management, and increase rental rate payments for practices under 
Continuous CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE).
Working Lands Programs
    Working lands programs, like the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program (EQIP), serve as economic drivers and provide farmers and 
ranchers with the support they need when considering conservation plans 
on their land. EQIP is one of the largest conservation programs within 
the farm bill. It helps producers maintain working agricultural lands 
and improve farm infrastructure like fencing, water irrigation, post-
harvest flooding and more. We at Ducks Unlimited support working lands 
programs as a way to retain critically important habitats and to 
sustain working farms and ranches.
Technical Assistance
    Across all the farm bill programs and all of USDA's conservation 
programs, I have discussed our partnership with NRCS in providing 
technical assistance in advance of, and when, delivering these 
programs. From program outreach to conservation planning, conservation 
practice design, implementation and evaluation, this staff assistance 
provided directly to agriculture producers is essential to the success 
and long-term sustainability of a producer's conservation system. We 
are concerned about the recent downsizing and loss of personnel in the 
field, on the front lines with our private land stewards. As USDA 
realigns their personnel resources and program policies, DU will work 
alongside our NRCS colleagues and producers to fill gaps as this 
process moves forward. While we have resources to contribute in 
support, the technical assistance component of each of the farm bill 
programs is as essential as the financial assistance provided. We ask 
that you continue to provide for sound, science-driven, field-based 
technical assistance directed at the field level to each participating 
agriculture producer.
Conclusion
    Ducks Unlimited is a proud partner with NRCS and the passionate 
farmers, ranchers and landowners who invest their own financial 
resources to bring these farm bill conservation programs to their land. 
DU's mission to conserve, restore and maintain wetlands and waterfowl 
habitat would not be possible without the voluntary farm bill 
conservation programs and our partnerships with many in the 
agricultural industry. I encourage Congress to pass a farm bill that 
supports strong funding levels for conservation programs, maintains the 
integrity of the conservation programs and sustains wildlife and the 
farm economy.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share my 
perspectives on the farm bill conservation programs.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McLeland. Dr. Sebert, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF DAN A. SEBERT, Ph.D., ORIGINAL CHARTER MEMBER, 
SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, NATIONAL WATERSHED COALITION, PAWNEE, OK

    Dr. Sebert. Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, I am Dan Sebert. I am a charter member of the 
National Watershed Coalition. I also served the Coalition as 
Executive Director for over 20 years.
    To begin, I want you to understand that the Watershed 
Program touches me on a personal level. I was raised on the 
banks of the Washita River, one of the original 11 upstream 
flood protection demonstration watersheds. I also witnessed the 
incremental improvements as one watershed dam after another was 
completed on those tributaries and creeks, not huge, massive 
dams on the river. It was the smaller structures dotting the 
landscape, integrated into private farms and ranches that 
shaped my views and my passion for a lifetime of service in 
conservation.
    While USDA may be better known for providing a financial 
safety net for farmers and ranchers, the Department also 
provides an actual safety net for rural communities. The 
Watershed and Flood Prevention Program is a vital, but often 
overlooked infrastructure program in the NRCS portfolio. I 
consider Chairman Lucas as the godfather of the program, an 
heir to the legacy of watershed leadership shaped by his family 
and community stalwarts in rural western Oklahoma. The reason 
behind this is simple: of the nearly 12,000 watershed 
structures nationwide, over 2,000 of them are in the State of 
Oklahoma. As a matter of fact, 71 percent of those nearly 
12,000 dams are in the states represented here by this 
Subcommittee's Members.
    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Pub. L. 
83-566) authorizes NRCS to work with local sponsors to install 
watershed improvement projects. Projects provide flood 
prevention, water quality, and quantity protection, 
agricultural water management, municipal water supply 
management, and wildlife habitat protection. The program has 
gained even more importance as a tool for helping farms, 
ranches, and rural communities adapt to increasing weather 
volatility and reducing risk against catastrophic weather 
events. The annual benefits these projects produce is over $2 
billion. There are watershed project structures in 218 
Congressional districts across the nation. As a result, more 
than 48 million people across the United States benefit from 
the watershed program every year.
    A crucial part of the watershed program is the Dam 
Rehabilitation Program. Many dams today are in a far different 
setting than when constructed. In addition, many of these 
structures built by NRCS had a design life of only 50 years. 
Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940s to the 
early 1970s, many of these dams are now past their design life 
and they show the effects of aging. Mr. Lucas led the 
development of rehabilitation legislation in 2000 that ensured 
the nation's investment in the watershed program had the 
opportunity to continue into the future. Under this program, 
dams are selected for rehabilitation through analysis and a 
rigorous assessment process. I cannot overemphasize the 
importance of Congress and the USDA as full partners in the 
watershed program.
    We do think there are improvements to be made to the 
program. Our farm bill priorities are quite simple: increase 
funding to the program; increase the flexibility of the 
program's authority to make repairs that go beyond routine 
operation and maintenance, which is required of the local 
sponsors, but fall short of the threshold for full 
rehabilitation; provide flexibility in cost-share to states; 
reduce the regulatory and administrative barriers that add 
years to project implementation; and add statutory language to 
provide oversight and accountability for program funds.
    The National Watershed Coalition is pleased to see its 
recommendations integrated into the Farm, Food, and National 
Security Act of 2024. We cannot thank Chairman Thompson and 
Subcommittee Chairman Lucas enough for their support of these 
policies, and we look forward to working with them and the 
other Members to continue this work into the next farm bill.
    I will conclude where I began. The implementation and 
success of the watershed program shaped my life and the western 
Oklahoma communities that thrived under the umbrella of 
protection these structures provide. Similar stories, can be 
found across the nation, where in a blend of Federal, state, 
and local partnership, these projects have been successfully 
implemented. As we look to the challenges and the need for 
increased resiliency in our agricultural production and the 
communities which support it, the watershed program is more 
important today than ever in history.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Sebert follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Dan A. Sebert, Ph.D., Original Charter Member, 
    Senior Policy Advisor, National Watershed Coalition, Pawnee, OK
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Subcommittee:

    I am Dan Sebert, an original charter member of the National 
Watershed Coalition. I served the coalition as Executive Director for 
over 20 years. To begin, I want you to understand that the watershed 
program, to which I will speak, touches me on personal level. I was 
raised on the banks of the Washita River, one of the original 11 
upstream flood protection demonstration watersheds authorized by the 
Flood Control Act of 1944. I was raised by parents and grandparents 
that had personally experienced the ravages of the Dust Bowl and the 
subsequent flooding which decimated both farms and communities across 
western Oklahoma and the nation. My youth and perspective were formed 
with knowledge of the catastrophic damage to communities and farms by 
the Washita River's frequent floods and I witnessed the incremental 
improvements as one watershed dam after another was completed on those 
tributaries and creeks. Not huge, massive dams on the river, it was 
these smaller structures dotting the landscape, integrated into the 
private farms and ranches that shaped my views and passion for a 
lifetime of service in conservation.
    While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be 
better known for providing a financial safety net for farmers and 
ranchers, USDA also provides an actual safety net for our rural 
communities. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Program (Watershed 
Program) is a vital, but often overlooked, infrastructure program 
within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) portfolio. I 
consider Chairman Lucas as the godfather of the program, an heir to a 
legacy of watershed leadership shaped by his family and community 
stalwarts in rural western Oklahoma. The reason behind this is clear 
and simple. Of the nearly 12,000 watershed structures, over 2000 of 
them are in the state of Oklahoma.
    Building on the success of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the 
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations established through the 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-
566) authorizes NRCS to work with local sponsors to install watershed 
protection and improvement projects. Projects can and do provide flood 
prevention, water quality and quantity protection, agricultural water 
management, municipal water supply management, fish and wildlife 
habitat protection, and public recreation development. The program has 
gained even more importance as a critical tool for helping rural 
communities adapt to increasing weather volatility and reducing risk 
against catastrophic weather events.
    There are about 2,100 NRCS assisted watershed projects in the 
Unites States, covering 145 million acres, with projects in every 
state. In 1,271 of these projects, 11,845 flood control dams have been 
constructed by local watershed sponsors with NRCS assistance. In most 
cases, a local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) serve as the 
local sponsors. In some cases, they are assisted by other cosponsors 
such as watershed districts or county government.
    The benefits of this program are significant and far reaching. The 
total average annual monetary benefits these projects produce is over 
$2 billion. In addition, over 282,000 acres of wetlands and over 9 
million acres of upland wildlife habitat have been created or enhanced 
by watershed projects. There are watershed project dams in 218 
Congressional Districts across the nation. As of today, these projects 
are protecting more than 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,000 
farms and ranches, 61,000 bridges, and 28,000 domestic water supplies. 
As a result, more than 48 million people across the United States 
benefit from the Watershed Program every year.
    These projects create and protect vital infrastructure while 
conserving natural resources and contributing to local economies. The 
Watershed Program focuses on both the design and construction of 
structural water control measures, managing agricultural water, and on 
land treatment measures. Watershed planning provides a basis for 
partnering at state and local levels to identify and co-invest in 
projects reflecting the highest priority needs.
    Conservation practices within these approved project areas improve 
water quality and are also a vital part of all watershed projects. 
Practices such as terraces, waterways, grass buffers, strip cropping, 
and grade stabilization structures, are used to prevent soil erosion 
and reduce sediment. They also increase the service life of dams and 
their ability to provide flood damage reduction.
    Flood prevention and reliable water quality created by the 
Watershed Program are essential to developing and maintaining strong 
rural communities. Watershed projects not only protect lives, property 
and reduce flood damages, but also create economic growth and 
strengthen local economies. Flood protection is essential to prevent 
the unnecessary loss of infrastructure and capital to developing 
economies in rural America. Coalition staff recently toured areas of 
Kentucky impacted by April/May 2025 floods where Watershed Program 
infrastructure reduced damage and provided significant protection of 
life and property.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
    I cannot understate the looming crisis facing rural America. 
Recognizing the aging watershed infrastructure, watershed dam 
rehabilitation is a critical component of the Watershed Protection and 
Flood Prevention Program, authorized in 2000. Many dams today are in a 
far different setting than when they were constructed. Population has 
increased; residential and commercial development has occurred upstream 
and downstream from the dams; and land uses within many watersheds have 
changed. Many of these dams do not meet current state dam safety 
regulations that have been enacted and revised with more stringent 
requirements than when the dams were built resulting in higher dam 
hazard classifications, primarily due to population at risk. In 
addition, many of these structures built by NRCS had a design life of 
only 50 years. Since most of this construction occurred from the 1940s 
to the early 1970s, many of these dams are now past their design life 
and show the effects of aging with deteriorating metal and fractured 
concrete components.
    The protection these structures afford our communities touch every 
aspect of our daily lives and have been so effective for over 60 years 
that many folks are unaware of their presence on the landscape. Chances 
are as you travel across western and southern Oklahoma highways or 
perhaps south on Interstate 35 through the heart of Texas some portion 
of the road receives flood protection from an upstream Watershed 
Program dam. The local economy that is driven in part by grain, cattle, 
oil and natural gas relies daily on this protection. The roads and 
bridges that carry our children to and from school are protected. In 
several cases the school itself along with other key elements of 
community are protected.
    Many of our most productive farms and our healthiest soils are in 
these protected watersheds. There are many less obvious benefits that 
come in the form of the prosperity and opportunity made possible by 
these projects. The partnership between USDA and local sponsors that 
brought us this protection is extremely important in keeping it in 
place. Rehabilitation is necessary to ensure dams continue to protect 
lives, businesses and homes. Failure to provide for the rehabilitation 
of these dams could result in dam breaches which would have 
catastrophic consequences.
    As previously alluded Mr. Lucas led the development of 
rehabilitation legislation in 2000 that ensured the nation's investment 
in the watershed program had the opportunity to continue into the 
future. Under the Dam Rehabilitation Program, dams are selected for 
rehabilitation through analysis and a rigorous assessment process. This 
commitment from state and local partners is necessary to ensure that 
sponsors are fully committed to a project. This legislation gave us the 
pathway and the procedure for reinvestment.
    As the significantly invested local sponsors of watershed projects, 
state and local sponsors have felt that we have suffered from an 
inadequately funded Federal partner for much of the past decade. 
Sponsors and state watershed program partners have responded with O&M 
dollars, rehabilitation matching funds, technical and financial 
assistance. I cannot over emphasize the importance of Congress and the 
USDA-NRCS as full partners in the watershed program. We hope these 
recent investments are a signal to USDA about the importance of these 
programs and the willingness of the state partners and local sponsors 
to share in protecting the local communities and agriculture producers 
in this ever-changing environment.
National Watershed Farm Bill Priorities
    The National Watershed Coalition (NWC) has several suggestions for 
reforms for the watershed Program. The first is an increase of 
mandatory funding for the program. Increased funding will create 
certainty and stability to ensure valuable projects can flow from 
planning to implementation and meet the changing pressures placed on 
our watersheds and rural agriculture producers. The program largely 
survives on discretionary program funding but did receive $50 million 
in annual funding through the 2018 Farm Bill. I would note that the 
program did receive this funding in the recent reconciliation bill 
passed by the House. This historic investment and commitment to our 
rural communities is appreciated and its importance cannot be 
overstated.
    Second, NWC recommends increased flexibility in the program's 
authority use of program funds to repair and replace essential 
structural components. Many of the program constructed dams now require 
significant repairs that go well beyond the routine Operation and 
Maintenance required of the local project sponsors but fall short of 
the threshold for full rehabilitation. This adjustment in authority 
preserves the previous investment in infrastructure and flood 
protection by providing Federal funding for design and construction for 
repairs of the structural components thereby extending their 
performance life. Failure to repair and remediate common component and 
material deterioration on these dams could result in loss of life, loss 
of the investment in infrastructure and most certainly a loss of 
benefits to the nation.
    Third, NWC recommends raising the Federal cost-share for 
rehabilitation as these structures are often high hazard. With few 
exceptions, these flood prevention structures were fully funded by 
Federal funds. For decades, the local sponsors have assumed the 
responsibility for inspection, operation, and maintenance of these 
structures. With limited access to funding to provide the required 
local cost share to complete the cradle-to-grave planning, design and 
construction necessary for rehabilitation, Federal support is 
essential. The potentially catastrophic outcome of this cost-share 
requirement barrier is that many project sponsors will not initiate 
rehabilitation of aged, high hazard, high priority projects. Increasing 
the Federal cost-share will alleviate this significant financial burden 
placed on local project sponsors.
    Fourth, NWC believes it is crucial to reduce the regulatory and 
administrative barriers that adds years to project implementation 
timeline. The authorities in the watershed program provide for the 
planning and implementation at a smaller scale benefiting agriculture 
production and rural communities. The project scale is significantly 
smaller than the much larger public works of the Department of [the] 
Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This program is 
accomplished in partnership with local units of government, termed 
project sponsors. Yet, compliance with the OMB's Project Planning 
Principles and Guidelines, benefits thresholds, other Federal Agency 
permitting requirements, and complicated procedures impair or negate 
project implementation and consume limited sponsor staff and financial 
resources. Providing a streamlined process with a system of checks and 
balances commensurate with the scale of the projects will accelerate 
project delivery and serve out rural communities well. In addition, 
several states have or can develop the capacity to deliver this program 
effectively with oversight from NRCS. Statutory clarity to provide 
authority and requisite funding to capable state agencies could 
streamline and promote more efficient delivery of the program.
    Finally, NWC would like to see statutory language added to provide 
oversight and accountability mechanisms for program funds. Real-time 
transparency in all aspects of program delivery will ensure and support 
program integrity through the accountability for allocations, 
expenditures, and timeliness of delivered projects.
    The National Watershed Coalition was pleased to see its full set of 
recommendations integrated into The Farm, Food, and National Security 
Act of 2024. We cannot thank Chairman Thompson and Subcommittee Chair 
Lucas enough for their support of these policies and look forward to 
working with them and other Members to continue this work into the next 
farm bill. Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to address the 
Committee with respect to the watershed program. I would point the 
Members and Committee staff to the Coalition's website 
www.watershedcoalition.org for additional history, facts, figures and 
multiple Watershed Program success stories. I will conclude where I 
began. The implementation and successes of the watershed program shaped 
my life and the western Oklahoma communities that thrived under the 
umbrella of protection these structures provide. Similar stories can be 
found across the nation where in a blend of Federal, state and local 
partnership these projects have been successfully implemented. As we 
look to the challenges and the need for increased resiliency in our 
agriculture production and the communities, the watershed program is 
more important today than ever in history. Not only for new planning 
and implementation around flood protection, water supply and water 
conservation, but also taking action on the older structures needing 
attention to continue to protect populations and infrastructure 
expansion that has occurred in the decades following their initial 
construction . . . the result of the many benefits this program 
continues to provide.

