Comparison Passed House
Conservation Funding Shifts: Where the $786M Goes
Detailed map of how Title II conservation funding shifts under the Farm Bill 2.0. EQIP loses $786M; FCEP, ACEP, RCPP, and other programs gain. Net Title II funding is roughly budget-neutral.
The big picture
Title II conservation funding shifts substantially under the Farm Bill 2.0. EQIP loses $786 million in mandatory funding over FY2026-FY2036. That money moves into other conservation programs. Net Title II funding is roughly budget-neutral, but who benefits changes significantly.
Where the $786M goes
| Receiving program | Amount |
|---|---|
| Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP), NEW | $227M |
| Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) | $216M |
| Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) | $110M |
| State Soil Health Program (CSP soil health initiatives) | $49M |
| Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Programs | $54M |
| Feral Swine Eradication and Control | $56M |
| Emergency Conservation Program | $43M |
| Transition Option for Certain Farmers | $47M |
| Farm Management Incentive Payments | $11M |
| Emergency Watershed Program | $15M |
| Other adjustments | varies |
| Total redirected | $786M |
What this means for different operators
Heavy EQIP users (corn-belt row crops, conventional dairy)
- Tighter EQIP ranking competition
- Less money available for established practice cost-share
- May need to seek alternative funding paths
Forest landowners
- Major win: FCEP is brand new with $227M
- Permanent forest easements at 100% of fair market value
- 75% federal share for SDA forest landowners
Operations protecting working farmland
- Major win: ACEP exempted from AGI limit
- Federal share rises to 65% standard, 90% for SDA
- $216M increase in funding
Watershed-scale partners
- RCPP gains $110M
- Drought and flood mitigation explicitly added
- Wildlife corridors would become eligible (if enacted)
State soil health program participants
- New $100M annual passthrough to states
- $49M CSP soil health initiatives
Producers near southern border
- New EQIP southern border initiative (from existing EQIP allocation)
Who funds the shifts
The shifts are funded by EQIP’s mandatory funding reduction. Per CBO:
- FY2026: -$45M from EQIP
- FY2027: -$130M from EQIP
- FY2028: -$185M from EQIP
- FY2029: -$165M from EQIP
- FY2030: -$140M from EQIP
- FY2031: -$120M from EQIP
- Net 10-yr: -$786M from EQIP
Why this happened
Several political dynamics drove the redistribution:
- Forest landowner advocacy: long-standing push for working forest easements
- ACEP unlock for working farmland: agricultural land easements lobby
- State agencies wanting more autonomy: State Soil Health Program
- Watershed-scale conservation: climate adaptation framing
- Reduced political support for EQIP: perception of going to large operations
What’s NOT changed
- Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) cap, 27 million acres, unchanged
- Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) basic structure
- Most ACEP wetland reserve easement framework
- Conservation Loan Program structure
- Beginning farmer set-asides across programs
- Socially disadvantaged farmer set-asides
Net program funding (FY2027-2031)
| Program | Approximate annual funding |
|---|---|
| EQIP | $2.53B (FY27) → $3.255B (FY31) |
| CSP | Maintained |
| ACEP | Increased ($216M total) |
| FCEP | $25M (FY27) → $65M (FY31) |
| CRP | Maintained at 27M acres |
| RCPP | $450M annually |
| State Soil Health | $100M annually (through 2031) |
| Feral Swine | $150M total FY2025-2031 |
What this means for tracking
Conservation funding is no longer concentrated in EQIP. Operators who relied on EQIP heavily need to:
- Diversify program engagement
- Explore CSP, ACEP, FCEP, RCPP options
- Use state programs (Soil Health Program) where available
- Consider precision agriculture (90% EQIP cost-share)