HR-9572-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Becca Balint (D-VT)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the types of land eligible for enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Specifically, it would add land that is already subject to a Tribal, state, or local law, ordinance, or regulation requiring conservation or environmental protection measures. However, land subject to an administrative order or court order mandating those same measures would remain ineligible for CRP enrollment.
Who benefits
Farmers and landowners whose property is subject to state, Tribal, or local environmental regulations — they would become eligible to receive federal CRP payments for land they may already be required to set aside. Tribal governments whose conservation laws would now trigger CRP eligibility for enrolled members' land. State and local governments whose environmental ordinances would align with federal program eligibility. Conservation organizations that support expanded land enrollment in the CRP. Rural communities that may benefit from the economic payments CRP provides to participating landowners.
Who is hurt
Landowners subject to administrative or court orders requiring conservation measures — they would remain explicitly excluded from CRP payments, potentially placing them at a financial disadvantage compared to neighbors under equivalent regulatory requirements. Taxpayers broadly, as expanding CRP eligibility would likely increase federal program outlays. Agricultural producers who compete for CRP enrollment slots, since expanding eligible land could increase competition for a fixed pool of program contracts. Landowners who voluntarily enrolled land without regulatory compulsion may see the program's character shift toward compensating mandated rather than voluntary conservation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current CRP eligibility rules create an arbitrary and unfair distinction: landowners subject to state or Tribal conservation laws are penalized for their jurisdiction's environmental policies by being locked out of federal payments available to neighbors in less regulated states. They contend that expanding eligibility would strengthen conservation outcomes by aligning federal and state programs, and that Tribal and state governments — not just the federal Secretary of Agriculture — should have their environmental standards recognized as a basis for CRP participation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the CRP was designed to incentivize voluntary conservation by paying landowners to take environmentally sensitive land out of production — not to compensate landowners for complying with regulations they are already legally required to follow. They contend that allowing regulated land into the CRP effectively converts a voluntary incentive program into a subsidy for regulatory compliance, potentially diluting the program's conservation additionality and directing limited federal dollars to landowners who would have conserved the land regardless of payment.