    The Chairman. Thank you for your career involvement in 
this, Dr. Sebert, and clearly, it is a classic example if you 
work long enough and hard enough, you can still do good things 
in this country.
    With that, I turn to Mr. Fink. Please begin when you are 
ready, sir.

   STATEMENT OF TIM FINK, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, AMERICAN 
                FARMLAND TRUST, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Fink. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and 
honorable Members of the Committee, I am Tim Fink, Vice 
President of Policy for American Farmland Trust, an 
organization founded 45 years ago to protect farmland, advance 
sound farming practices, and keep farmers on the land. I thank 
you for the opportunity to testify and applaud the Committee 
for its continued work in strengthening our nation's voluntary 
farm bill conservation programs. While AFT has a broader farm 
bill platform, our testimony today will concentrate 
specifically on the Agricultural Land Easement subprogram, the 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.
    Farmland is too often viewed as an unlimited resource, but 
according to AFT research, in the first 15 years of this 
century, we have lost 2,000 acres a day. That means 11 million 
acres of farmland were paved over, built up, or converted to 
uses that otherwise threaten agriculture. This is the 
equivalent of all of the acreage in the U.S. devoted to fruit, 
nut, and vegetable production. AFT research projects that 
without further policy intervention, we are likely to lose 18 
million more acres of agriculture to development by 2040, and 
many communities are already seeing this prediction being 
outpaced. Continued conversion of this finite resource 
threatens our food security, our national security, and the 
viability of our agricultural sector. To put simply no farms, 
no food. It is also pushing production in the marginal lands 
and slamming the doors shut to the next generation of 
producers.
    Agricultural conservation easements are essential to 
stemming this tide. They offer landowners a vital option, a way 
to extract equity from their land without selling it for 
development, which is often the only option for a land-rich, 
cash-poor farmer when they reach retirement or face family or 
business expenses. Land under easement remains in private 
ownership and on the tax rolls, and it could be transferred to 
a new owner at any time with the easement conditions running 
with the land.
    Such easements benefit farmers, the farm, the community and 
society as a whole. Here are four ways. First, easements 
support reinvestment in agriculture. Research shows that 
farmers and ranchers use easement proceeds to improve or 
diversify their operations, purchase new equipment, land 
infrastructure. Second, easement support the transfer of 
agricultural land. The sale of an easement can help finance 
retirement without the farmer needing to give up their most 
cherished asset. For aspiring farmers, protected land is more 
affordable. In fact, it may be the only land they can afford.
    Third, easements spur additional conservation. A recent 
survey found that the majority of landowners with easements 
have NRCS conservation plans, and over 75 percent have adopted 
at least three conservation practices. This is because of 
something we refer to as permanent syndrome. Farmers are more 
likely to make these long-term investments if they know that 
the land is going to remain in agriculture long enough for 
those investments to bear fruit. Fourth, easements benefit 
rural communities and economies. A 2022 Montana study found 
that between 2014 and 2021, every ACEP dollar spent yielded 
nearly twice that amount in economic activity. These 
investments also supported over 1,000 local jobs. It is for 
these reasons that 30 states and over 100 local governments 
invest in easement programs. That list now includes the State 
of Tennessee. AFT was also pleased to see Secretary Rollins 
point to the benefits of ACEP-ALE as part of the 
Administration's Farmer First Agenda.
    We are grateful to this Committee and especially to 
Chairman Thompson for championing important easement reforms in 
the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. I will 
highlight just a few.
    First, the bill would increase long-term funding for 
conservation programs by transferring unspent IRA conservation 
dollars into the farm bill, a measure also included in the 
recent reconciliation package. This is AFT's top farm bill 
priority since it will enable more farmers to protect their 
land and implement the very practices they need to build more 
profitable operations for decades to come. Second, the bill 
would increase ACEP's general Federal match and offer a lower 
match option for program partners. The increase in the match 
would enable more participation in the program in parts of the 
country where there are no matching funding to be found. The 
lower match option would provide an alternative for public 
programs that have had trouble reconciling their program rules 
with that of USDA.
    Third, the bill will streamline ACEP by empowering 
experienced certified entities to play a larger role. Certified 
entities help to reduce easement closing times and can do more 
to improve the experience for landowners. A greater focus on 
certification can reduce both costs and administrative burdens 
for USDA. And fourth, the bill eliminates ACEP-ALE's adjusted 
gross income eligibility requirement. This change recognizes 
that an easement payment is different than a conservation cost-
share payment. This will also help reduce closing times and 
ensure that the program is focused on the lands most vital to 
conservation.
    I thank you again for being here and for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fink follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Tim Fink, Vice President of Policy, American 
                    Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.
    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:

    Thank you for giving American Farmland Trust (AFT) the opportunity 
to testify today on the role of USDA in safeguarding one of America's 
most important natural assets--our rich and productive agricultural 
land. I am Tim Fink, Vice President of Policy for AFT.
    AFT was formed in 1980 as the first and still only national 
conservation agriculture organization devoted specifically to stemming 
the loss of agricultural land. AFT is known for our policy advocacy, 
groundbreaking research, and innovative programing. We take a holistic 
approach to agriculture, focusing on the land itself, the agricultural 
practices used on that land, and the farmers and ranchers who do the 
work. We have a strong and longstanding partnership with USDA. Since 
1994, AFT has operated the Farmland Information Center (FIC) 
i in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service. The FIC serves as the nation's primary clearinghouse for 
information and data related to farmland retention and protection for 
landowners, producers, policymakers, and the public. Our ``Farms Under 
Threat'' and predecessor ``Farming on the Edge'' research series, also 
conducted in partnership with NRCS, are the nation's foremost studies 
on agricultural land loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \i\ https://farmlandinfo.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To build awareness of tools and voluntary approaches to saving farm 
and ranch land, AFT hosts the National Agricultural Land 
Network,ii a network of over 1,500 public agencies, farm and 
conservation organizations, farmers, ranchers, and concerned citizens 
seeking to do more to reduce the loss of working lands in their states 
and communities. AFT also works directly with farmers, ranchers, and 
agricultural landowners, providing critical on-the-ground conservation 
and business technical assistance, assisting with farmland transition 
and access, and supporting landowners who choose to donate or sell 
agricultural conservation easements, including through the Agricultural 
Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program (RCPP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \ii\ https://farmland.org/national-agricultural-land-network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Agricultural Land Is a Vital and Irreplaceable Asset
    For most of our nation's existence, the Federal Government has 
viewed private working lands as a limitless asset. Federal programs and 
policies have supported--and even subsidized--the conversion of some of 
America's most productive agricultural land to cities, suburbs, 
industrial, and infrastructure development simply because this land has 
been the easiest and least expensive on which to build.
    Unfortunately, this ``limitless'' asset is, in fact, limited. 
According to AFT's Farms Under Threat: The State of the States 
report,iii in just the first 15 years of this century--a 
period with a slowdown in housing starts due to a recession--11 million 
acres of productive farm ground were converted. This includes nearly 7 
million acres to low-density residential land use and 4.1 million acres 
to urban and highly developed land use. These 11 million acres are 
equal to all the U.S. farmland devoted to fruit, nut, and vegetable 
production in 2017--or 2,000 acres a day paved over, built up, and 
converted to uses that threaten the future of agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \iii\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-the-
state-of-the-states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without policy changes, this alarming trajectory will continue, if 
not worsen. AFT's Farms Under Threat iv modeling shows that 
the U.S. is likely to lose another 18.4 million acres of productive 
farm ground to development by 2040. And in some parts of the U.S., 
actual development over the past 9 years is already outpacing these 
predictions. In the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area, farmland and 
ranchland is being developed 49% faster than we anticipated, fueled by 
many of the same trends we are seeing across the U.S.--demand for 
housing, warehouses, data centers, and energy development. While solar 
is critical to meeting national energy needs, AFT's Farms Under Threat 
2040 v solar modeling projects that 83% of new solar 
development is expected to occur on farmland and ranchland, with almost 
half on America's most productive land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \iv\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-2040/
   \v\ https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/farms-under-threat-2040-
solar-modeling-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continued conversion of this finite asset threatens our future food 
security and the viability of our agricultural sector. Farmland 
conversion limits opportunities for commodity and specialty crop 
growers alike and increases costs of production. Loss of productive 
cropland is driving conversion of marginal pasture and grassland to 
cropland, and foreclosing options for the next generation of producers.
Agricultural Conservation Easements Are an Essential Tool in Preventing 
        Farmland Loss and Supporting Farm and Ranch Viability
    Federal programs supporting agricultural conservation easements 
like ACEP and RCPP are essential tools in stemming the loss of our 
productive agricultural land. ACEP's Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) 
subprogram and RCPP are voluntary programs within USDA's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that provide funding for the 
purchase of perpetual agricultural conservation easements on working 
farms and ranches. ACEP-ALE is the only Federal program dedicated 
specifically to the protection of agricultural land. RCPP has a broader 
resource protection mandate, which can include funding for the 
protection of both working and natural lands. The first Federal 
investments in agricultural land protection were authorized in the 1996 
Farm Bill through the Farmland Protection Program that provided grants 
to state and local agricultural land protection programs. Since 1996, 
USDA has invested approximately $2.2 billion in ACEP-ALE and 
predecessor programs,\1\ ensuring that more than 2.3 million acres 
vi of productive farmland and ranchland will remain forever 
available for agricultural production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Compiled by American Farmland Trust's Farmland Information 
Center using data supplied by the NRCS Resource Economics and Analysis 
Division and Easement Programs Division using information from NEST and 
FMMI, April 2024.
    \vi\ https://www.farmers.gov/data/easements-overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's important to understand exactly what an agricultural 
conservation easement is, and what it does and does not do. An 
agricultural conservation easement:

   Is a powerful tool for ensuring that agricultural land 
        remains forever available for agricultural use. With an 
        easement, a landowner voluntarily restricts some of the rights 
        to the use of their land. In doing so, they are exercising 
        their private property rights. While these restrictions can be 
        tailored to meet the unique goals of the landowner, all 
        agricultural conservation easements limit non-agricultural 
        development in perpetuity and spell out allowable uses of the 
        land.

   Can be donated or sold to a qualified entity such as a 
        public agency or a private land trust. The entity that holds 
        the easement is then responsible for making sure that the 
        restrictions are followed. The value of the easement is 
        determined by appraisal, comparing the land's value for its 
        highest and best use (typically development) and its value as 
        restricted by the easement's terms and conditions.

   Land under easement remains in private ownership, and the 
        landowner is free to transfer the land to a new owner at any 
        time with the conditions of the easement transferring along 
        with the land.

    Here are some of the benefits of agricultural conservation 
easements which have been demonstrated through surveys of participating 
farmers and ranchers and other research:

   Improved farm viability. Proceeds from the sale of an 
        agricultural conservation easement are often reinvested into 
        the farm or ranch operation. Farmers and ranchers have used 
        proceeds to construct, expand, or repair agricultural 
        buildings; buy equipment for farming, processing, or marketing 
        products; pay down debt; or buy additional land.\2\ Protected 
        farms and ranches also have a positive impact on neighboring 
        farmers and ranchers, providing them a sense of confidence in 
        the ``permanence'' of agriculture in the community and helping 
        to encourage additional investment in their own operations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Dempsey, Jennifer (2023). Analyzing the Lasting Impacts of the 
Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (https://
farmlandinfo.org/publications/analyzing-the-lasting-impacts-of-the-
farm-and-ranch-lands-protection-program/). Northampton, MA; American 
Farmland Trust.
    \3\ Sherman, R., Millshaw, S., Freedgood J. and Wagner B. (1998). 
Investing in The Future of Agriculture: The Massachusetts Farmland 
Protection Program and the Permanence Syndrome. Northampton, MA: 
American Farmland Trust.

   Additional conservation practice adoption--Many landowners 
        who protected their land through the Federal Farm and Ranch 
        Lands Protection Program (FRPP) used proceeds from the easement 
        sale to implement additional conservation practices. The survey 
        shows that this increase in conservation was due to the 
        recognition that their land will remain forever available for 
        agriculture. FRPP landowners have a significantly higher rate 
        of conservation practice adoption than the general farm 
        population.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Dempsey. Analyzing the Lasting Impacts of the Federal Farm and 
Ranch Lands Protection Program (https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/
analyzing-the-lasting-impacts-of-the-farm-and-ranch-lands-protection-
program/).

