Bill Overview
Title: NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act
Description: This bill revises provisions related to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), including by (1) revising the appeals process of the NRCS for wetland certification requests, (2) requiring USDA to establish oversight committees in each state that will oversee the appeals of wetland determinations, and (3) prohibiting the NRCS from acquiring any permanent easement.
Sponsors: Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Agricultural landowners and entities concerned with wetland certification and compliance
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill affects wetland certification processes, which are relevant to individuals and entities involved in agricultural practices on or near wetlands.
- The NRCS is a part of the USDA and functions primarily within the United States.
- The bill's focus on appeals processes and oversight implies direct impact on agricultural landowners who are concerned with wetland determinations, as these determinations can affect land usability and compliance with conservation standards.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes individuals deeply involved in agricultural activities, particularly those concerning wetlands. These individuals rely on proper land use for their livelihood and may face financial and ecological impacts due to changes in wetland compliance policies.
- Given the budget limitations, the policy aims to provide resources to streamline processes with measurable improvements within constraints, suggesting medium-impact changes focused mainly on constructing efficient appeals processes and oversight committees.
- Common scenarios include farmers, ranchers, conservationists, and landowners who need to navigate the complexities of wetland certification. People's wellbeing may change based on perceived fairness, efficiency, and clarity brought by the reforms initiated, potentially improving interactions with NRCS.
Simulated Interviews
corn farmer (Iowa)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could simplify the way I deal with wetland certifications.
- Streamlined appeals might mean faster resolutions, less downtime for my projects.
- I hope the prohibition on permanent easements doesn’t lead to less protection for critical wetland areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
rice farmer (Louisiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wetland determinations can be a hassle, so this reform could be positive for my farm.
- Oversight committees in the state may help keep the process transparent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
cattle rancher (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more clarity on appeals could help planning on long-term grazing.
- Permanent easements have been a headache, but losing them entirely might risk losing some protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
environmental consultant (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change can be a double-edged sword, easing processes but risking some conservation efforts.
- My job might become more advisory towards balancing compliance and environmental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
land management consultant (North Dakota)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reform could lead to a more predictable environment for decisions.
- Clients often have delays with NRCS; any improvements will benefit my work directly.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
crop insurance broker (Texas)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balanced regulation can reduce disputes we handle regarding crop loss assessments near wetlands.
- Less permanent easement might increase risk factors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
soybean farmer (Ohio)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- NRCS decisions can delay our strides towards optimizing land use.
- Hope reforms provide not just speed but clarity in operations.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
timber company manager (Georgia)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reform could save time and reduce operational headaches.
- Ensuring no added red-tape with oversight committees is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
conservation agency officer (Minnesota)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned the removal of permanent easements could lead to reduced land protections over time.
- However, an improved appeals process could strengthen trust in the service.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
organic farmer (Vermont)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy provides more support as we manage complex landscapes.
- Efficiency in appeals can lead to better management decisions and fewer frictions with NRCS.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25500000 (Low: $20500000, High: $30500000)
Year 3: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 5: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 10: $29000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $34000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary costs of the bill arise from administrative and personnel requirements for implementing the new oversight committees and appeals processes.
- Long-term savings could offset some of the initial costs as streamlined appeals processes might reduce legal disputes and administrative burdens.
- The prohibition on acquiring permanent easements alters NRCS's traditional conservation tactics but this aspect primarily affects land use strategy rather than direct fiscal costs.