Conservation Programs

Guest author:  Dr. Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University.

Note:  The U.S. House of Representatives passed its budget reconciliation bill on May 22, 2025.  Prior to the bill’s passage, the budget reconciliation process required the House Agriculture Committee to reduce spending by $230 billion over the 10-year budget period. The committee’s final proposed provisions for doing so, which represents the Farm Bill attention we’ve long awaited, were included in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House. Thank you to our guest author and Farm Bill expert, Dr. Carl Zulauf, for the following summary of the House's proposed Farm Bill changes that now move over to the Senate for consideration.

1.  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

• Secretary of Agriculture shall not increase cost of the thrifty food plan based on a reevaluation or update of its composition.
• Cost of thrifty food plan indexed for CPI inflation.
• Work requirements are increased.
• Required state matching share goes from 0% currently to 5% in Fiscal Year (FY) 2028.  This cuts Federal spending without cutting program benefits.
• Matching share increases as state’s SNAP error rate increases.  Matching share can be as high as 25%.

2.  Farm Safety Net

Support Prices

• Separate program for temperate japonica rice appears to have been terminated.
• Starting with 2031 crop year, prior year reference price increased by multiplying it by 1.005.
• In no year can a reference price exceed 115% of its 2026-2030 statutory value, so adjustment does not apply if reference price escalator is at its maximum.
• For long grain and medium grain rice, marketing loans repaid at prevailing world market price.
• For upland cotton, marketing loans repaid at lowest prevailing world market price. 
• For upland cotton, a refund shall be provided to producer equal to difference between the lowest prevailing world market price and the repayment amount.
• For 2026-2031 crop years, upland cotton and extra-long staple cotton shall receive storage payments equal to the lessor of the submitted tariff rate for the marketing year or $4.90 for California and Arizona or $3.00 for other states.
• Textile mill assistance equals 3 cents / pound until July 31, 2025; 5 cents / pound thereafter.

Additional Base Acres

• Up to 30 million new base acres can be added by eligible farms. 
• Only farms that planted or prevent planted a crop over 2019-2023 can add new base acres.
• An eligible farm is a farm for which 2019-2023 crop year average program commodity acres planted or prevent planted plus lesser of (a) 15% of farm’s total acres or (b) 2019-2023 crop year average acres planted or prevent planted to commodities other than program commodities, trees, bushes, vines, grass, or pasture (including cropland that was idle or fallow) exceeds the farm’s base acres as of September 30, 2024 excluding unassigned cotton base acres. 5-year average includes years with no acres planted or prevent planted. Positive difference is farm’s potential new base acres; includes unassigned cotton base.
• New base acre are allocated among covered commodities using the ratio of 2019-2023 average acres planted or prevent planted to covered crops on the farm to the 5-year average of covered crops planted or prevent planted plus new base acres.
• If multiple covered crops were grown on a given acre in any year from 2019-2023 (other than a covered crop produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner elects which of the covered crop is included in potential new base.
• A farm’s total base acres after adding new base acres cannot exceed the farm’s total acres.
• Pro-rating occurs if total eligible new base acres exceed 30,000,000.  Each eligible farm’s new base acres is reduced by an across-the board share so new base acres total 30 milion.
• Assessment: Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported roughly 270 million base acres for 2019 crop year after excluding unassigned cotton base acres of roughly 3 million.  Sum of average National Agriculture Statistics Service planted acres plus average FSA prevent plant acres to current program crops over 2019-2023 equal roughly 264 million, implying approximately 24 million acres (264 + 30 – 270) of current non-covered crops, including unassigned cotton base acres, could be added to US base acres.  This is a major expansion of commodity program payments to current noncovered crops.

Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Payment Yield

• Beginning with crop year 2026, PLC payment yields for new base acres on a farm are current PLC payment yields for the farm.  If the farm has no current payment yield for a crop, PLC payment yield for the farm is set equal to average payment yield for the county in which the farm is situated or is determined using existing methods if no PLC yield exists.

Producer Election

• Annual producer election is extended through 2031 crop year. 
• If no election is made, default choice is the same coverage for each covered commodity as existed for 2024 crop year.

Agriculture Risk Coverage

• Coverage level is increased from 86% to 90% beginning with the 2025 crop year.
• Payment cap per base acre is increased from 10% to 12.5% of the benchmark revenue beginning with the 2025 crop year.