   Enables older producers to transfer land without liquidating 
        their most valuable asset--The sale of an easement allows older 
        farmers and ranchers--who are often ``land rich but cash 
        poor''--to finance their retirement and facilitate an intra-
        family land transfer without having to liquidate a cherished 
        asset and legacy. An AFT study found that virtually all 
        surveyed farmers wanted to see their land remain in farming and 
        saw the sale of an easement as the only means to make their 
        land affordable for a next generation producer.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ American Farmland Trust. Keeping Farmers on The Land (https://
s30428.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/AFT_E-
FS_D_GainingInsights_GainingAccess.pdf). 2016. Accessed June 2, 2025.

   Improved land access for next generation farmers and 
        ranchers--Escalating land values and competition for land from 
        developers and non-farming investors is putting land ownership 
        out of reach for many producers. This includes both those with 
        established operations seeking to expand and, even more so, for 
        undercapitalized producers and those just getting underway. 
        Land access has long been the number one challenge facing new 
        farmers and ranchers and has only been exacerbated by a 106 
        percent vii increase in cropland values and a 73% 
        increase in pastureland value viii over the last 
        decade and a half. By limiting its future use to agriculture, 
        ACEP typically makes land more affordable, helping to create 
        pathways for land ownership and wealth generation for a new 
        generation of producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \vii\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/
2024LandValuesCashRents.pdf.
    \viii\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/
2024LandValuesCashRents.pdf.

   Economic benefits for rural communities--Studies have shown 
        that ACEP and other Purchase of Agriculture Conservation 
        Easement (PACE) programs also strengthen rural economies. A 
        2022 study ix led by USDA's Natural Resources 
        Conservation Service in Montana, the Montana Association of 
        Land Trusts, and the Heart of the Rockies Initiative found that 
        between 2014 and 2021, every Federal dollar of easement 
        financing invested in Montana's farms and ranches through ACEP 
        yielded $1.89 of economic activity. In addition, the $109 
        million ACEP investment produced a total economic impact of 
        $182 million, supported 1,057 local jobs and $41.5 million in 
        labor income, and contributed $99 million to the state's GDP. A 
        similar study x completed by Colorado State 
        University's Agricultural and Resources Economics Department in 
        2018 found similar results for Federal investments made from 
        easement programs in Colorado between 2008 and 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \ix\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/
Montana_Working%20for%20
Montana%20Agriculture%20-
%20Economic%20Impact%20Analysis%20Full%20Report.pdf.
    \x\ https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/
4d17eb79-b9db-41eb-b6fa-41bee188a8ea/content.

    Given these many benefits, it is unsurprising that thirty states, 
and over 100 counties and municipalities, have PACE programs. The most 
recent addition to this list is the State of Tennessee, which this year 
passed a new $25 million state Farmland Preservation Fund with strong 
support from the governor, legislators, and the state's agriculture 
industry. AFT was similarly pleased to see Secretary Rollin's Farmers 
First agenda xi point to the benefits of ACEP-ALE as a 
program for farmers interested in keeping their land in agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \xi\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/
19/secretary-rollins-announces-farmers-first-small-family-farms-policy-
agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Such programs have long been popular with both landowners and 
lawmakers and are typically oversubscribed. They have assisted 
thousands of farm and ranch families in realizing their dream of 
protecting their land and legacy for future generations.
Building on the Success of ACEP-ALE and RCPP in the Next Farm Bill
    AFT is grateful to this Committee--and especially to Chairman 
Thompson--for its strong support of ACEP-ALE and RCPP, as well as for 
championing program changes in the Farm, Food and National Security Act 
of 2024 that would greatly improve their ability to serve farmers, 
ranchers, and agricultural landowners. Let me speak to each of these 
proposed changes in turn.
1. Increases Funding for Agricultural Conservation Programs
    We applaud and strongly support the Committee's inclusion of 
language to transfer the remaining unobligated balance of Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) funding into the farm bill conservation title both 
within the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 and in the 
recent House reconciliation bill. The House reconciliation package 
would increase the farm bill baseline for ACEP by $250 million per year 
(to $700 million annually), and for RCPP by $150 million per year (to 
$450 million annually). This funding would begin to help fulfill more 
landowner demand for ACEP and RCPP and enable even more farmers and 
ranchers to protect their land and implement the conservation practices 
needed to build more profitable, resilient, and sustainable operations 
for decades to come.
    It's important to note that ACEP consists of two subprograms--
Wetlands Reserve Easements (WRE) and Agricultural Land Easements (ALE). 
Annual funding for ACEP-ALE easement acquisitions represents less than 
half of the current $450 million annual funding for ACEP. For instance, 
from 2019-2021, funding obligated for easements acquired through ALE 
amounted to just $114 million on average annually, falling far short of 
meeting landowner demand. For reference, the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania spends an average of $34 million annually on its PACE 
program.
Key ACEP-ALE Reforms in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 
        2024
1. Expands Opportunities for Landowner Participation Through Changes to 
        the Federal Share of Easement Value
    The Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 would make 
valuable changes to ACEP's cost-share rates. These include:

   Increasing the Federal share to up to 65% for general ALE 
        easements.

   Providing a lower Federal share option of 25% for easements 
        held only by the partnerentity.

    Working lands with high agricultural productivity and conservation 
values are being lost because of the financial barriers that many 
landowners face in accessing ACEP-ALE. Currently, NRCS can only 
contribute 50% of the easement value unless a property is designated as 
``Grasslands of Special Significance,'' (GSS) in which case the Federal 
share increases to 75%. In parts of the country without a land trust or 
state or local conservation funding source to leverage additional 
funding, landowners not in a financial position to donate a significant 
portion of the easement value are often unable to participate in the 
program.
    The lower Federal share option of 25% provides a new and important 
alternative. Some landowners mistrust government agencies and are 
reluctant to commit to an easement in which USDA holds an executory 
interest. Additionally, some states have been unable to reconcile their 
program's easement deed terms with USDA's terms. This could be 
addressed if state programs are allowed to use their own deed terms and 
there is no Federal interest in the easement. Land trusts and public 
PACE programs with alternative funding sources would be able to 
leverage this smaller amount of Federal funding to compensate 
landowners for the sale of an easement. There is precedent for this 
lower Federal share option; a 25% Federal share for an entity-only held 
easement is currently available through the RCPP.
    Such changes would enable more farmers, ranchers, and landowners 
across the nation to make use of the program.
2. Improves Program Efficiency Through an Enhanced Certification 
        Process
    Established in the 2008 Farm Bill, certification was intended to 
streamline program delivery and reduce administrative burdens on NRCS 
by recognizing the expertise of certain program partners to acquire and 
steward agricultural conservation easements. By enabling experienced 
partners to acquire an easement with minimal advance NRCS review, 
certification helps to reduce the time a landowner must wait to be 
compensated for an easement, which, since FY20, has averaged over 2 
years.xii Until recently, NRCS had certified only a handful 
of entities. While we commend NRCS for recent efforts to expand 
certification, experienced program partners could take on more 
responsibilities to further reduce easement acquisition times and 
decisions on post-closing stewardship requests. The language included 
in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \xii\ https://www.farmers.gov/data/easements-acquisition.

   Affirms Congressional intent around the purpose for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        certification.

   Lowers the threshold of projects required for certification 
        and provides an additional pathway for certification.

   Allows certified entities to use and modify their easement 
        deed terms so long as these terms are consistent with program 
        purposes.

    Such changes would both expand the number of certified entities and 
make certification more meaningful, thereby improving the process for 
entities and participating landowners.
3. Eliminates the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Eligibility Requirement
    We were pleased to see the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 
2024 eliminate the AGI eligibility requirement on landowners 
participating in ACEP. Unlike conservation cost-share programs, a 
payment through ACEP is not a subsidy but rather a real estate 
transaction and purchase of a specific property interest based on 
appraised fair market value. Moreover, imposing AGI eligibility 
requirements on landowners for ACEP defeats the program purpose of 
conserving land with the highest agricultural productivity and 
conservation values. In addition, AGI checks administered through the 
Farm Services Agency and the Internal Revenue Service are slow and 
cumbersome and are a barrier to getting projects completed in a timely 
fashion.
    We hope the Committee will consider one further change to AGI, 
relating to how AGI is calculated. Currently, proceeds from the sale of 
an agricultural conservation easement are considered income for the 
purpose of calculating a landowner's AGI. This can have the perverse 
impact of preventing a farm or ranch family that has just sold an 
easement from participating in other NRCS conservation cost-share 
programs for several years. We encourage the Committee to eliminate 
this disincentive for conservation by excluding easement sales from AGI 
calculations.
4. Provides Additional Program Clarity Around ACEP Easement 
        Administration Actions
    We are grateful to the Committee for including reforms related to 
easement modifications. The language in the Farm, Food and National 
Security Act of 2024 allows for modifications that align with program 
purposes and address changing circumstances that adversely impact 
agricultural viability, including changes in water availability. The 
language also created a new category of ``de minimis'' adjustments, 
offering a streamlined pathway for minor actions such as correcting 
typographical errors and changes to building envelope boundaries. 
Importantly, the language also clarifies that easement modifications 
are not considered a major Federal action under the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
    These changes are intended to address landowner concerns over often 
extensive delays or denials of minor modification requests, and to 
recognize that program partners have significant expertise in 
addressing easement administration actions in other easements they 
hold. Consistency in easement amendment and modification practices 
across the realm of conservation programs is critical to avoid costly 
and unnecessary litigation as well as for the proper long-term care of 
perpetual conservation easements. AFT and partners look forward to 
continuing to work with Committee staff on ALE modifications language.
Key RCPP Reforms in the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024
    RCPP is designed to foster innovative landscape-scale conservation 
projects through expanded public-private partnerships. Land 
conservation organizations and public agencies have used RCPP to focus 
working lands protection efforts on important agricultural regions and 
to incentivize conservation planning and practice adoption on 
permanently protected farmland and ranchland. RCPP is a valuable, 
complementary tool to ACEP for permanent working lands protection. The 
Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 includes several key 
reforms to RCPP supported by AFT and many others in the farmland 
protection community. These reforms would:
1. Expand ACEP Certification to RCPP and Allow ACEP-Certified Entities 
        To Use the Same Streamlined Easement Acquisition Process as 
        ACEP
    RCPP has often been stymied by program rules that require different 
acquisition procedures for agricultural land protection than those used 
by ACEP-ALE, even for experienced state and local land protection 
partners. We welcome the bill's proposed return to the ``covered 
program'' approach, which offers entities the choice of using 
established ACEP rules for working lands protection or pursuing 
innovative approaches through Alternative Funding Arrangements. The 
proposed language also provides assurance that entity certification 
under ACEP extends to RCPP easement projects.
2. Allow Up to Ten Percent of Project Agreement Funds To Reimburse a 
        Partner for Administrative Expenses Related to the Project and 
        Permit Partner Administrative Expenses Not Reimbursed To Be 
        Part of the Eligible Partner's Contribution
    We applaud the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024's 
recognition that eligible partners should be permitted to recover 
personnel and associated costs with RCPP projects, similar to the use 
of funds for USDA personnel supporting the covered programs.
Conclusion
    Private working lands are a finite resource foundational to the 
essential industry of agriculture. These lands, especially those that 
are the most critical for future food production, are being carved up 
and paved over in communities large and small. This relentless 
conversion threatens the profitability of established farmers and 
ranchers, the viability of our next generation of producers, and our 
future food and national security.
    The Federal Government has an important role to play in addressing 
farmland loss. Agricultural conservation easements are an essential 
tool in this effort. ACEP-ALE and RCPP do much more than simply protect 
farmland. They help to create more viable farms and ranches, strengthen 
rural communities, and open the door for the next generation of farmers 
and ranchers.
    In addition to conservation easements, it is important to note that 
there are other Federal strategies which could support farmland 
retention. These include strengthening the Farmland Protection Policy 
Act and making changes in the Tax Code to both better enable the 
lifetime transfer of agricultural lands and exempt easement proceeds 
from taxation. AFT welcomes additional discussion on these and other 
policy topics.
    I thank you once again for this opportunity and for this 
Committee's continued support for farmland and ranchland protection. 
AFT appreciates your leadership and looks forward to continuing this 
conversation. We stand ready to serve as a resource as you move forward 
on these important issues.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Fink, and we now 
turn to Ms. Galase. You may please begin when you are ready for 
5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF NICOLE K. GALASE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAWAII 
     CATTLEMEN'S COUNCIL, HILO, HI; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL 
                  CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION

    Ms. Galase. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, and 
Members of the Committee, I am grateful to join you today to 
testify on the value of conservation programs that support our 
nation's livestock industry. My name is Nicole Galase, and I 
currently serve as a Managing Director for the Hawaii 
Cattlemen's Council, a statewide organization supporting 
ranchers who steward 750,000 acres or nearly 20 percent of 
Hawaii's total landmass. HCC is an affiliate of the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, which is the nation's largest and 
oldest national trade association representing the U.S. cattle 
industry and represents over \1/4\ million cattle producers.
    Cattle producers own and manage considerably more land than 
any other segment of U.S. agriculture or any other U.S. 
industry for that matter. America's cattle producers 
collectively manage over 650 million acres, nearly \1/3\ of our 
nation's continental landmass. Some of the biggest challenges 
and threats to our industry come from the loss or conversion of 
our natural resources. In Hawaii, like many other states, we 
face a decline in pasture lands. A decline in pasture 
inevitably leads to a decline in agricultural production, which 
weakens food security. Our goal is to keep grasslands green.
    Since our livelihood is made on the land, resource 
stewardship not only makes good environmental sense, it is 
economically fundamental. Maintaining robust voluntary 
conservation programs must remain a top priority for both USDA 
and this Committee. Accomplishing this goal is impossible 
without the flexibility and attention to locally-led decision-
making. Cattle producers take pride in our efforts to improve 
the land and are always looking for partnership opportunities. 
I urge the Committee to promote initiatives in the farm bill 
that allow NRCS programs to foster innovative and common-sense 
land management. Additionally, mandates that stifle 
implementation or a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not 
work in the cattle industry. These efforts to standardize 
programs limit producers' ability to utilize the unique 
practices that help their individual operations thrive.
    The EQIP program is a popular funding source for Hawaii 
cattle producers. In one example, a Hawaii rancher utilized 
EQIP for cross fencing to improve his rotational grazing, 
allowing him to double his herd size while improving soil 
health. For this producer and others, accessing technical 
assistance is crucial to success. NRCS staff provide guidance 
to maximize both productivity and sustainability, and access to 
EQIP and conservation technical assistance improves soil 
health, controls erosion, and ensures improved water quality.
    It is clear through my experience with NRCS and FSA that 
lack of funding is not our primary road block. Especially when 
it comes to EQIP, the 50 percent livestock carve-out is 
effective in ensuring that necessary monies are available. 
Access to technical assistance and inefficient funding 
distribution are the most significant hurdles to producers' 
success. While these hurdles were acknowledged in the 2018 Farm 
Bill, few policies actually increase functionality.
    NRCS was designed to function as a locally-led Federal 
agency. While this seems counterintuitive, its structure has 
proven invaluable for farmers and ranchers who seek specialized 
solutions for local conservation challenges. Local populations 
hold a deep understanding of their land, their ecosystems, and 
their unique challenges. These stakeholders know better than 
anyone else where to dedicate resources to address urgent and 
high impact concerns. This insight allows conservation projects 
to be tailored to the specific needs of the area, reducing 
costly missteps often seen when national programs are forced on 
states or counties. In short, locally-led conservation combines 
the right knowledge, community buy-in, and targeted solutions 
to efficiently stretch every dollar spent.
    As policymakers consider the sustainability of the U.S. 
agricultural industry, environmental sustainability is only one 
leg of a three-legged stool. Economic prosperity, social 
awareness, and voluntary conservation go hand in hand, and we 
are always looking for conservation opportunities that will 
have tangible benefits for the environment and to help improve 
our ranching lands.
    USDA's conservation programs are an asset to cattle 
producers, but only when implemented in a practical producer-
friendly and voluntary manner. With USDA as a partner, American 
ranchers maintain open spaces, healthy range lands, and 
wildlife habitat while leading the world in quality protein 
production. Together we can conserve our country's natural 
resources, maintain economic prosperity, ensure a viable way of 
life for future generations. I thank the Committee for the 
opportunity to testify, and I look forward to questions. 
Mahalo.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Galase follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Nicole K. Galase, Managing Director, Hawaii 
 Cattlemen's Council, Hilo, HI; on Behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef 
                              Association
    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Tokuda, Chairman Thompson, Ranking 
Member Craig, and Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:

