|
Two of the agriculture department's most popular conservation programs have long struggled to keep pace with producer demand despite their billion-dollar budgets. But last year, the percentage of applications that won funding fell even further, according to a new analysis of USDA data by the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a think tank.
While 118,377 applications were submitted for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program in fiscal year 2025, only around 24% these resulted in awarded contracts, according to IATP’s analysis. Meanwhile, 29,353 applications were submitted for the Conservation Stewardship Program, but only 37% led to contract awards.
By comparison, 43% of EQIP applications in the prior year, FY2024, were awarded contracts, while the same was true for 54% of CSP applicants, according to IATP’s analysis. Michael Happ, a program associate for IATP, believes a combination of a Trump administration freeze on climate funding, increased applications and NRCS staffing losses may have pl
Michael Happ (IATP photo)ayed a role in the percentage drop.
"Farmers are interested in it, are taking the time to put in these applications, but fewer folks — on both a raw number and a percentage number — are getting in,” Happ told Agri-Pulse.
At the beginning of FY25, both programs saw a combined $3.7 billion in additional net budget authority for "climate-smart" practices like feed management, cover cropping, biochar production and prescribed burning, added on top of their normal farm bill funds through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But Trump administration freezes on climate funding likely prevented some of that money from being awarded before it was rescinded last July under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and shifted into the programs’ future farm bill baseline.
Additionally, recent farm bill extensions have not included payment limits for either program, which means participants could receive larger awards than in past years. That shift could affect the share of applications that receive contracts, noted Callie Eideberg, a principal at the Vogel Group and former Democratic staffer for the Senate Ag Committee.
Farmers competing for limited conservation funding
Congress first established EQIP in the 1996 farm bill, merging other conservation programs that existed at the time. The program provides cost-share and incentive payments to producers who sign contracts as long as 10 years promising to implement new environmental practices, like cover crops, no-till and prescribed grazing. EQIP dollars can also fund new fencing and irrigation equipment.
EQIP funding needs to be allocated to all 50 states, while also following specific instructions laid out in the 2018 farm bill. Half of it needs to go toward livestock operations, at least 10% must be dedicated to wildlife habitat, and 10% toward source water protection. Another 10% is split evenly between socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers and beginning farmers and ranchers.
CSP, created in the 2002 farm bill and then overhauled and renamed in 2008, is geared toward producers who have already implemented conservation practices and want to expand their use. The program typically requires a longer-term commitment than EQIP, with producers signing five-year contracts for maintaining already-established conservation practices and adopting new ones. While EQIP usually pays for one practice after it has been completed, CSP provides annual payments throughout the contract's duration.
EQIP previously operated with $2 billion in annual baseline budget authority through the farm bill, while CSP operated with $1 billion. Congress increased both programs’ farm bill baselines in the OBBBA by folding unspent Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding, which would have expired after FY2026, into their long‑term baselines.
Under the OBBBA, EQIP’s baseline funding starts at $2.6 billion in FY26 and builds to $3.2 billion by FY31. CSP follows a similar pattern, rising from $1.3 billion in FY26 to $1.37 billion by FY31.
But both the House‑passed farm bill and a new Senate GOP draft would lower EQIP’s funding in the near term. EQIP had been on track to receive $2.85 billion in FY27 under the OBBBA. Instead, both bills would set FY27 funding at roughly $2.5 billion, with increases spread over the following years until the program reaches $3.25 billion in FY31. The shift reflects a budgeting maneuver that borrows from EQIP’s FY27 funding for other needs and stretches out the program’s growth curve so it still hits its full baseline level by 2031.
Jesse Womack, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, said the application trend illustrated by the data indicates more funding is needed for the programs “if we’re going to meet the demand that’s out there."
“I think perhaps the most important takeaway is that we are not going to see any real progress in terms of the percentage of farmers getting into these programs unless we increase investments beyond what was made in” the OBBBA, Womack said.
Similarly, Happ said Congress “needs to be careful about how it’s spending its conservation dollars,” noting EQIP’s oversubscription trends.
“We have all this demand, we’ve got these conservation needs on the ground, we’ve got this kind of input-driven economic crunch farmers are feeling, and conservation programs can be a part of that solution, but we need to back it up with resources in the farm bill,” Happ said.