Special Rule for Seed Cotton and Corn

• In determining the maximum payment rate for ARC-CO and PLC, the current year price can be no lower than $0.30 / pound for seed cotton and ‘$3.30 / bushel for corn.
• No marketing loan rate can be established for seed cotton.’’

Payment Limits

• Increases number of potential payment entities on a farm by expanding entities designated as qualified pass-through entities
• Increases per person payment entity from ‘$125,000 ’to ‘$155,000.
• Payment limit is indexed to CPI inflation.
• Payment limit waived if 75% or more of the average gross income of the person or legal entity is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.

Sugar Program

• Sets loan rate for raw cane sugar for 2025-2031 crop years at 24.00 cents / pound and for beet sugar at 136.55% of the raw cane sugar loan rate.
• Adjusts rate for storing sugar forfeited to the government.
• Changes beet sugar allotments.

Dairy Margin Coverage

• Updates production history to highest annual milk marketing during any one of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 calendar years.
• Raises maximum coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds.

Livestock and Tree Loss Assistance

• Payment rate for losses due to predation is 100% of market value of affected livestock.
• Payment rate for losses due to adverse weather or disease is 75% of market value of affected livestock.
• Adds payment for unborn livestock.
• For livestock forage disaster program, changes eligibility from 8 consecutive weeks to 4 consecutive weeks or 7 of 8 consecutive weeks.  Payments can be received for 2 months of losses instead of current 1 month of losses.
• Adds assistance for losses of farm-raised fish due to piscivorous birds.
• Changes determination of normal mortality rate for tree losses and honeybee colony losses.

3. Crop Insurance

Premium Subsidy

• Sets highest coverage level at 85% for individual yield or revenue insurance, 90% for individual yield or revenue insurance aggregated across multiple commodities, and 95% for area yield or revenue insurance. 
• Increases coverage level for Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) from 86% to 90%.
• Increases premium subsidy for SCO from 65% to 80%.

Administrative and Operating (A&O) Expenses:

• Beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year, an additional A&O subsidy is to be paid to insurance providers for eligible contracts.  Amount is 6% of net book premium.  Eligible contract is a crop insurance contract in an eligible State.  Excluded are catastrophic risk contracts, area-based or similar contracts; and a contract that the provider does not incur loss adjustment expenses as determined by the Corporation.  Eligible state is a state in Group 2 or Group 3 as defined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement for reinsurance year 2026) and eligible contract’s loss ratio exceeds 120% of total net book premium written by all approved insurance providers.  
• Beginning with 2026 reinsurance year, A&O reimbursement to approved insurance providers and agents for Specialty Crops shall be at least 17% of premium used to define loss ratio A&O reimbursements for contracts covering agricultural commodities subject to an increase during 2011-2015 reinsurance years are to be adjusted for inflation in a manner consistent with the 2011-2015 increases.  For 2026 reinsurance year, inflation adjustment shall not exceed the percentage change for the preceding reinsurance year included in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
• Increases funds for monitoring program compliance and integrity from current $0.004 billion per FY to $0.006 billion per FY plus $0.01 billion for a related statute for FY2026 and after.
• Authorizes creation of a Poultry Insurance Pilot Program.  Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi must be included.

Beginning and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers

• Extends eligibility to 10 years from 5 years.
• Increases subsidy assistance from 10 percentage points  to 15 percentage points for 1^st and 2^nd reinsurance years, 13 percentage points for 3^rd reinsurance year, 11 percentage points for 4^th reinsurance year, and 10 percentage points for 5^th - 10^th  reinsurance years.

4.  Conservation

• Authorizes funding for Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($2.7 billion for FY2026 to $3.3 billion for FY2028 – 2031); Conservation Stewardship Program ($1.3 billion for FY2026 to $1.4 billion for FY2029 – 31); Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ($0.625 billion for FY2026 to $0.700 billion in FY2029 – 2031); and Regional Conservation Partnership Program ( $0.425 billion for FY2026 to $0.450 billion for FY2027 – 2031).
• Authorizes funds for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention ($150 million / year). Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program ($10 million / year), Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program ($15 million / year), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program ($1 million through FY2031). 