    I am honored and grateful to join you today to testify on the 
importance of conservation to support our nation's agricultural 
industry.
    My name is Nicole Galase and I currently serve as Managing Director 
of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council (HCC). I also lead the Hawaii Beef 
Industry Council, a Qualified State Beef Council, and the Hawaii 
Rangeland Stewardship Foundation, which is a [501(c)(3)] with a mission 
to ensure healthy rangelands for generations to come. I have been 
working with Hawaii's ranchers since 2019 to ensure a viable business 
environment for the cattle industry. This includes representing 
ranchers in state and county policymaking, and providing opportunities 
for them to gain access to conservation agriculture funds that help 
them in their goals to steward the land while producing food.
    The Hawaii Cattlemen's Council's represents 135 ranch members 
across the state. Ranchers are the stewards of 750,000 acres of land in 
Hawaii, or nearly 20% of the state's total land mass. HCC is an 
affiliate of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA). NCBA is 
the nation's largest and oldest national trade association representing 
the U.S. beef cattle industry, with other 250,000 producers represented 
through both direct membership and 44 state affiliate associations.
    Cattle producers own and manage considerably more land than any 
other segment of U.S. agriculture--or any other U.S. industry for that 
matter. Cattle producers graze cattle on approximately 666.4 million 
acres across the United States--nearly \1/3\ of our nation's 
continental landmass. Additionally, acreage used to grow hay, 
feedgrains, and food grains add millions more acres of land under 
cattlemen's stewardship and private ownership. Some of the biggest 
challenges and threats to our industry come from the loss or conversion 
of our natural resources. The cattle industry is threatened daily by 
urban encroachment, natural disasters, and government overreach that 
makes our stewardship harder--if not impossible. In Hawaii, like many 
other states, we face a decline in pasture lands. A decline in pasture 
inevitably leads to a decline in agricultural production, which weakens 
our food security. Our goal is to keep agricultural lands in 
agricultural production. Since our livelihood is made on the land, 
through the utilization of our natural resources, being good stewards 
of the land not only makes good environmental sense; it is fundamental 
for our industry to remain strong. We strive to maximize the 
environmental, economic, and social sustainability of our operations, 
and it is through voluntary conservation programs that ranchers will 
continue to be a proud partner with the government to reach our 
environmental conservation goals.
    Conservation programs are one of the most visible and consistently 
important portions of the farm bill for cattle producers across the 
country. Many cattle producers' only nexus to farm bill-related 
services occurs at their local NRCS or FSA office. Building and 
maintaining robust voluntary conservation resources must remain a top 
priority for both USDA and this Committee. The 2018 Farm Bill sent a 
strong signal to agricultural producers across the country that 
voluntary conservation is a top priority, and we appreciate this 
Committee's commitment to continually improving these vital programs. 
As we look forward to the next farm bill, I'm excited to discuss the 
exciting opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Cattle producers 
pride themselves on being good stewards of our country's natural 
resources.
    Cattle producers employ various conservation practices, many of 
which we put in place by utilizing NRCS programs, such as the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (or EQIP). EQIP is designed to 
assist producers in implementing conservation practices that will 
enhance the health of grazing lands, improving water quality, improving 
soil quality, and reducing soil erosion. One important feature of EQIP 
has been its focus on livestock operations, and we appreciated the 50 
percent funding designation for livestock-related practices in the 2018 
Farm Bill. Because crop production receives significant value from 
other working lands programs, like CSP, a livestock carve-out for EQIP 
funding ensures that resources are equitably distributed among 
producers. Federal funds spent on conservation are a good investment in 
our country's natural resources and the sustainability of agriculture 
and wildlife, and it is vital to ensure that livestock producers have 
access to these valuable resources for grazing and feeding management. 
While the intent of EQIP is to make conservation funding and technical 
assistance accessible to all producers, barriers to entry often 
disincentivize producers from utilizing NRCS programs. For example, 
when NRCS staff are not given enough resources to make site visits and 
understand the specific needs of a producer, the producer is often 
offered very rigid guidelines that are not tailored to their situation. 
While producers may see opportunities to improve the land and 
environment with EQIP funding, many simply do not have sufficient 
confidence in the process to apply[.]
    Collectively, we could improve upon soil-health-building grazing 
practices, provide more erosion control, and promote cleaner water 
sources. More and more frequently, ranchers choose to adjust their 
budgets to cover the costs of improvement, rather than waiting for 
assistance and losing valuable time. We care about the environment and 
our livestock, and any improvement on the land is something we are 
unanimously proud of. By creating additional hurdles for producers that 
want to utilize these programs, the Committee and USDA limit access 
while simultaneously limiting the government's ability to record our 
environmental improvements. I urge the Committee to support initiatives 
in the farm bill that allow NRCS programs to support innovation and 
commonsense land management.
    It is clear through my experience with NRCS and FSA that lack of 
funding for practice implementation is not an issue. Especially when it 
comes to EQIP, the 50 percent livestock carve-out is effective in 
ensuring that necessary monies are available. The most significant 
challenge for producers who want to take advantage of working lands 
programs is the inefficiency in technical assistance availability and 
funding distribution that allow us to accomplish a project. While this 
hurdle was acknowledged by Congress in the 2018 Farm Bill, few of the 
policies focused on increasing functionality. The EQIP program is a 
popular source of funding for Hawaii's cattle producers, as access to 
technical assistance is a much-needed resource. The technical 
assistance provided, such as engineering specs of a reservoir, or 
ensuring designs do not cause erosion, are essential to a producer 
successfully completing practices that benefit their operation as well 
as the community around them. Providing enough experienced staffing and 
resources to our NRCS offices is a key component of ensuring producers 
utilize the offered programs.
    Flexibility is key to ranchers' utilization of conservation 
programs. Ensuring that producers have the freedom to effectively 
manage their land goes beyond EQIP, stretching to other conservation 
programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP has the 
potential to provide significant environmental benefit but currently 
fails to maximize its value. Changes made in the 2018 Farm Bill limit 
our ability to effectively manage CRP acreage with grazing. Livestock 
graze mature, stagnate grasses and allow regrowth of green, carbon-
capturing plants. If we allow more CRP grazing, we will promote more 
opportunities for beginning ranchers to graze animals responsibly and 
provide existing pastures with more rest and recovery during drought 
years. This will be especially beneficial in areas where pasture is 
scarce and livestock production is rapidly dwindling like my home state 
of Hawaii. Cattle and other forms of livestock can be the sustainable 
solution to managing CRP without the negative impact on the ecosystem 
while also helping ranchers economically. HCC and NCBA support the CRP 
Grasslands pilot program, and hope to see a permanent authorization for 
this program included in a final farm bill. Grazing is a valuable tool 
in maximizing carbon sequestration but is not a tool that we are able 
to use on CRP acreage. This policy limits our ability to effectively 
manage our land. By allowing cattle to graze CRP acreage without a 
reduction in payment, we could greatly increase interest in CRP 
contracts, while simultaneously maximizing environmental value and 
economic benefit.
    Congress has made clear its interest in building a climate-smart 
economy, including the integration of climate-smart practices into the 
agricultural industry. The Hawaii Partnership for Climate-Smart 
Commodities was a tremendous opportunity to provide incentives for 
voluntary conservation practices that also measured the direct benefits 
of the practices like managed grazing, silvopasture, and invasive brush 
management. The incentive provided the funding support to implement the 
practice, and the measurement of impacts on the soil provided a 
concrete example of benefit that the producer could be proud of and 
utilize to enhance their marketing capacity--boasting both the benefit 
of food production and regeneration of the land. While the Climate-
Smart Commodity grant has unfortunately been canceled, we are eager to 
apply for the Advancing Markets for Producers Initiative. Our hope is 
that this funding will continue to serve the producers by incentivizing 
voluntary conservation practices that ultimately provide benefit to the 
consumer, our community. As with EQIP, technical assistance will be 
necessary for this program. We understand the goal to get as much funds 
directly to the producer as possible (in this case, the threshold is 
65%). However, we suggest that funds for technical assistance be 
considered part of the direct-to-producer percentage, as this technical 
assistance is imperative to successful implementation of practices, and 
for navigating improvement of markets.
    HCC is interested in participating in the Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program to direct funds to practices that will best address 
Hawaii's land issues. However, our colleagues currently utilizing the 
program shared that the application and reporting are cumbersome and 
laden with red-tape. For example, NRCS manages the RCPP through 
Conservation Desktop, which is a different platform than is used to 
manage EQIP and CSP contracts. This adds unnecessary complexity and 
confusion. Staff are not well acquainted with how to conduct contract 
management through the new platform, leading to errors and delays. 
Modifications that should improve the project are also slow to get 
approval. This puts stress on organizations and increases 
administrative costs. If this program can be streamlined, organizations 
like HCC, who are the closest to our producers and can get funds 
directly to the boots-on-the-ground doing the important work, will be 
better equipped to successfully implement an RCPP contract.
    Voluntary conservation programs work because they are voluntary. 
While it seems obvious, continuing to fund voluntary conservation 
programs, while keeping them voluntary, is critical to their continued 
success. Mandated implementation, or a one-size-fits-all approach that 
accompanies top-down regulation does not work in the cattle industry. 
If these programs or practices were to become mandatory, the rules and 
regulations that farmers and ranchers would be subjected to would make 
it harder for them to utilize the unique conservation practices that 
help their individual operations thrive.
    NRCS was created as a locally-led Federal program. While this seems 
counterintuitive, its structure has proven invaluable for farmers and 
ranchers who seek specialized solutions for local conservation 
challenges. Communities have deep knowledge of their land, ecosystems, 
and challenges and know how we can dedicate resources to the most 
urgent and high-impact issues. This insight allows conservation 
projects to be tailored to the specific needs of the area, reducing 
costly missteps often seen when national programs are forced on states 
or counties. Agriculture is never one-size-fits-all, and the most 
successful projects are those that can be flexible and adapt to the 
needs of the producer. This leads to better buy-in from the producer 
and strengthens participation in the practices that will reach USDA's 
goals. Local stakeholders are directly affected by the outcomes, which 
encourages more careful and honest use of the funds. Projects are more 
likely to be monitored and adjusted if they are falling short of 
expectations. In short, locally-led conservation combines the right 
knowledge, community buy-in, and targeted solutions to efficiently 
stretch every dollar spent.
    As policymakers consider the sustainability of the U.S. 
agricultural industry, environmental sustainability is only one leg of 
a three-legged stool. Cattle producers strive to balance environmental 
sustainability with economic viability and social consciousness--
maintaining this balance is key to ensuring our long-term success. 
Economic prosperity, social awareness, and voluntary conservation go 
hand-in-hand and we are always looking for new, innovative conservation 
programs that will have tangible benefits for the environment and help 
to improve our ranching lands. USDA's voluntary conservation programs 
have been a great asset to cattle producers, and it is important that 
these programs are implemented in a practical, producer friendly, and 
voluntary manner for years to come to ensure that cattle producers will 
continue to have the ability to do what we do best--produce the world's 
safest, most nutritious, abundant, and affordable protein while 
operating in the most environmentally friendly way possible. Ranchers 
across the country maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands, provide 
wildlife habitat and feed the world. Together we can sustain our 
country's natural resources and economic prosperity, ensuring the 
viability of our way of life for future generations.
    I thank the Committee for convening this hearing and for the 
opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of 
the witnesses for your testimony today. At this time, Members 
will be recognized in order of seniority, alternating between 
Majority and Minority Members and in order of arrival for those 
who joined us after the hearing convened, and you will be 
recognized for 5 minutes each to allow everyone to get as many 
questions in as possible. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Sebert, I thank you for your testimony and perspectives 
on Public Law 83-566. In your view, what do you think are the 
most helpful improvements that Congress could provide to the 
Small Watershed Program and rehab program?
    Dr. Sebert. Mr. Chairman, I would direct you----
    The Chairman. Your microphone, Doctor.
    Dr. Sebert. I pulled a Jimmy there. Sorry. I would direct 
you to our farm bill priorities that you are familiar with, not 
the least of which is the opportunity for NRCS to address 
remedial and repair work on aging structures that exceed the 
level for operation and maintenance for which the sponsors are 
responsible but fall short of full rehabilitation. There is a 
body of work there that needs to be addressed, and it will 
require Congress pointing NRCS to that work for that to happen.
    The Chairman. Last year's Committee-passed farm bill 
contained provisions to specifically authorize cost-share for 
remedial actions on Pub. L. 83-566. These actions would include 
the deterioration of a component of a structure faster than 
expected or structural damage caused by a weather or storm or 
weather event. So drilling in on this further, Dr. Sebert, in 
your view, how might such a change improve the administration 
of the program? We are getting down to the nuts and bolts here.
    Dr. Sebert. This body of work carries an element of risk, 
and the action that the policies that were put forth in that 
version of the farm bill would buy down that risk, which 
protects both the sponsors of the project as well as USDA, and, 
perhaps most importantly, those living downstream from this 
flood protection.
    The Chairman. And just one more moment, Dr. Sebert. In the 
nature of the upstream flood control, remind our friends that 
these are smaller, interlocking dams, most of which hold no 
water, simply catch and then meter out at a safe rate these 
rainfalls. Just the general concept.
    Dr. Sebert. Yes. These small watershed structures are built 
in a series. Many times, the head of the watershed area will 
have two to three of these structures on it that catch the 
rainfall, catch the water, and then release it over a period of 
7 to 14 days rather than uncontrolled release from rain events 
in the upstream reaches of the watershed that send a flash 
flood or extensive flooding in the main tributaries.
    The Chairman. President Boening, I appreciate your comments 
and your testimony about the need to simplify programs and 
reduce paperwork. In recent farm bills, particularly the 2014 
Farm Bill, Congress was successful in program consolidation and 
simplification. Since Congress has, at times, tended to create 
similar overlapping programs, subprograms within larger 
programs and regional carve-outs, it seems to me that such 
simplification must be necessary to restore clarity and update 
the statute. What are your thoughts about recent efforts in 
Congress to streamline and simplify programs?
    Mr. Boening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the short 
answer there is, we are very appreciative of that. I mean, that 
is one of the things I kind of said in my testimony. What 
farmers and ranchers face, remember, we want a farm and ranch, 
and that is what we do, and when things can be simplified when 
we walk into the USDA offices, it is much appreciated. So as we 
work through this, keep that thought in mind.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. It is hard to believe having 
chaired this Subcommittee some time ago how far we have really 
come, the dramatic increases in the conservation spending in 
the 2002 program, and now this effort to take one-time money, 
what remains of it, and turn it into a permanent increase in 
baseline to work from. I think all of us in the conservation 
movement together, all of you and all of your supporters back 
home, we have had amazing success considering the ever-
increasing challenges of legislating in the modern world.
    With that, I thank all of you for answering my questions 
and your participation in these programs, and I turn to my 
colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member from Hawaii, for 5 
minutes for questions.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2022, USDA launched 
the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program, or CSC, 
which provided funding and technical assistance directly to 
farmers to help them scale climate-friendly practices like 
cover cropping, tillage management, and prescribed grazing, to 
name a few. This program was overwhelmingly popular and food 
producers across the country leveraged $3.1 billion in CSC 
funding to get shovels in the ground on cost-effective, 
partnership-based conservation projects. That was until April 
when USDA abruptly canceled the program, claiming that CSC 
projects didn't prioritize direct payments to farmers, but in 
reality, farmers were receiving direct financial and technical 
support, often exceeding the arbitrary 65-percent threshold for 
direct payments, including in the Administration's new Farmers 
First priorities. Now more than 14,000 farmers covering 3.2 
million acres across the country are left wondering what will 
happen to their planned conservation work, in some cases 
already with investments made.
    There is nothing Farmer First about yanking the rug out 
from under these farmers, if you ask me. And the USDA, we know, 
has promised to replace CSC with the Advancing Markets for 
Producers Initiative or AMP, but it is unclear when project 
reapplications will, in fact, be reviewed, how much funding 
will be available, and what farmers who are planning on this 
funding are supposed to do with the work that is already 
ongoing.
    Ms. Galase, in your written testimony, you mentioned that 
you are eager to apply for AMP to continue projects started 
already and invested in under CSC, and you are currently in 
conversations with the USDA about this reapplication. What 
impact has frozen CSC funds had on planned conservation work 
and on your producers? What has been the impact on them given 
many have already made investments in the ground?
    Ms. Galase. Thank you for highlighting this issue. We did 
see the Climate-Smart Commodities Program as something that was 
going to help our producers. We had funds going directly to 
farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Because it was canceled, 
those projects are canceled as well. All those contracts were 
canceled, and if a producer is extremely fortunate, they are 
going to be continuing those projects on their own dime, but 
that was not planned for, and as you know, in agriculture, you 
need to plan for years ahead.
    We went through the hard work of getting them through the 
arduous onboarding process, and we had those funds on the 
ground. Producers were starting the work. Now they are 
essentially finished, and they don't know when they are going 
to get the funding back. And the producer engagement team, such 
as the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council who are helping with that 
difficult onboarding, a lot of the other organizations have 
lost dozens of employees who are now unemployed. And in looking 
at applying for the next Advancing Markets for Producers 
Initiative, we are now applying with a very bare-bones team.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. So this has definitely had an impact 
on our producers. I know for many, they don't have the cash-
flow to just continue on their own, and any investments made 
that have not been refunded at this particular point is a 
definite loss to their bottom line. And as you mentioned, 
employees fired are very hard to rehire in a tight labor market 
like the one that we are in.
    A question to the panel as a whole, there has been a lot of 
discussion about technical assistance and technical support as 
being critical. Mr. McLeland, your testimony also cites the 
importance of NRCS staff being able to help farmers access the 
technical assistance they need to be able to enroll in these 
conservation programs. What we do know is with the President's 
initial budget, he actually proposed eliminating completely CTA 
funding. We do know that yesterday there was some restoration 
of that particular funding in the appropriations bill, but we 
also know that CTA funding has decreased year after year after 
year. It is never enough.
    So to the panel, what impact is going to be the result of 
NRCS being slashed by the $800 million staffing in the 
thousands lost to NRCS and CTA funding actually decreasing, not 
increasing in terms of rural farmers, under-served farmers 
being able to access this critical conservation funding that we 
are trying to provide? I don't know who wants to take it up.
    Mr. McLeland. It all starts with technical assistance. The 
need for support that we understand from the producers and the 
growers out there, that is where it starts, from facilitation 
to getting into the right program, to ensure that we are 
helping them address their goals and objectives. It is going to 
be very difficult to deliver incentive-based, voluntary 
programs without conservation technical assistance that it all 
builds off a solid foundation of conservation planning.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. Anyone else want to answer to that?
    Dr. Sebert. Watershed work is a long-term proposition, 
requires years of planning and work, and so any disruption of 
that flow does impact the outcome in terms of the ability to 
implement watershed program work.
    Mr. Fink. We are similarly concerned about the damage this 
could do to the conservation delivery system, and I would just 
note that not all farmers necessarily want to enter into a 
specific farm bill program. The conservation technical 
assistance allows them to get planning and the expertise they 
need, so it is yet another important avenue for really serving 
farmers and ranchers.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to join you in Committee today. A key topic, very 
important to my home district in California as well, with over 
\1/2\ million acres of rice, as well as other adaptable habitat 
for the betterment of waterfowl and conservation.
    So as you know it, in my real life, I am a rice grower in 
the Sacramento Valley, and my farm and many of my neighbors 
utilized the EQIP program in the past and have done at least a 
certain amount of effort to provide the habitats to all the 
many species we have in the Flyway so plentiful in the 
Sacramento Valley. In the 2018 Farm Bill, there was a provision 
included that will allow the Secretary to enter into EQIP 
contracts for up to 10 years for practices solely for the 
benefit of wildlife, including post-harvest flooding. It would 
help maintain seasonal wetlands for the waterfowl and migratory 
bird habitat. So to my knowledge, USDA has still not carried 
out any contracts for longer than a few years, a couple years 
at a time. So I am curious, with the provision that we worked 
on in 2018, why have not there been more longer, up to these 10 
year contracts that the bill provided for?
    As you know, depending to what level you are participating, 
the infrastructure, the effort you might do in shaping your 
lands, shaping the irrigation systems and other aspects of what 
you would do to enhance waterfowl and conservation does require 
a certain amount of effort, a certain amount of investment in 
doing that. So for Mr. McLeland, what is your familiarity with 
EQIP putting out actual 10 year contracts, again, because if I 
was going to invest, then I would want to be able to know that 
I am going to get a return, that the money I spend, the effort 
I make, is going to be more for than just a couple years. And 
maybe I don't get to be in that contract after that and you are 
out that effort, which I think most people that participate at 
all probably wouldn't mind being in it for a longer period of 
time. It is not a hard thing. It is not like, say, in some 
cases permanent easements, which shy a lot of people away. So 
what do you think about that?
    Mr. McLeland. Yes, thank you for the question. It is 
certainly good to have that option for sure, and each contract, 
each interaction with that producer, it is very tailored to 
their operation. So we work with them and are very sensitive to 
that, and we haven't seen as many 10 year contracts as we 
probably would have expected, generally average around 5.
    Mr. LaMalfa. You have seen some 10 year, though?
    Mr. McLeland. I have seen some, yes, but there----
    Mr. LaMalfa. What state or what region they would be in 
that where you are seeing that happen?
    Mr. McLeland. Arkansas.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Arkansas?
    Mr. McLeland. Yes, and we have definitely seen 5 years be 
the norm, though, one to five. One to five, and that generally 
ends up being a function of the operation and the preference of 
the landowner.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So do you hear clamoring by growers for the 10 
year contracts, or is it really a low-demand situation? What do 
you think?
    Mr. McLeland. It seemed like to be a more low-demand 
situation.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Because we have run into anecdotes, at least 
on that. We are wondering why NRCS is not allowing them or 
processing them or what have you as defined in the 2018 Farm 
Bill to give that additional flexibility and long-term. 
Depending to what level, to what stage you are practicing, I 