West Virginia had the lowest share of EQIP applications awarded contracts at about 13%, with several other states — including Vermont, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Illinois and New Mexico — clustered around 14-15%, according to IATP’s analysis. At the other end of the spectrum, Rhode Island awarded contracts equal to roughly 182% of its applications, and New Jersey topped 100% as well.
The report notes that states above 100% likely included contracts awarded for applicaitons that were deferred from previous years. A few states and territories with very small applicant pools — such as Nevada, Alaska and Connecticut — also posted unusually high award rates.
CSP showed a similar pattern. North Carolina had the lowest award rate at about 13%, and several states saw fewer than 20% of applicants receive contracts. Meanwhile, Rhode Island posted the highest CSP rate at roughly 171%. A mix of states and territories with small applicant pools — including Idaho, New Jersey, Wyoming, Nevada, American Samoa and Alaska — exceeded 100%, while many others, such as Michigan, Nebraska, California, Puerto Rico, Maryland, Wisconsin, New York, Ohio and West Virginia, recorded award rates above 80%.
Gabe Arvison, who farms in northwestern Minnesota, told Agri-Pulse he applied for a CSP project to implement fertilizer management, nitrogen management, cover crop and soil erosion practices last fiscal year and was denied, though he reapplied this year and was able to get in.
Iowa Farmer Hannah Breckbill worked with her local NRCS agent on an application for CSP to implement some new grazing and organic practices but ultimately did not secure a contract. She said she was told that while she wasn’t able to secure a spot, her project would have been the next one on the list to be funded.
“It’s frustrating for sure,” Breckbill said, though she added that the rejection “is not going to make or break our farm this year” and plans to reapply in the future.
Pennsylvania farmer Amanda Butterfield had previously participated in EQIP in 2018 and was successfully able to secure a CSP contract last year to expand her cow-calf operation's conservation efforts, including intensive grazing. She noted that NRCS programs have helped her sow pollinator plants in her pasture, track and monitor forage quality, and plant clover and other legumes.
Pennsylvania dairy producer William Thiele said he successfully secured an EQIP contract last year for cover cropping. However, he said he knows getting into the program “has been a struggle for some farmers out there.”
The "sad reality about it is that that not everybody’s gonna get in,” Thiele said, adding it’s “just a shame it’s gone that way."
Staffing limitations likely play a role in fulfillment rates, conservation advocates say
Womack, Happ and Eideberg pointed to NRCS staffing limitations as one factor likely playing a role in decreasing rates of applicants being awarded contracts. Amid broader Trump administration downsizing efforts, staffing at the agency fell from 11,861 in January 2025 to 9,078 the same month in 2026, a 23% decline, according to an analysis of USDA data by NSAC’s Rebecca Schewe and Bernie Kluger of Prospect Partners, an advisory firm led by former USDA employees.
These include the loss of 711 soil conservationists, or field staff who help landowners to plan and implement conservation practices, and 283 soil conservation technicians, who help with site assessments, measurements and installation oversight, according to the report.
Schewe and Kluger's report also found that 141 of 2,386 overall U.S. counties lost all of their NRCS staff between January 2025 and the same month in 2026.
Becky Schewe (NSAC photo)“What that means is for people on the ground, they can’t go to their local county office and expect to have an NRCS staff person available to help them,” Schewe told Agri-Pulse. “They’re going to have to drive to another county or the staff are going to be servicing broader areas now."
Deploying conservation dollars “is heavily dependent on humans to get that stuff out the door,” said Eideberg. NRCS staffers are needed to look through applications to determine if people are eligible, rank them, and then have each participating farmer write a conservation plan before money can be provided. Employees also need to certify practices have been correctly put in place on the farm prior to producers getting paid, she added.
Arvison, the Minnesota producer, said his local office used to have three employees but now has only one. He said it’s made it tough for him “to get anything lined up.”
“If she’s not there, then the office is closed, and it’s 45 minutes one-way from my house,” he said. He later added that when reaching out for assistance, “it could be a week before you hear something back, and that’s not time-efficient, especially when you’re working with deadlines.”
Butterfield, the Pennsylvania producer, said she’s also noticed resource and staffing constraints impact her local office.
“I will tell you that speaking with NRCS managers and employees, they are over-strapped, they do not have enough time in the day to complete the work that they can do,” Butterfield said. They feel like “they’re just basically being paper-pushers just to get contracts through and they’re not being able to utilize the expertise that they were hired for.”