5.  Trade

• Authorizes funds through FY 2031 for trade promotion programs: Market Access Program, $0.40 billion / year; Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, $0.07 billion / year; E (Kika) De La Garza Emerging Markets Program, $0.008 billion / year; Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, $0.009 billion / year; and Priority Trade Fund, $0.0035 billion / year.
• Gives Secretary of Agriculture discretion to provide a greater allocation to a program(s) for which amount requested exceeds available funding but should try to support exports of types of commodities that funds were originally allocated.

6.  Research

• Authorizes funds for Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production Research, Education, and Extension Initiative, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions, Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities, Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and Research Facilities Act.
• Extends certain provisions of Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
• Rescinds unobligated balances of Competitive Grants for Non-Federal Forest Landowners program and State and Private Forestry Conservation Programs.

7.  Energy

• Extends Biobased Markets Program and Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels through 2031.

8.  Other

• Authorizes funding for Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention, Specialty Crop Block Grants, Organic Production and Market Data Initiative, Modernization and Improvement of International Trade Technology Systems and Data Collection, National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, and Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey.
• Authorized funding for Animal Disease Prevention and Management Program and Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program. 
• Extends Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund, Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, Wool Research and Promotion, and Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund through 2031.

By: David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management

click here for PDF version of article

Drought conditions continued to degrade across Ohio. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor report on September 17, 59.56% of Ohio is experiencing severe or greater drought conditions with 9.5% classified as D4 or exceptional drought conditions (Figure 1). It is important to remember that D4 conditions only occur once every 50 to 100 years. Approximately 98% of the state is experiencing at least abnormally dry conditions. One silver lining is the current seven-day forecast shows the potential for rain in many areas of Ohio next week which should help slow the progress of drought should it occur. 

The drought conditions have impacted both pastures and hayfields across Ohio. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) administered under the USDA Farm Service Agency permits emergency haying and grazing on certain CRP practices in a county designated as D2 or higher on the U.S. Drought Monitor, or in a county where there is at least a 40 percent loss in forage production.

Emergency use of CRP acres is available in eligible counties if the stand is in condition to support such activity and is subject to a modified conservation plan. Producers should contact their FSA office to determine if the county remains eligible and to obtain a modified conservation plan.

After a county is approved for emergency haying and grazing, conditions are reviewed monthly to determine whether continuing the emergency activities is warranted. To date, 70 counties (79.5%) in Ohio are eligible (as of 9/17/2024). These can be found in Table 1:

Table 1: Ohio Counties Eligible for Emergency CRP Grazing

More information about the emergency grazing of CRP acreage can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/emergency-haying-and-grazing/index

Producers are encouraged visit their local Farm Service Agency office to report crop and livestock losses. By providing this data, producers can learn their eligibility for the FSA disaster programs. Producers can locate their local office at: www.fsa.usda.gov/oh FSA has also developed an on-line disaster assistance discover tool which allows producers to learn which of the many USDA assistance programs which might fit their operation due to this year’s drought. This easy-to-use tool can be accessed at: https://www.farmers.gov/protection-recovery/disaster-tool

References:

OSU Drought Response Page. Accessible at: https://kx.osu.edu/page/early-drought-response

US Drought Monitor. Accessible at: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

Emergency Conservation Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/emergency-haying-and-grazing/index

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA) is asking the agricultural community to weigh in on a new program aimed at the voluntary carbon market in the U.S.  The agency has published a Request for Information seeking input on what the agency should consider in developing rules for the new “Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program.”  The purpose of the new program, created by the passage of the Growing Climate Solutions Act last year, is to facilitate farmer, rancher, and private forest landowner participation in voluntary carbon markets by: (1) publishing a list of widely accepted protocols designed to ensure consistency, reliability, effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency of voluntary credit markets; (2) publishing descriptions of widely accepted qualifications possessed by covered entities that provide technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners; (3) publishing a list of qualified technical assistance providers and third-party verifiers; and (4) providing information to assist farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners in accessing voluntary credit markets.

Farmers haven’t engaged in the voluntary carbon market to the extent some predicted several years ago, when “carbon agreements” began circulating through the agricultural community.  A carbon agreement is a private  contract that compensates a farmer for adopting practices that sequester carbon, with one ton of sequestered carbon creating a “carbon credit.”  Those who pay farmers for the carbon credits can retain the credits or trade the credits through a carbon market.  The owner of the carbon credits can use the credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of reducing their “carbon footprint.”