would want to know if I am making significant changes in my 
operation that if it worked for me or a neighbor, whatever, 
that you would have that option, but I guess we need to get a 
little more direct input from folks that have sought these 10 
years. Anything else you would have?
    Mr. McLeland. Again, we would like to see as long a 
contracts as we can get, so 10 years is good but definitely 
need to take some look at the implementation side of it.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it is very important we tailor these two 
individual needs, as you mentioned at the top there.
    Mr. McLeland. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Heck, I know it is a positive thing in that, 
but we will have to get some more information together on the 
anecdotes, but is NRCS generally cooperative on doing them? Do 
they have any reason maybe in the California region that you 
are aware of that they are not putting them out internally?
    Mr. McLeland. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Okay. Well, we will follow up on 
that. So any thoughts you have, anybody else on the panel--I 
ran out of time already on that--please send that along to my 
office if you wish. So thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Madam Ranking Member, and thank you all to the witnesses who 
have come today.
    President Trump's 2026 budget proposal would cut funding 
that goes toward conservation technical assistance at the USDA, 
and there is language that would cut the USDA's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service staff. And yesterday, the House 
Agriculture Appropriations Majority released a bill that aligns 
with that by slashing funding by five percent below Fiscal Year 
2025 to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's 
conservation operations, and so this is going to make it harder 
for farmers to get technical assistance as it relates to 
conservation.
    So for Mr. Fink and Mr. McLeland, can you explain how 
slashing funding for operations and technical assistance 
programs affect the effectiveness of conservation programs, the 
future of farming, and the day-to-day experiences of farmers?
    Mr. Fink. We are definitely concerned about potential cuts 
to conservation technical assistance. A lot of farmers, as I 
mentioned earlier, are not necessarily interested in entering 
contracts on farm bill programs, and so that is the funding 
that they access just to get that general technical assistance. 
And I think it is absolutely critical to recognize that for a 
lot of NRCS staff, these are boots-on-the-ground. These are 
people working directly with farmers who have trusted 
relationships. You cannot severely slash that funding without 
actually impacting the staffing component.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Mr. Fink.
    Mr. McLeLand. Yes, and I would agree. As I mentioned 
earlier, conservation planning starts with technical 
assistance, and these are long-term relationships that these 
conservation planners have with these producers, and it is a 
long-term investment. As Mr. Fink mentioned, some may not be 
looking for participation in a program. They just be looking 
for recommendations and advice to address a need or concern 
that they have.
    Ms. Adams. Okay.
    Mr. McLeland. And so that is a very important piece of the 
foundation.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. So could you explain how 
this proposed cut might affect the intended outcomes of 
conservation efforts such as lowering production costs for 
farmers and achieving better environmental results? Yes, sir, 
you can go right ahead.
    Mr. McLeland. Just given the importance of conservation 
technical assistance, it would be very difficult to ensure that 
the programs are implemented to the degree that that they would 
be otherwise.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, I agree with you. Well, let me move 
on. One of my main priorities on the broader Committee is 
advocating for racial equity and justice in agricultural 
spaces, and it is the same for this Subcommittee because when 
we help minority or black farmers, we help all farmers. And one 
of my signature bills, Justice for Black Farmers Act of 2023 
(H.R. 1167, 118th Congress), has a few provisions related to 
conservation, such as using mandatory funding to support 
conservation technical assistance at the USDA and the 
Conservation Stewardship Program. And at a time when farmers 
are facing more climate-related pressures than ever, it is 
vital for Congress to give them the resources that they need to 
remain resilient and profitable. Hurricane Helene devastated 
Charlotte, which is where I represent, and the surrounding 
areas. Unfortunately, we have seen devastating impacts of 
natural disasters on farm country in the past few years.
    So for Ms. Nicole, is that Galase?
    Ms. Galase. Galase.
    Ms. Adams. Is that right?
    Ms. Galase. Galase.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you. So can you tell us about the 
role that USDA conservation programs like EQIP play in helping 
landowners recover from natural disasters?
    Ms. Galase. Sure. EQIP has been really essential for 
recovering from natural disasters. EQIP funds things that 
reduce erosion. You can put in windbreaks so that there is less 
erosion, and these are things that prepare you for and when 
natural disasters come. We are seeing things like flooding. We 
are seeing things like drought. So reservoirs that EQIP funds, 
that allows us to capture the water when we need it in order to 
be prepared for when disasters like this happen. Reaching our 
historically-under-served producers, these are the producers 
who normally don't have access to these programs, and so we 
need to build the trust for them to step into those NRCS 
offices and know that they are going to get the help they need 
with the technical assistance that needs to come with it so 
they can be successful.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of our 
witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is very 
appropriate that you mentioned the Dust Bowl and the Soil 
Conservation Service in your remarks, because it is relevant to 
what we are talking about in this Committee. And I wanted to 
share with you, when I was a young kid on the farm in Indiana, 
we had one of the worst floods that I had ever seen, and it 
took out railroad trestles and filled, as a example, a 5 gallon 
bucket of water in a very short period. Back then we fed hogs 
on wooden platforms and put feeders on them. We saw pigs going 
down that flooded stream, still on the platform, and there 
wasn't anything you could do about it.
    But my point is the local farmers got together with the 
Soil Conservation Service and implemented the small watershed 
projects. And so when I get around to it, Dr. Sebert, I am 
going to start with you, but the question goes to all of you. 
But those small watershed projects, that went up the 
tributaries rather than a big main dam on mainstream and went 
up to tributaries, and those small dams functioned like the 
water tank on a toilet, in my opinion, and let it out slow, and 
we haven't had a flood in that area since that. I am sorry, 
sir, but anyway. But we haven't had a flood in that stream 
since then. The only thing I see happening is that they have 
come to the end of their useful life, and there is some thought 
about maybe taking those out. My suggestion would be that we 
restore them and replenish them.
    But going on to my question, science, technology and 
innovation, they are really central to progression of American 
agriculture and have led the U.S. agricultural industry being 
the most reliable and efficient in the world. So how can we be 
sure to maintain clear eligibility requirements for these 
conservation programs that we are talking about, paving the way 
from implementation of new technologies when they come about, 
like precision agriculture, and technologies, or new land 
management practices? Dr. Sebert if you would like to comment 
on my original thoughts, and then the rest of you on this 
precision agriculture that would be appreciated.
    Dr. Sebert.--to speak across----
    Mr. Baird. I would rather do that than be here to tell you 
truth, but anyway.
    Dr. Sebert.--to take you across the country and let you 
tell that story. There here are, in fact, 132 NRCS structures 
in your state at this point in time. I agree with you that in 
the majority of the cases, it is not take them out, it is 
rehabilitate them and continue to provide those benefits. 
Highway culverts, county road culverts, bridges, school bus 
routes have all grown accustomed to the protection those 
structures provide, and to take them out, in my opinion, would 
be an error, and folks would learn fairly quickly with the 
volatile weather we see around the country that something was 
doing a good job. Even though it was a silent sentinel, 
somebody didn't know it was there. They didn't know what the 
function of it was. It was providing the protection necessary 
to keep commerce going in that county and keep kids safe going 
to school.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. Starting with Mr. Boening, anyone 
else have a comment in this regard, especially about precision 
agriculture?
    Mr. Boening. Yes, sir, I would like to comment. I 
appreciate the question. I got to thinking here when you went 
down that road how much has changed in my 43 year farming 
career, and things just simply like GPS has enabled us to move 
to things like minimum tillage and nutrient management, and 
those are all conservation efforts as well. When you think 
about fertilization application rates that you can tailor as 
you go across your field and apply them at variable rates to, 
then there is no excess. You don't overuse it. You don't under 
use it.
    So precision ag, and I will share this, it has been a 
little difficult to keep up. I think my 8 year old grandson 
will be able to help me here pretty quick on some of that 
stuff, and it really ties into conservation because, like I 
said before, you can manage your nutrients. You cannot over 
overuse fuel. It has been a good thing.
    Mr. McLeland. Yes. I would just comment quickly that I 
concur with Mr. Boening's comments here as well. And would also 
add that technology is providing opportunities for us in our 
space, too, to better utilize conservation as part on-farm 
operations where, in this case, wetlands may provide a suitable 
alternative and fit well within a farm operation, strengthening 
the bottom line and increasing profitability too. So precision 
is helping us identify those opportunities.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, and my time is up. I am sorry for the 
last two, but we can talk later. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now 
recognizes an old colleague from the Science Committee, Mr. 
Sorensen of Illinois for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Always fun to be 
able to talk about the intersection of agriculture and science.
    Today we are at a critical point where we must do more to 
conserve the fertility of our land by investing in soil 
resilience. Not doing so would risk the very foundation of our 
food and energy systems. Recent reports from the National 
Weather Service underscored a stark reality: our land 
management choices have real and often dangerous consequences. 
On May 1, 2023, multiple crashes occurred on Interstate 55 near 
Springfield, Illinois, in Congresswoman Budzinski's district. 
Thirty-seven people were seriously injured, and seven people 
died. The dust storm originated from freshly-tilled and planted 
farm fields picked up and lofted by 40 mile per hour winds, but 
this wasn't a onetime deal. Less than a month ago, a dust storm 
in my district southwest of Bloomington, Illinois, quickly 
tracked northeast on the heels of strong winds, causing zero 
visibility on roads and highways. And I, coming back from 
Washington, D.C. to my district, watched as the dust storm 
moved over O'Hare Airport, causing massive delays. Thankfully, 
no one died because of the quick action and the funding of the 
National Weather Service.
    Meteorologists like me, we call these dust storms, but more 
importantly, they are erosion events, the result of overly-
tilled, unhealthy soil, which creates dry, dusty earth that can 
easily be carried off by high wind. It is a similar tale to 
what happened in the Dust Bowl years of the Central Plains in 
the 1930s. It is not just a visibility issue. What we are 
seeing here is our nutrients go into the air and are gone, and 
we can prevent these disasters by ensuring that our farmers 
have the funding and the assistance that they need to implement 
smart ag, like no-till or cover crops that mitigate erosion and 
improve soil health over time. These practices not only ensure 
that our farmers can withstand stronger weather events, but 
also protect travelers in our communities. What happened in my 
district in Bloomington and downstate in Springfield should 
serve as a wake-up call because this could easily happen next 
May or even in this fall if we are still in drought condition.
    The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, 
plays a vital role in how we move forward, but it requires the 
funding and the staffing needed to meet the moment. 
Unfortunately, what we are seeing is an Administration that is 
hellbent on making cuts to USDA's workforce, specifically 
within NRCS. With a massive $300 billion cut in food assistance 
on the horizon, it is hard to envision how this Committee will 
pass a farm bill that sufficiently provides support through 
conservation programs like EQIP and CSP.
    Mr. Boening, in March, west Texas experienced its own 
erosion event, turning the sky an eerie orange across the 
Permian Basin from El Paso to Dallas-Fort Worth. How can we 
best integrate smart agricultural practices into risk 
management planning to prevent future events?
    Mr. Boening. Thank you for the question, Congressman. We 
have climate change. We know that. We experience it. Some of 
that is brought on by some extreme drought that we have had in 
those areas, and these conservation practices that we have been 
talking about, since 10:00 a.m. this morning, are really the 
tools that we need to use as we go forward. I mean, you 
mentioned cover crops, you mentioned minimum tillage. In some 
places, not everything works exactly the same in every area. I 
will just use my area somewhat. We cover crops on our dryland 
acres. Non-irrigated acres are difficult because of limited 
rainfall, so we go back to doing as minimum tillage as we can, 
leaving as much residue on the surface as we can, and planning 
buffer zones, whether they be wind breaks, whether they be 
grass waterways, grass strips. Those are all things that we 
need to look at as we go forward, and we need to work on the 
funding for those quite frankly, and we understand that.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Boening. Dr. Sebert, my time 
is limited. I appreciate your soil and water conservation work. 
My focus in meteorology school was hydrology and stream flow 
management. Could you explain in the last 30 seconds that I 
have how important it is to lock the nutrients into the fields, 
keeping them out of the rivers, and, more importantly, how 
Congress and the Federal Government should support the effort?
    Dr. Sebert. [Inaudible]. We can apply every conservation 
practice we know, and all it takes is one flood to take that 
away. So by controlling the flow of water across the land, we 
can lock things in place and have those remain where we have 
adequate production.
    Mr. Sorensen. I love your idea of an all-of-the-above 
approach. I appreciate you all, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair 
now recognizes the full Chairman of the Committee, Mr. 
Thompson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you both. 
The One Big Beautiful Bill, as passed by the House, provided 
key investments for farmers and ranchers. This includes 
necessary updates to the farm safety net, investments in 
livestock security measures, research, and trade promotion. It 
also rescinded unobligated IRA conservation funds and 
reinvested those dollars into the standing conservation 
programs. By doing so, we will have eliminated the climate 
sideboards and returned the funding to meet an important core 
principle: locally-led conservation that benefits all farmers. 
Mr. Boening, how important are these investments for our 
agriculture producers?
    Mr. Boening. The simple answer there, Mr. Chairman, is of 
the utmost importance. We talked about all morning here, these 
programs were successful, and Chairman Lucas mentioned it in 
his opening statement, because they are flexible, they are 
voluntary, and they are locally-led. So those programs are what 
farmers have worked with and benefited from over the years. So, 
quite frankly, and it is not just the farming and ag community 
that benefit from it. It is our rural communities, it is all of 
those things, so those investments are of the utmost importance 
to farmers and ranchers.
    Mr. Thompson. So isn't it true that in addition to just the 
fact that American agriculture can be defined as science, 
technology and innovation, coupled with this type of 
investment, and these programs really help to contribute to the 
fact that our farmers, ranchers and foresters are the climate 
champions of the world with the amount of carbon they 
sequester? And the beauty of it in agriculture, when we 
sequester carbon, we manufacture topsoil, which means we grow 
things for the benefit of everyone.
    Mr. Boening. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Thompson. The Inflation Reduction Act required that 
funding provided by the law for conservation programs could 
only be used for climate-related practices, thereby restricting 
funding for many other practices otherwise eligible under the 
program. And some very credible individuals, including the NRCS 
chief during President Obama's Administration, for one, have 
said, it would be best if the sideboards were taken out so that 
the state technical committees and local groups can decide 
which practices work best for the natural resource concerns 
that they wish to address. Through the current reconciliation 
process, we are trying to reinvest those IRA-unobligated 
conservation funding, as we have talked about in this hearing 
already, into the existing conservation programs to provide a 
permanent increase to the title's baseline. In doing so, we 
would also remove those climate sideboards required by the IRA 
to allow for more local prioritization.
    I will just open this up to all of our panelists. Do you 
agree that reducing, removing the climate sideboards would 
better allow it to be a locally-led process to be able to work 
and be able to use conservation practices that may vary 
depending on where in the country the farmer is actually 
farming? I can think of many places where, if you put a cover 
crop in it, would suck every last bit of moisture out of the 
ground, and you won't be able to grow a cash crop. In some 
places it gets too cold too soon to be able to do planting like 
that. So I will just open it up for anybody who would like to 
comment on that question.
    Mr. Boening. I will just go really quickly. So by opening 
it up, removing those sideboards, it goes back to the same 
things we have been talking about: being flexible, being 
locally-led, and it is still voluntary. The climate-smart 
practices will still be eligible, so it goes back to the core 
of how these programs work the best.
    Mr. McLeland. Yes, I will second that to say at Ducks 
Unlimited, we are fully supportive of locally-led, voluntary, 
incentive-based conservation programs that are flexible Farmer 
First, and that certainly would be the case in this instance.
    Mr. Thompson. Very good.
    Mr. Fink. As an organization, AFT is very supportive of 
climate-smart practices. They are essential to the 
profitability of farmers, but the number one thing that is 
limiting the ability to get these practices on the ground is 
total available funding. We support the transfer of this 
funding with or without those sideboards.
    Mr. Thompson. And any comments--I will just finish with 
that--won't be a part of the farm bill, but it is a law today. 
The Biden Administration just never really got it together, the 
[inaudible] programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for 5 minutes, Mr. 
Vasquez.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking 
Member. It can't be lost on us today that we are sitting here 
for a hearing titled, Supporting Farmers, Strengthening 
Conservation, Sustaining Working Land, when just 3 weeks ago, 
some of my colleagues on this Committee voted essentially to 
gut the farm bill and limit the chances of passing the historic 
bipartisan farm bill. So I think if we are going to talk about 
conservation, let's talk about conservation initiatives that 
are effective, that are based in science, and that are 
supported by farmers and ranchers on the ground, not the 
talking points from the White House.
    Because I am limited on time this morning, I am going to 
make this easy and ask our panel some simple yes or no 
questions and shift the focus to some legislation that we can 
pass as part of a farm bill, hopefully. Mr. McLeland, you 
stated that you learned early on that agriculture and wildlife 
conservation were not mutually exclusive activities, which is 
something that I completely agree with. Do you still agree with 
this?
    Mr. McLeland. Yes.
    Mr. Vasquez. Well, then I think you would support my 
bipartisan bill, which is the Habitat Connectivity on Working 
Lands Act of 2025 (H.R. 2235), which was written for this exact 
purpose and expands voluntary USDA programs to improve wildlife 
corridors on private working lands, including habitat for 
waterfowl and upland bird habitat. Thank you. Mr. McLeland.
    Mr. McLeland. Thank you.
    Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Fink, do you agree that farmer-to-farmer 
education, which creates mentorship opportunities between 
experienced and new producers, is a valuable tool for farmers 
using Federal dollars?
    Mr. Fink. Yes. It is, in fact, one of our top farm bill 
priorities in conservation.
    Mr. Vasquez. Well, thank you so much. That is the idea 
behind my bipartisan Farmer to Farmer Education Act of 2024 
(H.R. 8488, 118th Congress), which creates mentorship 
opportunities between experienced and new producers, and I 
appreciate your support for this approach.
    Mr. Fink. Thank you for your leadership on it.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you. Ms. Galase, you said that the 
cattle industry is threatened daily by government overreach in 
part of your opening statement documents, and it is one of the 
impediments to conservation for ranchers. Is this correct?
    Ms. Galase. Yes.
    Mr. Vasquez. Well, I think you will be happy to support or 
endorse my bipartisan bill that is exactly what this does. The 
Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2025 (H.R. 2238) aims to fix 
this issue by removing bureaucratic delays so that ranchers can 
make much-needed improvements on time without having to 
renegotiate their leases on Federal land. Thank you, Ms. 
Galase. Mr. Boening, in your testimony, you raised concerns 
about the closure of NRCS offices, which is something New 
Mexican farmers are also facing. Is this still an issue for 
farmers in Texas?
    Mr. Boening. Yes, sir, it is somewhat. Yes.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much. Well, I am sure that you 
will also then, hopefully, support my legislation, which is the 
Honor Farmer Contracts Act (H.R. 2396), which stops the USDA 
from indiscriminately closing NRCS offices and requires the 
Federal Government to honor its already-signed contracts with 
American farmers and ranchers. Thank you, Mr. Boening.
    I want to thank you all for your support of these 
bipartisan legislative priorities that I hope get to see the 
light of day both in this Committee and the House Natural 
Resources Committee, because these are important priorities in 
which, if we have the absence of an actual farm bill, we can 
pass to help support farmers and ranchers across the country. 
And that is why I have introduced this full package of 
legislation designed to meet those goals.
    These are practical bills that are crafted with input from 
farmers and ranchers that strengthen conservation partnerships, 
expand wildlife corridors, and help producers sustain and grow 
their operations. I believe this is the kind of work that we 
should be focused on, both in our subcommittees and in the full 
Committee, delivering real solutions that producers in New 
Mexico and across the country are asking for. Instead, and 
unfortunately, the priorities of this Committee have advanced a 
bill that just cut SNAP and delayed or eliminated billions of 
dollars from farmers, families and food retailers. So if we are 
serious about supporting farm country, we should act like it.
    I urge my colleagues to continue to support farmers and 
hold legislative hearings just like this one and markups on 
commonsense bills like mine that I laid out today, bills that 
actually solve our problems for our constituents and for 
farmland, and for farmers and ranchers across the country. 
Thank you so much. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
sharing your testimonies in Committee today.
    My son-in-law owns a farm together we bought a few years 
ago, which, by the way, the neighboring farmer that plants it 
uses no-till, so we try to address good soil practices. To 
address some drainage and erosion problems, we have put in 
drain tile and had some earthen dams built. While it solved the 
erosion and runoff issues, it bore a hefty price tag, and it 
will take us about 3 years from the cash rent to pay off the 
upgrades that we put on that property. On the Committee, we say 
all the time, farmers are the best stewards of our land, but 
investing in soil conservation practices is neither cheap or 
risk free. The programs we are discussing here today help 
producers bridge the gap.
    Mr. Boening, in your testimony, you mentioned that 
technical service providers play a vital role in helping 
producers reach their conservation goals, especially as they 
work through the application process. One of the complaints I 
hear from farmers back home is the complexity of the program 
application. To give some context, could you share what a 
typical application looks like and why it could present a 
barrier to entry?
    Mr. Boening. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and 
just as a quick aside, you mentioned drainage tile. And as a 
young farmer many years ago from south Texas, I had to figure 
out what drainage tile was, why it was important, because we 
don't have that issue in most of Texas, as you well know. There 
is really not a typical application process. That is really the 
deal. They vary immensely often from county-to-county and 
state-to-state, for sure. There are a multitude of programs, as 
you well know. There are different environmental and 
conservation practices that work in those different areas. 
There is a ranking and scoring component of these applications.
    So I guess, not to disagree with your question, but I would 
just say that there is not a really typical application 
process. And for us, that is why it ties back to the technical 
service providers that local folks that know the areas, that 
know their county, that know their region, that can provide 
that expertise, as our farmers and ranchers navigate these 
application processes.
    Mr. Messmer. Well, thank you. Mr. McLeland, would you like 
to comment on the application issue from the lens of the RCPP?
    Mr. McLeland. Yes, absolutely. I think just to start to say 
that the RCPP program has been effective. The 2014 version was 
very streamlined. It allowed us as technical service partners 
to provide support and get dollars in the hands of the 
producers very, very quickly, very expeditiously. In the 
process of the 2018 Farm Bill, again, the process is a little 
bit more lengthy, which kind of doesn't make it as expeditious 
in terms of going through the application process, the planning 
process, and getting the resources to the producer, so a little 
