Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide additional payments under the environmental quality incentives program for implementation of a nutrient management practice, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide additional payments to producers under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for implementation of a nutrient management practice. USDA must provide the payments through FY2023 and may use up to 5% of the funding to provide technical assistance.
Sponsors: Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-10]
Target Audience
Population: People in Agricultural Industries
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill targets producers, which typically means farmers and agricultural workers.
- The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a program in the United States that helps farmers address natural resource concerns, so the direct beneficiaries will be within the U.S.
- The impact extends to anyone involved in agricultural production who utilizes nutrient management practices.
- The benefits indirectly impact those in the agricultural supply chain and communities reliant on agriculture and its products.
Reasoning
- The policy targets direct agricultural producers, especially those involved in nutrient management practices.
- The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is already established, so this policy builds on existing infrastructure, potentially increasing efficiency in implementation.
- With a budget cap, the impact must be high enough on selected beneficiaries to justify the allocation, meaning the policy may aim to assist larger or more resource-intensive operations initially.
- Participants chosen for the interviews will include a spectrum of producers from diverse scales and types of agricultural production to reflect the varied impact of the policy across different farming practices.
- The policy's indirect impacts through ripple effects in agricultural communities and downstream supply chains will not be as visible but could appear over longer time spans.
Simulated Interviews
Corn farmer (Iowa)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have been looking for more support to implement advanced nutrient management practices.
- This policy can help reduce my costs and improve yield by managing input better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Organic vegetable farmer (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems geared more towards conventional agriculture, so the direct benefits to me are limited.
- I support policies that enhance sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ranching needs more policies focused on water and forage management, not just nutrient management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Wheat farmer (Kansas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help offset some of the costs associated with managing soil health under changing climate conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Soybean and corn farmer (Ohio)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial support for nutrient management is welcome as it directly impacts my bottom line, especially with rising input costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Vineyard manager (Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though initially I didn’t think this would directly apply to us, I've realized that it may help with soil health initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Peanut farmer (Georgia)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As I expand, the financial assistance for nutrient management is crucial.
- I hope the policy includes technical support for transitioning to new practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Dairy farmer (North Dakota)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The support for nutrient management might ease my operational costs related to feed crop production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Citrus farmer (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial support for nutrient management can be critical, especially since we are recovering from disease impact on crops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Orchard manager (New York)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not heavily focused on traditional row crops, EQIP's flexibility can aid in some nutrient management tasks here too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The program's focus on nutrient management practices aligns with wider environmental and sustainability goals.
- The fiscal impact is limited to FY2023, offering a short-term financial commitment with potential long-term environmental benefits.
- Technical assistance included in the budget furthers the implementation success but requires monitoring to ensure efficient spending.