The farm bill is the bedrock of US farm programs. Typically updated every five or six years, it authorizes targeted funding for programs concerning commodity production support, conservation, trade, credit, and rural development, among others. The version of the bill in place now, titled the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, expired at the end of FY 2023 (Sept. 30), meaning that USDA farm programs have existed in limbo under temporary stopgap measures for the past two and a half years, creating uncertainty for farm producers and families whose livelihoods depend on consistent program funding.
Last month, the US House of Representatives passed its version of an updated bill, titled the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. Before the US actually has a new farm bill, the Senate has to mark up its own version and then any differences between the House and Senate versions will need to be worked out. Much of the discussion surrounding the House proposal focuses on how it cements funding cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under last summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The changes shifted some of the cost burden to states and included strict work requirements for program beneficiaries. Although those changes are obviously important, I want to focus this post on proposed changes to the part of the bill I come across most often in the work I do, namely Title II—Conservation.
As far as Oregon is concerned, there are four broad categories of Title II programs that I discuss in detail below (summarized in the table).
Before I get to those, I should note that the most important Title II component I don’t discuss is the Emergency Conservation Program, which provides up to a 75% cost-share for post-wildfire land rehabilitation efforts and other forms of disaster relief. The proposal doesn’t alter the scope or eligibility criteria for the ECP, and it proposes expediting payments (including through online enrollment) so that disaster-affected producers receive help faster.1
| Program | Recent spending in Oregon | House bill changes |
| Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) | $33 mil. (FY 2026) | Reauthorized with no major changes |
| Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) | $30 mil., $31 mil. (includes IRA, FY 2025) | New emphasis on precision agriculture, reduces EQIP funding and directs it towards ACEP, FCEP, and RCPP |
| Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP) | $10 mil. (avg FY 2021-24, varies a lot year to year, includes ALE and wetland easements) | Increases typical maximum cost share from 50 to 65%, with new provisions for socially disadvantaged producers (up to 90%) and a low-cost 25% option without USDA enforcement oversight; Establishes FCEP and, under it, a new working forest easement program |
| Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) | $6 mil. (avg. 2021-24) | Moderate 10-year funding increase and changes to administrative rules to relieve administrative cost burdens on project partners |
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)2
The two traditional CRP sign-ups (general and continuous) provide annual rental payments to producers who voluntarily take environmentally sensitive land out of crop production and replace it with a USDA-approved conservation cover (native grasses, trees, or other vegetation) for a 10- to 15-year contract period. Over the past 10 years, a major change to the CRP is the emergence and growth of the CRP Grasslands sign-up. Unlike the other sign-up types, CRP Grasslands is a working lands program that requires landowners to retain grass cover on grazing land and prohibits them from, e.g., converting it to cropland. Grazing remains allowed on enrolled land under an approved conservation plan.
Most CRP participation in Oregon takes place east of the Cascades. As of September of 2025, Oregon producers had enrolled 953,402 acres across all CRP sign-ups. Between 2017 and 2025, enrollment in general and continuous CRP (mostly general) decreased from 485,870 to 458,587 acres (-5.6%). Enrollment of CRP Grasslands, which had zero contracts here in 2017, now accounts for 494,815 acres, representing more than half of current CRP acres. Under the House proposal, there are no major changes to the CRP. This is not insignificant, as the CRP currently makes up the largest source of Oregon’s federal conservation funding ($33 million as of this year).
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)3
EQIP and CSP both provide funding and technical assistance to implement conservation practices on working lands, including cropland, range, pasture, and non-industrial private forests. Both programs fund similar types of activities, with the main difference being that CSP is geared towards maintaining or enhancing conservation outcomes for land on which conservation practices are already in place. These two programs fund many different types of practices in Oregon. Some of the more common ones include woody residue treatment, forest stand improvement, brush management, fence installation, and irrigation system enhancements. EQIP and CSP respectively provided Oregon landowners with $30 and $31 million in FY 2025.
For these programs, the biggest change to activities funded under the proposed farm bill is a greater emphasis on precision agriculture practices and technologies. Precision agriculture is defined under the bill as managing, tracking, or reducing inputs to improve efficiencies, reduce waste, and maintain environmental quality. CSP funding would remain at its current level, while some funding would be shifted away from EQIP to bolster the programs I discuss in the next sections.
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
In plain terms, conservation easements compensate landowners for the rights to develop their land. The property rights given up by the landowner are typically held by an accredited land trust. Land under an easement is permanently protected from development and fragmentation, while still allowing the landowner to continue current production activities and provide wildlife habitat and other ecosystem services. Easements can also play an important role in farm succession planning by alleviating estate tax burdens on heirs.
Easements are less common in Oregon than other states, which is generally chalked up to the state’s comprehensive system of land-use regulations. However, federal funding from ACEP-ALE (Agricultural Land Easements) has been critical for many of the easements we do have, such as those funded through the Oregon Agricultural Heritage Program.4 Under ACEP-ALE, the federal government does not directly purchase easements, nor does it hold the development rights that are relinquished by landowners. Instead it provides up to a 50% funding match for easements that are then held by a land trust. Because individual easements for large properties can easily be valued at millions of dollars, this is a non-trivial funding source, especially for local land trusts working with limited budgets.
For most ACEP-ALE applications, the proposed farm bill would increase the maximum cost share covered by USDA from 50% to 65%. It would also create two specific carve-outs. For socially disadvantaged producers who own at least 50% of the land involved in the easement, it further bumps the share to 90%. Additionally, for landowners who do not want to give USDA the right to enforce an easement, there is a lower, 25% cost-share option available, as long as the enforcement mechanism that will be in place is deemed to meet certain standards.
Finally, the House proposes an entirely new source of easement funding called the Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP), which would, in part, fund easements on working forests in a way similar to working farms and ranches under ACEP. In a separate subprogram area, FCEP would fund forest reserve easements targeted towards endangered species and other ecological concerns. The existing program responsible for forest reserve easements today (Healthy Forests Reserve Program) would be merged in and maintained as a separate FCEP subprogram. Given the large amount of private forestland in Oregon (roughly 11.5 million acres) and the fact that forestland is the most common prior use of newly developed land, the establishment of a new easement program dedicated to working forest protection is significant.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
RCPP facilitates collaborative projects involving producers and partner organizations, such as Tribes, counties, and irrigation districts. The goal of the program is to promote conservation outcomes at a broad scale (e.g., a watershed). Between FY 2021 and 2024, RCPP provided $6 mil. annually in financial assistance. The RCPP relies on established conservation contract types available through programs like ACEP, EQIP, and CSP.
The House proposal outlines a modest increase in RCPP funding to be phased in over 2026-2036 and an allowance that will cover up to 10% of administrative costs incurred by partner organizations.
- Changes to the farm bill under the House proposal are discussed in detail in this report by the Congressional Research Service. ↩︎
- All CRP statistics come from the Farm Service Agency’s webpage. ↩︎
- All EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP statistics come from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s RCA Data Viewer portals. ↩︎
- In addition to working lands supported through ALE, ACEP has a separate component dedicated to wetland restoration on farmland removed from production. ↩︎