bit of a longer time lag there with RCPP as it stands right 
now, and, generally, that has to do with some administrative 
bottlenecks.
    Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your insight, 
Mr. McLeland. The last thing I want to have is a stack of 
papers that separates private landowners from incredible 
opportunities for conservation. While we are on the topic of 
RCPP, I want to praise the success of the public-private 
investment model. By encouraging skin in the game from private 
entities, these partnerships allow conservation efforts to be 
tailored, innovative, and follow a business-minded approach. 
Mr. McLeland, given your experience with Ducks Unlimited, can 
you share how programs that encourage private investment 
increase the reach and efficiency of these conservation 
programs?
    Mr. McLeland. Absolutely. Producers bring resources to bear 
in these projects all the time, and these projects can be 
expensive, and so continued investment is very important. And 
so, from our standpoint, looking to maximize the outcomes as 
best we can and primarily assuring that we achieve the 
producer's goals and objectives, resources are provided. So the 
more partners involved, the additional investments that are 
made generally helps ensure quality of the projects and 
maximizing the scale and scope of the projects.
    Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now 
turns to the gentlelady from Illinois for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Tokuda. I am really excited to get to serve on 
this Subcommittee again. I represent a district in central and 
southern Illinois with issues around conservation and 
biotechnology, are incredibly relevant, so it is great to be 
back. My district is the home to some of the most productive 
soil in the world. In the last Census of Agriculture, multiple 
counties in my district were in the top 15 corn- and soybean-
producing counties in the entire country, and the farmers in my 
district are extremely driven to protect that valuable 
resource, especially as we see increased frequency of severe 
weather.
    Over the last few years, my district has seen dry enough 
drought conditions, that we had a fatal dust storm along 
Interstate 55, as well as several tornadoes, severe flooding, 
and a derecho that hit the Springfield community as well. 
Severe weather events like these increase the risk of 
agricultural operations across the country and threaten long-
term soil health. That is why USDA conservation programs are so 
important to my district. They can help reduce risk on the 
farm, protect soil and crops for our farmers, and improve water 
and air quality for all of us.
    With that in mind, I want to talk about how we can help 
farmers access the critical programs to reduce the risk of 
their operations. Just as an example, in Illinois, at the state 
level, we have the Cover Crops Premium Discount Program that 
allows a $5 per acre premium discount on crop insurance for 
acres where cover crops are planted. This is a great program 
that many farmers have taken advantage of, but $5 an acre is 
certainly below the cost of adoption for cover crops. Mr. Fink, 
if I could ask you this question. I know that American Farmland 
Trust has been active in uplifting conservation practices as a 
part of risk management. In your opinion, how could the Federal 
Crop Insurance Program be updated to better reflect proven 
risk-reducing properties of conservation?
    Mr. Fink. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. I 
will say, first and foremost, we need to make sure the crop 
insurance system is not conflicting with these good farming 
practices. There has been a lot of progress on that front. 
There is still probably more progress to be made. I think the 
other aspect is that, when we look at the crop insurance 
system, if we are talking about creating additional incentives, 
it is something that has to be actuarially sound. And the good 
news is when we look at cover crop adoption, we have seen a lot 
of the research, it is reducing overall indemnity payments in 
the face of a lot of these extreme weather events. It is also 
reducing prevent planting payments. And so whatever we can do 
that looks at the actuarial soundness, builds the research to 
make that case, and ultimately, our goal is to reward farmers 
for practices that are saving the public money and saving 
themselves money.
    Ms. Budzinski. Great. Thank you, and maybe just a follow-up 
question for any of the panelists. If you could share how 
conservation practices have reduced risk for you or members of 
your organization, I would love to hear about that as well.
    Ms. Galase. Some of the most important conservation 
practices that have been funded have been things like invasive 
species removal to reduce fire fuel loads and cutting fire 
breaks. This is protecting not only the ranch and the producer, 
but the community around the ranch, which makes them a good 
neighbor. It helps their business, and it is better for the 
planet.
    Ms. Budzinski. Great. Anyone else?
    Mr. McLeland. Yes, I would just add that, from our 
standpoint, conservation programs like WRE, Wetland Reserve 
Easement, they add to the safety net. You don't know, in my 
home State of Missouri, we see flooding somewhat frequently, 
and so the opportunity to have a program like WRE that can do a 
wetland restoration projects and be available as an option to a 
producer, is part of risk management. It can be a solution 
there in terms of taking a loss on those acres 3 out of 5 
years, so it is really important, and it is decisions that we 
see get made, and we are thankful to have options for producers 
like that.
    Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you.
    Dr. Sebert. One of the things that hasn't been mentioned 
this morning is the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. It 
is a component of the Small Watershed Program, which, when 
administered, helps areas recover from the type of disasters 
that you are talking about, and it is an opportunity for NRCS 
to have a role in that recovery and provide that safety net to 
producers.
    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you.
    Mr. Boening. Just one thing quickly that hasn't been 
mentioned and as far as conservation, the feral swine program 
that was initiated in the 2018 Farm Bill is very important to 
Texas, very important to much of the southern states. And as we 
go forward, and I know this Subcommittee and the full Committee 
has probably already heard about the New World screwworm issue 
moving North. I think those types of programs are still going 
to be very, very important. Just wanted to get that mentioned.
    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back, and that is an 
understatement by the President of Texas Farm Bureau about the 
nature of screwworms and the curse called feral hogs, and add 
in Eastern Red Cedar, too. With that, the chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bresnahan, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking 
Member for holding this hearing. I am honored to represent 
Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District, home to the scenic 
Pocono Mountains, and the Delaware and Susquehanna River 
watersheds. Interwoven throughout these national treasures, 
northeastern Pennsylvania is also home to over 1,000 family 
farms that help and feed to sustain our local communities. The 
continued success of this relationship between our working 
lands and our natural landscapes that surround them depends on 
a strong commonsense conservation programs like the ones we are 
discussing today.
    Mr. McLeland, I appreciated hearing your testimony and dual 
perspective, not only as a representative of Ducks Unlimited, 
but also as someone who runs a cow-calf operation. I 
specifically want to hear more insights from your boots-on-the-
ground perspective. Could you speak to how Ducks Unlimited 
works with the dairy and cattle industry when it comes to 
conserving land and supporting our farmers and ranchers?
    Mr. McLeland. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that question, 
too. For us it really is multifaceted. We try our best to be 
technical assistance providers, boots-on-the-ground, so 
starting working one-on-one with those producers to help them 
achieve their conservation goals and assess opportunities for 
conservation and operational efficiency. So it starts there 
from a conservation planning standpoint, and we are grateful to 
get to work with those producers and very grateful for all that 
they do. To take it a step further there, if there are 
opportunities for or a need for financial incentives to do 
conservation programs that will also increase their 
profitability, provide wildlife habitat and ecosystem services, 
we are going to help facilitate that process and bring that 
needed financial to bear to get them again where they want to 
go. So that is our role is to facilitate that process, to be a 
source of information and help and guide them along the way as 
much as we can, and we are grateful for the opportunity to work 
in that space.
    Mr. Bresnahan. What are the NRCS programs that are most 
utilized by farmers and ranchers like yourself?
    Mr. McLeland. Yes. Otherwise we have been discussing here 
today, it all starts with conservation technical assistance. It 
starts there with conservation planning, getting those initial 
site visits, and then the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program is a program that has been very important to farmers 
and ranchers. And so taking that a step further, prescribed 
grazing practices that provide infrastructure for increased 
profitability and utilization of pasture planting, native 
plantings things like that have been very popular in our 
practices that we work with quite a bit, in addition to wetland 
restoration, the suite of wetland restoration practices where 
applicable.
    Mr. Bresnahan. I think it is important to point out the 
direct help that conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited 
provide to our farmers. Just one last question. Can you expand 
on the technical assistance that Ducks Unlimited provides and 
how that partnership with NRCS actually works?
    Mr. McLeland. Absolutely. So we try our best to be a force 
multiplier for NRCS. We are grateful for the partnership with 
them, and in many cases, we are not in every state, but in 
states of need or high workload where our missions overlap, we 
are generally working right alongside NRCS. So we have the 
ability to do conservation planning and provide technical 
assistance, again, to help facilitate participation in 
conservation programs that address the needs of the producer. 
So again, I use that phrase, force multiplier. We try to be 
added lift out there to help address the demand. Again, it is 
to be a service to the producer, and so we are there to provide 
our expertise and support as best we can, hand-in-hand with 
NRCS.
    Mr. Bresnahan. I appreciate that, and thank you to all the 
witnesses for giving up a day here to come in and testify. With 
that, I yield back. Thanks.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Maryland, Mrs. McClain Delaney.
    Mrs. McClain Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member, and thank you to all the panelists. I was listening in 
from my office, and I was very impressed by all the testimony. 
But I think I heard from all the stakeholders here that, from 
the Texas Farm Bureau, to our cattle dairy industry, to 
American Farmland Trust and Ducks Unlimited, that we all need 
to make conservation programs more practical, accessible, 
modernized, and, really, that there is adequate funding for 
conservation programs, and I wholeheartedly agree.
    I represent many farmers in farm country in Maryland, and I 
am the daughter of an Idaho potato farmer, and I understand the 
importance of responsible land stewardship. Our farmers and 
ranchers are not just producers, they are the best stewards of 
our land and resources, and programs promoting sustainable 
agriculture and conservation are vital for protecting our soil, 
water, and forests, while keeping farms productive for many 
generations to come.
    Our Committee, as you know, has a unique opportunity and 
responsibility to strengthen these programs and invest in the 
future of our land, but, most importantly, of our people. And 
for over 200 years, and the reason I actually joined this 
Committee, is that the House Agriculture Committee has worked 
to feed the nation and support rural America, and it is always 
done through bipartisan cooperation, and I really believe in 
bipartisanship. This year has been a little bit different. I am 
a new freshman, and instead of uniting around farmers and 
conservation, unfortunately, ideology took a little bit of the 
front seat. I look forward to working across the aisle to 
strengthen USDA conservation programs and to support our 
farmers, but I believe we must acknowledge that this 
reconciliation bill needs to have some amendments so it does 
not leave these conservation practices behind.
    So Marylanders have long been stewards of conservation, and 
they have worked hard to sustain their lands. I have spoken to 
all my five farm bureaus and advocacy groups, and one example 
of farm stewardship that they mentioned is the Mid-Atlantic 
Dairy Farmers Producing Tangible Results Through Climate-Smart 
Change. That is a mouthful. It is a project that is supported 
by USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP, which 
we have been talking about, and this program really touches 
every quarter of my district and tracks air quality, energy, 
and feedstock impacts. I am just going to ask Mr. Boening 
really quickly, in your testimony, you mentioned the need to 
simplify the RCPP application process. What barriers are 
producers facing in RCPP, and what should our Committee 
consider when strengthening RCPP to help more farmers access 
these programs?
    Mr. Boening. Thank you, Congresswoman. Could you repeat the 
last part of your question, yes, about what the----
    Mrs. McClain Delaney. What barriers are you facing in RCPP, 
and what should we, as a Committee, really think about when 
strengthening this program to help more farmers access the 
program?
    Mr. Boening. I am not intricately familiar with RCPP. I 
mean, I know what it is. We don't use it that much in our area, 
but from what I understand, it goes back to the same thing 
about having technical assistance, having folks, boots-on-the-
ground so to speak, locally that can help producers navigate 
it. That is from what I understand.
    Mrs. McClain Delaney. And if any other panelists want to 
add in.
    Mr. McLeland. Yes. I might just add, to appreciate that 
question, just to go back to RCPP on the whole, it is an 
effective program. But one limitation from a partner standpoint 
is just as written right now, it is a commitment to move that 
program forward, and there are some administrative barriers and 
costs that come with that, that ultimately kind of slows the 
process down. And so, we want to be expeditious and get these 
resources into the hands of the growers that need them, and so 
there are some provisions that have been proposed that I think 
would really make that process much faster and smoother.
    Mrs. McClain Delaney. And I am happy. I am going to claim a 
little bit of time back, but I am going to give a little 
question and submit it, and so hopefully we can address that a 
little bit more.
    Another thing that was mentioned is, one of my top concern 
with the reconciliation bill is its impact on key farm bill 
programs. And one of them is that most critical programs, from 
rural development interests to conservation, are at risk, 
including programs like the Forest Landowner Support program 
and, as we just spoke about, the Emergency Watershed Recovery 
Program under RSCC. If funding is cut through the 
reconciliation package for programs like this, how do you see 
these impacting long-term efforts of conservation, and does it 
make sense, and what do you think is the delay of splintering 
the farm bill through this reconciliation process? I am just 
really concerned. Any of you who can weigh in, maybe something?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes, I am just concerned about, as we 
look at all of these programs and we are looking at 
reconciliation, that we leave some of these priorities behind 
that are so very important. I am running out of time, but I 
will again submit this. I know it takes a little bit more to 
think about, but I know that 360 million acres of private 
working lands or forests are in the U.S. and I am just very 
concerned about how our reconciliation process might not----
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mrs. McClain Delaney. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Tennessee for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, and also, thank you to 
Ranking Member Tokuda for holding this hearing, and thank you 
to our witnesses for taking time to be with us here today.
    I believe it is fitting to begin my remarks by praising my 
fellow Committee Members and Chairman Thompson for their work 
in passing our portion of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This 
historic legislation redirects nearly $14 billion from the 
Inflation Reduction Act to critical farm bill conservation 
programs, securing permanent baseline funding. We still have 
plenty of work to do to pass a complete farm bill, but the One 
Big Beautiful Bill Act provided significant and long-overdue 
investments for our hardworking farmers in rural America.
    As of 2022, 98 percent of the over 10,500 farms in 
Tennessee's 6th Congressional District are family farms. Today 
we have heard exceptional testimony advocating for working 
lands programs and urging Congress to refrain from allowing 
programs to retire productive and arable land. Mr. Boening, can 
you elaborate on the impact on family farms if working lands 
programs are not prioritized and if efforts to retire arable 
lands are not curbed?
    Mr. Boening. Well, I think it will force farmers out of 
business. That is what it will come down to, and it is very 
important that that we keep moving forward with our working 
lands, and the lands that are most productive need to be 
treated that way. And then when we look at things like CRP and 
we talked about doing the soil classification and those type of 
things, I think that is what it was intended for, and that is 
the route we need to go down.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. I agree on that. And by the way, a 
special thank you to you. My sister, Redonna, who worked in 
Farm Bureau in Tennessee for many years, says hello and wanted 
me to say that. So I know you have a proud tradition as a 
fourth-generation farmer and it is good to have you, here and 
thank you for taking time from what no doubt is a busy 
schedule.
    Mr. Boening. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rose. Mr. Boening, staying with you, technical 
assistance accessibility from the NRCS for conservation 
programs has been an ongoing issue for years. The provisional 
changes in the Farm, Food and National Security Act address 
these changes on many levels. Can you explain in detail the 
urgency in passing these changes and what we will experience if 
adjustments to technical assistance are not prioritized?
    Mr. Boening. Well, thanks for the question, and it goes 
back to what we have been talking about. From what I have 
mentioned and several other people have mentioned, we need 
those folks that are locally based and that technical 
assistance because there are so many different environmental 
and conservation concerns. Issues vary from state to state, and 
having that technical assistance there at a local level to help 
those producers navigate what is best for their operation. What 
is best in south Texas may not be best in Tennessee, and I 
think we all know that. So that having those technical service 
providers as boots-on-the-ground locally just enhances the 
programs, and it makes them much more effective all across the 
board.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. I couldn't agree more. Mr. Fink, 
between 2017 and 2022, Tennessee lost over 141,000 farming 
acres and nearly 6,900 farms. How can Congress utilize NRCS 
conservation programs to enhance environmental stewardship 
while also reversing the downward trend in production 
agriculture acres and operations?
    Mr. Fink. One of the foremost priorities, of course, is the 
transfer of the IRA funding and providing more funding to the 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. That will enable 
more of those acres to remain in agriculture. And I would 
emphasize that it is not just the easement lands, it is that 
areas every farm that has lost makes another farm more 
vulnerable, so having one easement has a direct impact on other 
farms in the community. And then continuing the investment in 
these conservation practices, they are a part of what it means 
to keep farms viable. They are what makes the farms more 
resilient in the face of some of the weather that you have 
experienced. And I also want to congratulate your state for 
joining the ranks of so many other states and having one of 
those Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.
    Mr. Rose. Absolutely, and I will just second that, very 
proud to see the General Assembly advance a plan there to 
provide those conservation easements. And I think it is an 
important first step, but, indeed, a first step in my view. We 
have to do more to protect our farmland, and it is a delicate 
issue because we don't want to intrude upon people's rights to 
do with their property as they see fit, but we do need to 
safeguard farmland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair sees no 
one else seeking recognition to ask questions.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Before we adjourn today, I would like to 
invite the Ranking Member to share any closing comments she 
might have.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much to 
our panel of witnesses for a robust and very, I believe, 
productive conversation. Some of the things that we definitely 
heard was increasing investments in conservation programs are 
something we can all 100 percent agree on. We cannot fund 
enough, especially given that the demand often and quite 
frankly, outpaces the resources that we are able to put toward 
it. But just as important as the money is the technical 
assistance and support, especially for farmers in rural, under-
served communities, just like my home State of Hawaii. We need 
to make sure those farmers, ranchers, and producers have access 
to that kind of support and technical assistance so that they 
can actually have access to these resources and increasing, not 
slashing or even steadily decreasing. Support for programs like 
the conservation technical assistance, CTA program, is 
absolutely critical. This not only increases access, but it 
makes sure that the support and solutions are local, and that 
is something that we have also heard that as being very 
important today.
    We have heard a lot of talk today about flexibility, but I 
believe another important word is stability. It is very 
important that we understand that farmers, ranchers, and 
producers need to be able to rely on something, and oftentimes, 
that is the NRCS staff. And so when we take a look at the 
closures in offices, the reduction in staffing and funding, the 
impact will be felt across the board from our small farmers to 
our large producers as well.
    And in the case of Partnerships for Climate-Smart 
Commodities, now called the AMP initiative, you have 14,000 
farmers and ranchers and $3 billion in awarded funding left in 
limbo, and for many farmers, they have been left with receipts 
in hand. Too many have had to fire employees, abandon projects 
that would have been lifelines for their operations, and as 
Rep. Vasquez talked about with his Honor Farmers Contract Act, 
farmers and ranchers don't want us to be flexible with their 
funds and deliverables once it has been awarded and a contract 
signed. Stability is being true to our word, and that is 
something we also need to live up to in this building.
    And so I truly thank you for this robust conversation, and 
I look forward to future ones as well. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I recognize 
myself for much time as I might consume for a closing set of 
comments.
    It is a pleasure, my friends, to be back here and have the 
honor of chairing the Committee with jurisdiction over not just 
biotechnology and research, but conservation. I have lived my 
entire tenure in Congress, and now being the longest-serving 
Member of the Agriculture Committee, focused on conservation 
issues: how to preserve the soil, the water, the air, how to 
make sure that these wonderful assets that were given to us by 
our predecessors, how we make sure that those assets pass on to 
our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, so 
that this nation can enjoy the things that we have. We started 
out in this great nation, as all legislative bodies do, with 
glorious intentions: the Homestead Act, a classic example of an 
effort to give every individual who wanted to work hard enough 
the ability to settle on 160 acres of land, to create their own 
legacy, their own future, and to feed the nation and the world, 
a legacy that was designed for the Midwest, which didn't work 
quite so well in different soil and different climate types.
    My home county had 14,000 people in the 1930 Census, as I 
have told many of you, and after the bad economic decisions of 
Congress and the Federal Government, and the Federal Reserve 
System and the Great Depression, and, it so happens, the Dust 
Bowl, and the drought of the 1930s, my home county has now made 
it back to 3,400 people. But the things that we have done since 
then, policy-wise, have made a huge difference, whether it is 
the upstream flood control dams or the educational practices on 
conservation and efficiently using our resources, or the money 
we have invested on ag research to make precision agriculture 
possible.
    This Committee, this Subcommittee, while we have a variety 
of opinions and perspectives about how to implement those 
policies, have historically worked together. Our battles in 
passing farm bills, while we disagree sometimes by region, or 
crop, or perspective, we come together in this Subcommittee and 
this Committee, and we fight our battles on the floor with 
those who may not understand the issues that we have discussed 
in our hearings, and in our field trips, and in our work 
together, and from our constituents.
    I simply challenge all my friends, Congress is changing, 
this Committee is changing, but the principles of how the 
Agriculture Committee works, whether it is conservation or the 
other practices, still have to stand. We have to come together 
to move as a common group when we get to the farm bill. And 
whether it is fleshing out what is not done in budget 
reconciliation, the Big Beautiful Bill, or whatever the process 
may be, we have to come together and work as a team and build 
on the efforts of all of our predecessors, of all parties' 
persuasions and regions.
    With that, thank you, witnesses, for an outstanding set of 
testimony, a willingness to answer in the most precise and 
straightforward way you possibly can, a variety of questions 
from us. This discussion will continue as the work of this 
Subcommittee and this body continues, but never forget our 
common goal for the good of the American people, and with that, 
this Subcommittee is adjourned.
    Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's 
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive 
additional material and supplementary written questions for 
witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
    This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation Research 
and Biotechnology is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
 Submitted Letter by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
from Pennsylvania; on Behalf of Andrew W. LaVigne, President and Chief 
           Executive Officer, American Seed Trade Association
June 5, 2025