According to USDA Secretary Vilsack, “high-integrity voluntary carbon markets offer a promising tool to create new revenue streams for producers and achieve greenhouse gas reductions from the agriculture and forest sectors.  However, a variety of barriers have hindered agriculture’s participation in voluntary carbon markets and we are seeking to change that by establishing a new Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program.”  In its Request for Information, the agency seeks responses to eight questions:

Question 1: How should USDA define the terms “consistency,” “reliability,” “effectiveness,” “efficiency,” and “transparency” (see 7 U.S.C. 6712(c)(1)(A)) for use in protocol evaluation?

Question 2: What metrics or standards should USDA use to evaluate a protocol's alignment with each of the five criteria to be defined in Question 1? What should USDA consider as minimum criteria for a protocol to qualify for listing under the Program?

Question 3: In general, after a new protocol is published, how long does it take for a project to use the protocol and be issued credits ( i.e., what is the lag time between protocol publication and first credit generation)?

Question 4: Which protocol(s) for generating voluntary carbon credits from agriculture and forestry projects should USDA evaluate for listing through the Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program?

Question 5: Additional information for any protocol(s) identified under Question 4.

Question 6: How should USDA evaluate technical assistance providers (TAP)? What should be the minimum qualifications, certifications, and/or expertise for a TAP to qualify for listing under the Program?

Question 7: Should the qualifications and/or registration process be different for entities and individuals that seek to register as a TAP?

Question 8: What should be the minimum qualifications and expertise for a third-party verifier to qualify for registration under the Program?

The agency will accept comments on the questions until June 28, 2024.

Part of a broader policy initiative

USDA announced the Request for Information on the same day that Secretary Vilsack, Energy Secretary Granholm, and Treasury Secretary Yellen, published a Joint Statement of Policy and Principles for Voluntary Carbon Markets, which outlines seven principles for the government’s approach to advancing “high-integrity voluntary credit markets,” summarized in a White House Fact Sheet:

1. Carbon credits and the activities that generate them should meet credible atmospheric integrity standards and represent real decarbonization.
2. Credit-generating activities should avoid environmental and social harm and should, where applicable, support co-benefits and transparent and inclusive benefits-sharing.
3. Corporate buyers that use credits should prioritize measurable emissions reductions within their own value chains.
4. Credit users should publicly disclose the nature of purchased and retired credits.
5. Public claims by credit users should accurately reflect the climate impact of retired credits and should only rely on credits that meet high integrity standards.
6. Market participants should contribute to efforts that improve market integrity.
7. Policymakers and market participants should facilitate efficient market participation and seek to lower transaction costs.

The recent USDA announcements once again suggest that there are many issues for farmers considering engaging in the carbon market.  Caution is usually warranted when dealing with a new, developing market.  For farmers who do want to enter into the carbon market, be sure to refer to our posts on Carbon as a commodity for agriculture? and Considering carbon farming? Take time to understand carbon agreements.  The Farmers Legal Action Group also has an excellent publication on Farmers Guide to Carbon Market Contracts in Minnesota, also useful for Ohio farmers.

An agricultural easement is a legal instrument that can protect farmland from non-farm development and preserve the legacy of family land for the future. An earlier blog post explains how an agricultural easement works and answers common questions about agricultural easements.  As we explained, an agricultural easement not only preserves farmland but can also be a valuable financial and tax tool that can enable a transition of the farm to the next generation.  But are there drawbacks to agricultural easements?  Here's a summary of potential negative implications of easements that landowners should also consider.

It's difficult to forecast the future of a farm.  The very nature of the easement requires a best estimate of how the farmland might be used for agriculture into the future--a challenging task.  The Deed of Agricultural Easement the parties agree to must predict agricultural activities that are consistent with the easement and those that would violate the easement.  There could be future problems if the predictions and forecasting aren’t flexible enough to accommodate agriculture in the future. 