 
 
 
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,                 Hon. Jill N. Tokuda,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation,        Subcommittee on Conservation,
 Research and Biotechnology,          Research and Biotechnology,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.;
 
Hon. James R. Baird,
Vice Chair,
Subcommittee on Conservation,
 Research and Biotechnology,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
 

    Dear Chairman Lucas, Vice Chair Baird and Ranking Member Tokuda:

    Thank you for holding the hearing today focused on supporting 
farmers, strengthening conservation and sustaining working lands. 
Voluntary farm bill conservation programs provide farmers, ranchers and 
foresters with a variety of approaches to incorporating or expanding 
conservation practices on their agricultural operations. A variety of 
program types, as included in past farm bills, is important to allow 
individuals to undertake conservation practices appropriate to their 
operation, local geography and conservation goals. One of those 
programs is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
    CRP offers agricultural producers another form of risk management 
for their operation, in addition to the conservation and environmental 
benefits. By enrolling environmentally sensitive or marginal production 
land into CRP, producers can balance their overall operation, producing 
crops and livestock on the most productive acreage and voluntarily 
enrolling the sensitive land into CRP. CRP not only supports local 
communities through the environmental benefits, improving water 
quality, air quality and wildlife habitat and potentially generating 
revenue through increased hunting and fishing opportunities and through 
those industries and conservation experts that support practice 
adoption.
    Members of the American Seed Trade Association support the 
continued reauthorization of CRP and providing agricultural producers 
with the opportunity to enroll acreage each year.
    Over the last 2 years, enrollment in CRP has been included in 
annual farm bill extensions, but long term planning and management of 
the program provides certainty to farmers, program managers, and the 
industries supporting conservation practice adoption. We urge Congress 
to continue work on farm bill reauthorization, including continuation 
of annual enrollments in CRP.
            Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Andrew W. LaVigne,
President & CEO.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. Sharice Davids, a Representative in 
        Congress from Kansas
Response from Nicole K. Galase, Managing Director, Hawaii Cattlemen's 
        Council; on behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association
    Question 1. According to the Kansas Association of Conservation 
Districts, in my state the Natural Resource Conversation Service (NRCS) 
field offices have lost almost \1/3\ of their workforce to deferred 
resignations. There are now 18 offices in Kansas without a full-time 
NRCS employee. Your testimony refers to the importance of local NRCS 
offices. How will reducing NRCS field office staffing impact the 
ability of producers to access technical assistance and farm bill 
conservation programs?
    Answer. The NRCS field offices were already understaffed, and 
reducing this force will mean less resources for producers to pull on. 
It means longer wait times, less knowledge in the office, and less 
access to the conservation programs that producers often need 
assistance with. People and relationships are a key part of 
agriculture, and will less people to connect with, ranchers will have 
less access to key funding that keeps our food system going.

    Question 2. Your testimony refers to the importance of specific 
conservation solutions that meet the needs of local communities. I 
frequently hear from producers in my state about the unique conditions 
they face and how solutions that work in other regions do not fit their 
needs. How do you believe NRCS can do a better job of supporting 
region-specific conservation practices?
    Answer. This is especially relevant in Hawaii, where we have higher 
costs of goods and more transportation issues to worry about. When 
standards are based on the continental needs, it leaves Hawaii 
producers with less options that work for them on an island state with 
tropical climates. NRCS can do a better job of supporting region-
specific practices by having enough people on the ground to learn about 
those specific needs. Often, these practices [are] more cost effective 
because they match the region. Ranchers are keen to do things in the 
most efficient and effective way, and NRCS could learn a lot by 
listening to the needs of ranchers through field visits and 
consideration of amendments to practice standards.

                                  [all]