The “perpetuity” requirement. While it’s possible to draft an easement that lasts only for a certain term of years, most agricultural easements remain on the land “in perpetuity,” or permanently.  The programs that pay a landowner to grant an agricultural easement and the federal income and estate tax benefits for donating all or part of an easement require that the easement is perpetual.  This differs from the conservation programs we’re accustomed to in agriculture that require shorter term commitments, and it can be a deterrent to a landowner who wants future generations to have a say in what happens to the land.  These concerns might be addressed in the deed of agricultural easement, however, which may provide sufficient flexibility to address those future concerns.

Termination can be difficult and costly.  Hand in hand with the perpetuity issue is the difficulty of terminating an agricultural easement once it’s in place. Typically, both parties must agree on a termination and a court of law must determine that conditions on or surrounding the land make it impossible or impractical to continue to use the land for agricultural purposes. Attempts to terminate without following the stated procedures can result in penalties for the current landowner.  If there was a payment for the agricultural easement, a deed of easement will likely require the landowner to reimburse the paying party for the proportionate share of the fair market value of the land with the easement removed and will also require the party receiving the reimbursement to use the funds only for similar conservation purposes.  

Eminent domain can be an issue.  As one Ohio farm family has learned, an agricultural easement might not protect the farmland from an eminent domain proceeding.  In Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023-Ohio-1245, the Bailey family was forced to litigate an attempt by Columbia Gas to use eminent domain for the construction of a gas pipeline across their farmland.  Their predecessor had placed an agricultural easement on the farmland in 2003, and the family argued the easement prevented the taking of land for the pipeline under the doctrine of “prior public use.”  That doctrine prohibits an eminent domain action that would destroy a prior public use.  The court agreed that the agricultural easement did create a prior public use on the land, and the court shifted the burden to Columbia Gas to prove that the pipeline would not destroy the established prior public use.  Rather than doing so, Columbia Gas withdrew its eminent domain proceeding and moved the location of the pipeline.  The court's decision to recognize an agricultural easement as a prior public use might provide some protection from eminent domain for future owners of agricultural easement land but, like the Baileys, landowners may have to fight a long, expensive battle to prove that an eminent domain action would destroy an established prior public use.

Lenders and other interests must be on board.  A landowner must deal with any existing mortgages, liens, leases, or easements on the farmland before entering into an agricultural easement.  The State of Ohio’s agricultural easement, for example, requires a lender to subordinate a mortgage to the rights of the easement holder.  Renegotiation of the mortgage might be necessary, and the lender might require a paydown of the outstanding mortgage if the property’s value could reduce below that amount.  Without subordination and other approvals, a landowner will not be able to enter into an agricultural easement. 

Local governments must be on board.  Ohio’s program for purchasing agricultural easements requires a landowner to submit a resolution of support from the township and county where the land is located.  This means the local governments must agree that committing the land to agriculture is consistent with local land use plans.  An early conversation with local officials is necessary to ensuring consistency with the community’s future plans.

There will be monitoring.  An easement holder has the responsibility of ensuring there is not a violation of the easement or conversion of the land to non-agricultural uses.  This means there will be a baseline or “present condition” report of the easement property upon easement creation and monitoring of the property “in perpetuity.”  An annual visit to the property and completion of an annual monitoring report by the easement holder is common. 

It's a lengthy process.  Agricultural easements don’t pop up overnight.  Especially when applying for funding from competitive programs like Ohio’s Local Agricultural Easement Purchase Program or the NRCS Agricultural Land Easements Program, it can be a year or more before an agricultural easement is in place. 

Planning and integration with plans is necessary.  An agricultural easement is one piece of what can be a complex plan addressing a landowner’s expansion, retirement, estate, and transition needs.  A landowner would be wise to work with a team of professionals—financial planner, tax professional, attorney—to ensure that an agricultural easement integrates with all other parts of the plan.

Still interested?  Ohio landowners interested in learning more about agricultural easements may want to consider these steps:

• Review the resources on the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Office of Farmland Preservation.
• Talk with other landowners who have entered into easements.  Refer to the Coalition of Ohio Land Trusts landowner resources and landowner stories.
• Visit American Farmland Trust’s Farmland Information Center.
• Talk with a “local sponsor” or land trust in your area.  The Office of Farmland Preservation provides a list of local sponsors for the Clean Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program on its website.
• Talk with your attorney, financial planner, and accountant about the implications of entering into an agricultural easement.